Modern Northeast Asia (ROK, DPRK, USA, Taiwan and PRC) playtest ready!


Jun 24, 2006
State of Denial

New map and version are at the bottom.

BETA version deleted after 62 downloads.

I've been working on this one for a long time and it's finally ready to go. I've got most of the bugs out and it won't crash. Tons of new units, new governments, new tech tree and a chance to settle the score in regards to the Taiwan-PRC and DPRK-ROK situation. The US, Taiwan and ROK are in locked alliance, as are the PRC and DPRK. I know some of you Japanophiles are going to kill me for leaving out Japan, I did include them at first, which is the reason for all the empty ocean in the west and they added nothing to the game. They simply stayed on their island and built stuff. So in the interest of game play they have been left out. Only Okinawa remains for the US. Anyway the action should be good. I left the debug mode on the map, for now, so playtesters could look around (also I forgot about it). If you want to turn it off and don't know how, just send me a message and I'll explain it. Please give it a go and let me hear your feedback.

Version 1:
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks good. I'm going to download now and see if I can get through it tonight. About Japan. As much as I love them, if they didn't do anything I think you made the right decision. Keep up the good work.
IF you gave Japan a city in korea they could probaly add something to the gaem.
Hmmm a city, I don't want to cut into the ROK. I know what you mean though, the map seems pretty naked and it only makes sense that they would be involved. However, play testing made them pretty useless, the worst part was that I made a tech tree (you can see the remnants at the bottom) and special units (which you can see in the civlopedia. It was heartbreaking for me too!
If anyone wants to try it with Japan really bad, I can put in the map file that includes them. Oh excuse the profanity for the "death of Kim Jong Il" tech. I should have fixed that, but I forgot. I was using this naughty word to mark which tech was which in the script. So if anyone is offended, don't worry it will be fixed in version two.
be happy that people d/l it (I didnt, sorry to busy modding, I rarely play anything but EFZI2)...My Mod MWNN has has almost 300 dls and not one comment...just keep with it...make it as good as you can...people are playing it...
i havent had a chance to download it and play it yet, but from what i understand, give japan to the USA and rename USA NATO/UN and give it some new units
That's a good idea, but it might unbalance the gameplay a bit. Give it a go and see what you think. I still let the US have Kadena on Okinawa. Anyway I"m anxious to hear your (or anybody's for the that matter) feedback.
I'm downloading now and will give it a try today.

Re: Japan. I'm sure there has been plenty of discussion throughout the forums on their military capacity, however, they are mostly a defensive force and not really offensive in nature, though they definitely have the capability to be so. They were pretty much slammed during Desert Shield/Desert Storm because they didn't commit troops, but they did give a lot of money and electronics stuff at the time...I had a nice Sony at the place I stayed in Escan Village at the time. But I also saw them enough times in exercises while I was stationed at Andersen AFB on Guam so I know they at least deploy beyond their own borders. I would recommend to definitely add them while setting up a few US airbases any Korean, or other regional conflict, the US would throw substantial air power at the adversary in hopes of buying time until ground units/troops could be deployed or supporting the ones already there, so these bases would be invaluable as Kadena and Andersen are realistically to the region. While I wouldn't expect them to invade as AI, it would still be fun to play as the Japanese in a what-if thing as it should add them back in I think. I'll report back later after a few turns...
Ok...played half a dozen turns or more and here is a few things. Some are simple and some not so. I assume this is a work in progress so some you may already know about. Nice scenario that has great potential, by the way...

1. Shanghai doesn't have enough food to support population. I didn't check all the cities, but something to look at.

2. The Patriot system is a researched tech not yet discovered (American Tech 3), yet you have some placed in the US cities...was that just for testing purposes? And why have it that way when they have been in service for a long time already?

3. Stats for aircraft need to be looked at much closer. Particularly range issues...B-52 only 20 compared to A-10 of 12? A-10, F-16 and F/A-18 all have similar real combat radius of about 300nm...B-52 is significantly more!

4. Same thing with bombing stats...not nearly high enough even compared to the low values you have for other units. Mig19's and 21's shouldn't have anywhere near the capability of F-15 or 16. A-10's were virtually useless with an 8 and were shot down ridiculously too much. You should have seen the one that came back from a real mission and landed at King Fahd Airbase in'd be amazed that the thing still even flew. Which brings me to...

5. I suggest to remove AA capability from all ground units except AA guns and SAMs. I lost half the air force attacking ground units in the open from AA fire when there were no AA units in the stack. The AI isn't developed enough for the concept, but no military commander in his right mind would ever send armed units in harms way without proper support and I don't think this is the proper way to overcome that though it does make it difficult against the AI. T-55 is 5 and M1A2 is 4 but i wasn't attacked at all by any aircraft.

