American Civil War 2005!

[sourboy]

Here is a C3C scenario based upon a US civil war following the 2004 Presidential Elections. The second straight scandalous elections have caused the US to crumble. It now consists of the remaining USA fighting the Southern (separatist) States (this is a locked war for the duration of the scenario), while western states have formed independent republics of Alaska, California, Montana and Texas.

The decrease in stability in the region due to the fall of the former Super-Power has encouraged Quebec to break away from Canada. This split has isolated the eastern territories of Canada - who have united to form the Maritime Union.

With Mexico, Cuba and several Caribbean & Latin American countries watching closely - North America is up for grabs! (this scenario goes from the first week of 2005 to the last week of 2009, with game turns reflected in weekly increments - 260 turns total)

Map size: 130 x 130
Map is of North America, half of Central America, and the larger Caribbean Isles.

There have only been minor changes to the initial gameplay rules, mostly in terms of resources and buildable units, in an effort to reflect the modern day turmoil that would be associated with such an event.

I would recommend players play the scenario at their most challenging, but yet winnable (even if only occasionally) Civ3 difficultly level. Also, for more drastic differences in gameplay - refer to the following:

Recommended Scenario Civs for Expert (Sid) Players:
Dominican
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Nicaragua

...for Good Civ Players:
Alaska
Cuba
Montana
Quebec

...for Average Civ Players:
California
Maritime Union
Southern States of America
Texas

...and New Civ Players:
Canada
Mexico
USA

This is my first CFC released scenario, and it's actually a basic version of what I want to make. That said, please feel free to inform me of any corrections or changes that you see fit. Ideally, I would like to make a "deluxe" version with new units, more Civs?, a larger map, etc.

Hope this version is enjoyable!

EDIT: The Deluxe version of this scenario can be found here.

 

[Grey Sky]

looks fun, will play after work

 

[damon_lowenberg]

I still think you should have had a Western Canadian Civ, as they would be much more likely than a Maritime nation

 

[damon_lowenberg]

Just downloaded your scenario, and looked at it in the editor, and have these comments:

1)Your map seems kinda messed with regards to Canada. Especially Ontario. The area in the Great Lakes seems way too small and misshapen. It also appears to me that you have Alaska in some of the area that would be the Yukon.

2)Cities. Ottawa is nowhere close to where it should be. I'm guessing you put it there for playability. Given your map, it would be tough to put it anywhere. Also, I've never heard of "Sunset" in Ontario. It seems like its located right at Thunder Bay, which is a much bigger center. It's also kind of weird having Winnipeg and Manitoba as cities. Instead of diving Alberta and Saskatchewan into North and south, you could have Edmonton and Calgary,and Regina and Saskatoon.

Otherwise it looks okay. It might have been better to use a bigger map.

 

[sourboy]

The area in the Great Lakes seems way too small and misshapen. It also appears to me that you have Alaska in some of the area that would be the Yukon.

The Great Lakes have minor significance in the map beyond physical borders. I didn't want to take up tile space that would be more useful to the cities around them (ie - better gameplay). The actual map this Civ map was based on has the longitudes angling up in the corners to accommodate the spherical shape of Earth. I carefully plotted the Alaskan territories (with long term gameplay in mind; ie - culture) to have the borders work reasonably accurate once culture sets in.

Ottawa is nowhere close to where it should be. I'm guessing you put it there for playability.

Cities are renamed to the states/territories they represent, due to the scale of the map. This worked well for the states in the US & Mexico, but not so well with the extremely large territories of Canada. I wanted to get away from the North/South thing as much as possible, and ultimately opted for a big name city/area that one could look at the map and recognize (even if slightly off). In the case of Ottawa, originally I had it named Toronto - since it's far more accurate - but with Ottawa being the nation's capital...well, what else could I do? Gameplay first.

Also, I've never heard of "Sunset" in Ontario. It seems like its located right at Thunder Bay, which is a much bigger center. Instead of dividing Alberta and Saskatchewan into North and south, you could have Edmonton and Calgary,and Regina and Saskatoon.

I found only one map of Canada's Territories that reflected regions within (I was hoping there were counties or something) and found Sunset as a major region for that area. Originally I did have it named as Thunder Bay, as that's what I know it as (I'm just over the border). I didn't want Canada to be defined by cities, while America & Mexico have states, and the small Civs are named by actual country. If others share your sentiment about naming those southern areas by city, I'll change it - so long as it's recognizable by name in game, it's fine by me. This is one issue I figured would come up.

It might have been better to use a bigger map.

