Napoleonic Wars II - Global

[The Guardian]

Thanks for making this scenario & making it public, The Guardian!

I'm playing a game as America & have found several issues. Would a report help?

Absolutely Maimonides, we always interested in hearing from members regarding there views, opimions and observations. It can only help us to make the scenario better.

 

[emil rasch]

Just some observations, in the game. Maybe mistakes.

1. When you choose your leader in the start up, they are all called ferdinand. I corrected it, by deleting the names in the editer under scenario properties. . You know they where written two places.
i
2. Some Danish actiully norwegian cities, are called some names I deffenetly dont recegnies,(I am from Denmark). I would call the most northen town in norway for Bodö. And Denmark also had ferao islands, wich was as a whole, bigger and a little bit more important, than the smallest of the 4 cities on Greenland .

3. If you want to call sleswig the danish name (dont know if there is a english name) and not the german name it is called. Slesvig but actiully aalso holsten in german: holstein, was as much omportant as slesvig. Both in Germany and in Denmark, the region is called by both names most of the times. At that Time Slesvig Holsten was a principality(translated from google). It was not a part of the danish kingdom, it had its own leaders, wich had a strong connection to Denmark. But the people only had a little more connection to Denmark than Germany at the time. . It had been danish for hundreds of years in the past. On and off.

4. I get a messeage with problem in the pedia icons. when I am about to start turn 2. . When I play as Denmark. (animname : PersianRocketCrew.

A shame be course otherwise it looks like a very very good scenario. . Wich I know there has been used a lot of time on, be course I have tried boulding, some half a big scenario my self .

 

[emil rasch]

SLESVIG: By the way, slesvig was onlye the lower half of whole Jutland, so I called It Slesvig Holsten/Jutland. In my editored/downloaded version of the scenario you have made here. .

 

[The Guardian]

SLESVIG: By the way, slesvig was onlye the lower half of whole Jutland, so I called It Slesvig Holsten/Jutland. In my editored/downloaded version of the scenario you have made here. .

Your welcome to change the names of any cities you wish. That is one of the items we will address in the first update.

As far as the problem with the error message concerning animname : PersianRocketCrew refer to post #34

 

[superbounce7]

Wonderful scenario Guardian! With a few more adjustments this will definitely be a top class scenario!

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

These scenario looks great, I am downloading it now. I am glad to see the Civ 3 modding community is still alive and well.

 

[The Guardian]

Wonderful scenario Guardian! With a few more adjustments this will definitely be a top class scenario!

Would love to hear your recommendations.

 

[superbounce7]

A few things i noticed.....

1. It seems to me that the balance of production to unit costs needs to be checked. In my game as Prussia I noticed that most the unit builds were around 30 turns. Im not sure if this was intential to drag out the game more, but that could be fixed by increasing the production for tiles to balance that.

2. A lot of the colonial cities around the world are incorrect. (Such as Hastings in New Guinea, Orleans in Madagascar etc.) I can probably provide some maps or place the cities myself if you would like.

3. There are no pre-placed units in europe so the war is pretty dry at the beginning. I dont know if you plan to place units or if its for the sake of turn times.

Other than that I love this scenario so far. The combination of graphics is spectacular.
As i get farther into the game ill update you on my thinking.

 

[The Guardian]

A few things i noticed.....

1. It seems to me that the balance of production to unit costs needs to be checked. In my game as Prussia I noticed that most the unit builds were around 30 turns. Im not sure if this was intential to drag out the game more, but that could be fixed by increasing the production for tiles to balance that.

2. A lot of the colonial cities around the world are incorrect. (Such as Hastings in New Guinea, Orleans in Madagascar etc.) I can probably provide some maps or place the cities myself if you would like.

3. There are no pre-placed units in europe so the war is pretty dry at the beginning. I dont know if you plan to place units or if its for the sake of turn times.

Other than that I love this scenario so far. The combination of graphics is spectacular.
As i get farther into the game ill update you on my thinking.

