1860AD - Age of Imperialism
This is the thread to discuss and update anything related to the 1860AD on GEM scenario development.

Current status: Under construction

This will be the biggest item for the next release.

Description:
This is the Victorian era, the age of the sun never sets. The Great Britain is definitely the largest power on Earth in this era.
However, it is a challenge for the GB to keep this status. Other than France, the traditional rival in Europe, Prussia and Italy are trying to unify their own nation and will eventually add two more imperial power competing with the GB. Prussian and Italian's unification also let to a series of war in Europe, namely Danish-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian war, third Italian independence war, Franco-Prussian war and the capturing of Rome.

While the GB has extended to nearly every corner on Earth, her problems are also coming from every corner. In southern Asia, the largest ever Indian revolt is just started. Not only that, the war status with Afghanistan and Burma still exist. In South Africa, the 'Barbarian', Zulu, is constantly threatening the empire survival in that corner. In Australia and New Zealand, constant wars with the Aboriginals and Maori will not leave the empire a peaceful corner.

Russia is also on the rise. Her eyes are on the two oldest but giant empires, the Ottoman and the Qing. Ottoman is having a bad time around. Greece has broken off, Egypt is now only nominally under the Ottoman and the desert arabs are constantly on revolt. Not even that, the French, British and Russian are all interested to partition a piece off this empire. Similarly, Qing just lost in the second Opium war to British and France. France continue the war by putting a hand on Vietnam. Other than external threats, Qing is also struggling internally with the Taiping rebellion that has spreaded almost half of proper China. Worst of worst, a new imperial power, Japan, is about to join the imperial power and will be more threatening than any other imperial powers to China.

In Africa, the Morocco is continually expanding her influent in the Sahel and contending with the local Sokoto Kingdom. The Abyssinian has just unified and with the aid from the British, quickly modernizing and at war with the Ottoman and Egyptian.

In the Americas, the civil war of the united states has begun. The world's most advanced battle is about to start. If either side win the war, it will be a new super imperial power. The Latin America is also not quiet. French intervention in Mexico, the War of the Triple Alliance and the war of the Pacific basically involved all the Latin American nations into some kind of warring status.

The playable nations are:

Britain
France
Prussia
Austria
Netherlands
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Sweden
Russia

Morocco
Ottoman
Egypt (Vassal of Ottoman)
Arabia (Rebellion against Ottoman)
Persia
Turkestan
India (Rebellion against Britain)

Siam
Taiping (Rebellion against Qing)
Qing
Joseon (Vassal of Qing)
Japan

Sokoto
Abyssinia
Zulu
Boer

Sioux
United States
Confederate States (Rebellion against America)
Mexico
Colombia
Peru
Brazil
Argentina
Chile





__________________

A new scenario :-) I am thrilled!

A suggestion: I think that a 1860 AD scenario should also have Austria. It was a major european power at that time. You mentioned Hungary in the list of civs, but actually Hungary was part of the Austrian empire (lasting till 1867) and Austria-Hungary from then on.

Best Regards,
Ace

Yeah, I meant Austria-Hungary Empire. As always, I would simplify it to Austria or Hungary. Like you said, it should be simplified to be called Austria.

Yes. It was called Austria till 1867 (Austrian Empire). The capital (Vienna) was an Austrian city.

After that, it became Austria-Hungary, the capital stayed in Vienna though, the rulers were Austrians, and Austria was overall still the dominant part of the empire.

The Austrian Empire was a successor to the Holy Roman Empire, which was dissolved in 1806. Therefore, this civlization could be used.

Best Regards,
Ace

One thing was incorrect previously.

India is suppose to be the rebellion of British. There was a major rebellion in British India during the late 1850s that I am including in the scenario. So in total, there are three rebellion civ to use, the native India, the Taiping Rebellion in China and the Confederacy in US.

Deleted Australia and Canada. Replaced by Denmark and Burma.

It might make sense to have Australia and Canada as parts of the British Empire, since I don't believe they were fully independent at this time.

It's really exciting you're working on this time period, though; it promises to be even better than the WW2 one!

Added some description of the setting.

Removed Burma and added Vietnam. Burma lost it's coastal region to Britain in the 1850s and therefore not really important any more. On the other hand, Vietnam is about to be invaded by France in 1860, which is more interesting to be added.

This will be a great addition once finished. (Glad to see you've got the Confederates as a rebel civ; they never had a chance of winning...);)

Is there any plans for an update, or are you busy with 1940 AD, Ghengis?

-Lean

Too busy with all other things. Work is getting busier now. I am afraid other than updating the current scenarios, I don't have time to create new scenarios in the coming future.

Well, work can be tough. Don't worry about it then Genghis, do what you can. We all appreciate the work you're doing. So we lose a senario; we have a lot of others. Thanks for the info. :)

-Lean

Why don't you set the start of this scenario at 1837? And the finish at 1901? A true "victorian" scenario?

Genghis,

I'd just like to echo what Lean has said in that what you're producing as a modder, away from your day job is fantastic and really massively appreciated by all.

