Crises amendments

[Mao]

Which reminds me...

Andrew, did you ever get my e-mail reply about your next project?

[Panda]

Ooh lovely: interest.

GS, I think the Netscape problem is caused by the Nbci frame at the top of the page conflicting with the frame for my site, creating a frame within a frame. This is why I've also uploaded the files to my personal space as a mirror.

The other two aren't there; I'm just too lazy to remove the links. Trust me: these scenarios are not very good (comparatively). Very ill-thought out conceptually, though I have been tinkering with them I really don't think they're salvageable.

Echopapa: great feedback. I wish I had you as a playtester. Maybe next time? Good points generally, esp the spelling ones. "Toyko" . I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Though I thought "Bombay" was a very recent name change (there was a thread about Indian cities in the general forum), not 1992.

Thinking about it there are events I can do with the Chinese and Taiwan, and Liberia, now that I've abandoned the Algerian events. Ditto with more terrorists. The trouble is I only wanted to recreate the world broadly, but still leave lots of choice for the player. So you can choose between peaceful development or warlike conquest. You can choose who to pick a fight with (except the EU-US link) because treaties last only while they last, and certainly not forever. So any other binding alliance is a bad idea. If you were playing as America you could have an alliance with both the Chinese and Allies, even though they might later be at war with each other. Why then have an automatic declaration of war if the Chinese capture Taipei? Similarly having PfP countires interferes with the EU expansion into Central and Eastern Europe (and don't forget that Russia is a PfP country itself, and not automatically "the enemy"). I don't think a scenario like this should force my preconceptions upon the player past a basic premise.

Yes, the American spelling for American events might be a nice little touch. I bet you everyone plays their own side. I always play as the EU, though I'm questioning the Jacques Santer as default leader. More evidence of my initial uncertainty for the starting date. For 1992 it should be Jacques Delors, the arch-Federalist.

Mao: no I'm afraid I didn't. The last message I had from you was 13 Dec. I'd be interested in your views (pick a number between 1 and 4).

[echopapa]

Another spelling mistake I just noticed - "Jeursalem".

It might be a nice touch to give the Neutral and Allied leaders names. Since this is 1992, you could go with M. Brian Mulroney of Canada or Miyazawa Kiichi of Japan for the Allies, and Suharto of Indonesia for the Neutrals.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm is a great resource for recent history. From their "Governments" page, I find that in 1992, there was "No government" in Afghanistan, Tajikstan, or Sudan.

If you want to include North Korea, but make it somewhat realistic, put large forts on its borders, and have its fall trigger a war with China.

Was Eritrea really fully independent in 1992?

Would Fujimori's Peru count as a rogue state? Or Myanmar?

There was still a civil war going on in El Salvador in 1992.

If Fujimori doesn't count as rogue, the Shining Path certainly would. You may want to add some Shining Path events.

Another interesting idea - hosting the Olympics! Perhaps as a tech, that allows Wonders or better Traders to be built.

Not everybody plays their own side... I like to play as Russia. (And the Chinese army, IMHO, overpowers us far too easily.)

------------------

----------------------------------------
EchoPapa's scenarios are available at the ACS Mac Site
and
Visit the Institute for Naming Children Humanely at inch.stormpages.com

[Panda]

If you're asking me what I define as a rogue state, you're asking a very awkward question. The truth is of course that the scenario cannot be 100% accurate for multiple reasons. The problem with North Korea is outlined above; there are a finite number of unit slots available for regenerating units, and a finite amount of event space for the regeneration and new generations; finite space on the map, leading to compromises in city placement (though you're right about those tow russian ones).

I've been scouting around the web myself, and http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPl...22000-idx.html and http://worldnews.about.com/newsissue.../aa062200a.htm seem to stand out on Rogue states.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...000/705482.stm on Fujimori. I assume you'd assume it should be Rogue because of the dissolution of Congress?
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ina...a/overview.htm on Eritrea. Formal independence occurred in April 1993, though you could argue that de facto autonomy had been around a bit longer.