5. China needs much more military power so I assume that you plan to add more but didn't yet?

6. Make static defensive and arty units on both sides of the DMZ. Both Koreas abandoned their fortresses in the first turn...RoK left the mobile arty units unattended and they have no defense value. And make it very hard to penetrate either side. It won't be a cakewalk to get through in any real war there. Very difficult absolutely, but not impossible...

7. Add US Andersen AFB on Guam, either city or airbase and relocate Okinawa on a smaller island more north-east of Taiwan. Definitely put Japan back in.

I played the previous attempt at this scenario made by csa945. It was ok but nothing really new and way way too many cities. I like this map much better but it would be nice to find something in between both sizes and then add some of the watercolor features and implement some other ideas. Great potential here as I said at the outset and I hope you stick with it!
Well i asked for some feedback and I got alot! I agree with alot of what you said, the SAMs are way too good and there is no way to toughen up an aircraft. I think the emplacements of the DMZ are a great idea and I'll implement that. I don't want to put Japan back in, I had them and they were a total non-factor. Too big, but didn't do anything. As far as China goes, I don't want to give them too much, I want the game to have some time to build. Their relatively large territory gives them an advantage. I think you're right about the AD units, I'll go ahead and change that too. Overall some solid advice, that I'll be sure to put into practice!
I live in Taiwan, and our cities are all spelled wrong in this map. Not sure where you got the names from, but they're outdated.

Taipei 台北 is correct (Mainland Pinyin=Taibei)
Taichung 台中 is correct (Mainland Pinyin=Taizhong)
Talnun??? Looks like it is supposed to be 'Tainan' 台南 (Mainland Pinyin=same)
HengChung??? From the placement it should be 'Kaosiung' 高雄 (Mainland Pinyin= GaoXiong)
Taltung??? Should be 'Taitung' 台東 (Mainland Pinyin=Taidong)
Suao??? Should probably be 'Hua-Lien' 花蓮 (Mainland Pinyin=HuaLian)

'Mainland Pinyin' is shown for foreigner learners of Chinese who are likely only familiar with HanYu PinYin, but do not reflect the names of our cities in Taiwan.
Thanks for your corrections Shane. I'm not very familiar with Taiwan, although I'm a very big supporter of recognition of Taiwanese independence. I will make the corrections, plus the corrections above. I thank you for taking the time to look at the scenario and please continue to give me any advice you can about Taiwan. If you think my tech tree is stupid or something like that, let me know. I want to make it as authentic as possible.
I didn't play enough turns, but isn't Taiwan basically the same as Japan in the scenario as far as involvement? Would you really expect either to launch an invasion against mainland China or Korea anyway? Maybe if you put some Victory Point locations or added the Russian Federation with a land bridge to Japan (unrealistic, yes, but work with what you have) it might help...but I certainly think you should add Japan back, if anything, for the additional air bases for the US. Station some Japanese troops and an airbase in Rok as an experiment to see if that gets them more involved. I guess all that depends on how complex you want to make your scenario and I would suggest making it complex. Unless the two Korea's make it a local fight (pretty much a daily thing along the DMZ), it would become very complex very quick in the real world if either truly invaded the other. I think Russia would be a little concerned if two bordering nations were involved in a major war, don't you? Further, if it is made as a multi-player or PBEM scenario, Japan and Russia would almost have to be part of the deal. Your scenario, but I'm just throwing ideas and suggestions to you...

Regarding the aircraft...

Maybe make 2 versions of the F-15, the C/D model for air defense and the E model for strike. Add F-22, F-35, B-1 and B-2...maybe ditch the A-10's and B-52's or make them un-buildable beyond what you already set initially. Make the F-14, F/A-18 and maybe a naval version of F-35 on carriers. Somewhere in the scenario forums I read about the ability to make these as carrier-based only aircraft...IIRC it had something to do with giving them the cruise missle tag and making the carrier only capable of carrying those...something like that anyway.

I'd ditch the Mig's for China...they use their own versions of these model types for the most part...the F and J series'. Add the SU-27/30. Alone, the PLAAF has 250,000 personnel and 2300+ combat aircraft (according to Wikipedia) making them the 3rd largest in the world. Additionally, they have new aircraft under development including some versions of stealth fighters and the H-8 stealth bomber. DPRK AF has Chinese F-5's and F-6's, Mig-21's, 23's and 29's along with SU-25's (again, Wikipedia). A little research of each aircraft and weapon can give you an idea of capability versus another. For example, the F-14 can carry the Phoenix missile with a range of 100nm while the Mig-23 carries the R23/24 with 23 and 31nm respectively. Given that, the offensive capability of the F-14 should be higher.