This potential scenario looks pretty exciting, but then everyone is plenty occupied with other scenarios you've already produced. :)

Thanks. I am glad so many people enjoyed my "artwork" :)

I have updated the information related to the 1860AD scenario.

Current status: Reactivated. The civilizations have been finalized. Cities have been mostly set.

Cool! Keep it up.;)

Genghis, you're my savior. Just when I was getting tired of Civ 4, you come through and announce this. Keep up the good work, and remember, everyone appreciates what you're doing, and we're more than grateful to you.

Thanks :)

Setting the cities is easy this time since I am just editing from 1940AD scenario. Only very few cities need to be added/removed. Once I've decided which civ to include and which not to include, it was changing the ownership of the cities that took me a bit of time and it is now completed. There are still lots to go - setting the city sizes and culture, editing the city improvements, tile improvements, placing units, technologies and diplomacy. Given my current timetable, I think it will take at least another 2 weeks for sure.

Yesterday was the first time I've loaded up the scenario. As expected, British is very powerful. At the moment, it has about 80 cities. Next following is Russia with 54 cities, then Qing with 49, then Ottoman and France with 23 cities.

Oh yes, one thing I would like to seek for opinions is on Prussia, Italy and Japan. These nations were all unifying at this period. Historically, these nations only possess part of the modern territories. Italy and Japan in particular have not even included their modern capital. So the question is, whether we should keep historical accuracy or make some compromises?

I think you should compromise slightly as I don't think these are any more of a compromise than those you have made to have a scenario where for instance Holland has to own Belgium or Hungary owns Romania.

To have Japan, Prussia, Italy unified is less of a stretch and indeed it would be ahistorical if this doesn't happen after a few years in the game. What's the alternative? Minor nations? If this was the case then all nations not strictly accurately represented should be minor, such as Romania in the WW2 scenario, so I think the logic is fine for you to make some sensible adjustments to the historical snapshot, given the benefit of history.

Ps Great news on this scenario, it looks really good!!

Yes. Quite true. May be I can keep just one or two cities for minor nations and make Prussia, Italy and Japan to start with a larger army to much sure they take over these remaining cities.

Can events be used for such unifications? Europa Universalis makes heavy use of events, though I don't know how flexible Civ4s event engine is.

Haven't played that since EU2. Good game though!

I seem to remember something about python scripts, but even if it can be done i don't think many people how to do this. I remember Traiano put in a request for someone to work to trigger a Mongol invasion, but apparently the queue was months long? If anyone can do this though, it might be a good idea, although I must say that playing Europa Universalis it was at times a little annoying to know that the game engine would do certain things to your nation/civ regardless.

Edit: see 1205 Scenario, post 63, pg 4

It is certainly possible to add python scripts for events. Many mods are doing that. But it is not something I am familiar with nor something I wish to spent time working on.

And by the way, do we wish to see "Prussia" or "Germany" in this scenario? Prussia is probably more historical (still a few more years before Germany is unified), but I can see Germany will be a better name in the long run.

I'd go with Prussia, though. Germany until 1945 was a Prussia-dominated Germany at best: it was the largest state and they dominated the army (and certainly the officer corps). It was only in 1949 that (West-) Germany became a truly federal state, which wouldn't have been possible without the destruction of Prussia in 1945 by the Allies (the name Prussia was de facto erased from the map). So, although "Germany" is the better known name, Prussia is the more accurate one. (And prior to 1870-'71 there never was any "Germany", despite what German nationalists would like to believe.)

Very hard to say Kai.

1860 the german issue wasn't decided yet. Sure Prussia was clearly on the way to dominate Germany. BUT: Austria was still strong.

The real decision about Germanies future was made in 1862: Bismarck was made chancellor of Prussia.

He was the one who stimulated the three most important events that lead to the german unification: the german-danish war 1864, the austrian-prussian war 1866 and the prussian/german-french war 1871.

So for 1860 I'd suggest one of the following setups:

- Prussia and Austria in the borders of 1860, some buffer states inbetween, first come, first conquer

- Germany and Austria in the borders of 1871 (so 11 years early)

Prussia should be on the way to become one of the strongest economical powers of the world, with the south german buffer states as well as Austria lagging behind.

I have been working quite hard on this scenario lately. :hammer:

The more I read about the history during this age, the more interesting it is I found. I would say playing most of the nations in this scenario will have quite a unique experience. I shall write some description of the nations here before I forget what I have encompassed :lol::

Britain: ~70 cities. Greatest naval power on Earth, yet there are many challenges. You have Canada and Australia yet to be populated. Your colonies are everywhere on earth meaning your problems are also everywhere. Indian rebellions, Boers, Zulus and many other "barbarians" are all enemies of yours. You are also at war with China.

France: ~25 cities. Second to Britain. Have the largest army. You are about to invade Mexico and are expanding your colonies in Africa and Indochina. You are also at war with China.

