General

It is the year of 1894. England rules the World. Other Great Powers are ready to fight for their future.
German Empire has the best industry in the world, but USA, Russia and China have a huge territory
and a lot of resources. AGE OF WARS HAS COME ...
To change the human player you have to go to scenario editor and in Player properties select another human player.
The most interesting game (most difficult) will be if you will play for Germany or Japan.

Map

I created this scenario using Earth [Real] map. Size 256x256

Units

There are a lot of new units and some new resources, see Info file for details.

All sea units have their movement rate doubled.

New Concepts

I have made some interesting changes to units and resources see Info file for details.

Download of XX Century: Age of Wars

http://www.geocities.com/aeroprinz/Civ3/index.html

Version 1.4 changes
- 2 new Goverments added
- Starting gold for all civ incresed
- All graphics for the scenario separated to AeroGraphicPack 1.0
- 5 starting versions for Germany, England, Japan, USA and Russia created

***
Version 1.3 changes
- 35 new untis
- new concept of "National Engineering"
- new resources: Industry and Engineering
- new concept of "Mechanical Units"
- new Units of WW1 period
- new Units of WW2 period
- correction to city names spelling
- standard resources redistributed
- a lot of minor changes for balancing the game

Version 1.2 changes
- 22 Civilizations
- Changes in Cities
- More military units for some coutries
- Month time scale
- Reseach are much slower
- AI is tent to be more aggresive to each other

There is a proposal in place that has been sent to Firaxis and Atari. Suggestion is for them to include a CD called Best of the Net with Civilization III: Conquests to be released later this year.

Vote for the project!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1014460

I like this scenario.It seems to be a mix of the 1850-1900 scenario and Now.When PTW comes out,you can add civs to South America (and diplomacy).There are some little problems such as Hawaii not being occupied by the U.S and there are no U.S Cavalry forces.

Thank you for response. In the next version Hawaii will be occupied by the U.S.

I was thinking,since Belgium has no territories and only one city,maybe it should be added to Holland.Turkey should be named Ottoman Empire.:D

Belgium has a colony in Africa, and most important is Belgium role in first World War, that is why I created Belgium as a separate state.

I forgot Belgium was in WW1!:crazyeye:

I fail to locate the map you used anywhere on the forum, could you please post a link?

Regards,
Fredrik

im gonna play the scenario. i will pick up on some points. have u played the 1850-1900 scenario? if not i will send the new version to u that no one else can get ddue to my scenario making reasons.

Originally posted by heliobagalus
I fail to locate the map you used anywhere on the forum, could you please post a link?

Regards,
Fredrik

I do not remeber where I have downloaded this map, but I can sent it to you if you will give me your e-mail

Originally posted by _Impreza_
im gonna play the scenario. i will pick up on some points. have u played the 1850-1900 scenario? if not i will send the new version to u that no one else can get ddue to my scenario making reasons.

I have not play the 1850-1900 scenario, but it would be interesting to see it.

I dunno. it is more historical acurate. i dont think u made a good decision at all putting belgium in. the map is curved and its a flat map. no point. The Belgium army is to contend with Britains land army? na. its just not practical.

If you took out Belgium (unless you really want the WW1 thing:king: )then you could put a civ that would be more practical,Brazil,Argentina,Mexico.

I want the posibility of real events in WW1

Well. Belgium was only a bttleground. ofcourse it was the reason why Britain joined in, but it would have anyway. i would add Brazil. Add colonies of rubber and let them export them to europe for the world war then.

I am thinking about it

Oh yeah, u got the colonies wrong in south america. There are 3 colonies at the north facing tip of south america which is east. There should be a spanish one then British and then French i think. Oh yeah something bugs me about the map, too many plains and you make it seem like its curved when its a flat map.

Originally posted by _Impreza_
Oh yeah, u got the colonies wrong in south america. There are 3 colonies at the north facing tip of south america which is east. There should be a spanish one then British and then French i think. Oh yeah something bugs me about the map, too many plains and you make it seem like its curved when its a flat map.

