SCENARIO: "The Cold War - 1961 AD" for C3C

This is my 2nd scenario:

FILE: The Cold War - 1961 AD

Because I think that a 260x160 world map like in the first scenario is still pretty large, considering the initialization time for the scenario, I've taken a 200x180 map only.

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

March of 1961 A.D.:
The Northern Hemisphere is devided in two blocks. Capitalistic Democracy and Stalinistic Communism have started an apocalyptic arms race. Heavily equipped with nuclear weapons capable of destroying the face of the planet completely, one side is keeping the other in check. But they are walking on thin ice: The slightest crises could drive the world into a nuclear armageddon. Will the leaders of the superpowers be wise and capable enough to avoid such a catastrophy, or will they lose nerves and seal the deadly fate of mankind?

You can play the NATO or the Warsaw Pact to determine the fate of the planet. Play one of the independant nations when you want a challenge, like the Chinese People's Republic, the Indian Union, Spain, Sweden/Finland or the Arab League.

In a locked alliance with the NATO, there is the SEATO and it's allies (consisting of Australia, New Sealand, Japan, and other nations in the Pacific Ocean), and the CENTO alliance (Persia and Pakistane). North Korea/North Vietnam is locked in an alliance with China.


There are two scenario files in the ZIP archive, one is called "The Cold War - 1961 AD", the other "World War III - 1961 AD". Both are identical, except that the West and the East are locked at war with each other already in the second file.

The scenario is based on a 200x180 world map. It takes about 4 minutes to initialize on my 1.8 GHz/512 MB RAM computer, but once it is loaded, the game is very fast. Maybe it is unpleasantly slow on older systems.


The victory conditions diplomacy and culture are disabled. Building settlers is not possible. Africa and Latin America are not populated in order to increase the game speed and in order to concentrate the scenario on the clash of the superpowers. The game starts in March 1961 and ends after 172 turns in November 1989, which is two months per turn. No technologies have been disabled, but it takes longer to research them. The government types Despotism, Feudalism and Democracy don't exist (the Western nations are Republics, because Democracy would have caused too much war weariness). Corruption is set to 30% at the easiest difficulty level, and increases by 10% with every next level.

I hope you'll have fun!

Here's a screenshot of the world map:

What about the third world countries?, they were a key player in the cold war

I've not set cities on South America and Africa in order to increase the loading time.

That they were key players in the Cold War is actually new to me.

But I'm open for suggestions. What would you suggest for the next version of the scenario?

add some city the third world and make the USA and USSA there only civ!

The Third World was vital in the Cold War, it's where hot war through proxies between the powers happened.

Both the SU and US had tens of thousands of troops stationed in Africa at some point, although I'm not sure when and where exactly. Cuba and the SU had troops in south-west Africa, for example, fighting the apartheid South Africans. Not sure if that was in '61, in fact, I doubt it was.

Aid from the two superpowers was vital in retaining their spheres of influence in the Third World. The SU built the Aswan Dam, for example, before the Egyptians took a more pro-Western stance.

add some city the third world and make the USA and USSA there only civ!

Click to expand...

Making the USA and USSR seperate civs would cause a lot of imbalance: It would be nearly impossible playing the West when you couldn't send troups from the US to Europe via Aiports (which was not possible when they were different civs).

And adding civs to the third world is problematical as well. It would not only increase the loading time and waiting time while playing the game a lot, but also create problems:
Because you can't set any diplomatic status in the Civ3 editor besides locked alliance or locked war, there would be a situation where f.e. Mexico allies with the USSR against the US, which was really unrealistic. And the different countried there would begin useless wars aginst each other, which would distract from the actual clash of the two superpowers.

But maybe I should include some special wars between proxies of the two powers.
But that was difficult as well: When I assign these civs to the superpowers, then both are entirely at war the moment the proxies begin fighting. When they are seperate civs in a locked alliance with their dominators, those will join the war immediately because of the alliance. And when they are seperate civs without a locked alliance - nothing will happen.

The diplomatic options in the Civ3 editor are just not suited to contruct wars-through-proxy-situations.


One off-topic remark to Al Zan: It's a pity "Nemesis" did so badly at the cinemas. I hope there will be a next movie with the TNG crew.
May Civ live long and prosper!

You could use mercs with the "Hidden Nationality" flag, to fight wars in the third world by proxy. This would represent USA/USSR funding various insurgents in certain countries.

That sounds interesting. I don't know about it, could you please explain, or provide me a link about it?

Originally posted by SimPathy


Making the USA and USSR seperate civs would cause a lot of imbalance: It would be nearly impossible playing the West when you couldn't send troups from the US to Europe via Aiports (which was not possible when they were different civs).

And adding civs to the third world is problematical as well. It would not only increase the loading time and waiting time while playing the game a lot, but also create problems:
Because you can't set any diplomatic status in the Civ3 editor besides locked alliance or locked war, there would be a situation where f.e. Mexico allies with the USSR against the US, which was really unrealistic. And the different countried there would begin useless wars aginst each other, which would distract from the actual clash of the two superpowers.

