Scenario Plans For Civ III?

[Timeline]

“Timeline, jsw, maybe you should leave out the British Commonwealth altogether. I’’m aware that it would create problems with Canada and Australia, but I suggest to merge them with APEC and separate Japan from it. (it should be a viable civ)”

Are you suggesting we give Japan a civ over Canada or Australia?! Is there something I am missing about Japan? Someone needs to explain this too me.

If we were to get rid of the Commonwealth, then I would make Canada its own nation in place of the Commonwealth. After that, you’d have to choose if you want Australia independent instead of Japan and give Japan to the US.

Option 1:
APEC + Australia
Japan
Canada
US
Mexico and Central America

Option 2:

APEC
Australia
US + Japan
Canada
Mexico and Central America

I think it is rather silly to put Canada in with a bunch of Asian nations.

Question: Why is it so important that Japan (Small Country) gets independence rather than Canada (Big Country).

Now don’t go telling me that size doesn’t matter, that there are other factors like culture, economic influence and all that other stuff, don’t say it! SIZE DOES MATTER! Don’t tell me that 90% of Canada’s population lives on the southern edge, I ALREADY KNOW! THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN CANADA THAN JAPAN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

I wouldn't underestimate the economic power of several APEC countries. South Korea and Taiwan and Malaysia have manufacturing industries rivalling that of the West.

Hmm, sounds like Japan could fit right in with APEC too, wouldn’t you say? :LOL:

[Colon™]

Timeline,
Regarding Japan and Canada, Japan has a population 4 times larger than that the Canadian and an economy that’s also 4-5 times larger, so it’s hardly a small country. In comparison with Australia, Japan is a behemoth.
Provided you can simulate real life situations well, merging Japan with US should give a civ that dwarfs every other civs in economic strength, since IRL they constitute half the world’s economy, so this would create game imbalances.

Lumping together Canada with Asian countries seems silliness but I don’t believe it’s practical to worry about this sort of it. If you would, then you can abolish APEC altogether because most of the assumed members have problematic relations with at least one of the other members. (North Korea and South Korea, South Korea and Japan, Singapore and Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand...)

Actually, if you want to rule out such silliness, you could abolish nearly all the civs listed, except US and perhaps EU.

[Timeline]

“Regarding Japan and Canada, Japan has a population 4 times larger than that the Canadian and an economy that’’s also 4-5 times larger, so it’’s hardly a small country. In comparison with Australia, Japan is a behemoth.
Provided you can simulate real life situations well, merging Japan with US should give a civ that dwarfs every other civs in economic strength, since IRL they constitute half the world’’s economy, so this would create game imbalances.”

Canada’s population: 31,281,092

Australia’s population: 19,169,083

Japan’s population: 126,549,976

I guess I should check my facts before speaking so loudly.

“Lumping together Canada with Asian countries seems silliness but I don’’t believe it’’s practical to worry about this sort of it.”

Well of course you need to worry about it. But, the real task lies in finding which silliness is tolerable, and which would drive you crazy. So there is a need for tolerance for silliness, but I would never say “don’t worry about”. If we didn’t worry about it this scenario would probably be in the weeds right now (that’s assuming it is not already and i don’t know about it )

“If you would, then you can abolish APEC altogether because most of the assumed members have problematic relations with at least one of the other members. (North Korea and South Korea, South Korea and Japan, Singapore and Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand...)”

Most of these nations you stated here are not even in the same civ in our current layout:

North Korea is in China
Japan is not in APEC.
Singapore I don’t know where the heck they will go, but they will probably end up with Asians.

3 out a 4 aint bad at all. Considering you can never get it perfect, this is like a 100%!!

“If you would, then you can abolish APEC altogether because most of the assumed members have problematic relations with at least one of the other members.”

“Actually, if you want to rule out such silliness, you could abolish nearly all the civs listed, except US and perhaps EU.”

You are just playing a name game here. We could call all those nations Australo-Asians or Asian Tigers or about 50 other names for all I care. They don’t have to be “APEC” or “ARAB LEAGUE”. It is just like jsw said, we are just trying to create usable names. Something that will put the player in an environment that really makes him feel like he is a world leader with all these coalitions and unions. Obviously with 16 civs we are gonna have limitations, and are gonna have to make sacrifices sometimes, but such is life.

You know, you never commented on my first list. What do you think of this:

APEC + Australia ( or Australia could go to the EU)
Japan
Canada
US
Mexico and Central America

I guess we have an option 3 too, putting Canada in with US. This would open up a civ slot for ... who?