1. This is why this is a beta version to flesh out any problem and possible improvements. We will definitely take a closer look at this and possibly make some adjustments

2. We are already aware of this. This should have been corrected early. We are working on correcting this.

3. We limited the number of preplaced units for a number of reasons. First for balance. If we place historical units on the map, the balance of play would so slanted that the game would be unplayable, because you can't force the AI to follow historical events. In play testing, we found that the game evolved pretty much as history unfolded with the current setup, yet still provided some non historical events and diplomatic twists that proved quite interesting and allows great flexibility for the player to experiment with "what if" situations.

We will look forward to your future comments. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

FYI, we are planning an expansion for the scenario. We want to extend the future techs to include steam and events post Napoleonic (1815 thru 1860). Example: What if Napoleon's return had been successful? What if the US had annexed Canada and Mexico? What if the Ottomans had joined France in the invasion of Russia? By including the age of steam in the future techs, we can include steamships, railroads and steam powered manufacturing into the scenario also.

BTW if you would like to get more involved in the discussion of the making this scenario or just follow the what is going on regarding the Napoleonic Wars project, check out Napoleonic Warriors Social Group

 

[Fredeye]

Neat scenario! Great job so far.

The Prussian Lancer has an attack value of 36. Is this suppose to be 16?

 

[The Guardian]

Neat scenario! Great job so far.

The Prussian Lancer has an attack value of 36. Is this suppose to be 16?

No it is suppose to be 36, but notice also the low defense value.

 

[Kaleidoscope182]

Actually , in napoleonic area , prussia cavalry is among the worse. The french and russian cavalry is much better.

 

[The Guardian]

Actually , in napoleonic area , prussia cavalry is among the worse. The french and russian cavalry is much better.

Actually, The Polish Lancers were arguably the finest and most feared cavalry units throughout the Napoleonic Era. They were feared by the Russian Cossacks and were a part of Napoleons personal bodyguard. In fact, the only Marshal in Napoleons armies that was not French, was Polish.

After the Polish Lancer and in a very close 2nd would be Napoleons Empress Dragoons. These were all hand picked by Napoleon himself.

 

[Fredeye]

I think those both took second place to the 'Chasseurs a Cheval' of the Imperial Guard. They also served as Napoleon's personal escort.

Giving the Lancers a 36 and putting them on the normal production que as Dragoons and Hussars of the Line could get out of hand. It means an army could consist of a few defensive units to protect a mass of Artillery and Lancers. Maybe the Lancers and other special units should be auto-produced. There was only one Regiment each of the Polish Lancers, Dutch Lancers, Lithuanian Lancers, Chasseurs a Cheval, Imperial Horse Grenadiers, Elite Gendarmes, Garde d'Honour, Mamelukes etc.

Another thing to keep in mind about production is that the reason these Napoleonic Armies had masses of infantry is because they were much much cheaper than cavalry or artillery.

...just my thoughts. I love this era and have studied it extensively.

 

[The Guardian]

I think those both took second place to the 'Chasseurs a Cheval' of the Imperial Guard. They also served as Napoleon's personal escort.

Giving the Lancers a 36 and putting them on the normal production que as Dragoons and Hussars of the Line could get out of hand. It means an army could consist of a few defensive units to protect a mass of Artillery and Lancers. Maybe the Lancers and other special units should be auto-produced. There was only one Regiment each of the Polish Lancers, Dutch Lancers, Lithuanian Lancers, Chasseurs a Cheval, Imperial Horse Grenadiers, Elite Gendarmes, Garde d'Honour, Mamelukes etc.

Another thing to keep in mind about production is that the reason these Napoleonic Armies had masses of infantry is because they were much much cheaper than cavalry or artillery.

...just my thoughts. I love this era and have studied it extensively.

Have you played the scenario? How many Turns? This is not to say that these are not all valid points and I assure you, that we have indeed considered the idea of auto production and have in fact used auto production for several units. Someone mentioned earlier about increasing mvement points for mounted units. One reason why we don't is that would increase the number of attacks for blitz flagged units like lancers. Not many units could survive multiple attacks from a unit with 36 Attack points. We have considered this among may other things.
Most cavalry units cost nearly twice as much as most infantry units and most infantry units have twice the defensive strength as most cavalry units.

