XX Century - Multiplayer

[AeroPrinz]

Based on XX Century - Age of Wars Scenario!

It is the year of 1894. England rules the World. Other Great Powers are ready to fight for their future.
German Empire has the best industry in the world, but USA, Russia and China have a huge territory
and a lot of resources. AGE OF WARS HAS COME ...

There are 8 playable nations. Civ3 PTW can not afford more. Those nations are:
1. Germany
2. USA
3. England
4. Russia
5. Japan
6. Frace
7. China
8. Neutrals

Requirements: PTW 1.14f + AeroGraphicPack 1.0

Download Scenario
http://www.geocities.com/aeroprinz/Civ3/xxc1_4multi.zip

AeroGraphicPack 1.0
http://www.geocities.com/aeroprinz/Civ3/AeroGraphicPack1_0.zip

Home page:
http://www.geocities.com/aeroprinz/Civ3/index.html


There is a proposal in place that has been sent to Firaxis and Atari. Suggestion is for them to include a CD called Best of the Net with Civilization III: Conquests to be released later this year.

Vote for the project!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1014460

 

[Procifica]

PTW actually can support up to 31 Nations...

I assume this is the same as the other XX Century scenario posted here?

 

[AeroPrinz]

You can not play more then 8 nations in multiplayer, check it yourself ...
The scenario is not the same, all minor nations are united as Neutral nation, tech deployment is also changed ...

 

[anonymous4401]

So one player has to be 'neutral' and not participate in the fighting? How would this 'neutral' nation work?

 

[AeroPrinz]

The best way is to give computer control over Neutral player, in this case the netral agresivness will be minimum, and it is forbiden for him to build settlers ...

 

[Procifica]

Originally posted by AeroPrinz
You can not play more then 8 nations in multiplayer, check it yourself ...
The scenario is not the same, all minor nations are united as Neutral nation, tech deployment is also changed ...

Sorry, misread the title.

I thought it was a PTW version for some reason, my mistake.

Multiplayer version though is a good idea.

 

[AeroPrinz]

No problems

 

[Pawel]

Great work!
Since multiplayer (especially hotseat/email) is, imho, the main reason to buy PTW, a scenario which let's you avoid many boring turns in the beginning (when nothing happens) is good news indeed! When I tested it, however, I discovered major a problem. I don't know whether this is due to the scenario, my computer, or maybe a bug in PTW.
When I play, all production is always performed at the beginning of a turn, and the game thus starts by all citys building longbowmen. Even worse is that if you save the game and start it up again (giving the appropriate password) it goes through the production cycle once more, even though it is still the same turn! Before complaining to Firaxis, however, I would like to know if someone else experiences this problem. My version of PTW is the 1.14f (Eurpean).

 

[AeroPrinz]

As I think it is the problem of the Civilization, I also have version 1.14 and have the same problem.

 

[Pawel]

Despite the problems I have not given up on your scenario! I think that there are to few that are multiplayer friendly, and it should really be encouraged. I found, however, that there are some bugs in the scenario as well. The most important is that the paths to both the AeroXX and WWII extras are missing. This is funny since the paths, as well as the proper date, seem to be correct in the single player version. Another very minor point that should get an overhaul is the spelling. Some transliterations from Russian (e.g. Gelsingforce for Helsinki) are really confusing. You might also consider changing some cities to more relevant ones. I miss, for instance, Cologne and Lyon.

On a more general level I also have some comments. I really like the idea of exportable engineers, even though I think that their resource value is a bit on the high side. A related issue are the special units. Here I think you have made a great job of using the units provided with the extras. It adds a lot of flavour. Unfortunately the very large differences between the various units, especially from WWII, have too much impact on gameplay, and are not historically correct. A T-34 does not represent a bunch of tanks, but is quite a large unit whose combat strength does not really depend on just a piece of hardware. In fact, the greatest successes during the war (the German summer offensives of 1941 and 1942 as well as the Soviet at Kursk) came at times of relative technological inferiority in tank design.