[Colon™]

Well, I’m aware that you’ll have to be pragmatic, which is why I don’t understand why lumping Canada with Asian countries isn’t acceptable, but something such as Japan with APEC is. (you did propose that) Canada is a member of APEC IRL already so...
When I said that you could abolish nearly all the civs I didn’t meant to say you can only leave 2 civs, just that you’d have to transform the current list since nearly all civs include countries having rocky relations and serious disputes with each other.

Maybe you should first think of a guideline for your civs, whether to compose them according to culture, political allegiance, economic strength or something else.

BTW, it’s my intention to be constructive, by making suggestions and giving information, but you're free to decline it. In case you'd think otherwise, I’m not trying to make life hard for you.

[Timeline]

First off you said,

When I said that you could abolish nearly all the civs I didn’’t meant to say you can only leave 2 civs, just that you’’d have to transform the current list since nearly all civs include countries having rocky relations and serious disputes with each other.

Yes yes, I understood what you meant, my response may have sounded like I was talking about breaking the world down into two nations, but I was not. When I said:

“You are just playing a name game here. We could call all those nations Australo-Asians or Asian Tigers or about 50 other names for all I care. They don’’t have to be “APEC”“

When I said this I was talking about the APEC or Asain nations.

What is more, I meant to say I WANT names like APEC and ARAB LEAGUE and MERCOSUR because it’s “Something that will put the player in an environment that really makes him feel like he is a world leader with all these coalitions and unions.”

I am very sorry for the confusion, looking back at my message, I see it was very hard to understand.

“Well, I’’m aware that you’’ll have to be pragmatic, which is why I don’’t understand why lumping Canada with Asian countries isn’’t acceptable, but something such as Japan with APEC is.”


Consider: Why lump Asian countries with American countries, when you can lump Asian Countries with Asian countries? - it is a better geographical breakdown.

Japan has more cultural links to Asia than does Canada.

“Canada is a member of APEC IRL already so...”

Yeah, and so is Russia, China, The United States, Japan, Mexico, and Peru, among others. Why call our grouping of nations APEC then, you ask. For now, here is the argument for making APEC a civ:

In our scenario of the modern world, most of the independent Asian, Malaysian, and Indonesian countries will be grouped under a single civ called the Independent APEC Nations. APEC was established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence among Asia-Pacific countries. APEC has since become the primary regional vehicle for promoting open trade and practical economic cooperation. In 1999 APEC's 21 member nations had a combined GDP of over 18 trillion dollars (US) and 43 percent of global trade. APEC’s independent Asian nations maintain close ties to China, Russia, and the U.S. Their goal is to increase Asia’s sense of community and to advance Asia-Pacific economic influence around the world.

I still think Japan should be part of APEC

“Maybe you should first think of a guideline for your civs, whether to compose them according to culture, political allegiance, economic strength or something else.”

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, we already did this a while back. I think we settled on “Political, Economic, or Military Pacts” - a little different than “political allegiance”.

“BTW, it’’s my intention to be constructive, by making suggestions and giving information, but you're free to decline it.”

Thank you very much. I could use all the Suggestions and info I can get. You could help a lot by giving your (humble ) opinion of everything I said above. Your opinion based on a (possible) future player of the scenario and your own understanding of world affairs.

“In case you'd think otherwise, I’’m not trying to make life hard for you.”

I was beginning to wonder . After reading your post I went to the left panel looking for a “pulling hair out” face

[Colon™]

Timeline, so essentially, you want to randomly shape the civs to what feels best?

[Timeline]

Well I wouldn’t say random really. I want a lot of thinking and debate (such as this) to go into the division of the various factions. I think that the breakdown will be geographical mostly, however with politically affiliated names (I.E. APEC rather than Autralo-Asians, Arab League rather than Arabs, US rather than Americans . . . you get the idea).

Of course I want it to feel good.

I would really appreciate your opinion of all I have said in my last few posts.

[jsw363]

Guys- Sorry I've been MIA for a while.

Colon- Your comments are definitely appreciated. We are uncertain how to create "hard boundaries" for our civs. Some are economic alliances (Mercosur), some political (CIS), some a combination (EU) and some neither (US). I suggested a "cultural" breakdown into civs for the 8 civ game, but I don't know what to do with 16 civs. We're open to suggestions. I don't know enough purely economic or political alliances to encompase all the nations of the world. I think that our system of creating civs basically as we see fit definitely has problems, but I think that it's the best solution.