Russia: ~50 cities. Invading Turkestan. Still possess Alaska. Technology is relatively behind.

Austria: 8 cities. One of the great powers. Technology is relatively behind.

Prussia: 7 cities. Unifying Germany. In the north, Hamburg is under the control of Denmark; in the south, Stuttgart and Munich are still independent.

Italy: 4 cities. Unifying Italy. In the north, Venice is under the control of Austria; in the south, Nepal and Palermo are still independent.

Spain: ~20 cities. Still possess Philippines, Cuba and quite a few islands around the globe. Technology is relatively behind.

Portugal: 14 cities. Have a lot of fragmented colonies. Technology is relatively behind.

Netherlands: 13 cities. Mainly colonizing Indonesia.

Denmark: 7 cities. The smallest colonial powers. Yet, it still possess a city in west Africa and another in Caribbeans.

Ottoman: ~25 cities. Have Egypt as a vassal. Some trouble arises from Arab as a rebellion force. Technology is behind the west.

China: ~45 cities. If including the cities under rebellion, you are the most populous nation on Earth. You also have Joseon as a vassal. Most of your time and effort will be fighting the Taiping and many other rebellions from all around your territories. Britain and France have also declared war on you (Second Opium War). Technology is way behind the west.

Japan: ~6 cities. Meiji reformation has just started. Two cities in the north are still independent. Technology is way behind the west.

United States: ~15 cities. Fighting the Civil Wars with the Confederacy and at the same time, the Sioux in the wild west. Adopted Emancipation, Free Speech and Free Religion.

Confederate States: ~8 cities. Adopted Slavery.

Morocco, Arabia, Siam, Sokoto, Abyssinia, Zulu and Sioux: 3-5 cities. Technology is way way behind the west. Almost hopelessly waiting for slaughter. Yet, if you are looking for challenges, this will be it. They will start out with a significant number of army so that they won't be destroyed too easily at the beginning.


To be continue...

Kai,

I think you're about to ruin my final year at university!

Hi,

where can i download this scenario ?

Is in progress.

Hi Genghis,

I'm new at this forum, but have been playing and reading your scenario's and threads for a while now. My favorite is the 1500AD scenario, but i am very interested in this one. I hope it is nearly finished so we can start testplaying. Sadly, i'm kind of addicted to GEM...

The scenario is about 80% completed. I've been distracted by other things lately and I wil also traveling in the coming Christmas/NY break. Most likely, a playable version would be no earlier than Mid Jan.

Sounds great, can't wait to play it. :goodjob:
80 cities!!! That's going to be hard to control. I think that you make Canada and Australia and they should be very friendly and vassals of Great Britain. Deciding what to build in 80 different cities will be very hard and almost impossible to play.
I think that even 45 cities is a little too much.

Sounds great, can't wait to play it. :goodjob:
80 cities!!! That's going to be hard to control. I think that you make Canada and Australia and they should be very friendly and vassals of Great Britain. Deciding what to build in 80 different cities will be very hard and almost impossible to play.
I think that even 45 cities is a little too much.

Excellent point, but then you're faced with this anyway if you're trying for a domination/conquest victory. I suppose it is personal choice, one might say that if you don't want to control so many cities then pick one of the other civs. Certainly I generally don't play Russia or USA in the 1940 scenario for this reason and rather pick someone like Spain, Finland or Greece as a better challenge.

One thing that might help provide the choice of how to play UK would be to have spare slots for vassals so that the UK could choose to give independence to Australia or Canada. I noticed when playing 1940 with Spain (I had taken French Africa and UK mainland) that whilst the vassal option was available it initiated a crash, I guess as the maximum civs were still in play. (pretty hard to eliminate all of France or UK when they're all over the world and Brazil keeps annoyingly commencing seaborne invasions into Dakar!)

Excellent point, but then you're faced with this anyway if you're trying for a domination/conquest victory. I suppose it is personal choice, one might say that if you don't want to control so many cities then pick one of the other civs. Certainly I generally don't play Russia or USA in the 1940 scenario for this reason and rather pick someone like Spain, Finland or Greece as a better challenge.

One thing that might help provide the choice of how to play UK would be to have spare slots for vassals so that the UK could choose to give independence to Australia or Canada. I noticed when playing 1940 with Spain (I had taken French Africa and UK mainland) that whilst the vassal option was available it initiated a crash, I guess as the maximum civs were still in play. (pretty hard to eliminate all of France or UK when they're all over the world and Brazil keeps annoyingly commencing seaborne invasions into Dakar!)

While I totally agree with Adhesive on the point about controlling a large number of cities (this is why we play GEM is it not?), the number of cities for the British Empire has been reduced to 68 for other reasons.

I have removed quite a lot of cities in Canada and Australia mainly because there are a lot of places still haven't developed yet in 1860. It would therefore make Britain a lot more busy in colonizing and not trying to invade any other European powers. This is something difficult to simulate initially because given the size of Britain, it would make it easy to take over the entire Europe! But I thought this didn't happen in history and there must be a reason. I think it is because Britain already has too many to digest.

