Scenario Plans For Civ III?

[Colon™]

Timeline, I’ve made a couple of private scenarios, but there are experienced people in the hosted sites’ forums who are probably far more capable in helping you on the technical side of this. (assuming civ3 won’t change the essence of scen creation too much)

Regarding Cuba, about 2/5 of the foreign currency Cuba earns comes from tourism (amounting to some $2 billion), it’s the country’s fastest growing industry and the main destination of foreign investment.

BTW Castro celebrated his latest birthday in Venezuela at the invitation of Chavez, where they, together with president Cardoso of Brazil, inaugurated a high profile infrastructure project...

Just some trivia I’m sharing with you.

[Va-Toran]

I would have the following civs:

1. EU (+Turkey, Baltics, Switzerland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia etc.)

Most eastern european states are currently on the road to joining the EU (if it will let them!), and tend to have as little as possible to do with Russia, unlike the CIS states (Baltic states are not CIS) which rely on Russia economically. Nowadays the cultural links between Bulgaria and Russia are not that strong, as Russia is associated with communism, with destroyed a lot of the Orthodox culture anyway. Even the new Yugoslavian regime is quite pro western, unlike Milosovic.

The only problem about Eastern Europe is Albania, which is very unstable and as a consequence is quite isolationist in comparison with it's neighbours. I would suggest putting some barbarians in the Balkans to represent the ethnic unrest.

Note: You put down Austria on your list even though it is part of the EU!

2. US, Canada + Israel

3. China (+Vietnam, Laos)

4. CIS (+Mongolia)

Mongolia has more in common with the CIS than with China, like the CIS it is a former communist state in transition and has a similar culture to the Mid Asian states that are part of the CIS.

5. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

6. African Union (Sub-sahara Africa)

Although it has a large land area, Africa would be the least developed civ. They would be quite dull to play though, again some Barbarians in war zones would be a good idea.

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

Or possibly put Brazil on their own but would they be too weak?

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

9. Central America and Carribean Basin (inc. Mexico and Cuba)

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

These Arab states are quite sympathetic to Iraq, even the more Pro-Western ones, it is really only the US and UK that are very hostile to Saddam.

11. Australia (+ NZ, Papua New Guinea and any other pacific state)

Australia should have it's own civilization, as it has a independant foreign policy, and is quite suspicous of the South East Asian states.

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

13. Japan

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

[Andreiguy]

My ideas...

World scenario : (civ capitals in CAPS)

1: US of A - WASHINGTON
technologically superior military
Rich, mixed cultures
2. Canada - OTTOWA
small, well-trained military
Rich, diverse
3. EU - BRUSSELS
military comparable to USA
RICH, very diverse culture
4. Eastern Europe (minus Russia and the S. S. R.'s) - WARSAW or PRAGUE
large militaries, less well trained
divirse culture, medium wealth (not rich, simply higher than my classification of "poor", ex southern Africa)
5. Russia + former S. S. R.'s, mongolia, afghanistan - MOSCOW
extremely large military, air force is the only truly technologically modern part
diverse culture, medium wealth
6. South Africa + everything up to North Africa - JOHANNESBURG
large poorly-trained army, virtually no air or sea power
poor, diverse
7. North Africa (including Egypt), Iran - CAIRO
ditto, except more sea power
medium wealth, diverse
8. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman - BAGHDAD
Large armies, but powerless to defend against certain more powerful technologies
medium wealth, diverse
9. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates - RIDAYH
large, technologically advanced army, navy, small air force
Rich, diverse
10. Mexico, Central America - MEXICO CITY
medium-sized, medium-trained army, comparatively small air force, navy
Medium wealth, more homogenous
11. S. America except Brazil - LIMA or BUENOS AIRES
medium military, small air force, slightly larger navy
lower medium wealth, more homogeneous
12. Brazil - BRASILIA
ditto as above
higher medium wealth, more homogenous
13. Australia, New Zealand, Japan - CANBERRA
technologically advanced, yet relatively small military
rich, diverse
14. Oceania, Burma, Thailand, Siam - JAKARTA
large, poorly-trained military
very diverse, medium wealth
15. China, Pakistan, Bangaladesh - BEIJING
Huge army, substantial air force and navy
diverse, medium wealth
16. India - NEW DELHI
large army, substantial air force, smaller navy
more homogenous, poor

Suggestions, copy and pastes with changes, and comments are welcome!