Colon - About the Commonwealth. We're not creating civs that necessarily have geopolitical significance based on the organizations themselves. We thought that it would be a good idea for a civ since these countries all share similar values, not because the Commonwealth is a name feared across the world. I personally don't think that they'd be that disjointed. I think they share much in common culturally, linguistically, economically and politically. Britain trades much more with members of the commonwealth for historic reasons. I believe that up until the 1950's they've had preferential tariff systems and were quite unified economically. I wouldn't discount this option quite yet.

But assuming that we've done away with the commonwealth...
the debate of the day seems to be - Japan

I still think that they should be independent. A US-Japan alliance would be unbalancing. A Japan-APEC alliance makes them much more of a power then they are. Japan's a powerful country that should be able to support itself. (maybe one of it's first moves will be to get a military)

I don't think that Canada is powerful enough to stand on its own. It could go to the US, or APEC. I'd favor the US because of cultural similarities (this shady reasoning might get me into trouble with Colon though ) That unfortunately leaves the problem of Australia, which can't stand on its own, but doesn't have anywhere to go.

I guess that until I hear your responses I'd be in favor of this, though I am not pleased with it.

Option 1:
APEC + Australia
Japan
US +Canada
Mexico and Central America

The 16th space could be taken up by another African civ, but I don't know how well it would do. Their largest country (Congo) is a rogue and there aren't really any other players in Africa which could lead factions. (like in South America)

If you did want to split Latin America up differently, you could do A Mexico/Carribean civ, but include Colombia, Venezuela and the Guayanas and a Mercosur +Peru +Ecuador civ. At that point however we're losing all civ distinctions. There's no treaty, arrangement etc. that would split Latin America this way. I think that you need to split it up somehow since a civ with Brazil, Mexico and Argentina would be too powerful (compared to what the reality is). Latin America is much more fractured than the EU. Brazil wants to be the regional leader. Argentina is in competition with them and Mexico is "so far from God, so close to the US." (AKA dealing with all their own US issues). I don't think that 3 civs would be bad, but again I'll wait until I see all the cities laid out.

EU - The Ireland issue. I guess this may be resolved by the dissolution of the commonwealth, but I'm not sure that 4squares is enough for two cities. One would be better. I think that it should be Dublin since it's Irish and most of the island is Irish territory.

Don't know if this post helped clear things up or muddle them up...

Timeline- Brits failed three times to get into BA. Don't think they'd stand a chance...

[Timeline]

Colon- Your comments are definitely appreciated. We are uncertain how to create "hard boundaries" for our civs. Some are economic alliances (Mercosur), some political (CIS), some a combination (EU) and some neither (US). I suggested a "cultural" breakdown into civs for the 8 civ game, but I don't know what to do with 16 civs. We're open to suggestions. I don't know enough purely economic or political alliances to encompase all the nations of the world. I think that our system of creating civs basically as we see fit definitely has problems, but I think that it's the best solution.

Yes, well said. We are very open to suggestions.

“Colon - About the Commonwealth. We're not creating civs that necessarily have geopolitical significance based on the organizations themselves.”

We aren’t?

“We thought that it would be a good idea for a civ since these countries all share similar values, not because the Commonwealth is a name feared across the world.”

We did?

“I personally don't think that they'd be that disjointed. I think they share much in common culturally, linguistically, economically and politically. Britain trades much more with members of the commonwealth for historic reasons. I believe that up until the 1950's they've had preferential tariff systems and were quite unified economically. I wouldn't discount this option quite yet.”

Would you be willing to make a formal argument/introduction type presentation similar to what I did with APEC? Something that justifies their inclusion? I don’t mean to sound stupid but such a thing would help me to know what roll they would have, their disposition, their goals and such things. Something that might pop up if you select that civ to play.


“the debate of the day seems to be - Japan”

....... ah ....... Japan.

“I still think that they should be independent. A US-Japan alliance would be unbalancing. A Japan-APEC alliance makes them much more of a power then they are. Japan's a powerful country that should be able to support itself. (maybe one of it's first moves will be to get a military)”

I guess I have no choice but to concede . Everyone who as posted here recently (2 ppl LOL) have said Japan can stand on it’s own in a 16 scenario. Very well, it shall.

I think it’s much more realistic to put Canada with the U.S. for 2 reasons.