It would therefore make Britain a lot more busy in colonizing and not trying to invade any other European powers. This is something difficult to simulate initially because given the size of Britain, it would make it easy to take over the entire Europe! But I thought this didn't happen in history and there must be a reason. I think it is because Britain already has too many to digest.

A more direct reason would be that Britain's army never was as impressive as its navy; the British were defeated by a forme colony in the late 18th century and the late 19th century South African Boer Wars were only won by the ruthless use of concentration camps and the inpour of additional military after initial defeats. Lack of military manpower was still an issue in 1940, with the threat of invasion by the Third Reich.

A more direct reason would be that Britain's army never was as impressive as its navy; the British were defeated by a forme colony in the late 18th century and the late 19th century South African Boer Wars were only won by the ruthless use of concentration camps and the inpour of additional military after initial defeats. Lack of military manpower was still an issue in 1940, with the threat of invasion by the Third Reich.

Exactly. Britain's defence and imperial strategy was based on sea power. As an island it wasn't necessary for us to have the same land forces as say France or Prussia. All we needed was to stop them ever being able to get across the channel, which we did very well. This leant itself very nicely to forming a wide seafaring empire, enabling us to steal and sever colonies off from our European rivals as well as servicing our own colonies very well.

Major land wars (with industrialised enemies) were a weak point and eventually the UK's undoing. The UK's strategic reliance on naval power allowed Germany to quickly get the upper hand on us out of nowhere in less than a decade prior to WW2 as the rise of aircraft reduced the importance of naval power. Accordingly Britain for all its empire could do next to nothing to stop a German land offensive in Europe and indeed the same thing happened with the quick rise of Napoleon, only defeated as was Hitler by a large coalition.

As to how naval superiority plays out in the scenario? Could be interesting as it's quite easy to load into a galleon, travel the channel and unload in one turn from France. It will be hard to leverage the UK's naval power in the same manner in civ and so I guess more attention will have to be paid to European neighbours at home if playing as the UK.

I agree with both of you. Having superior navy and not so strong army is the 'direct' reason for Britain not choosing to take over Continental Europe but colonizing the rest of the world. But I would also consider this as the 'surface' reason.

Why didn't Britain develop a better army? Is it because it can't, or is it because it doesn't willing to? I think we all agree it is the later. Given that in the Victorian age Britain is the only true superpower, it is not hard to imagine that if Britain wish to put it's resources in developing a better army, it wouldn't be too hard to do so. Alternatively, Britain put it's resources on navy because it is more profitable to further develop the colonies, as compared to conquer land from Europe. And to protect these long distanced colonies, have a better navy is far more important than a better army. Given also the island situation of British Isles, Britain is able to choose this option.

Going back to Civ, what I would like to simulate is exactly this incentive for Britain. If Britain has already controlled all of Australia, India, Canada and the British colonies in Africa, I as the player would definitely spend all my resources to develop a much better army and go for Europe! Why waiting for my rivalries to develop if I can destroy them early? Only because I am not able to and/or that I have better potential than my rivalries.

Moreover, when I read more closer to the history of the colonies, the more I realize that sometimes the so called territories are just lands that are claimed by Britain. There could be indigenous people living there and the Britain haven't developed anything there yet.

So my conclusion is that it is imbalanced and not historical to give all of the land claimed by Britain with full of cities. Instead, Britain will need to continue to place settlers to expand the colonies and at the same time, fighting with various indigenous civs. Only this setting can divert the attention of a human or a AI Britain in this scenario.

Going back to Civ, what I would like to simulate is exactly this incentive for Britain. If Britain has already controlled all of Australia, India, Canada and the British colonies in Africa, I as the player would definitely spend all my resources to develop a much better army and go for Europe! Why waiting for my rivalries to develop if I can destroy them early? Only because I am not able to and/or that I have better potential than my rivalries.

Moreover, when I read more closer to the history of the colonies, the more I realize that sometimes the so called territories are just lands that are claimed by Britain. There could be indigenous people living there and the Britain haven't developed anything there yet.

So my conclusion is that it is imbalanced and not historical to give all of the land claimed by Britain with full of cities. Instead, Britain will need to continue to place settlers to expand the colonies and at the same time, fighting with various indigenous civs. Only this setting can divert the attention of a human or a AI Britain in this scenario.

Sounds like a very good plan. Looking forward to it.

It will be interesting to see how viable it is to launch an offensive INTO the UK from Europe, as I might expect that in the age before flight and transports that this might be relatively easy.

Just wanted to update the current status of this scenario.

The scenario is basically COMPLETED. Right now, I am just balancing the military and economical strength.

I will be play testing it in the coming week. There are quite a lot of changes I've made to the existing scenarios too. Hopefully, I can release GEM 6.0 (which could be the last version) very soon.

Just wanted to update the current status of this scenario.

The scenario is basically COMPLETED. Right now, I am just balancing the military and economical strength.