Here is an example: The french lancer has an A/D of 36/4 and HP of 2 cost 145
The Austrian Grenadier has an A/D of 16/11 and HP of 4 cost 175
This might seem to be a huge miss match in favor of the lancers at first glance especially since the lancers have blitz capability, however, that is incorrect. Especially if the grenadiers are occupying favorable terrain in a defensive posture. With these conditions, a stack of 10 grenadiers against a stack of ten lancers attacking . . . the lancers will lose almost every time in actual play testing.
The lancers are the cheapest cavalry units available. Grenadiers are one of the most expensive infantry units.
Saxonian Guard Units cost 155 A/D 13/11 HP 4 I wager they would stand well against the lancers, and can be produced as quickly as lancers. Add in the defensive bonus available from terrain etc.
Also, you might want to keep you lancers off and away from roads. A sudden infantry attack by infantry using road movement would prove fatal. And oh yes, did you know that mounted leaders can also act as transports? Loading and unloading infantry. The leaders also have attack and defense strengths now.

I will keep your ideas in mind while reviewing all the play testing and if your observations prove accurate or changes prove warranted I may move in that direction as we have already considered these possibilities.

Thank for your comments we really do appreciate them.

PS My argument supporting the Empress Dragoons...

Under Napoleon the Imperial Guard gradually became an almost separate army; it had infantry, artillery, and cavalry components, and even its own elite units within the already-elite Guard. By any standards, the Empress Dragoons, named to honour Josaphine de Beauharnais, were an elite force. All the officers were appointed personally by Napoleon, and the rankers had to have served at least 10 years in the saddle before they were allowed to join. Every chasseur and dragoon regiment of the line in the French army had its best non-commissioned officers taken. While this undoubtedly made sure the Empress Dragoons was composed of the best of the best, it almost certainly damaged the rest of the army by removing those same veterans from their original units.

I love discussing view points with someone that knows the subject and I would like to hear your views regarding the 'Chasseurs a Cheval' of the Imperial Guard.

 

[Maimonides]

Thanks for making this scenario & making it public, The Guardian!

I'm playing a game as America & have found several issues. Would a report help?

Absolutely Maimonides, we always interested in hearing from members regarding there views, opimions and observations. It can only help us to make the scenario better.

OK, but, before I begin, I want to say that it's clear you've done allot of work on this implementing Units, Improvements, Leaderheads, Civs, Resources, etc. You're off to a good start & the bugs & errors I'm about to report are in no way meant to disparage your efforts.

Some of these issues have also been reported by others, but I'm repeating them because they haven't been fixed.


-All the Civs' leaders are named "Ferdinand." For example, the American leader is "President Ferdinand." Doesn't make sense.

-The Introduction screen says it is "the year 1804," but the scenario actually starts in the 1790s.

-City placement. This is a game-breaker for this scenario. Some cities were thoughtfully placed, but many seem to have been just dropped randomly around the map. Some cites that were very important during the period are missing. Some cities are assigned to Civs that didn't control them, whether ever or during this period.

1. Greenland has four cities while Ireland has only two.

2. There is a city in Mexico named "Paanama." I don't think such a city actually existed anywhere.

3. San Diego has been placed north of San Fransisco... It should be near the Mexican border.

4. Miami has been placed near the Georgia border. It should be on the southeast tip of Florida.

5. St. Augustine has been placed approximately where Cape Canaveral is. It should be about where you placed Miami.

6. Vancouver & Seattle are assigned to Spain... The Spanish never controlled territory that far north on the Pacific coast. During this period, Seattle should be British & Vancouver should be Russian or British.

7. St. Louis is missing. It should be included as a French possession. The fact that this city is missing & the Americans can't build Settlers is a major impediment to the American Civ developing as it did historically. During this period, St. Louis was the gateway to the West, the stepping-off point for Lewis & Clark & the most important settlement on the Mississippi next to New Orleans. You have a Lewis & Clark Wonder (that does nothing), but you omitted the city that made the expedition possible. All of the mountain men that trapped & trail-blazed the West during this period stepped-off from St. Louis.

8. New Orleans should be a French possession. You've assigned it to the Americans, but it didn't become an American possession until the Louisiana Purchase-several years after the start of this scenario.