I have the map of the 1895-1900 on which colonies located as shown in my scenario, if you have other information can you provide the sources?

I think Mexico would be a better representative of Middle America then the current Latin America civ.Just delete the central american cities and keep the mexican ones.

yes i have better information. you got it wrong. there is a french, British and Spanish colony lined up next to eachother.

Whilst doing 1850-1900 i used a great website with the best map for empires which is www.britishempire.co.uk

Originally posted by Azale
I think Mexico would be a better representative of Middle America then the current Latin America civ.Just delete the central american cities and keep the mexican ones.

If I will leave so much space unsettled, all states will try to settle this land instead fighting each other.

Originally posted by _Impreza_
yes i have better information. you got it wrong. there is a french, British and Spanish colony lined up next to eachother.

Whilst doing 1850-1900 i used a great website with the best map for empires which is www.britishempire.co.uk

Thanks, I will see it!

no probs man, oh u gonna try to make this scenario realistic cos i can help you if u want

Thnaks one more time!

Note: Central America (except Mexico) should belong to the U.S. it´s a historical fact that US. literally owned majority of C.A.´s governments around 1900.

Sorry, but as I know US goverment owned C.A.´s governments in period 1900-1910, so I think this must be the first task of American player. If you have othwer data, can you provide the sources?

Great Scenario, but...
1. You need rubber and ivory in the Congo, specifically the Belgian chunk. King Leopold of Belgium took the area for the ivory, and since no other nation wanted it he got it. Later, when the uses of rubber were discovered, he used slave labor to make a fortune off it.
2. You need oil and rubber in the Dutch East Indies, and preferably some spices there too. The region was famous and strategically important for it, otherwise you simply have some cities halfway around the world.
3. The cities of Lar, Bushur, Isfahan, Resht, Meshed, Teheran, and Kabul should not be part of the Ottoman Empire. All are Persian cities. Persia deserves several oil fields (anyone ever hear of Anglo-American Petroleum back in the 50s?). Kabul was part of Afghanistan, but would do fine as part of Persia.
4.Addis Ababa is the capitol of Ethiopia, which was never a European colony, much less a British one.
Sorry, but I'm simply a nitpicker

Originally posted by Audax Legatus
Great Scenario, but...
1. You need rubber and ivory in the Congo, specifically the Belgian chunk. King Leopold of Belgium took the area for the ivory, and since no other nation wanted it he got it. Later, when the uses of rubber were discovered, he used slave labor to make a fortune off it.

I agree.

Originally posted by Audax Legatus

2. You need oil and rubber in the Dutch East Indies, and preferably some spices there too. The region was famous and strategically important for it, otherwise you simply have some cities halfway around the world.


I also agree.

Originally posted by Audax Legatus

3. The cities of Lar, Bushur, Isfahan, Resht, Meshed, Teheran, and Kabul should not be part of the Ottoman Empire. All are Persian cities. Persia deserves several oil fields (anyone ever hear of Anglo-American Petroleum back in the 50s?). Kabul was part of Afghanistan, but would do fine as part of Persia.
4.Addis Ababa is the capitol of Ethiopia, which was never a European colony, much less a British one.


There are no more slots for the Pesrians, and from the existing nations, Persians were close to Turks.

The same thing with Addis Ababa, exept I made it British, because of British help in 1942, when they both fight against Italians.

Anyway, thanks for toyr comments.

PTW will have up to 24 civ slots that are already made up. Then you can put most of those civ nitpickers to rest (for a little bit anyway).

That will be great!

Yeah, it almost makes up for no diplomacy.:(

Originally posted by Azale
PTW will have up to 24 civ slots that are already made up. Then you can put most of those civ nitpickers to rest (for a little bit anyway).

In PTW you can actually have upto 31 civs in a game! So this should provide opportunity to make much more realistic scenarios - and put some of those mad 2GHz CPUs to work!