Love the Olympics idea I'll have a think about that, and the Shining Path idea is also a good one.

I think that for the expanded TOT version I'm working on I can do a hell of lot more for the unit generation mentioned above, and reinstate the arms sales I had in mind originally, and have extra units for regeneration. Crises deluxe

E-mail me about playing Russia v China. If you have any savegames you can send those to me as well.

Yes, Myanmar. The trouble is that it's the text that takes up so much space in the events. How much do you get for the Mac? I try and aim for FW standards, which is ~16K

[Case]

Great scenario Andrew! I especially love all the new contemporary units.

Just one correction: the railway line connecting Darwin to the rest of Australia goes through central Australia to Adelaide, not down the west coast as you placed it (to be fully realistic you may want to have the railway line stop at Alice Springs - work on the section between Darwin and Alice Springs only started last year!)


------------------
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error
-John Kenneth Galbraith

[echopapa]

On Macs, we get whatever the MGE standard size is. About 16K sounds right.

A good way to skimp on text descriptions for events (and save precious K) is to write description texts as newspaper headlines. For example, the Taliban capture of Kabul text could be written as:

(London Times)
TALIBAN SEIZES KABUL
Foreign Powers Outraged by Human Rights Violations

The Russian Far East is not very well defended. Remember that the Soviets built a long stretch of forts along their Chinese border in the 60s and 70s, and the Chinese did likewise. Perhaps you could build Airbases along the Russo-Chinese border, and Neutral airbases in Central Asia.

Democracy was restored in Yemen, so I'm not sure if events for Yemen are warranted. Likewise, although the US certainly considers Cuba a rebel state, Castro gets foreign aid from many Western nations (i. e. most of Scandinavia).

I know this was mentioned before, but San Juan _really_ should be a US city. The US is responsible for its foreign policy, so while a US-Canada war is unlikely, a US-Puerto Rico war is impossible.

I'm surprised that there aren't any Wonders in Russia. The Kremlin? St. Basil's Cathedral? The Russian literary canon? Romanov Burial? "Motherland"? "Boris Godunov"? Lenin's Mausoleum? Perestroika? Glasnost? The Russian Mafia?

How about putting a US airbase at Guantanamo Bay?

------------------

----------------------------------------
EchoPapa's scenarios are available at the ACS Mac Site
and
Visit the Institute for Naming Children Humanely at inch.stormpages.com

[Panda]

I was hoping to get to answer your points before the thread dropped off the end of the front page, but it just shows you how much life there is here.


Case and echopapa: I'm aware of my eurocentrism. The Australia thing was easy to sort out - I must have gotten confused dealing with railways and major roads.

Ok, I've been working on the scenario file: transplanted Yekaterinburg and
Chelyabinsk to their correct locations (one square north for each was the best compromise); transplanted Chittagong to Rangoon (renamed to Yangon) as a rebel city; made Khartoum rebel, and San Juan American.

Events wise I've edited all the texts - which was a great idea and freed up a surprising amount of space. I've made extra insurgents events for Peru, and terrorist events for Israel, plus more specific insurgent/terrorist events for the side specific part. I'm also working on a Indian events file, but my inspiration is rock bottom.

I don't have an accurate enough map, or the resources on hand to find out about the Russian Far East. Again: eurocentric maps. As you have a Mac version you couldn't amend the map yourself and send it to me, but you could give me a list of coordinates for locations for forts, airbases, and infantry.

I don't really want to get dragged into discussing the various merits of inclusion as this attacks the concept of the scenario rather than the technical execution. I'm quite satisfied with the concept.

The wonders however are different, and I didn't explain in the documentation. All my wonders are designed to be functional (with the exception of Leo's), and modern (20th century - with the exception of Tian An Men Square). Plus you have 18 out of 28 wonders still to build, which is quite a high proportion for a scenario. I can't think of a good reason to have a Russian wonder at the begining, and one that fits my criteria.

Michael, I'm sending you my latest work if you could just approve that and suggest further revisions.