This is just a basic version for now, but I wanted to release it for a couple reasons:
1) I want anyone to be able to play it, not just those with fast enough computers. Who wants to wait a few minutes for each turn to load just to have a huge map? Besides that, this scenario plays out drastically differently then each other play, especially if you choose to play as a different Civ. Replayability should be a decent void for single game longevity.

2) I wanted to get feedback on any negative issues, as well as suggestions for improvement. Ideally, I would like to go as far as making new (accurate) units for a "deluxe" version of this scenario, complete with your larger map. At this point it's on the back burner - unless others wish to co-create it with me, as I haven't the time to do it solo right now.

3) It's a good scenario the way it is, and I was excited to post my first release.

 

[Al Zan]

Good Job!
But you need to put some Mine and Irrgation in the map.

 

[Sarevok]

Interesting... I may take a look at this...

 

[sourboy]

Good Job!
But you need to put some Mine and Irrgation in the map.

I wanted to do just that, along with some airbases/radar towers. The problem is that I can't find info on such locations outside the USA. Mexico in particular, doesn't have this info readily available (I had to guess on some resource placement) - and of course Central America & the Caribbean are pretty unknown. I figured it best for gameplay to allow the user to choose their own path in these parts. For the same reason, there are no pre-built power plants or workers at the game's start. That allows the player to drastically alter the game by their early decisions.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Just place mines and irrigation according to population and relative industrial strength of the country. Gameplay first

 

[Mobilize]

It's a nice scenario but dislike the names of cities.. also the ammount of cities. The leadernames are kind of corny as well. I would put first and last names rather than first names.. and if you can't find a possible leader of a country.. just make up one corresponding to the language of the country.

Also, I think there can be a whole lot more units.

This scenario is alright.. and it's only version 1.. I hope this scenario gets a lot better in the future.

 

[sourboy]

It's a nice scenario but dislike the names of cities.. also the ammount of cities.

The game cities are named according to that actual areas name....and amount of cities? more/less? I just filled the map terrain accurately, more or less cities would only work with a larger or smaller landmass.

I would put first and last names rather than first names.. and if you can't find a possible leader of a country.. just make up one corresponding to the language of the country.

I made general names exactly as so, but chose first names to keep leaders generalized - in other words, I didn't want to put "Bush" as the US's leader & imply he would be a leader (or retain leadership) in a scenario that is based upon scandals & conspiracy.

Also, I think there can be a whole lot more units.

I want to make a deluxe map that would include all the above changes, among others. New units is the priority in such an improvement, but for the sake of this release, I want to see how actual gameplay & public interest is.

 

[citizen001]

it's good but could be improved with the addition of balou's modern infantry unit.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

You should put a Manufacturing Plant in Ontario. Up until a couple years ago (and it might still be), Ontario was making more cars than Michigan, while in about the beginning of 2001 Canada was the 4th largest carmaker in the world (behind USA/Japan/Germany). That has slacked off to about 7th or so since then, but Canada still needs a manufacturing plant.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

it's a great scenario and i do like the gameplay.
i played as the mexicans....

for some reason i couldnt finish it because it kept quitting at the end...

 

[RowAndLive]

Facinating idea for a scenario. I'd try it, but no C3C, so it'll have to wait.

 

[Syrith]

Sourboy, I just played this one out, and it's a lot of fun. I'd love to see one with a more diverse tech tree, or better yet, a greater variety of units ("angry mobs" would be a lot of fun, given the chaos of the election!).

Also, the otehr consequence of a fractured situation like this, I think, would be a lot of civil disorder for a little while. You may want to encourage that somehow, as well. Overall, a lot of fun - thanks!

 

[waitingtoderail]

Great scenario! Not slow at all! I played as California, I almost immedately attacked Montana and had to go through 2 peace treaties before destroying them, then I went after Texas and rolled over them, Alaska, Guatemala, and Honduras, but lost Guatemala and Honduras to the Nicaraguans - I also got one city from the South, but the Americans were just finishing up destroying them. Then I was in an alliance with Canada, the US attacked, so I got dragged into that war and lost a bunch of cities. I wound up in second behind the Americans. Fun, and I'm sure I'll play it again!

 

[Gogf]

Have any screenshots?

 

[waitingtoderail]

No, sorry, I'm not even quite sure how to make screenshots!

 

[Warman17]

I'm currently playing as the Americans, week 16 2006. The south has fallen as has Texas. The US shall be reunited! Anyway, I was thinking Texas may be a little weak at the start. When I attacked them they had 4 cities and 3 riflemen. I know I dragged them into war against the south, but maybe giving them some infantry at the start would help.