I will be play testing it in the coming week. There are quite a lot of changes I've made to the existing scenarios too. Hopefully, I can release GEM 6.0 (which could be the last version) very soon.

I will test ! :woohoo:

Yeah, actually I don't have a lot of to play test it lately. So although it might not be prefect, I would release it soon.

Yeah, actually I don't have a lot of to play test it lately. So although it might not be prefect, I would release it soon.

Me too. just done my last exam today so looking forward to playing 1860. Will be happy to playtest.

Regards

I recently started a game of 1860AD as Prussia. Some thoughts from first glance:

a) Cities:
I really think it would be best to just remove Bern. It makes no sense to give it to Sweden - if it's a problem to have it as a neutral city, why keep it in the game at all? Switzerland is insignificant in size and due to its neutrality never really played a major part in the European struggles of that time, so I would advise to remove it entirely. The solution with Bern being Swedish only leads to awkward cultural borders later in the game.

I was somewhat surprised to see Hamburg being Danish while Frankfurt and Munich are Austrian. I reckon this is done to reflect the fact that they were not part of Prussia in 1860, and to keep other Nations than Prussia from assaulting them (therefore not making them neutral). Is that correct?

b) Flags
Some flags seem to be missing. I noticed Prussia and Denmark in particular, their flags are displayed as solid black.

c) Strategy
Well, here is what I did, just for the record. My short-term goal was to overwhelm Austria without losing too many of my forces, as to remain the military dominant power in central Europe. Therefore, I ignored Denmark at first. In the long term, I was hoping to conquer all of central Europe, preferrably in the order of: Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Italy.

Turn 1, Winter 1860 AD: Started to research Assembly Line at 100% science, moved all my Riflemen, Artillery, Cavalry and Grenadiers towards Frankfurt/Munich. Started production of Artillery in all cities except for Cologne (Airship). Spain declares war on me.

Turn 2, Spring 1860 AD: Started to bombard the defenses of Frankfurt and Munich.

Turn 3, Summer 1860 AD: Continued to bombard Frankfurt and Munich, regretting to have placed my Artillery between both cities. First Airship starts to bombard the defenders of Frankfurt. I notice that my culture pushes back the culture of Frankfurt and Hamburg around Cologne, despite not having allocated any points toward it.

Turn 4, Fall 1860 AD: First Artillery and second Airship are complete. I continue to bombard Frankfurt. My Workers are tasked to construct a Railroad connecting my Empire in the W/E-direction.

Turn 5, Winter 1861 AD: Third Airship, second Artillery. I bombard Frankfurt, attack with the remaining three Artilleries and take the city (6 defenders) without casualties. I send a machine gun to garrison it and move the first part of my army east, preparing to cross the river Danube. Frankfurt is ordered to construct an Airship once it leaves revolt (4 turns). I sink a Danish frigate threatening my ressources in the baltic sea.

Turn 6, Spring 1861 AD: My army crosses the Danube, advancing on Munich. I sink another danish frigate at the expense of one of my own. I get one Airship per turn now from Cologne, and one Artillery per turn from Berlin. I notice that Swedish culture in Bern is expanding rapidly, encompassing the tiles bordering Frankfurt. I plan to take Munich and then split my army to attack Vienna and Prague simultaneously.

Turn 7, Spring 1861 AD: The remainder of my forces cross the Danube. I get two Artilleries that are positioned on the hills NW of Prague, to start reducing their defenses next turn.

Turn 8, Fall 1861 AD: I conquer Munich without casualties. My vanguard advances north and south of the Danube, to close on Prague and Vienna. Unfortunately, my Airship from Cologne was destroyed since it was relocated to Amsterdam because of the Air unit limit.

Turn 9, Winter 1862 AD: My Airships relocate to Munich and Leipzig, I move the remainder of my army to the siege of Vienna and Prague. Berlin starts constructing a Machine Gun, to be stationed in the newly conquered cities once completed. I construct a copper mine east of Berlin.

Turn 10, Spring 1862 AD: I conquer Prague, losing one Grenadier. My new Machine Gun garrisons Munich. In reaction to the ever-expanding Swedish culture in southern Germany, I set Frankfurt and Munich to produce Culture.

So much for the first 10 turns of my game of the 1860 AD scenario. More details to follow.

Best Regards,
Martin

I tried to download the new version 6.0, but the downloadlink directs to version 5.3.
Is this supposed to happen?

I tried to download the new version 6.0, but the downloadlink directs to version 5.3.
Is this supposed to happen?

Is ok. I just forgot to rename it to 6.0.

Another minor note: The city of Lvov should be named Lemberg in this scenario, as it was in Austrian times.

Best Regards,
Martin

thanks! did you try out the scenario yet? I haven't got any feedback on this new scenario yet.

In fact, I did - look a few posts higher in the thread, you probably missed the post.

I continued the game for about ~50 more turns, but by then I had become so powerful compared to the other nations that I decided to abort. Being kind of a GEM Veteran now, the situation kind of reminded me of other games I had played earlier in the 1940 AD scenario - so I know I would win eventually, and I did not want to spend more time just playing out the inevitable.