You can "toughen" up the A-10 or other a/c by just giving them higher defensive values. It is/was specifically used for CAS missions so you don't want to give it much in the way of offense, but definitely high defensive and bombing capability. The main seven-barreled GAU-8 fires 30mm depleted uranium projectiles at 4000 rounds per minute traveling about 3500 feet per would pretty much ruin anyone's whole day. As I said, it's effective combat range fully loaded is about 325nm (give or take)...from Pusan to Ch'osan along the Yalu River is about 450 statute miles so that should give a good basis for other a/c range values.

Need some help? Email or PM me!
Again more good advice, but and I'll try to respond to everything, there are a few things that I don't think I'll be able or want to do. As far as the aircraft, I'm with you on the fact that there are more aircraft than I have in the scenario, however, how much is too much? I think variety is great and I'm an aircraft nut, but how much more utility would a F/A-18 and a F-35 have, if I'm already bringing F-15, F-16 and the F-22 out. It's kind of a stretch having the F-16 when I already have the F-15. I know in real life they have different roles and both have a niche in the USAF but this isn't real life and it's hard to make CIV III bend the realities of modern warfare (that's why I don't have AWACS or the A-50 Mainstay). The F-14 is no longer in service with the USN and the gross majority of Chinese aircraft are older russian aircraft or close chinese copeis (F-6=MiG-19, F-7=MiG-21, Tu-16=B-6, J-11=Su-27). Although China has a limited number of 4th generation aircraft it's still heavily dependent on obsolete airframes. Russia is a good idea and I had them in the game, but there isn't much they could do, really. I can only include a few Siberian cities and they wouldn't do them much good, they'd be too weak and it wouldn't be realistic. As far as toughening up aircraft, I'm not sure increasing defensive value does anything to counteract them being shot down. The air combat system is a bit of a mystery to me, if you have a link to where someone explains it in detail or if you have alot of experience with it, let me know. I'm against putting in Japan, I'm very aware of their key regional role, but they tend to just get in the way. They declare war, but they don't do anything about it.
I know this sounds kinda horsehockey since I'm shooting alot of stuff down, but I took many of your suggestions, before you sent this message and after I'm done writing it, I've been reworking things, fixing combat radius and bombardmet values, I've scaled it so it makes more sense, I've taken away the air defense from non-SAM/AAA units and I'll play it to make sure it doesn't unbalance the game. The next thing I'm going to do is make emplacements accross the DMZ to prevent the silly AI from abandoning it at the beginning. So that's what I'm probably going to put out for the next version, which I'll cough out this weekend, maybe tonight.
Oh about the patriot thing, I added America tech 3 last, so I forgot to give it to the US! So I fixed that blunder too.
I like your ideas so keep em coming, I'm very intersted in hearing some more keen observations! If you want to talk to me on the IM sometime I have both MSN and Yahoo and will PM you my email so you can find me.

On a personal note, I'm guessing you're a Gulf War veteran and maybe a retiree in the Philipines. Thank you for your past service (if this is true), I'm in the Air Force currently myself.
Thank you and yes I am retired USAF living in the Philippines and also a Gulf War I vet. Served from 1984 to 2005 working initially as an Electronic Warfare Systems Specialist then cross training after that war into Biomedical Equipment Repair and working the last 2/3rds of my career in cushy medical facilities and also a 6-year stint as an advanced courses instructor. I have seen and done and experienced many things that most will never have the opportunity to do or see and don't regret my service for one minute, though sometimes not too keen on the politicians that get my fellow service members involved in things we don't need to be....another story that belongs on a different thread. I have been lurking on this site for years but just never made an account until recently and I still like Civ3 mostly because the editor.

Regardless of all that, I agree with what you say about the aircraft and they are mostly created for the human user rather than the AI anyway. Let's face it, why bother to make any new units or techs except for that reason? The AI would not likely build most of the units or use all of what is available beyond what is initially set. And speaking of the AI, most of the time they don't do anything useful in any kind of pact or alliance anyway which is why I normally disable locked alliances and don't make any others in any scenario I play. Most of anything you add would be a stretch so as I said, it is your scenario to decide how complex and involved to make.

If you want simple, then scrap the whole tech tree thing and just focus on the buildup and eventual war in the region. You can add complexity by throwing in Russia and Japan, making tons of new units (or copying those already done from others), new technologies, a whole new map with 100+ cities total, blah, blah, just depends how much time you want to spend on it and/or how playable you want the experience to be for the human player. As far as shooting my suggestions down, don't even think twice about it! You are the one doing all the work and I just play and report what I see and think. If you don't agree then you don't agree...I just thought it would be cool to have something like TCW-type detail and complexity but your time to devote to that is always the factor as final determination...
The TCW was a very detailed and intricate scenario, but I found it a bit overwhelming and with so many nations and units I think the gameplay suffered a bit. I want to make this detailed, but playable enough so that the wait time between turns doesn't become soul crushing and that the player can keep up with what is going on without having a stroke. I've implemented many of your recommendations and will have a new version ready for test play, later tonight, probably.
Top Bottom