[Skanky Burns]

13. Australia, New Zealand, Japan - CANBERRA
technologically advanced, yet relatively small military
rich, homogenous

Just a quick note about Australia. We wouldn't be considered a homogenous civilization, especially when combined with Japan!! We are very multicultural.

The rest of the list looks good, and i look forward to this being completed

[Vitmore The Great]

Re: My ideas...

Originally posted by Andreiguy
World scenario : (civ capitals in CAPS)

1: US of A - WASHINGTON
technologically superior military
Rich, mixed cultures
2. Canada - OTTOWA
small, well-trained military
Rich, more homogenous culture

Suggestions, copy and pastes with changes, and comments are welcome!

Here it comes...Canada is just as if not more heterogeneous than the US. Unlike the US melting pot, Canada has a mosiac, meaning we promote multiculturalism rather than assimilation. Take a look at Toronto, our largest city. 52% of its population is of immigrant origin (non-Anglo-French). Canada had waves of immigrants that were parallel to the US waves.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Vitmore

P.S. Oh yeah, two official languages (English and French)

[Tiberius]

Re: My ideas...

Originally posted by Andreiguy
World scenario : (civ capitals in CAPS)

4. Eastern Europe (minus Russia and the S. S. R.'s) - WARSAW or PRAGUE
large militaries, less well trained
divirse culture, medium wealth

Didn't you read what I wrote just a few lines above your post? Something you call "Eastern Europe" exist only geografically, there's no such civilization or union or whatever! Countries like Hungary, Romania, Slovakia or Bulgaria cooperate with each other only for the sake of the promised join to the EU and NATO!
Large militaries? Medium wealth? Jesus Christ, from where did you get all this? The richest countries in the area barely have a GDP that is half from the poorest EU country's GDP! Why do you think they want to join the NATO and the EU? For military protection and wealth!

For the rest I like more Va-Toran's or Timeline's model.
Btw, I'll put the EU's capital in Berlin.

[Vitmore The Great]

Re: Re: My ideas...

Originally posted by Tiberius

Btw, I'll put the EU's capital in Berlin.

Nay Berlin I say! Germany is by far the most powerful nation of the union, and basically is the engine of the EU Ferrari, but the two cities where the EU is most centralized are Strassbourg (where the European Parliament is) and Brussels (parallel to NATO). I'll put my money on Brussels over Strassbourg.

Just my two cents.


Vitmore

[Tiberius]

Vitmore, you're right. Brussel is a good choice. Though Strassbourg is a beautiful city, I prefer Brussel because:
1 - the NATO headquarters are there
2 - the european "government" is located also in Brussel

[Andreiguy]

Didn't you read what I wrote just a few lines above your post? Something you call "Eastern Europe" exist only geografically, there's no such civilization or union or whatever! Countries like Hungary, Romania, Slovakia or Bulgaria cooperate with each other only for the sake of the promised join to the EU and NATO!
Large militaries? Medium wealth? Jesus Christ, from where did you get all this? The richest countries in the area barely have a GDP that is half from the poorest EU country's GDP! Why do you think they want to join the NATO and the EU? For military protection and wealth!

First of all, I'd like to apoligize about Canada and Australia. Sometimes I forget to think. Second of all, about the quote above, I would like to say the following: I was born in Kiev, Ukraine, and believe me, I KNOW my region. Try to bear with me and understand that I cannot make every single country its own civ. Therefore, a generalized grouping of eastern Europe was my only choice. They are loosely similar as being Soviet satellites. That is the only reason they are together. Secondly, I would like you to compare these countries' per capita GNP's with Russia, or my own Ukraine. Much higher, no? That is because they were lucky enough to escape complete Soviet domination. Compared to my classification of "poor" (southern Africa, India), these countries are relatively wealthy. A per capita GNP of only about 1500-2500 is still much better than 20-120. So please, in the future, think about your response before posting it. I mean no insult!

And yes, Brussels is my choice. It is the center of the EU.

[Immortal Wombat]

I'd be a bit wary of playing as Japan in that scenario, Timeline. Even give a 6x bigger world map, thats still only six-ish cities, and doing anything from there would be like playing Spain in Civ2's WW2 scenario, even given huge production.

