Discussion in 'Civ3 - Completed Scenarios' started by El Justo, Aug 2, 2004.
I suspected this. So, a cute way to "provoke an international incident"
The raw materials was the exact reason I was not in favor of closing the Panama Canal. I also had to tread softly (with my big stick) when trying to use it in the past. All the other major colonial powers usually had ships there, along with a few locals. If I unintentionally blocked off the Panama Canal, there is an improved likelihood of a declaration of war (happened several times). I think it helped with the "nations on the brink of war" aspect that was present at this time.
I think the Panama canal is incredibly useful as is, personally, and while that may not be a great reason to include it I think it definiately brings a nice layer to the game, an area so full of shipping like that is just awesome.
As for the cossacks, I'm not sure. I've seen many people say that Russia is often underpowered as is, and if they're already losing their link to the Mediterranean, this yet another blow to an already struggling civ.
But of course, if we the players feel so, we can always modify it in our own interests
I have to say, just from playing 10 minutes of this... it's totally awesome. Thanks, El Justo and team.
I do have one question, tho'. Is is normal for the text on the civilopedia screen to run past the boundary bar into the "advances and requirements" section?
I can provide screenshots if needed to illustrate what I mean.
Yes, that happens to me as well. I just ignore it and carry on.
I agree with closing the Dardnelle's the French and British kept Russian out of the Med by propping up the Ottomans for a good long time. Neither wanted the Russians in the Med so it would be good to close it. The Russians do need more expensive units I think. In all the games I've had they're overpowered and become a steam roller and crush the AI civs with floods of Cossacks. I've seen them overrun Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, and extend as far as into the Netherlands and Italy.
I disagree on Panama I think it should be kept open for international shipping like the Suez is. By keeping it open it's actually more difficult to gain control of it because of all the diffrent nation's ships there are there.
Also it will be far too easy for the US to simply push all the way down into South America with Panama connected. With it disconnected it makes it more difficult for the US to dominate both continents completely which it is capable of doing easily.
Have you considered that the United States would then be able to ship the industrialization resource and the United States resource to South America? That would mean a TON of cities that could produce the superior industrialized units (capital ships being the most important).
Also as Nordstream said, connecting the two continents would only decrease the amount of time it would take for the US to accomplish such a task.
This is not quite accurate, since the declaration of war was passed by the Canadian Parliament after Britain declared. Both Canada and Australia were and are sovereign nations with their own governments although they have the same head of state as Britain (Queen/King). For all practical purposes the connection between Canada/Australia and Britain was much like that between Germany and A-H just before 1914. Besides as it is now the Brits can build British infantry in Canada which seems weird and not at all historical.
ElJ: re: Panama. Don't connect N. and S. America because Industrialism resource will become available to all of S. America (not good).
Taking out Canada and Australia is an interesting idea. It would certainly make the British more manageable to play as a human player. I find the massive far flung empire daunting so I've avoided playing the British because of that. Anyone else done this?
I am sure El J would put an impassible mountain somewhere, blocking it off.
Question: Was there ever a solution found for the coastal fortress bug? I've noticed that several of my cities (U.S.) are building them, so I wondered if the bug had been fixed.
If not, I would have thought they'd have been removed, since they're useless.
I give away some of my island colonies when I play with the Brits and cling only to the important dominions (Canada, Australia, India, SA).
It's a pain to reconquer them afterwards. Besides some seem to be productive and they give raw materials either way.
Just from my quick research (Wiki), it does not appear that Dominion Legislation had any meaningful power, especially in terms of foreign policy, from the UK legislation until after the end of WW1.
It looks like it took place with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Statute
Again, not saying it is not a good idea to have Australia/Canada split out from the UK to make it easier to run the UK and to make them not quite as tough, but it would be for game play reasons rather than any historical reason.
I'm in the middle of my first game, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it tremendously!
I did make a few discoveries that had me tugging at my headfur.
I had assumed the minimum time for research was 4 turns. I decided to check the .biq file in the editor, and it's 5. Wish someone had mentioned that! Micromanaging in this game is a pain the butt with the huge city sizes, and I was busting my nuts trying to squeeze every last research point out of it. Oi.
Also discovered that I had forgotten something. Civil Engineer output does not count towards unit production. *sigh* all that output wasted instead of putting it towards income.
Aside from the about micromanaging... I love this scenario. I've taken Cuba, Hispaniola and Puerto Rico away from the Spanish. I'm about to unleash my formidable forces on Mexico and then Central America.
I'm trailing the French in Victory Points by about 20, but I expect I'll make up for that soon enough after I turn Mexico and Central America into slave states... err... vassal states... erm... loyal worshippers... uh, no, that's not right... oh, to heck with it.
I do appreciate the lessened corruption, and I love the way you can whomp up a navy in nothing flat. At least I'll know all of this for the next time I play this.
El Justo (and team), thanks for giving me one of the most entertaining games I've ever played.
Ah, yes, of course, it's a matter of personal taste. Besides, I give them to non-colonial civs so as not to strengthen my direct rivals unnecessarily. Even with Germany I don't bother too much with defending far-away colonies (except for the South African ones), but I "compensate" myself conquering continental Europe.
interesting remarks all thanks for sharing.
and i'd never consider connecting the panama isthmus if it meant that the Ind resource would flow to S America silly rabbits! like Theryman noted, i would have to block it off somewhere down there in order to prevent the resource from reaching areas that we don't want it to...
Goergia was at first.
You could block off the current canal site and make a new one further north but give panama to new granada.
And there is one more tactic which the silly AI would never use. I produce poison gases when playing Russia. Thus, many cities in Eurasia always equal certain victory.
P.S. El Justo, I presume you've noticed the many mistakes in names in v.3.0, like Bismarck-Archipel (Archipelago), Antayla (Antalya), HMS Countess of Hopetown (Hopetoun), Chita Oblast (just Chita; "oblast" means region), etc.
Bismarck-Archipel is correct in German.
Separate names with a comma.