Thanks all

[Kull]

Well, this scenario has turned into the biggest nuke-fest I've ever seen! Which may not be saying much, since I mostly play Ancient or WWII era scenarios...... Nevertheless it's awfully depressing to be nuked turn after turn by the Indians of all people. And now that the Chinese have joined in, it's Rubble-bouncing time (LA has been hit 3 times). The only saving grace is that nukes cost NEGATIVE dollars to rush buy, so I've been building up quite a stockpile! Oh yes, and getting even!! The Indian subcontinent is a slag heap, and China isn't much better. Best of all, it's usually possible to nuke a unit standing next to two (or even three!) of the enemy cities, so they are definitely suffering.

As for a "peaceful" strategy? Not likely! I've been a really good neighbor, but even so the Indians, Chinese, and even the Canadians sneak attacked me! I lost the allince with the Allies because they went to war with the Europeans and insisted I join. Talk about a no-win situation. Meanwhile the Russians, Allies, Neutrals and Europeans have been blasting away at each other for almost the whole game. Thank God the real "New World Order" hasn't been so violent!

There's probably not much you can do about that, but I do have a few other suggestions:

1) The US and Europeans should be on non-speaking terms with the Allies to prevent wars amongst the three of them.

2) Seriously consider creating a new kind of short-range nuke, reserved for the Indians, Neutrals, and Allies. A nuclear exchange with the Russians or Chinese may not be pleasant, but at least it's technically possible. There is NO WAY the Indians or Neutrals can develop the missile technology required to reach North America (at least until 2020 or thereabouts).

3) It seemed kind of strange that Russia and the US start off with ZERO nukes! Maybe the AI wouldn't be so quick to push the button if they were facing a nuke-armed foe.

4) Consider placing a few more of those "Urban Stackable" fortifications in North America, where they could represent the military bases in the Desert Southwest, North Plains, and West Coast. In the modern era you don't usually find big concentrations of troops inside cities, and removing most of them to "bases" might make the cities less tempting as First Strike targets.

[echopapa]

One reason that there's so much sneak-attacking in this scenario is that nearly every civ starts out with blots on their reputation. The US starts at 1, and the Chinese and Neutrals have a whopping 3. To prevent such nuke-fests, it would be better if all the civs had a 0 reputation (except maybe the Chinese, at 1).

------------------

----------------------------------------
EchoPapa's scenarios are available at the ACS Mac Site
and
Visit the Institute for Naming Children Humanely at inch.stormpages.com

[Panda]

Let me reassure you gentlemen that I am always looking for ways to try and control the AI dumb aggression. Of course if I wanted a really peaceful scenario about the New World Order I'd simply make everyone have unbreakable alliances. You'd agree this wouldn't be any fun, and that compromises should be made. Certainly I'd never want to make such a rigid and predetermined scenario - I simply like the random factor. I'm sorry that obviously others don't share my philosophy.

So nukes at start as a deterrent would be good if it works; bad if it doesn't. I'll test and see. I should have before now...

It should be theorectically possible to keep nukes out of the game altogether, and certainly to control when they do come into play. It works like this:

1. Don't build Nuclear Proliferation (Manhattan) first, until you're ready to handle the consequences. Even if the computer starts to build it, that doesn't mean it will finish it. Many times I've had someone else start this, then change after a couple of turns. Don't panic. The wonder itself is never a high AI priority.

2. The technology Nuclear Disarmament makes nuclear units and the wonder obsolete. Obviously making the wonder obsolete doesn't change its effect, but it makes it more unlikely that the AI will choose to build it.

3. Nuclear Disarmament is not a high value technology per se, but it is a vital prerequisite to the more advaned social technologies. Therefore the AI will choose to research this of its own accord, even before you do because it can then build the Test Ban Treaty wonder (happiness - high priority).

4. If you have Nuclear Disarmament you can then force other nations to disarm by giving them this technology. Admitidly for some less developed nations you might have to give more away, but that should be seen as a price worth paying.

I think I know my own creation too well for manipulating gameplay. I can also tell you that the AI never has more than 2 nukes in production, and never has more than 4 in play at any time.