But when we will see PTW?

Originally posted by _Impreza_
yes i have better information. you got it wrong. there is a french, British and Spanish colony lined up next to eachother.

Whilst doing 1850-1900 i used a great website with the best map for empires which is www.britishempire.co.uk

While scanning through this thread for putting it into the Scenario File Library, I came across this. Very amusing.

Just to clarify, the countries now known as Guyana and Suriname, and what is still known as French Guinea, were in the 1890-1900 period known as British Guiana, Dutch Guiana, and French Guiana, respectively going from West to East. These were located north of Brazil, and British Guiana bordered Venezuela on the west. There were no Spanish colonies in South America at this time, and the only Spanish colonies in the Americas around this time period were Cuba (till 1898) and Puerto Rico (till 1898).

Also wanted to point out that Belize was still a British Colony during this time period as well. (known more formally as British Honduras)

I am working on correting this scenario, so I hope all historical mistakes will be corrected

I'm looking forward to your updated scenario, if you need any assistance just let me know.

I tend to agree with the consensus about one thing though, and that's that Persia should be separate from the Ottoman Empire.

And, I don't have a bias toward one specific country. :) (even though I'm from the USA, I think too many Americans are fooled by the Americanized textbooks and reading material over here, and have a bad view of the rest of the world and its importance over the years. Other countries tend to have the same problem, everything is biased toward their own country in textbooks and other reading material.)

Thanks, if I will heen any assistance, I will let you know.

America needs an attack army (cavalry,artillery,more ships)

Make a seperate weak nation for Central America.

Make Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and maybe even Chile seperate.

Just a few suggestions.:D

Thanks for suggestions

America's army in 1890 was tiny. Its navy was almost non-existant. I don't support giving America much armed forces for this time period, but they should have the potential to build a huge force.

In this scenario american army is not so big.

The problem is, America has NO cavalry or artillery. I know it was tiny, but that tiny? Belgium has a bigger army than America.:eek:

As far as I know american army that time had about 75000 soldiers and officers, in the same time Belgium had about 100,000 in army and additional 100,000 in reserve.

If you can point me on some other numbers, can you give the appropriate links?

My mistake.:o

But America should still have a few cavalry and artillery units.

Ok, let it be

Thank you:goodjob:

Now, about the Phillippines. Where they spanish around 1900?

Phillippines were Spanish till 1898.

I believe the Americans had even less than 75,000 army troops around 1890. I know in 1860 the army was about 16,000.

Do you know any official sources?

Well the American forces in 1917 were about 110,000. That figure is given in the WWI book I'm reading. National Guard was at that time 134,000. Navy 2nd largest in the world.

Though, most of the US navy was built after 1898.

I'd put the American Army in 1890 probably between 30,000 and 40,000. In 1917 it was the 17th largest in the world LOL. :D

How many countries were there at that time, 18? Looks like the U.S just beat out Ethiopia.:lol:

Originally posted by Procifica
Well the American forces in 1917 were about 110,000. That figure is given in the WWI book I'm reading. National Guard was at that time 134,000. Navy 2nd largest in the world.

Though, most of the US navy was built after 1898.

I'd put the American Army in 1890 probably between 30,000 and 40,000. In 1917 it was the 17th largest in the world LOL. :D

My data is almost the same.

I have created a new versiuon of this scenario, but it is too big for attachment on this forum ...

What about the upload server?

Is there still a version of this for "vanilla" Civ 3?

Yes there is, but I do not have it in forum, I can mail it to you if you wish... just ask.

I wish :D
Are there any other files I will need or anything?

No other files ... What is your e-mail?

Originally posted by Azale
How many countries were there at that time, 18? Looks like the U.S just beat out Ethiopia.:lol:

LOL

Even Ethiopia might have had a larger army...can't forget their "spearmen". :p

Well, atleast we know our army was larger than Mexico's at the time.;)

Much larger ...