[isaac brock]

Yeah, yeah, i know that, sadly, it makes sense to lump canada in with the U.S. But i still really like the Commonwealth concept. it gives some possible power to some otherwise powerless countries.
i don't want to see Australia lumped in with a bunch of asians. it just doesn't fit. I like the idea of some countries with similar values and similar roots being in their own civ.
besides, how is the U.S. going to get all that trading going if they don't have their life-giving partner (canada) to channel in resources and funds? It seems slightly foolish, but i believe that the commonwealth is a great idea, and a necessary civ.

[Timeline]

Tiberius -

Next: where belong these civs (eastern europe)? Economically and politically, thinking in near future (20 years), certainly to the EU (all of them). If you want a religious border, then put Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovenia, Croatia and the Baltic states in the EU while Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia in the Russian Federation (slavs/orthodox nations). If you make a religious border, take care where you put Greece: they are orthodox!

Ok, I am going for economic and political minded groups, as I have mentioned before. That is why I have decided to lump the eastern europe civs in with the EU. I would imagine that countries like Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova would go to the Russian Commonwealth. Since this is a political breakdown, Greece will obviously goto the EU.

Colon -

Timeline, I’’ve made a couple of private scenarios, but there are experienced people in the hosted sites’’ forums who are probably far more capable in helping you on the technical side of this. (assuming civ3 won’’t change the essence of scen creation too much)

Are you recommending I head over there and see if I can find anyone willing to help? Do you think anyone *would* help me? By hosted sites do you mean the Scenario League?

Va-Toran -

The only problem about Eastern Europe is Albania, which is very unstable and as a consequence is quite isolationist in comparison with it's neighbours. I would suggest putting some barbarians in the Balkans to represent the ethnic unrest.

Yep, sounds good. It was my plan originally to use barbarians to represent civil unrest/uprisings. While I don’t intend to start the game with barbarians owning any cities, I do want to make “trouble spots” where barbarians pop up from time to time. Maybe the longer you go without dealing with them the more they multiply. If I can, I want to make it so at first they just fortify in the hills, but eventually they come down and try to take back their city. This won’t happen all the time, but when it does, the chances of more popping up increase, until you finally deal with them, and then the chances go away ... for a while. This may happen once or twice at a random time within a 20 turn period, and then it won’t happen again.

Note: You put down Austria on your list even though it is part of the EU!

Yes I see that, oh well, no body's perfect.

Mongolia has more in common with the CIS than with China, like the CIS it is a former communist state in transition and has a similar culture to the Mid Asian states that are part of the CIS.

I have seen scenarios where Mongolia belongs to China, I have seen some where it gets put into a ‘democratic’ civ, and I have seen some where it is part of a ‘neutral’ civ, so I have seen it all . In this scenario I want Mongolia to go either to China or Russia, I don’t care which so you guys debate it out . For now I guess it’s going to Russia, any objections?

Although it has a large land area, Africa would be the least developed civ. They would be quite dull to play though, again some Barbarians in war zones would be a good idea.

Agreed. The fun in playing them, I think, would be the challenge. You would have plenty of land area to develop, lot’s of technology to research, and tons of good ole barbarians to fight off. You would have less money but also less expenses, this would leave you free to be able to buy any goods your people need and slowly inner settle the continent. There is some fun to be had in *developing* your civ (as you could with Africa) rather than *maintaining* it (as you do with the US, EU, and China).

Other Civs like Australia, Canada and (maybe) Russia will be able to do a lot of inner settling as they will start off with some un used space. Where as nations like the US, EU, China, and India will be packed full of people, with no real space to grow. These are just basic ideas, but remember, I am going for realism when it comes to statistics and other stuff.

Australia should have it's own civilization, as it has a independant foreign policy, and is quite suspicous of the South East Asian states.

I think we can swing this, we certainly have enough civ slots.

Thanks for the post Va-Toran.

Andrieguy -

Wow, you sure do have a lot of weird ideas! It would be *much more* helpful if you could provide us with some ideas that go along a little more closely with what we are planning.

“2. Canada - OTTOWA
small, well-trained military
Rich, diverse”

You later apologized for making this statement as we had already dismissed this idea, However, we *do* have an extra civ slot . . . I don’t see why Canada shouldn’t be independent. If someone says no, then I'd like to ask them what civ they would chose to give independence rather than Canada?