Sorry you had a bad game Kull. Please don't pre-judge it until you've worked out the best strategy, eh? Another thing you can do is not talk to anyone. Amazing how well that can work in the short term. Good point about the negative cost. I knew there must be a good reason why they cautioned against a cost >16! So this can be fixed fairly easily by taking a leaf out of Kobayashi's book and increasing the number of shields in the box, then reducing the number of rows in proportion to keep (roughly) the same costs.

Thanks

[Kull]

Andrew: Please don't misinterpret. This really is an impressive scenario in MANY ways. It's just that from your initial comments (conquering the world is NOT the object) I assumed there was some kind of inhibition against typical Civ2 aggression. Clearly I was mistaken! But I can see that if the human player puts a premium on researching "disarmament" and then giving it away, that would make life a lot simpler.

As to "short-range nukes", it seems that would be more realistic than giving full intercontinental ballstic missile capability to anyone who discovers Nukes. A good analogy would be giving the M-1 Abrams to the first country that discovered "Armored Vehicles". One or more intermediate steps just seems more realistic, IMHO.

[SCDARS]

I already played the very first version of your scenario until the point the Europeans (me) got that much ahead and earned a steady flow of cash from "Rogue crop" in Libya and elsewhere that it had become somehow tedious. But I think the problem (e.g. the overwhelming financial income from intervening in Rogue states) has been corrected in the later versions.
Despite of this it is one scenario (of only two) depicting any post wwii-topic that I think is generally excellent. Don't misunderstand my comments - if I wasn't somehow intrigued by your scenario, I wouldn’t bother criticizing anything
Again: Congratulations for this scenario!

However, I still have some suggestions/remarks after I installed the patch recently - if you don't mind, of course
Firstly, I don't see any reason why one shouldn't be able to see the city names. Why don't you "reveal the whole map" before saving the scenario the next time?

Another aspect I would mention is the lack of pollution. Is it really intended that one doesn't have to care for environment at all? I think environmentalism is still a very topical issue...
Or do you have bad experience after some tests? (Maybe assigning more Engineers would be in order to help the human player...)

Otherwise I also don't see any point in "upgrading" one's power plants to newer versions which would be on the agenda if pollution was active.

This brings me to another question: Why are there no nuclear power plants in Russia?
It would be "nice" to see some cities having a nuclear meltdown (-sp?), if there was civil unrest in any town when playing Russia or China

[Panda]

I'd just to thank everyone for posting ideas and corrections in this thread. This scenario is now guite different to original concept, which is part of the problem.

For a start, if you could only play as the EU or US, then the similar shield colour isn't so much of a problem because if a unit wasn't yours it must be the other's. If playing as one of the other major sides then it can be headache. I'm fixing this now.

The no pollution thing is basically because of a fear of global warming As the industrial squares are more productive than "normal" civ2, you're going to have a lot more pollution, which means that you're going to need engineers to clean it up, and I though that would be distracting. I take your point about the lack of environmental incentive, and agree with it. Since discovering that Solar Plants completely eliminate industrial pollution (no, I really didn't know that before), it might be a good idea to re-introduce it like I re-introduced double irrigation. If people want that.

Would you get meltdowns if the city was AI controlled at the time? Doesn't sound likely, so again, no objection there.

Hmm...the "reveal map" thing. I'm wary about this because to do so at this late stage would also reveal the other players units, and you'd be forced to watch them all move around, every turn. My way you only see the combats, which is tedious enough. I usually reveal the map at the begining before any cities are founded so you know what the world looks like, you just don't have specific intelligence about other countries, which acts as an incentive to reconnoitre and gives a definite bonus to building Spy Satallites (Apollo's). I think it might be possible to delay revaealing the map until the cities have all been founded, but before any units are placed. I can certainly experiment.

There's going to be another version anyway. Either just a patch with all the corrections and some updates, or a complete rewrite if I take advantage of the seperate body counter from the other thread. You should wait and see what I've discovered you can do with batch files