Realistic democracy game with World 2003

[maciek]

CITIZEN SIGNUP: http://world2003.hyperboards.com/ind...162548&start=0

World 2003 Facts:

Map: 256x204
Number of new units: ~100
Time: 1st May 2003
Detail: brigade-level (smallest unit is brigade)
Requirements: 700MHz CPU, 128MB RAM
Recommended: P4 1.6GHz, 512MB RAM

How about playing a realistic democracy game with the World 2003 scenario?

The scenario starts on 1st of May (we haven't updated the political and military situation recently as it hasn't changed much since May), and you can play as one of 31 most powerful nations in the world.
World 2003 features more than 80 modern units (plus the standard units in PTW). There's some advanced features such as special forces, weapons licence trade (for example, when playing as one of the eastern European nations, you have a choice to purchase MiG-29s from Russia or F-16s from USA).

In upcoming version there will be UN peacekeepers, and "improved" terrorism aspects (I know, terrorism should never be improved, but this is a game after all) which should make the game even more interesting. The gameplay in World 2003 is quite different (more realistic) from that in standard Civ3 PTW and it takes some time to learn and get used to it.


World 2003 forum - http://world2003-forum.tk

[Nubclear]

Re: Realistic democracy game with World 2003

LYNCH THE SPAMMER!!!

[maciek]

Excuse me?

[Kloreep]

Don't mind the troll.

Sounds like a cool scenario. I'm going to bookmark for the future. But I frankly doubt you'll get many players right now; I know I'm stretched thin enough with four DGs. (And I'm not even active in one.) Worth a try, though; I'll sign up as a probably inactive member.

[maciek]

Actually, it's an idea for the future, not really for now. In about two or three months we should have all realistic building and unit costs (so for example, airflits will be really expensive just like in real life), it will make the game much harder and interesting (losing a single unit could cost you your job!).

BUT... because it's a modern world scenario, it lacks such aspects as exploration, early settlements, etc. Also, because World 2003 strives to be as realistic as possible, there's no such concept as balance (real world is hardly balanced...). Obviously, playing as USA wouldn't make much sense (too powerful and thus too easy, unless you take on China ).

If there's anything we can do to improve World 2003's fitness for a democracy game, please tell us, I think it could be a terrific experience.

[Togas]

It might be a heck of a lot of fun to do a World 2003 PTWDG with TEAMS playing several super powers. Perhaps the USA, UK (with Ireland, Canada, Australia, and other small protectorates), Europe (without England), Russia, China, OPEC (Arab Nations), Isreal (as we seem to have several Israeli members), and South America.

Just think about the politics and UN mess of fun that could be

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Togas

Just think about the politics and UN mess of fun that could be

--Togas

One man's nightmare is another man's fun.

[Panag]

hi ,

, great idea , several times people have talked about it , but it never got any serious attention , .......

on what size , 362X362 , .....

have a nice day

[Tassadar500]

How about we do this after our Viking game? Either that or after the PWDG is done. It seems like a great idea. I like Toga's idea of teams.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

, great idea , several times people have talked about it , but it never got any serious attention , .......

on what size , 362X362 , .....

have a nice day

Such a map, I would fear, would create a techocracy. the only ministers for each team would need the highest end computers. (We may be heading down that road in this game as MrWIA pointed out last chat)

AU 402 was on a similar huge map and it made my P4 1800 cry for mercy. Admittedly, I really need more RAM in the sucker, but still...

[Panag]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Such a map, I would fear, would create a techocracy. the only ministers for each team would need the highest end computers. (We may be heading down that road in this game as MrWIA pointed out last chat)

AU 402 was on a similar huge map and it made my P4 1800 cry for mercy. Admittedly, I really need more RAM in the sucker, but still...

hi ,

dont you start to act now that your comp dates back from the iron age hé , ........

and yes , the magic keyword is ram , some people leave a dozen programs open , ....... all they need is more ram , 768 should do fine on a winxp ( tested ) , ......

have a nice day

[UnOrthOdOx]

I know, Im just too lazy to go and buy some. (not even a money problem)

Still the point remains valid. With larger maps, people will be unable to play, period. My old PII 400, for example, would not load up our current game.

Also, with a PBEM, like this would need to be, large maps mean longer before contact. Not neccessarily a good thing. (for PBEM's)

[Tassadar500]

Well then what size should it be? How about this. One person plays the turns for all teams... and he would have a fast computer. What about that idea?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Typically, no bigger than standard works best for PBEMs.

At least in my experience.

[Panag]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I know, Im just too lazy to go and buy some. (not even a money problem)

Still the point remains valid. With larger maps, people will be unable to play, period. My old PII 400, for example, would not load up our current game.

Also, with a PBEM, like this would need to be, large maps mean longer before contact. Not neccessarily a good thing. (for PBEM's)

hi ,

okay you lazy bugger , order it true the net then , .........


did someone say huge comp , ... would an x-raid with several work stations do it , ......

have a nice day