Scenario Plans For Civ III?

[Tiberius]

Roman, don't take only some countries out of the pocket to prove that I am wrong. I know that the states of the "Visegrad pact" (or whatever else is called the cooperation between Hungary, Poland, Czehia and Slovakia) are friendly to each other. But look at the whole picture: do you see an eastern block, formed from all of the region's countries, acting like an alliance? I don't. (and yes, it was an exageration, but you know very well that nationalistic problems and conflicts can rise anytime and the promised join to the EU is one of the major stabilizing factor)

Good that we agree on military power. "Large military"=sovjet memories.

Again: don't take Slovenia out of the pocket. Economically they could join the EU tomorrow, but they are a very small country. You can call Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic as "medium wealth" if you treat them alone, but not in combination with Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria or other nations from the Balkans. (though I admit it was better if I said: "The average GDP of the region is about the half from the poorest EU country's GDP", or was it the half from the EU's average?; damn, I'm not sure anymore)

Anyway, do you agree with me that Eastern Europe should belong to the EU, and should not be treated as a separate civ?

[Tiberius]

OK, some statistical data, regarding the eastern european economy:

GDP/capita in PPS:
The PPS is a notional currency which excludes the influence of differences in prices levels between countries. This makes it more meaningfull to compare data than based on exchange rates.
Total EU = 100%
Greece = 68% (poorest in the EU)
Cyprus = 82% (richest from candidates)
Slovenia = 71% (you were right here, Roman!; but lower than Portugal = 74%)
Total CC-13 = 35%

CC-13: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey.

Source: Eurostat, Statistics in Focus, Economy and Finance, n°28/2001, "GDP of Candidate Countries – annual GDP, growth rate and main aggregates"
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/


Please note that Ukraine, Moldova or other poor countries from the area which could pull down the average even more, are not even included.

So I wasn't that wrong, after all.

[Roman]

Well Tiberius, I didn't want to disprove your thesis that the average wealth level of the countries in the region is much lower than the EU (though I would still classify the region as medium income if forced to generalise - just compare it to most of africa, much of asia and latin america, especially if you take into account not only GDP per capita, but also levels of education healthcare, etc.). I was simply struck by your assertion that the richest of the candidate countries has less than half the GDP per capita of the poorest country in the EU. I simply don't like to see all of the countries in the region lumped together, as the economic differences are very large, which by the way only supports your idea that the only thing the region has in common is geography and communist history.

I certainly do agree that most of Eastern Europe should fall under the EU in the scenario. There should be some exceptions though - Belorussia, Moldovia, and possibly other cases (eg. Ukraine, though this is not as clear as the previous two examples), which should be given to Russia. It is definitely not neccessary to create a special civ for E. Europe.

[Timeline]

Order from Strongest to Weakest:

1. US, Canada, Israel, Puerto Rico

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

3. China (+Vietnam, Laos, North Korea)

4. CIS (+Mongolia)

5. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

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

7. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore and ?Japan?)


From here on out, I think these civs might be boring to play, but a good challenge:


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

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

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

11. African Union (Sub-sahara Africa)

12. Australia (+ NZ, Papua New Guinea)

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

BTW, someone asked about Independent states?? Independent “democratic” states could include countries such as: Japan, Canada, South Korea, Israel, ?Mongolia?, Phillippines, Australia, Panama, Mexico, Brazil - and many, many others. We don’t want to use all of these if we were to create an ‘independent’ civ, I just wanted to show you some choices.

Why is Latin America split into two civs? Any way we could join MercoSur and Andean Pact?

Good idea about the 8 civ list... for “just in case”. Would probably go something like this:

1: US + Puerto Rico

2: EU + Eastern Europe

3: China +Vietnam, Laos, North Korea

4: CIS

5: Independent Democratic Nations: Australia to Japan, inc Singapore, NZ, and S. Korea. Latin America (unfortunately), + Canada, Panama, Israel, Mongolia - Can ya think of any more?