9. Mecca & Medina are missing. Both should be included as an Ottoman possession. They are the cultural focal points of some of the Civs you included & Arabia is otherwise too empty.

10. Mexico is a complete disaster. There are five cities placed in Mexico, but only one of them should actually be there. Murcia, Pamplona & Salamanca are not & have never been located in Mexico. As mentioned before, Paanama seems to be complete fantasy. Except for Mexico City, every important city in Mexico is missing. Please explain this.

11. Central America is also a total disaster in city placement. You've placed York, Santander, Nottingham & Vitoria in Central America. Those cities are not even in the correct hemisphere. Again, this needs explanation.

12. Santiago in Cuba is incorrectly named "Asturias." I think Asturias was actually in Spain.

13. The British city of Kingston in Jamaica is incorrectly named "Jaen."

14. Three French cities are incorrectly placed on islands in the Caribbean: Besancon, Chartres & Avignon. Those cities should all be in France & are not even in the correct hemisphere. Please explain.

15. Honolulu should not be a British possession.

16. The French cities of Tours & Orleans are placed in Madagascar. They should be in France.

17. Sidon has been placed near the Straight of Hormuz. It should be in Syria.

18. Antioch has been placed in Persia. It should be in Syria.

19. Utrecht has been placed in Indonesia. It should be in Holland.

20. Xinjian has been placed in Malaysia. It should be in China.

21. Maastricht has been placed in Papua & has been assigned to Spain. It should be in Holland & no city put in the current spot should be Spanish.

22. Port Moresby is assigned to China. Port Moresby should not be Chinese by any stretch of the imagination.

23. Hastings has been placed in New Guinea. It should be in England. It's literally on the wrong side of the planet. Please explain.

24. Chicago should probably be omitted. If there was a settlement there in the 1790s, it was tiny & negligible, but there probably wasn't. There are other big problems with Chicago which I'll explain below.

There's more, but you get the idea. City placement is in such bad shape as to make the scenario unplayable from a historical perspective.

-Geography.

1. The course of the Rio Grande river is wrong. The boot heel of Texas is missing as a result.

2. The coastline of Louisiana is wrong. It's boot shape is missing.

3. The southern course of the Appalachian mountain chain is wrong. Instead of fading into hills in Georgia, the chain turns sharply west & crashes into the Mississippi river. Looks very odd.

4. I can understand why you made the Mississippi navigable up to where St. Louis should be, but there's some fantasy navigable waterway that runs from where St. Louis should be to meet Lake Superior at Chicago. There has never been a river, canal or creek that runs from the Mississippi up through the middle of Illinois to Lake Superior. It's grossly geographically inaccurate, unhistorical & looks like a huge scar on the landscape.

It makes sense for the Mississippi, Ohio or St Lawrence rivers to be navigable if you so choose. It does not make sense to create fantasy waterways that have never existed throughout history.

-Improvements.

1. The Temple should be removed for the Americans. There were very few, if any at all, temples in the U.S. during this period.

2. The Tavern needs to be removed or fixed immediately as it's a game-breaker. This has been reported before, but it auto-produces a Coastal Battery 30 every Turn. This means that any city that can build it is invincible.

-Wonders.

1. The Iron Works costs zero Shields to build (can be built instantly) & costs zero upkeep. The Pedia says it requires Iron & Coal in the city radius, but I built it in a city with neither Resource. I haven't found Coal anywhere on the map, yet.

2. The Hagia Sophia creates a Temple in every city. Should create a Mosque, not a Temple.

3. "Herods Temple" is misspelled & shouldn't be in this scenario at all. It was built & destroyed 1700 years before the period of this scenario.

4. "LouisianaPurchase" is misspelled, costs 100 Shields to build & does nothing.

5. Silimiye Mosque creates a Church in every city which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... Furthermore, the Pedia says it was built 200 years before the start of this scenario, yet I watched the Persians build it. If you want to include it, it needs to be preplaced & to needs to do something that makes sense.

6. "concorde" is misspelled. It's a very powerful happiness-producing Wonder, but we know nothing about what it is at all.