By ~1890 AD I was tech leader (Ecology being my latest Tech), my GDP about five times the one of my closest competitors, controlling France, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, England and of course Prussia while having Spain and the chinese rebels (from Nanking, I forgot the civ's name) as my vassals.

It's a bit sad that you get new technology that fast in this game, because I quite enjoyed the initial set of units available (Riflemen, Cavalry, Artillery, Airships) which usually never occurs since by the time you get Artillery you already have Infantry.

Personally, I would really like a much (say: 10 times) slower tech pace, too bad you cannot configure this on a per-map basis.

Anyway, I kind of enjoyed it. It's another great GEM scenario. Too bad I don't have that much time to spare right now, it would probably be interesting to play as some weaker nation for a change. Prussia can really dominate easily because of the huge starting army (and the general inability of the AI to handle a map of this scope).

Best Regards,
Martin

I recently started a game of 1860AD as Prussia. Some thoughts from first glance:

Woops. How could I miss this?


a) Cities:
I really think it would be best to just remove Bern. It makes no sense to give it to Sweden - if it's a problem to have it as a neutral city, why keep it in the game at all? Switzerland is insignificant in size and due to its neutrality never really played a major part in the European struggles of that time, so I would advise to remove it entirely. The solution with Bern being Swedish only leads to awkward cultural borders later in the game.


I don't have a problem to have Bern as a neutral city, the only problem is I CANT. Making it minor nation or Barbarian are default to be at war with everyone. That's why I've combined it with Sweden (another well known neutral nation in Europe).

The awkward cultural problem you've mentioned, I don't think is the problem of Bern. It applies to every cities in CIV. When ever you took a city, the surrounding cities will grab the lands by culture. But may be I can check whether Bern is having too many culture building.


I was somewhat surprised to see Hamburg being Danish while Frankfurt and Munich are Austrian. I reckon this is done to reflect the fact that they were not part of Prussia in 1860, and to keep other Nations than Prussia from assaulting them (therefore not making them neutral). Is that correct?


I am trying to simulate two wars at once: The Second Schleswig War (1864) and Austro-Prussian War (1866).
I learnt most of these from Wiki, so correct me if I am wrong.

The first being a war between Denmark and Prussia. Denmark control the Schleswig-Holstein region before the war and Hamburg is the closest large city 'almost' within that area and so I gave it to Denmark. I suppose it gives some incentive for Prussia to fight Denmark for unity too.

For the second war, I grouped the minor German states to the two sides. Kingdom of Bavaria and the Free City of Frankfurt were on Austria's side so they are given to Austria.


b) Flags
Some flags seem to be missing. I noticed Prussia and Denmark in particular, their flags are displayed as solid black.

Ah, my mistake. I forgot to move the flags from my development version to the release version. Can fix that straight away.


c) Strategy

Great sharing!


It's a bit sad that you get new technology that fast in this game, because I quite enjoyed the initial set of units available (Riflemen, Cavalry, Artillery, Airships) which usually never occurs since by the time you get Artillery you already have Infantry.

Personally, I would really like a much (say: 10 times) slower tech pace, too bad you cannot configure this on a per-map basis.


Is is really that fast? I thought the research would at least take 20-30 turns. May be I should change the time frame back to per year basis?


I continued the game for about ~50 more turns, but by then I had become so powerful compared to the other nations that I decided to abort. Being kind of a GEM Veteran now, the situation kind of reminded me of other games I had played earlier in the 1940 AD scenario - so I know I would win eventually, and I did not want to spend more time just playing out the inevitable.


Hopefully Better AI 0.6 will give us more challenges!

Concerning research speed, I started out with a projection of 50 turns to my next technology. Effectively, it took me 20 turns, because my science almost tripled from capturing new cities in the meantime. I think Prussia is a research powerhouse (because of the corporation), so with other civs this might take considerably longer, since you cannot set science to 100% all the time.

By 1890 AD, I produce over 5000 science per turn, which means that it takes about 4-8 turns to research a new technology.

By the way: Britain will probably liberate Australia and Canada (in that order). However, since there are no specific definitions, for me they created Iran (Australia) and Finland (Canada). Maybe this could be specified in the XML for the civilizations, so that these two civilizations (already defined because of the 1940 AD scenario) would be chosen.

Best Regards,
Martin

I am trying to simulate two wars at once: The Second Schleswig War (1864) and Austro-Prussian War (1866).
I learnt most of these from Wiki, so correct me if I am wrong.

The first being a war between Denmark and Prussia. Denmark control the Schleswig-Holstein region before the war and Hamburg is the closest large city 'almost' within that area and so I gave it to Denmark. I suppose it gives some incentive for Prussia to fight Denmark for unity too.

For the second war, I grouped the minor German states to the two sides. Kingdom of Bavaria and the Free City of Frankfurt were on Austria's side so they are given to Austria.