But maybe I should include some special wars between proxies of the two powers.
But that was difficult as well: When I assign these civs to the superpowers, then both are entirely at war the moment the proxies begin fighting. When they are seperate civs in a locked alliance with their dominators, those will join the war immediately because of the alliance. And when they are seperate civs without a locked alliance - nothing will happen.

The diplomatic options in the Civ3 editor are just not suited to contruct wars-through-proxy-situations.


One off-topic remark to Al Zan: It's a pity "Nemesis" did so badly at the cinemas. I hope there will be a next movie with the TNG crew.
May Civ live long and prosper!

Click to expand...

lol to the Nemesis remark!
but at some civ to South America and to Africa.
btw why is Spain not part of Nato?

Jabie, do you mean having guerrillas or guerrilla-like units that have the same attribute as privateers?

I wish Civ3 still had partisans...

btw why is Spain not part of Nato?

Click to expand...

That's because Spain was not member of the NATO until 1982, after it had become democratic. Until the middle of the 70s, it was ruled by the fascist government of Francisco Franco and refused to join any military alliance.

Originally posted by SimPathy


That's because Spain was not member of the NATO until 1982, after it had become democratic. Until the middle of the 70s, it was ruled by the fascist government of Francisco Franco and refused to join any military alliance.

Click to expand...

Interesting, that you know that Spain wasn't a Nato member yet you put Yugoslavia in the Warsaw pact even though YU was never a member.... Never ever...

Interesting, that you know that Spain wasn't a Nato member yet you put Yugoslavia in the Warsaw pact even though YU was never a member.... Never ever...

Click to expand...

Interesting that some people don't even bother playing the scenario before they begin complaining about city locations - first, someone complained I have assigned Abyssinia to the Italians in the Imperialism scenario although i have not, and now you say I have assigned Yugoslavia to the Warsaw Pact.

But well, I have not. I just left it out. There IS no Yugoslavia in the scenario, because there was not enough place on the map, so I decided to ignore it.

Initially I had planned to include it in the scenario as a seperate civ (what you can see when you load the scenario in the editor and click on "Edit Civilizations" - I have already configured the civ), but then I thought I'll better let it out because there was no place for Bulgaria and Romania when I didn't.

Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. The reason I didn't play the scenario is it simply doesn't open on my PIII 700MHz 256MB RAM maschine
All I did was look at the snapshot... And I see that Austria & Germany are colored blue, so r Greece and Turkey... Between Austria and Greece it's all red... You could have at least left it neutral, what Yugoslavia was, wasn't it?

It'd be rather amusing to have Albania in the scenario - if I remember correctly, it was a client state of the PRC. Having a city controlled by the Chinese in Europe (preferably with an airport) would certainly liven things up

Also, if you decide to add third world nations (or not, even), remember French Guyana!

you are planning to make a update on this scenario?

Just started playing with the game editor. Trying to create semi-neutral states-ie trading strategic resources with major powers but NOT in a military alliance.

Problem is that its so tempting for a superpower to wipe out these tiny states & take their resources. Want to discourage this. Diplomacy should be the #1 asset of non-aligned states. But their lack of military might makes them laughable negotiators.

Is it possible to make attacking neutral countries equivalent to launching a nuclear attack? Superpowers would think twice about invading bannana republics if it meant neigboring, non-aligned nations would turn against them & bog them down Lillaputian style. Would hopefully prevent the game from evolving into a mere showdown between 2 super civs.

Would also encourage players to use some sort of hidden nationality units when helping a non-aligned strategic ally. Could then give guerillas hidden nationality units & make them slightly more expensive.

I have an observation about wonders. You seem to have given NATO nearly all the wonders and thus a huge advantage. Hell, even the PRC has two wonders. The lack of wonders for the SU makes it fall way behind NATO. To make it more playable you should rename some wonders and give them to the SU. It's ridiculous when London alone has more wonders then all other civs combined.

Originally posted by Gregi
Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. The reason I didn't play the scenario is it simply doesn't open on my PIII 700MHz 256MB RAM maschine
All I did was look at the snapshot... And I see that Austria & Germany are colored blue, so r Greece and Turkey... Between Austria and Greece it's all red... You could have at least left it neutral, what Yugoslavia was, wasn't it?

Click to expand...

FYI, the Scenario takes 5 mins to load on my 2.667 P4 with 512mb Ram, so try loading it again and let your machine sit for an hour, then once its loaded save it right away. The save takes ten secs to load, and BTW, dont touch your comp while its loading, dont surf web pages or anything. When the Scenario starts loading dont tounch anything, get up and walk away, come back in an hour and check it, if its not loaded, then it doesent work. But ill bet you it will work. Theres 1 Scenario out there that takes my comp over 2 hours to load.

If it says Loading, then its Loading.

And also, I like the Idea of the Scenario, Very Nice. I would like to see the rest of the world filled in, like Mexico and africa. Who cares if it takes longer to Load. The Scenario would be that much cooler. I also downloaded your WWII and Age of Imperilism. fill in the rest for this Scenario. PLZ

Im going to play my buddy in this, ill let him be NATO, allthough as Russia im Screwed. In this Scenario Nato can out produce Russia 20-1. I'll still go out with a BANG. lol