7. Lewis & Clark probably costs too much to build (400 Shields) & produces too much Culture (5 per Turn). The city it should be built in, St. Louis, is missing & unbuildable.

-Civs.

1. The Spanish capitol is at Santiago, Chile. It should be somewhere in Spain.

2. Persia is waaaay over-powered. By the end of 1801 in my playtest, they have conquered India, the Ottomans & Austria & they have taken one Russian city & most of Italy. They need to be nerfed.

3. It's interesting the way you did the Native Americans. They took Edmonton & Thunder Bay from Britain, but I (America) took the rest of their cities. Their mounted units are threatening, as they should be, but they also build a foot archer that's useless. I have more suggestions for them, but it's more important that the game-breaking issues be fixed 1st so I won't go into it now.

4. Prussia eliminated Poland in 1801.

5. Russia conquered about half of Iberia in 1800 including all of Portugal. They seem to be the only power that can stand up to Persia, but they have lost one city to them so far.

6. The Barbary Pirates need allot of tweaking. They start with several ships in the Caribbean which is unhistorical. They must have an amphibious unit, too, because they captured Montego Bay at the beginning. They keep sending ships up into the Mississippi river for no apparent reason. Historically, I don't think they ever threatened the Gulf or the Caribbean as they do in this scenario. The Med should be their operating area...

7. I've playtested America into 1802 & there isn't any reason to play that Civ beyond that at this point int the scenario's development.

I took all the Native Americans' starting cities & renamed them to match the historical sites. For example, I renamed Apache to San Antonio when I took it. I think Nez Perce2 (another silly city name name that needs to be changed) became Santa Fe.

After the Native Americans, I continued west & took, Seattle, Vancouver, San Diego, San Fransisco, Fresno & Los Angeles from Spain. I gifted Vancouver to Britain to make things more historical. I could have easily taken Mexico by 1802, but I didn't as that would be ridiculously unhistorical. I did deviate from history by taking San Juan, Puerto Rico because I had allot of ships & units in Florida that needed something to do.

I've been at war with Britain for most of the time & could have easily taken all of Canada, but I didn't because, again, it would be ridiculously unhistorical. They kept sending troops to attack upstate New York, but they were never a threat at all.

America is overpowered. The starting cities had all available Improvements built by 1800 & were endlessly cranking out units. I could have taken all of North America & allot of South America by 1802 if I had wanted to. I kept the research slider @ 90% & was still making money every Turn. Historically, the U.S. was nowhere near that powerful.

The biggest problem with America is Chicago. It auto-produces a Coastal Battery 30 every Turn so it's impossible for anyone to conquer & it auto-produces a Coastal Battery 20 every now & then, too. It can build any unit in less than 3 Turns. It's population is higher than Paris & London. Because some fantasy waterway has been added to connect Lake Superior with the Mississippi, Chicago can send huge fleets streaming into the Atlantic. The Civ that controls Chicago (America) controls the entire Western Hemisphere. The city needs to be severely nerfed or eliminated & the fantasy waterway that cuts across Illinois needs to be removed.


I'll wait to see if any updates & corrections are made before I continue playtesting this. A global historical scenario is a huge task. WWII Global took years to get right. I hope you continue with this scenario's development & I wish you luck with it as it could be great fun to play when it's ready. Until it's ready, I'd suggest you ask a Mod to move this thread to the man C&C forum as this forum is for completed scenarios that are ready to play.

 

[The Guardian]

OK, but, before I begin, I want to say that it's clear you've done allot of work on this implementing Units, Improvements, Leaderheads, Civs, Resources, etc. You're off to a good start & the bugs & errors I'm about to report are in no way meant to disparage your efforts.

Some of these issues have also been reported by others, but I'm repeating them because they haven't been fixed.[\QUOTE]

First, thank you for your review. I really appreciate it. You are correct, many of the items you mentioned have been mentioned before. Because you do not see the changes being made, doesn't mean they aren't being made. The reason for posting the scenario as a beta release is just for this very reason to get a fresh look at the scenario from someone else's eyes and flesh out any error and/or omissions. We haven't posted any updates as yet, because the scenario was only released 8 days ago. Now to address your comments.