Genghis Kai :
I am German.
On the one Side ,you are right ,but war was between austria and prussia against denmark and nor only prussia against denmark.
And because of Frankfurt and München ,it gave a war between prussia and all german states (Austria ,Hannover ,Bavaria ...) ,but after this war ,it gave Prussia (North German) ,Austria and Bavaria ,Baden ,Württemberg ,Hessen.
But then France declared Prussia the War and Bavaria ,Baden ,Württemberg ,Hessen help Prussia and then come Germany.

When you have a place for a civ ,then use it and make the state Bavaria with München and Frankfurt as a vassal of austria.

I've just opened the map up and it looks great.

However- techical issues (v6.1):

Whenever I try playing as a South American civ on the civ selection menu the game crashes.

The game also crashes when i select the leaderheads of the South American civs and also Pretorius (South Africa/ Boer) on the f4 diplomacy screen.

Does anyone else have this problem or is it something that i'm doing wrong?

I've just opened the map up and it looks great.

However- techical issues (v6.1):

Whenever I try playing as a South American civ on the civ selection menu the game crashes.

The game also crashes when i select the leaderheads of the South American civs and also Pretorius (South Africa/ Boer) on the f4 diplomacy screen.

Does anyone else have this problem or is it something that i'm doing wrong?

Are you using the add-on graphics?

Are you using the add-on graphics?

I've downloaded the leaderheads now and all seems to be fine. I was thinking that if these leaderheads are now REQUIRED then shouldn't they be in the same one download pack?

Ps The scenario looks great. I was considering playing as Sioux, but decided to go for the Boers instead in South Africa. We'll see how that works out!

It will be interesting to see if Britain can easily achieve a domination victory through vassalizations and capitulations as the US tends to do in 1940. The way the engine works seems to generate a capitualtion quite easily if the empire sizes/points accumulation are massively imbalanced, even with limited military conquest e.g. As the Boers I have the Zulu offering to capitulate despite me taking only 1 of their 3 cities.

I've downloaded the leaderheads now and all seems to be fine. I was thinking that if these leaderheads are now REQUIRED then shouldn't they be in the same one download pack?

Ps The scenario looks great. I was considering playing as Sioux, but decided to go for the Boers instead in South Africa. We'll see how that works out!

It will be interesting to see if Britain can easily achieve a domination victory through vassalizations and capitulations as the US tends to do in 1940. The way the engine works seems to generate a capitualtion quite easily if the empire sizes/points accumulation are massively imbalanced, even with limited military conquest e.g. As the Boers I have the Zulu offering to capitulate despite me taking only 1 of their 3 cities.

It shouldn't be required. I was asking because I want to find out where the bug locates.
Did you installed the add-on pack on v5.3? I suppose you have done a clean install of GEM v6.0 (i.e. delete the old GEM version first)?

OK. I found the problem. It was a mis-naming of a file. Please redownload v6.1 again, if you want the no add-on graphics version. (don't worry if you have the add-on already).

OK. I found the problem. It was a mis-naming of a file. Please redownload v6.1 again, if you want the no add-on graphics version. (don't worry if you have the add-on already).

Thanks for the quick response. Yeah I did a clean reinstall of 6.1 with add ons. Actually, I've been missing out, as some of these leaderheads are great.

A quick suggestion: I am currently trying to play as the CSA, and once again Britain liberated Australia (almost right away) and Canada (~1865 AD) - but this time creating Hungary (Australia) and the Sovient Union (Canada).

I find this slightly annoying - would it be possible to install Australia and Canada as British Vassals right away? There was the Canadian Confederation in 1867 AD at least (so not that much later than the scenario start).

Maybe they should be vassal states of Britain right away - even if it's not entirely accurate.

Best Regards,
Martin

A quick suggestion: I am currently trying to play as the CSA, and once again Britain liberated Australia (almost right away) and Canada (~1865 AD) - but this time creating Hungary (Australia) and the Sovient Union (Canada).

I find this slightly annoying - would it be possible to install Australia and Canada as British Vassals right away? There was the Canadian Confederation in 1867 AD at least (so not that much later than the scenario start).

Maybe they should be vassal states of Britain right away - even if it's not entirely accurate.

Best Regards,
Martin

I've checked and I can only preset the first vassal civ.

Too bad :-(

By the way, my CSA game is going well, better suited to me difficulty-wise than playing Prussia earlier, because the CSA are not that powerful. I am in 1875 now, and still only 6th in score, despite having vassalized the Sioux and the US and happily conquering canada.

Best Regards,
Martin

Some more feedback from my CSA game.

I am currently in 1887 AD, and once again, tech speed seems to be slightly too fast - if not as bad as with Prussia. I need about 15 turns to research a new technology at 80%, however, due to tech trading, I get a new technology about every 10 turns in average, en par with most nations in the game.

The CSA seems to be well-balanced, difficulty-wise. I am currently sixth in score, and about to climb slightly with my ongoing war with Mexico, who decided to declare war upon me a few turns back. In addition to my native territories, I conquered the eastern portion of the USA and eastern Canada, while having Sioux and the western part of the USA as my vassals.