1. Culture. The stuff you mentioned about cultural similarities.

And 2. Military. Canada lies to the north of US across a completely unfortified and undefended boarder. If the US went to war with any of those Asian Countries (although I don’t think this would happen and I can’t think of any reasons off hand) Then the Asian nations would very well use Canada as a staging point for a counter strike!! LOL! I don’t think that is too realistic.

This is still “shady reasoning” on my part, but I think you already know what I am talking about and I’m too lazy to think too much right now .

APEC + Australia

Australia could always go to the EU. Or we could give it our 16th space.

The 16th space could be taken up by another African civ, but I don't know how well it would do. Their largest country (Congo) is a rogue and there aren't really any other players in Africa which could lead factions. (like in South America)

Well, I don’t think we can use the OAU (Organization for African Unity) because it includes in its member nations *all* nations in Africa, including all the Arab nations that we have put in the Arab League. Further, it’s headquarters are located in Ethiopia, so the Arabs are just as much of a part of the organization as the sub-Saharan nations are. Also, it would never work because it is very disjointed. They have trouble just mediating disputes among it’s member nation, let alone standing as a world power.

Let’s just make all those African nations barbarians!! Hehe.... just kidding, pretend I never said that.

“If you did want to split Latin America up differently, you could do A Mexico/Carribean civ, but include Colombia, Venezuela and the Guayanas and a Mercosur +Peru +Ecuador civ. At that point however we're losing all civ distinctions. There's no treaty, arrangement etc. that would split Latin America this way. I think that you need to split it up somehow since a civ with Brazil, Mexico and Argentina would be too powerful (compared to what the reality is). Latin America is much more fractured than the EU. Brazil wants to be the regional leader. Argentina is in competition with them and Mexico is "so far from God, so close to the US." (AKA dealing with all their own US issues). I don't think that 3 civs would be bad, but again I'll wait until I see all the cities laid out.”

Sunday . . . . you can see it then.

“EU - The Ireland issue. I guess this may be resolved by the dissolution of the commonwealth, but I'm not sure that 4squares is enough for two cities. One would be better. I think that it should be Dublin since it's Irish and most of the island is Irish territory.”

Okay, it’s no longer an issue now . Thanks for input

“Don't know if this post helped clear things up or muddle them up...”

I don’t know either, but it gave the thread a much needed bump. It’s good to have you back though jsw. And Colon, get your sorry empirical butt over here and post RIGHT NOW.

Hey, check it out, I am a Warlord

Keep the Ideas comming!

[jsw363]

Timeline- For an American you're awfully status conscious. All this stuff about "Warlord" this and "Chieftan" that. Don't go and get all uppity on me, ya hear?

So....

1. EU +Turkey

2. Eastern Europe + Baltics

3. US, Canada + Israel

Good reasoning on Canada BTW.

4. China (+Vietnam, Laos, Mongolia?)

5. CIS

6. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

7. African Union (minus South Africa)

8. British Commonwealth (Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Papua New Guinea)
If we dissolve this where will they go? South Africa Could be the leader of the British ex-colonies in Africa (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania) Australia, NZ and Papua New Guinea could form a civ, but it'd be weak. I am liking the commonwealth idea more and more. I'll come up with a description later.

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile)

10. Andean Pact (Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Guayanas)

The US is fighting a drug war in Colombia. They also have ops in Peru and Ecuador and possibly Bolivia. It's part of a larger initiative to stop (or stem) the drug trade that also includes economic assistance and other stuff. How messed up is it to give people you're fighting a war against aid?

The way I see it playing out is that Mercosur will take over the rest of South America, but won't get to Mexico. That's a realistic possibility at least in economic terms.

11. Central America and Carribean Basin (Mexico)

12. Arab League (Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States)

13. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore)

14. Japan
Finally! (kidding)

15. Islamic Civ (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)

16. Rogue Nations (Iraq, N. Korea, Cuba)

I forget what we've agreed upon and what we've changed now, but it seems pretty stable. Opinions?

[Juggernaut]

Maybe a "The Beginning" scenario, starting >4000 BC, if it's possible. Starring Germanics, Etruscs, Celts, Slavics, Iberians etc. All would be nomads at first and have no techs at all (not even irrigation) at start.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Hey guys,

I think these 16 civ variations, but we Have to remember that territory palys a major role in CIV. So US & Canada would be by fatr the most poferful civ on the world, since US is most technologically/economically/ military advanced and has a lot of population and canada would in turn double it's territory, while Japan would be stuck on one litttle island (compared to other civ's), and would need to go to war quickly to survive a bit longer.

I like the divisions, you just need to place them on the map, and give civ's some space to survice a bit longer.