The reason the US's army was so small at the time was because it was as large as it had to be to serve its purpose: Protect US borders, there was no immediate threat from Canada or Mexico, and we really were protected by the oceans back then. It was reasonably far down the list in military SIZE (not quality or potential) until WWII.

AeroPrinz:
my email is: jamesjkirk@aol.com

I agree.
Scenario sent ...

its nice to see that someone else knows their history. :D

Originally posted by jamesjkirk
The reason the US's army was so small at the time was because it was as large as it had to be to serve its purpose: Protect US borders, there was no immediate threat from Canada or Mexico, and we really were protected by the oceans back then. It was reasonably far down the list in military SIZE (not quality or potential) until WWII.

AeroPrinz:
my email is: jamesjkirk@aol.com

Actually, during WWI 4 million American troops were mobilized, which in effect made the United States Army the 4th largest army in the world by 1918 (after Germany, France, and United Kingdom respectively). Russia would be #1 on that list except for their massively heavy losses and then after Lenin took control the old army pretty much was dissolved.

We are starting long before WWI...

Meanwhile, Procifica, are you really from Washington State, that is on the Pacific coast?

I know that. It was in reference to the last line of his post that I quoted. :)

I realized that I was wrong when I wrote it, I didn't mention it because I was lazy and that was just a tiny blip of a few years and then the military was scaled way back again

Originally posted by jamesjkirk
I realized that I was wrong when I wrote it, I didn't mention it because I was lazy and that was just a tiny blip of a few years and then the military was scaled way back again

No problems

Originally posted by Procifica
I know that. It was in reference to the last line of his post that I quoted. :)

Sometimes people are not really correct in things they write in the last line of the reference.
I am just wondering becouse I have been in the Washington and I like it very much.

Please advise what file you extraxt the areographicpack ver 1.0 for the XX century scenarioto?

What map did you use for the scenario, AeroPrinz, and how big is it?

What atlas are you using for your city names?

I've found so many errors in names. You should also put Eureka as the city above San Fransisco. Oh boy.. it took me hours to correct all the city name typos. Solt Lake City, Thsloniki, Cartahena?

Why i can't download the 1.4 PTW version ?
I can download th graphic pack ...

Please answer me AeroPrinz :egypt:

I :love: this scenario

Eureka, is teeny-tiny, the map's so small that it shouldn't be on there at all

Well either that or Weed or Redding. Something there.

I've seen some people put Sacremento in that area but that would be unrealistic since Sacremento isn't too much north of San Fransisco and is more to the east.

I know what I'm talking about.. I live near Oakland/SFO/San Jose/etc

I live in Sacramento, so I'm no stranger to the area either :) Sacramento is somewhat north of San Francisco, but is definitely more to the east. I probably wouldn't bother to put it in a scenario on this size map. Only LA, San Fran and San Diego are impt enough on a global scale

That's true, but I dislike having blank areas.

Caliban - I've played your version and I don't know if you are still working on this, but...

-There aren't nearly enough resources on the map. I played as Germany and not only did I not have access to Iron or Horses, there were no countries in the world with a surplus of those. The only Iron in europe belongs to Scandinavia.

-Cultural conversions should be off, they don't jive well with the close confines of Europe.

-Players need more money at start to establish embassies.

Otherwise it's a fun scenario, right now I'm on my way to conquer Iceland, then it's off to the Dutch East Indies.

Thank you for yuor comment. I am working on a new version since the begining of May, but have no time to finish it. In that version I remade the distribution of resources ...

I do not think that Cultural conversions should be off, because strong european contries should convert smaller contries.

That might be accurate for the balkans but not for countries like Belgium and Netherlands. It was the invasion of Belgium that provoked Britian to enter world war I, so I think the cultural annexation of Belgium without declaration of war is not accurate.

Also, during that time period, if a small piece of territory was captured, there was no way it would be allowed to go back to the other country (i.e. Alsace - Lorraine).