As to the other regions, sadly they seem to be static, mostly. Despite Better AI 6.0, the AI seems incapable of conquering its neighbours on a larger scale.

Britain still leads the score, despite having lost most of its canadian territories, with its two vassals Australia and Canada.

Russia is second in score, having Prussia, Turkestan and Chile as their vassals. Sadly, this already demonstrates the somewhat stupid tendency of the AI to meddle in Regions where it effectively has no influence, as with Russia and Chile.

China (Quing) is a close third, their vassals being India, Persia, Korea (Joseon) and Italy (!)

The Ottoman are fourth (with Egypt and Abyssinia) and France (with Taiping and Morocco) behind.

However, despite having vassalized the other nations, there has not been much conquest. Most of the nations still control their native territory, and capitulations mostly come from long wars with static frontlines where one side loses too many units to keep fighting, or from peaceful vassalization.

Best Regards,
Martin

Yes it's clearly true the only way I find to reduce a litlle this problem is to forbid vassal states because the accept vassal to easely and in the long run its a clear disadvantage against an human player:(; and to increase a lot the culture points city has to have to change their culture level. But the problem when you forbid vassal state you loose a great part of roleplay :mad:.

Armand.

Even without Vassal states there would be a stupid amount of declarations of war on enemies that it makes simply no sense to get involved with.

I think the main problem is that the AI always tries to think on a global level. This works fine for small maps, where it's actually good if the AI launches invasions on other continents and tries to achieve global domination.

However, on a very large map like GEM, the cost of waging intercontinental wars is very high, since transportation is difficult - overseas colonies are hard to defend. The AI seems to lack a desire to conquer a territory with convex borders. It would make much more sense if e.g. China did not involve itself at all in Africa or America, and instead tried to foucs all its efforts on conquering bordering cities in regions like Manchuria, Central Asia or Indochina.

Well, however this is nothing Kai can influence... and nothing the Better AI team will likely change, since it's trying to develop a general AI, and not one specifically tuned to large maps.

Best Regards,
Martin

By the way, I am in 1892 now, and finally it seems that some serios conquest is being done. Britain conquered South Africa and Zululand destroying both civilizations, while China, now second in score, is starting to conquer russian cities along its borders.

Best Regards,
Martin

More feedback on how it plays out:

I'm in 1904 AD now, and tech level is such that quite a number of nations already have apollo program, and the game will most likely be decided by spaceship.

The major power blocs that remain are:

Britain (Australia) followed by CSA (Sioux, USA, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Sweden), China (Japan, Korea, Siam, India, Persia, Italy, Portugal), Russia (France, Prussia, Turkestan, Chile) and Turkey (Egypt, Arabia, Austria, Abyssinia).

Spain, Taiping, Netherlands, Denmark, Sokoto and Morocco remain unaligned as of now. I am trying to get a diplomatic victory, which will however probably be impossible, even with me controlling all of the Americas.

Best Regards,
Martin

Sounds like if the turns are yearly would better reflect the technology advancement.

Sounds like if the turns are yearly would better reflect the technology advancement.

Maybe, but as the Boers (now with 9 cities), it's still taking over 100 turns for a tech.

Well, there is no way to balance science for small nations on this map, Adhesive.

In regular civ (and GEM basically uses the regular civ rules) technological advances are more easily achieved by larger nations, as research time linearly decreases with the amount of science (bulbs) that your nation can produce. This difference on the GEM maps can be very high, since there is a huge variety of civilization sizes in terms of territory, population and economy. Especially on maps with pre-set cities, like this scenario.

Therefore, technological proliferation on these maps is often ensured by the vassal system - otherwise, there would be severe disparities after, say, one hundred turns of play. If you play a larger nation yourself, then the small nations will eventually become vassals to one of the larger nations and get their technology from their masters. The bad thing is - as a human player, you cannot become a larger nation's vassal, since AI players never accept human players for vassals.

I don't really see a solution to the general problem you hint at without changing the way research speed is calculated in the code, which would probably have to be done in the DLL, since it's a rather basic feature of the game. In this case, it really does not matter if the timeframe of the scenario is set in months or years - the general disparity of technological advancement remains.

What would have to be done to achieve greater balance here is that research speed is calculated by applying a logarithm function to the science output somewhere along the way. This would lead to large empires still having a slight edge technologically, but smaller nations still being able to keep up. Then, tech costs would have to be balanced accordingly.

However, this involves quite some work within the code and the xml files, and I doubt that Kai wants to put that much work into this, especially since he wrote that he will move on from developing for civilization in the near future.

Best Regards,
Martin

Where can I download it? I can't find the link here in this thread :(

EDIT: Nevermind, I realized it comes with the Mod.

thanks! did you try out the scenario yet? I haven't got any feedback on this new scenario yet.

Can you attach the link?

1860 scenario is part of the GEM mod, just choose Play a Scenario after loading the GEM mod