Last, but not least, I have some doubts about the new governments. I have problems with fascism causing war weariness. If there was a wartime ineffieciency it was rather on the production side, with German industry working single shifts for most of the war, giving an output far below the theoretical maximum. Also, a very unstructured R&D program lead to few new models enering quantity production, forcing many obsolete designs (e.g. Bf109, PzIV) to remain in use throughout the war.
The constitutional monarchy, on the other hand, seems dubious as a follow up to democracy. It was important during the time when parliaments struggled for power with the kings, thus corresponding to the republic of civ3. In moderns states, such as Britain or Sweden, the monarchy has very limited political impact, and does not really justify an additional form of government.

 

[AeroPrinz]

Thank you for your attention to my scenario. I will try to correct the bugs you are talking about.

About city names spelling.
Gelsingforce or Helsinki?? Unfortunately all my maps from that period are in Russian. Couple years ago, before I knew that I will do such a scenario, I have seen German or Dutch map on which the name of this city started from G (I do not remember the other letters), and I thought that in that times the city was called something like Gelsingforce ...
If you can provide me with any links to maps or historical book in i-net I will be happy to correct this.

About new types of governments. I think both types of government is really needed. Fascism is needed for realism in the scenario, because it can not be replaced by any of the existing type. May be I have to correct parameters of Fascism, and that is why I really need any feedback from people who play my scenario.

The constitutional monarchy. I think that in Civ3 Democracy represents the type of government which gives everyone unlimited freedom, for business science and else. This makes Democracy very good for science and trade. In the 1900 in British Empire I think only England and may be Canada lived in such a state. Even there traditionalism made some restriction for people who was "on the edge". And in there colonies like India, Birma and else the government were far from Democracy. If I will make England live under Monarchy, then their colonies will become almost unproductive, so I had to develop something in the middle between Democracy and Monarchy

The constitutional monarchy. I think that in Civ3 Democracy repesents the type of goverment which gives everyone unlimited freedom, for bussines scince and else. This makes Democracy very good for scince and trade. In the 1900 in British Empire I think only England and may be Canada lived in such a state. Even there traditionalism made some restriction for people who was "on the edge". And in there colonies like India, Birma and else the govermrnt were far from Democracy. If I will make England live under Monarchy, then their colonies will becoume almost unproductive, so I had to develop something in the middle between Democracy and Monarchy

 

[Pawel]

In the case of Helsinki, your spelling is close to the Swedish version of the city's name, which is Helsingfors. After Russia took Finland from Sweden during the Napoleonic wars, a Russian version was the official name. This underlines the problem of finding the "correct" names for cities. My personal opinion is, however, that the two best policies are either to use the English versions, which probably are the best known, or the names in the native language. To choose those appropriate to a particular period in history as you suggest works well in, say, Roman times, but not equally well in the modern world. Today the official name more depends on the political control of a city, something that tends to be be subject to change during a game of civ , than linguistic criteria. My first suggestion would thus be to take any modern English map as a starting point. Exceptions could be made for cities that became famous under a different name in the period covered by the scenario. Port Arthur (and perhaps even Stalingrad) is a good example. Also, personally I think that it is preferable to have large or important cities on the map rather than seeking perfect placement.
If I find a site I will post. Maybe someone else has suggestions?

Regarding large monarchies at the turn of the previous century I agree that perhaps only that of the British commonwealth qualified as democratic. Perhaps a constitutional monarchy in Germay and Russia (and a republic in France) are more true to history. If so, however, the constitutional monarchy should have a war weariness that is either low or medium (i.e. at the republic level). After all, the war weariness is supposed to reflect free peoples disenchantment with war (especially long ones that don't go well), and a century ago the continental powers in Europe showed little of such behaviour.

 

[Pawel]

I am really looking forward to a version 1.5 of your scenario! I hope you'll find the time! In the meantime, playing around with version 1.4, I found a couple of minor bugs in the AeroXX pack. It is just a few entries concerning a couple of units and a resource. For the benefit of anyone not willing to wait for the next version , I post a fix.

AeroXX 1.4 fix

Important Note: This fix adds no new contents!

P.S. Missing entries don't cause a crash until a unit of the type appears on the map. Try to load once with at all of them there to check the PediaIcons.

 

[AeroPrinz]

Thanks, I will check it. Right now I am working on a big project, so from the may 15 I do not have time to work on the scenario, but when in a week or two I will continue my wotk on 1.5 version.