[FONT=&quot]1. Greenland has four cities while Ireland has only two.
This was done for player balance.

2. There is a city in Mexico named "Paanama." I don't think such a city actually existed anywhere.
Already fixed

3. San Diego has been placed north of San Fransisco... It should be near the Mexican border.
Thanx we'll fix that.

4. Miami has been placed near the Georgia border. It should be on the southeast tip of Florida.
Miami has been renamed Jacksonville

5. St. Augustine has been placed approximately where Cape Canaveral is. It should be about where you placed Miami.
St. Augustine was an important Spanish possession and map restriction ditate it remains where it is.

6. Vancouver & Seattle are assigned to Spain... The Spanish never controlled territory that far north on the Pacific coast. During this period, Seattle should be British & Vancouver should be Russian or British.
Seattle has been given to the Native Americans and Vancouver is British.

7. St. Louis is missing. It should be included as a French possession. The fact that this city is missing & the Americans can't build Settlers is a major impediment to the American Civ developing as it did historically. During this period, St. Louis was the gateway to the West, the stepping-off point for Lewis & Clark & the most important settlement on the Mississippi next to New Orleans. You have a Lewis & Clark Wonder (that does nothing), but you omitted the city that made the expedition possible. All of the mountain men that trapped & trail-blazed the West during this period stepped-off from St. Louis.
We could put St. Louis in. However your observation is not entirely accurate. "[/FONT]The city, as well as the future state of Missouri, became part of the Spanish Empire after the French were defeated in the Seven Years' War. In 1800, the land was secretly transferred back to France, whose leader, Napoleon Bonaparte, sold it to the United States in 1803". Again if you can show me a way to affect these changes of ownership during game play, I will be more than happy to comply with your request. How about we give it to the Native Americans and let the Americans take it from them.
[FONT=&quot]

8. New Orleans should be a French possession. You've assigned it to the Americans, but it didn't become an American possession until the Louisiana Purchase-several years after the start of this scenario.
Again, you are not entirely accurate. The Spanish controlled [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the city [/FONT][FONT=&quot]under the treaty of Paris in 1763 until 1801 when it was returned to the French and was sold to the US in 1803. Again, if you can give me a method of transferring New Orleans from the Spanish to the French to American ownership in 1803, I will change it. We have reduced it's size, culture and infastructure to compensate.


9. Mecca & Medina are missing. Both should be included as an Ottoman possession. They are the cultural focal points of some of the Civs you included & Arabia is otherwise too empty.
I will look into this.

10. Mexico is a complete disaster. There are five cities placed in Mexico, but only one of them should actually be there. Murcia, Pamplona & Salamanca are not & have never been located in Mexico. As mentioned before, Paanama seems to be complete fantasy. Except for Mexico City, every important city in Mexico is missing. Please explain this.
Already fixed.

11. Central America is also a total disaster in city placement. You've placed York, Santander, Nottingham & Vitoria in Central America. Those cities are not even in the correct hemisphere. Again, this needs explanation.
Already Fixed

12. Santiago in Cuba is incorrectly named "Asturias." I think Asturias was actually in Spain.
Already Fixed

13. The British city of Kingston in Jamaica is incorrectly named "Jaen."
Already Fixed

14. Three French cities are incorrectly placed on islands in the Caribbean: Besancon, Chartres & Avignon. Those cities should all be in France & are not even in the correct hemisphere. Please explain.
Already Fixed

15. Honolulu should not be a British possession.
We know, however, since first european contact was established in 1778 by Capt. Cook, we decided it should go to the British.

16. The French cities of Tours & Orleans are placed in Madagascar. They should be in France.
Already Fixed

17. Sidon has been placed near the Straight of Hormuz. It should be in Syria.

18. Antioch has been placed in Persia. It should be in Syria.

19. Utrecht has been placed in Indonesia. It should be in Holland.
Already Fixed

20. Xinjian has been placed in Malaysia. It should be in China.
Already Fixed

21. Maastricht has been placed in Papua & has been assigned to Spain. It should be in Holland & no city put in the current spot should be Spanish.
Already Fixed

22. Port Moresby is assigned to China. Port Moresby should not be Chinese by any stretch of the imagination.
Port Moseby is British

23. Hastings has been placed in New Guinea. It should be in England. It's literally on the wrong side of the planet. Please explain.
Already Fixed

24. Chicago should probably be omitted. If there was a settlement there in the 1790s, it was tiny & negligible, but there probably wasn't. There are other big problems with Chicago which I'll explain below.