This is assuming we do not do the commonwealth idea which I have not ruled out yet. I am missing jsw, but maybe he will come back and make an argument of why it should be in . . .

Andrie, where did Argentina, Peru, and the other Latin American countries fit into your list?

Thanks for the post, although it was kinda weird


Brussels makes a good capital for the EU. I have seen it used before in other scenarios.

I'd be a bit wary of playing as Japan in that scenario, Timeline. Even give a 6x bigger world map, thats still only six-ish cities, and doing anything from there would be like playing Spain in Civ2's WW2 scenario, even given huge production.

There BETTER be a WORLD map at least 2X LARGER than in CIV 2 - or els I cannot be held responsible for my actions!!

Okay, back on topic. Even *if* the map is 6X larger then, sure Japan will be bigger, but so will everyone els! I never thought the idea of making Japan independent was a great one, seems like they would fit into APEC quite well. Jsw said that might make them too strong, and I myself have to admit, they really shouldn’t be lumped into APEC because of the difference of agendas and long term goals. But then again, they really shouldn’t be alone either ... people said they can’t go to the US because it would make them too strong ... so where do they go? Maybe they *should* be seperate, but as an unplayable civ. After all, IRL they don’t have a very large army or any natural resources to export. Their economy is based on the sales of manufactured goods, and I am not sure mfg’s are represented in civ3, anyone have any information on that? Civ 2 represented mfg’s through the “freight” and “caravan” units, but these were taken out of Civ 3 and natural resources are in its place. So, to the point, I am not sure if Japan’s thriving economy can be represented.

Oh, I just got a cool idea!!!!!!!!!



What if I were to create a new resource, call it “finished goods” Make the graphic in to a factory, and put the *only* tiles of it in Japan (maybe other areas, but Japan would have a lot). What do you all think?

Oh and also, what could I make this resource a prerequisite to?

Thanks for the posts guys. Keep’em comming!

[Tiberius]

Andreiguy, I understand you now. I still don't agree with you about the Eastern Eropean civ, but at least I understand your motivation in creating such civ. Yes, they are similar in beeing former Sovjet satellites, but that's all. These countries have only one common goal in their agenda, and that is the join with the EU and NATO (about Ukraine, I'm not sure ?). Grouping Ukraine with Hungary, Poland or Romania would be a bit strange, don't you think?
IMO Eastern Europe should go with the EU. About Ukraine I'm not sure. If you don't want Ukraine in the EU or with the russians, there's the possibility to have Ukraine in the 'neutral' civ, if such will exist in the scenario. After all, it is a big country.

[Tiberius]

About Japan: I really think Japan should go with the APEC. So what if you won't have 16 civs? It's better to have a well balanced, "10civs" scenario, than an unbalanced, "16civs" one.

Or, if you still want all the 16 civs, you could put some independent/neutral states in the empty slots (like Ukraine ). I say no problem if they are small. At least the big civs will have something for their expansionistic appetite OK, to balance it a little, make the small civs allied with more than one big civ as well as military powerfull (like Pakistan and their atomic bomb).

The "Independent Islamic States (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh)" is really a good idea, but what other independent/neutral civs can we use? I have no idea.

PS Are you sure you can play with 16 civs in Civ3? How about an alternate, 8 civs scenario, just to be sure?

[Roman]

Re: Re: My ideas...

Countries like Hungary, Romania, Slovakia or Bulgaria cooperate with each other only for the sake of the promised join to the EU and NATO!

While the prospect of entry into NATO and the EU clearly plays a role in fostering cooperation among countries of the former Soviet Block, what you are saying is a gross exageration. For example Slovakia, Czech republic and Poland are genuinely friendly towards each other and cooperate far in excess of what is required for their entry into the EU and NATO.

Large militaries? Medium wealth? Jesus Christ, from where did you get all this? The richest countries in the area barely have a GDP that is half from the poorest EU country's GDP!

Our militaries used to be large during the communist times, but you are right - this is no longer the case.
As to wealth, however, your facts are simply wrong. Slovenia, for example, has a higher GDP per capita than Portugal or Greece both of which belong to the EU. Hence I believe the designation of medium wealth for at least some of these countries is correct. (Of course countries like Ukraine or Moldavia would pull down the average by a large amount.)

BTW: Our expected date of entry into the EU is 1st January 2004.