6: Arab League: Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, the Gulf States + Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh

7: India +Nepal, Sri Lanka

8. African Union

A ninth Civ, if available, would be used for Latin America so that they wouldn’t go to the Independent Democratic Nations Civ.

A tenth Civ would most likely be used to turn Indonesia up to Japan into APEC.

Are there any other small Nations I missed that could go into the Independent Civ?

- Comments?

[Roman]

I can clarify the situation on 8 / 16 civs. The game is designed to be played with 8 civs, but can be tweaked in the editor to support up to 16.
Some screens will not show all 16, though, since they were designed before the decision to support 16 civs was made.

[Timeline]

Here is a pic I spent a little time editing. It shows our current breakdown on a Geo-Political Map. Below is just a sample, you can dl the full size from my next post if you want to.

Any additional thoughts or comments are still welcome to anyone who may be reading . .

[Timeline]

Here is the full size map, it's zipped.

[genghisvick]

I can't wait for the World War II scenario on Civ III!

[Tiberius]

I like it, Timeline.

I'm worried only for the huge size of the "CIS states" civ, with Mongolia included. Maybe we should split it in 2:
1. - Russia
2. - independent CIS states (Ukraine, Kazahstan, etc) + Mongolia, allied with Russia.

There's one more possibility, that I like more. How about removing some islamic countries: Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbegistan, Tadjikistan, Kyrgystan and maybe even Kazahstan, (or perhaps only a part of it, because a large part of pop are russians) from CIS and including them in IIS (Independent Islamic States) instead? These are poor countries, but with large oil, gas and coal deposits, which should be an interesting challenge to control.

What do you think?

[Timeline]

Tiberius, I wouldn't worry about the size of Russia. Remember that all most of their northern and eastern territory is unsettle-able. Mongolia in this scenario is only Ulaanbaatar, which is just a size 4 or 5 city in civ terms, so don’t let appearance fool you. I am thinking it would be best to give Mongolia to China ... but I won’t worry about that now.

I have started a new thread in the Scenario League Forum -located here - so please post any replies over there (maybe the bumb will get them to notice me ). Hopefully I will be able to get some help with some stuff and this can be one great scenario!! Thanks to EVERYONE who has provided so many suggestions and helped to layout and design this scenario.

Timeline

[genghisvick]

Sounds cool.

[jsw363]

Timeline-

I think, after further consideration, that this would be a better allocation of civs (if we can even HAVE more than 8). Someone above said that it's not necessary to use all of them and I think that they make a good point. Just because there are 16 available doesn't mean that we should use them.

1. US, Canada, Israel, Puerto Rico

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

3. China (+Vietnam, Laos, North Korea)

4. CIS (+Mongolia)

5. India (+Nepal, Sri Lanka)

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

7. APEC (from Indonesia to S. Korea, including Singapore and ?Japan?)

8. South America

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

10. African Union (Sub-sahara Africa)

11. Australia (+ NZ, Papua New Guinea)

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

Also no rogue nations right? I liked them...

I've been toying with the idea of a pre-WWI scenario. I think that the way that the alliances turned out in the war could have ended very differently. (With Britain and the US being Central Powers) So I was thinking of creating a post-Victorian (1902?) scenario where the empires would clash with each other. Anyone have any ideas or suggestions about this?

[Timeline]

Hey, I am back (finally). My computer got surged during a lightning storm, so it's taken me a while to get this new one and to get the insurance company to pay for it.

I can't really comment too much on this on this now as I am a bit short on time. All my data from my old computer that I had on this scenario is going to take a while to get back. They (the computer techs) told me it will be ready in a few days. I will be back once I can review my old notes and information and I'll start a new thread then.

We'll figure out a way to get rogues in (and independent)

[jsw363]

Timeline- Good to see you back! Too bad about that computer. Having a fried computer is not so much fun....