Indeed there was. Infact this is the second settlement. the first settlement had been deserted. Yes it was small but it was there and became a city in 1833. Notice the river in the map. This is why Chicago became so important. "[/FONT]Chicago was founded in 1833, near a portage between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River watershed
[FONT=&quot]

There's more, but you get the idea. City placement is in such bad shape as to make the scenario unplayable from a historical perspective.
I guess we studied history in different schools.


-Geography.

1. The course of the Rio Grande river is wrong. The boot heel of Texas is missing as a result.

2. The coastline of Louisiana is wrong. It's boot shape is missing.

3. The southern course of the Appalachian mountain chain is wrong. Instead of fading into hills in Georgia, the chain turns sharply west & crashes into the Mississippi river. Looks very odd.

Having lived in Georgia for many years ( my niece attended college in Delonega ) I don't remember it that way and I believe this map bares me out.

Also note this map shows the overland routes throughout the US in 1860. Not much in the way of access west of the Mississippi.

4. I can understand why you made the Mississippi navigable up to where St. Louis should be, but there's some fantasy navigable waterway that runs from where St. Louis should be to meet Lake Superior at Chicago. There has never been a river, canal or creek that runs from the Mississippi up through the middle of Illinois to Lake Superior. It's grossly geographically inaccurate, unhistorical & looks like a huge scar on the landscape.

It makes sense for the Mississippi, Ohio or St Lawrence rivers to be navigable if you so choose. It does not make sense to create fantasy waterways that have never existed throughout history.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Again I refer you to the mop above of Chicago. There was access to the Mississippi and the great lakes from Chicago. I know, access to the great lakes was by portage.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] -Improvements.

1. The Temple should be removed for the Americans. There were very few, if any at all, temples in the U.S. during this period.
Agreed we will rectify that.

2. The Tavern needs to be removed or fixed immediately as it's a game-breaker. This has been reported before, but it auto-produces a Coastal Battery 30 every Turn. This means that any city that can build it is invincible.
Once again you are only partially correct. The tavern has the international port as a prerequisite which mean each civ can only build one. You are correct tho that it produces a unit every turn. This was an oversight on my part. I forgot to change the number of turns for production after testing it. That was probably because I finished testing it at the end of one of my 32 hour days and said to myself, "OK, I'll reset it tomorrow", then forgot to change it. Sry.

-Wonders.

1. The Iron Works costs zero Shields to build (can be built instantly) & costs zero upkeep. The Pedia says it requires Iron & Coal in the city radius, but I built it in a city with neither Resource. I haven't found Coal anywhere on the map, yet.

AHHHH yes, we had a problem with phantom resources. We had too many strategic resources and had to remove some and change others. One of the team members is in the process of checking all the improvements and wonders, so I am sure he'll fix that but I'll send him a PM to make sure.

2. The Hagia Sophia creates a Temple in every city. Should create a Mosque, not a Temple.
We'll change that, thx


3. "Herods Temple" is misspelled & shouldn't be in this scenario at all. It was built & destroyed 1700 years before the period of this scenario.
Yeah, so I guess we should take out all the wonders that don't apply to the specified period of the scenarios, like hanging gardens? Magellan's Voyage? Zues? etc etc etc.?


4. "LouisianaPurchase" is misspelled, costs 100 Shields to build & does nothing.
Really? You better look again.


5. Silimiye Mosque creates a Church in every city which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... Furthermore, the Pedia says it was built 200 years before the start of this scenario, yet I watched the Persians build it. If you want to include it, it needs to be preplaced & to needs to do something that makes sense.

6. "concorde" is misspelled. It's a very powerful happiness-producing Wonder, but we know nothing about what it is at all.

Wrong again

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Place_de_la_concorde.jpg
[/FONT]The Place de la Concorde seen from the Pont de la Concorde; in front, the Obelisk, behind, the Rue Royale and the Church of the Madeleine; on the left, the Hôtel de Crillon.