Also I hope you are making some changes to the cities. The main problem is that some don't match the time period. For example Anchorage wasn't even founded until 1915. I don't think Prince Rupert, Fairbanks, or Whales were around either. The populations are too high in almost all continents (except Europe). Even in Europe a few cities (like Christiana) are too big.
If you want a good site for population statistics during various time periods go here:
http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/populhome.html

As for the resources I would recommend removing horses and iron entirely as they were very common by 1890. I can see if you want to keep iron but definately remove horses.

I think you should make riflemen have equal attack to defence. The only reason they would be better on defence would be because of fortification or terrain, and both of those already give them a defensive bonus.

China should NOT have samurai. Japan should not have cossacks and I doubt they had much cavalry either. I don't know if you or Caliban put those in, but I will complain about it anyway. :D

You need a neutral civ, for Mongolia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and other unaffiliated countries. Maybe rename "South America" to
neutrals and include those.

Mexico be independant. This is just coming off the liberation of Mexico after it was conquered by the French, so it would add flavour to have an independant Mexico.

It would actually be ideal if you had more interesting division in South America. This was a short while after the Bolivar wars and the subsequent breakup of Colombia. There were lots of wars and such in the time period so it doesn't make sense to have them in the same civ.

Chile was at war with Peru and Bolivia until 1884. (Chile won)
Colombia owned Panama but lost Venezuela and Ecuador in 1830 (hostile breakup)
The Brazilian emperor went into exile in 1889. Brazil had won a war with Argentina and Uruguay against Paraguay in 1870.

Ideally these would be the civs:
Chile
Peru + Bolivia
Colombia
Venezuela + Ecuador
Brazil + Argentina + Uruguay

But that is too many so I would divide according to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Venezuela + Ecuador + Peru + Bolivia
Chile + Colombia + Brazil + Argentina + Uruguay
I would join central America with Mexico or the Colombia team (probably Mexico)



Put more jungle in South America, right now the Amazon looks a little sparse.

Put in the Caribbean islands like Trinidad, Martinique, etc. They were all relatively valuable colonies.

Also be careful with Africa, many of those cities may not have been founded yet or be much smaller. I would put more focus on South Africa due to the Boer war. You could put the Boers with Germany but that would cause a war, which isn't accurate, so you might want to make them rebels or something.

Anway enough rambling for now. Don't take this the wrong way, the more I want to play a scenario the more I will critisize it.

I hope you release the new version soon!

Something that I have just noticed (don't know if this has already been mentioned by somebody else as I don't have time to check) Moscow is already the Russian capital - St. Petersburg was until the Bolshevik revolution. And howcome you have renamed barbarians as Communist State? :rolleyes: Good scenario though (I am attempting to create a greater German Reich in Europe). :eek:

EDIT: Why is there plains in Northern Canada/Alaska/Siberia where there should be Tundra?

Originally posted by Yurt
...
If you want a good site for population statistics during various time periods go here:
http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/populhome.html
...
[/B]

Thanks, I will study this link. Sorry, that I can not answer your other sugesstions right now, but I have to work even on weekends.

Originally posted by Phoenix
Something that I have just noticed (don't know if this has already been mentioned by somebody else as I don't have time to check) Moscow is already the Russian capital - St. Petersburg was until the Bolshevik revolution. And howcome you have renamed barbarians as Communist State? :rolleyes: Good scenario though (I am attempting to create a greater German Reich in Europe). :eek:

EDIT: Why is there plains in Northern Canada/Alaska/Siberia where there should be Tundra?

Moscow was russian capital until the Peter the First moved it to Petersburg, in attempt to create another London. But for the most of russians Moscow was still the capital of the Empire, and Petersburg was just a city filled with foreigners. In 1917 Lenin moved the capital back to Moscow. Even when Petersburg was a capital, Moscow was second capital, in time of Napoleon invasion, capturing Moscow French army waited for peace proposal ...

Oh I didn't know that. I have also noticed that you seem to have mispelled Fascism - you spelt it as Fashism.

Ok, thanks for correction.