I've got to say, I've been lurking for years, but I've just now signed up to comment on this scenario and give feedback. AnthonyBoscia, you have created a massive, immersive scenario. It's very impressive. I can't imagine the time and effort that went into making this, but I appreciate it, because it's great, and very detailed. Unfortunately for me, I have windows 10. Civilization III will play, but only if I don't patch it. I have to play on version 1.00. If I patch to 1.22, I get the "run as administrator" error, and the game never starts. So I've been playing all the scenarios on version 1.00, and they seem to work fine. Even more unfortunate for me, this seems to prevent me from playing this excellent scenario with the "No Raze" patch. Nothing happens when I try to start it. So I can only play it through regular Civ, although the AI has razed a number of cities, and I wonder how this affects it's decisions.
Nonetheless, I had to try this scenario, so I started a game as Iraq. The ability to play as them was actually a draw for me. Lately I've been fascinated by the discrepancy between what analysts expected us to face in the Gulf War, and what actually happened. As I'm sure you know, many experts were expecting the war to be a Korea-style slugfest. We were expecting to face fanatical soldiers, hardened by a recent 8 years of experience in one of the most brutal conflicts of the century. They would be armed with top-of-the-line, or nearly top-of-the-line Soviet equipment - Mig 29s, T-72s, etc. The actual conflict was probably one of the most lopsided in human history. On paper, Iraq should have been formidable, but in practice, their performance was anything but. That fascinates me. It has inspired me to do some reading on the Gulf war, and the Iran-Iraq war.
So far, my game has been nothing special. I've probably discovered 3 or 4 techs, but the middle east has been awfully quiet. I've decided to support the United States, and when I refused tribute to the Soviet Union, they declared war. I debated on whether to send an expeditionary force to help the Turks, who were being beseiged about 4 or 5 turns distance from me. However, I decided against it, reasoning that the RG would be the only units with even a remote chance of standing up to the Soviet army in Turkey, even if they were in a weakened state - and the RG is irreplaceable. Also, 4 or 5 turns seemed like an awfully long distance for Iraq to project power, and I decided that my ground troops should be used to protect the homefront, and deal with local conflicts should they flare up. However, I built an airbase at the extreme northern edge of the country and stationed planes and artillery to bombard Soviet units as they advanced into Turkey, and possibly towards Iraq. To my total surprise, my F1 Mirage and Mig-23 shot down two Soviet ground attack planes that tried to strafe me, and I destroyed two weakened Soviet units with my own ground attack planes. I'm afraid to use my TU-22, as it's the only one I have, and can't be replaced. I don't want it shot down. Once Kars was razed, the Soviets left and their army turned around. The game has been pretty boring since then. I believe the Soviets are currently making their way to the outskirts of France, having razed several cities on the way. The Americans seem to have made a daring and highly successful Inchon-like landing in the Soviet Union, capturing Leningrad, Vyborg, and seemingly razing 4 other cities, the last being deep in the Soviet Union.
Anyway, I have some feedback regarding the middle eastern units.
1. First, have you ever read
Arabs at War by Kenneth Pollack? If you haven't, it might make a great research tool for this scenario. The author gives a detailed and scholarly treatment of the military history of several middle-eastern armies such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and more. He primarily focuses on their combat effectiveness or lack thereof. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I have skimmed parts of it, and some of the stories are mindblowing. The shocking incompetence displayed by many of these armies boggles the mind.
2. I feel like many of the units of Iran and the Arab League might be overpowered. Regular Iranian infantry stats are 13 attack and 13 defense. However, Iraq's RG infantry, their elite forces, are only 8 and 12 respectively. Likewise, many of the tank units these nations field are noticeably superior to even Iraq's best, even if they have the same equipment. With forces like that, how could the Iran-Iraq war - which ended only a year prior - have ended in a stalemate (or an Iranian Pyrrhic victory?) Similarly, Syria's army seems quite strong. Perhaps these numbers are perfectly justified. I haven't studied these matters in any detail, but the little I've read in that book doesn't inspire confidence in those armies. How do you calculate the stats of these units?
3. Also, the unit line for Iraq seems to contain superfluous units, or units of little use. For instance, I can build both Iraqi and the generic Arab infantry. However, Arab infantry is better on defense, yet costs the same. Why would I ever build the specific Iraq unit if given a choice? Likewise, the Iraqi recon unit (Attack value 10, defend 8) is noticeably inferior to the BRDM-2 recon unit [stats 12.(20)12]. Also, the Iraqi BTR-50 mechanized unit (stats 8.10) offers inferior stats than any of the aforementioned vehicle units, and yet costs more and requires several more turns to build than any of them. Finally, along the same lines, the middle-eastern BTR-60 regiment (stats 18.18) is superior to both the Iraqi T-54 and the Iraqi T-62, yet it costs much less than either of them. Why should I build these other units instead of focusing on the handful which offer superior capability at a lower cost?
4. The middle eastern SP artillery offers a bombard rate of 30 and costs 400 shields, while the middle eastern D-30 has a bombard rate of 28 and costs 250 shields. This seems more justifiable given that the SP artillery unit offers a higher attack and defense, and an extra movement point. However, for artillery purposes, I don't see the purpose of spending almost twice as long to build an artillery unit with only minimal increase in effectiveness. Again, that seems more justifiable than the units I described in paragraph 3 because of the other stats, but those are my thoughts. Also, clicking on the civilopedia entry for the ME SP artillery links to Iraqi 2S3.
I hope I wasn't too harsh! I think this scenario really is breathtaking in its detail - you even have the detailed order of battle for every nation. It's quite a lot of fun too!