[FONT=&quot] 7. Lewis & Clark probably costs too much to build (400 Shields) & produces too much Culture (5 per Turn). The city it should be built in, St. Louis, is missing & unbuildable.

-Civs.

1. The Spanish capitol is at Santiago, Chile. It should be somewhere in Spain.
Already fixed


2. Persia is waaaay over-powered. By the end of 1801 in my playtest, they have conquered India, the Ottomans & Austria & they have taken one Russian city & most of Italy. They need to be nerfed.
We'll take another look.


3. It's interesting the way you did the Native Americans. They took Edmonton & Thunder Bay from Britain, but I (America) took the rest of their cities. Their mounted units are threatening, as they should be, but they also build a foot archer that's useless. I have more suggestions for them, but it's more important that the game-breaking issues be fixed 1st so I won't go into it now.

4. Prussia eliminated Poland in 1801.
As they should have, but I am surprised that it wasn't the russians.


5. Russia conquered about half of Iberia in 1800 including all of Portugal. They seem to be the only power that can stand up to Persia, but they have lost one city to them so far.

6. The Barbary Pirates need allot of tweaking. They start with several ships in the Caribbean which is unhistorical. They must have an amphibious unit, too, because they captured Montego Bay at the beginning. They keep sending ships up into the Mississippi river for no apparent reason. Historically, I don't think they ever threatened the Gulf or the Caribbean as they do in this scenario. The Med should be their operating area...
The Barbary pirates Include the Those pirate that Inhabited the Med, Carib, East Africa and the South china seas.


7. I've playtested America into 1802 & there isn't any reason to play that Civ beyond that at this point int the scenario's development.

[/FONT]

As I write this post, one of the members of our team is working on the civilopedia correcting errors and adding additional info.

 

[The Guardian]

I have placed an updated Biq file at the bottom of post number one that should correct all the problems related to city positions, names and most of the other problem prviously mentioned. The team is working on correcting all other non Biq errors and omissions such as civilopedia errors etc. Please continue advising us of any other errors, problems or suggestions you might find or think of. We do appreciate your comments and look forward to hearing from you all.

 

[Glaciers37]

Downloaded the scenario, it looks great! I love the expansion from your previous one (and I thought that one was great). I keep running into errors for different units. I scanned through the forum and saw others had problems with the British African Auxilary, Persian Rocket Crew, and Native American Auxilary. I tried adding your fix that you posted, it may be that I'm just not putting it in correctly. I'll keep working on that one. Another one I've run into is Persian Mortar Crew, this is the error I get:
"Conquests\Napoleonic Wars Global\text\PediaIcons.txt": ANIMNAME_PRTO_PersianMortarCrew

Like in your last version of Napoleonic Wars I generally play as the British. Like a previous post mentioned, I think (of course as I write this I can't find the post), the Persians are very strong. They kicked my ass right out of India. I've added extra units to my cities out there through the editor just so I can keep my territories and continue play as far as I can before I run into error. I seem to be hitting a wall in 1806 when the error for the persian mortor crew pops up.

A suggestion for a French held St. Louis at the beginning of the game. What about a Fur colony under French control. That way that spot will transfer to American or Native American control through culture expansion. I don't know if that would work. I'm still pretty new to modding for Civ 3 even though I've had the game since it was released (talk about a life changing moment when I discovered all this user created material! haha).

Thanks for all of your hard work to make this, it is greatly appreciated. I hope some of this helps.

 

[superbounce7]

Downloaded the scenario, it looks great! I love the expansion from your previous one (and I thought that one was great). I keep running into errors for different units. I scanned through the forum and saw others had problems with the British African Auxilary, Persian Rocket Crew, and Native American Auxilary. I tried adding your fix that you posted, it may be that I'm just not putting it in correctly. I'll keep working on that one. Another one I've run into is Persian Mortar Crew, this is the error I get:
"Conquests\Napoleonic Wars Global\text\PediaIcons.txt": ANIMNAME_PRTO_PersianMortarCrew

Thank you for the error report ill add this to my revisions ASAP.