It would be interesting to balance the allied/hostile blocks.

EU
allied with eastern europe, very friendly with USA and commonwealth.

Friendly with Japan, and neutral with the rest, maybe hostile to the Islamic civ.


USA

Hostile to China, and Islamic civ.

We could have a latin american alliance as well to make them stronger. I don't know to whom could they be hostile?

Africans could be a hostile toward europeans (maybe as a consequence of colonization) to make the relationships a bit more interesting.



Islamic civ and arab league could have another alliance as well .

So could Japan and APEC.

British commonwealth could be the neutral guys and india/ subsaharan africa ,cis and china could stand for themselves?

India hostile towards the islamic civ.

China hostile towards american civ.

CIS is kind of neutral, (if there is 5 levels of diplomatic relationships with 5 being alliance) Commonwelath could be 3 with everyone and CIS should be 2 with everyone, but not totally hostile.

[jsw363]

OneFootInTheGrave-

If we separate the US and Canada, what should we do with Canada? Did you like the Commonwealth idea? I see that you included it in your post so I am thinking that you do...

Timeline-

Don't know if you're at this stage yet, but check out this site for specifics on the armies:

http://www.toshiro.f2s.com/oob/

It has all the details you'll need to assemble the units correctly.

[Timeline]

1. EU +Turkey

2. Eastern Europe + Baltics

3. US, Canada + Israel

4. China (+Vietnam, Laos, Mongolia?)

5. CIS

6. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

7. African Union (minus South Africa)

8. British Commonwealth (Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Papua New Guinea)

I am liking the commonwealth idea more and more. I'll come up with a description later.

Yes me too. In your description, try to give a justification on why it’s it’s own civ.

9. MercoSur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile)

10. Andean Pact (Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Guayanas)

The US is fighting a drug war in Colombia. They also have ops in Peru and Ecuador and possibly Bolivia. It's part of a larger initiative to stop (or stem) the drug trade that also includes economic assistance and other stuff. How messed up is it to give people you're fighting a war against aid?

I thought the U.S. have military base(s) in Ecuador? The U.S. is not on good terms with Colombia, maybe because of the drug issue?

“The way I see it playing out is that Mercosur will take over the rest of South America, but won't get to Mexico. That's a realistic possibility at least in economic terms.”

Maybe in economic terms but not realistic in military terms wouldn’t you say? (That is, MercoSur taking over rest of SA)

Why not just put Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia and Guayana in with the rest? (current MercoSur) I know you would not prefer this but it may be for the best.

11. Central America and Carribean Basin (Mexico)

12. Arab League (Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States)

13. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore)
14. Japan

15. Independent Islamic States (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)

16. Rogue Nations (Iraq, N. Korea, Cuba)

Opinions?

My opinion is that it is very good.

OneFootInTheGrave -

You are 100% correct! Territory = Power in Civ 2. Although it’s unfortunate, many small cities are far more powerful than a few big ones. In the old Civ 2 scenario that gave me the inspiration to create a newer version for Civ 3, the US was way to powerful because it had Canada and a ton of land to terraform and expand into to the north. If we are working under the same conditions then we will *have to* give Canada to someone els. Now, I am hoping that Civ III will handle things quite differently than Civ II, but I am not all that sure it will in this regard. Best bet may to be to lump SA and give Canada it’s own civ *or* give it to the Commonwealth. Neither of these are great ideas, becasue Canada would most likely remain neutral in an Anglo-American war, and it’s not important enough to get it’s own civ slot. But, let’s not even waste time discussing it now. For now it is with US and if it is too strong, we will talk about that when time comes.

I like the divisions, you just need to place them on the map, and give civ's some space to survice a bit longer.

Could you get a little more specific with that suggestion?

It would be interesting to balance the allied/hostile blocks.

Yes, I will be getting to that soon. But first I am having some trouble with this stupid map I get from the Earth 97 scenario, which I am using as the base for the initial layout of our plan. I didn;t realize this at first, but some of the continents are “skewed”. Asia is the worst, it looks like someone took a giant hand and yanked Indonesia to the right about 8 inches (oh, excuse me, centimeters ). Our only hope is that Civ 3 will allow you to edit maps with cities on them, then we may be able to fix it. You can “edit” terrain square by square in Civ2, but it would take me forever to fix this kind of damage. I wish I had seen this before so I could have used a different map, well too late now.

I will post the map so you can tell me how bad it is.

[Timeline]

BTW, how do you like my new sig jsw?