Modern Alliances

while I personally believe the west including the UK should of stepped in a long time ago it didn't pass for political reasons. other political issues mean that david Cameron aint well liked even by his own party I think its mostly about sticking it to david Cameron that and theres something about an American war in the middle east which makes brits think of oil for bush and soldiers dying by friendly fire for some reason......
 
while the obvious thing to do is compare this to iraq, you as well as i, as well as anyone who slightly pays attention to this stuff knows the two dont compare. the west has little interest in syria, and an intervention would be almost strictly in the interest of the people of syria, and not our interests.

i beleive too that they should have interfered a while ago, not an invasion, but atleast a no fly zone etc. but we were to scared of the russians/chinese. Obama doesnt have a good foreign policy at all IMO. while the economy is no longer in a recession which he gets (partial) credit for, very few fp problems are better off now. while we back down to the russians regarding syria, russia does whatever they please with granting assylum, and we dont do a thing...in my opinion chemical weapons isnt a big deal currently (as the syrian government, i highly doubt, wouldnt attempt that again as we would intervene immediatly) the deaths from chemical warfare is basically none comparred to overall death toll, we just needed a big reason to try to help. Obama doesnt want to make a bold move. Iraw ruined the rep of Bush's administration, obama didnt want to repeat
 
well I agree it would mostly be in the best interests of Syria but I don't think 100% that because it would be a good way to say f*** u to the Russians and Chinese and Im guessing that another pro usa government in the middle east would please usa too.

and while I agree Russia only granted him asylum to stick it to usa. yours and to some extent my government is spying on its own people and is clearly infringing of our civil rights. while do believe some steps should be taken to protect everyone. what your government in particular is doing wouldn't be out of place in Russia or china. while what the likes of manning and snowden have done may have put things in danger how is it any less of a betrayal to your country than what your government has done by spying on its own people. Americans go on about there civil rights but is not spying on your own people like what your governments done a betrayal of your constitution and there people? I mean your government even spied on Europe, what the hell for? what reason could there be to spy on your biggest allies, sounds more like something Russia would do for me.
 
To be honest I could care less about the spying..its just my personal feelings:dunno: I have absolutely nothing, and probably never will, of interest in my phone conversations etc. that the government would have in interest. If they skimmed over all of my emails texts etc it really wouldn't make a difference to me. I'm never going to know if they do, so why worry about it? I'm not for it of course, and I would say I am slightly against it, but I don't really care to much...its sort of like Gay marriage, I guess I am for it because I don't see a reason why not...but I really don't have a strong opinion as one way or another, doesnt exactly effect me...

There ain't gonna be a pro USA government in Syria. If there is it's by luck. It sounds like we are going to send in cruise missile (which btw very good idea, Obama might actually have a FP win starting on his hands..) and we will help bring down the regime, and the Syrian people will complain 100% that it was to little to late (which they are correct). It's safe to say it didn't work with Egypt..and I would say having a militaristic government who specialized in slaughtering people isn't going to end up Pro West either...and Libya doesn't seem to be an ally currently, although the government is simply to new to tell. I would say there's little chance syria becomes a US ally, but there is a chance

We could use it, as we are running very low on them, we have turkey (who will be beyond pleased with any attack) Jordan and Israel, and yemen (sort of...) and the French have UAE...they becoming hard to find

Good to see your friends the french and the Australians support us :D
 
you know my opinion on EU so your more than welcome to france :lol: and while its true that unlike USA, Australia are britains favourite son :p. its a good place to go on holiday and someone we enjoy beating at all sports you can have Australia too :lol:
 
Just cause you don't like the EU doesn't mean you can't like france...hey ill much rather have a French American lead coalition vs a unilateral one. I am just hoping that the attack will pass congress. We wouldn't (most likely) be risking American lives, and if it is short I can't see it hurting our reputation in the ME, at least among the people (although that may be different with the local rules..) and it won't be a large enough attack to have a large effect on our military spending, there really isn't much argument against it. Then again the people you voted for found an argument....

Did you see that video of Putin? Sometime you wonder how someone who sounds so stupid can run a country

EDIT: What would you say should be the tech differences for the Tanks and airplanes?
This is how the techs for WW1/interw/ww2 planes
#)Tech (Year) - unlocks

1)Aerial Warfare (1912) - Plane (Simple plane that can only preform reconnaissance)
2)Aerial Bombing (1914) - WW1 bombers (Up to 1918)
3)Dogfighting (1914) - WW1 Fighters (Up to 1918)
4)Aerial Combat (1920) - Improved Biplanes (All post WW1 Biplanes, excluding several WW2 era ones obvoiusly)
5)Monoplanes (1932) - Monoplane (All monoplanes made between 1932 and 1936)
6)Radar (1936) - Fighters, Bombers (All planes made between 1936 and 1941)
7)Air superiority (1941) - Fighters, Bombers (All planes made post 1941)

A couple things I am looking for here, I beleive a 1917ish tech is required for improved WW1 planes, any idea for a name? Are there any obvious improvements around this time?
Same thing for cerca 1925ish, to split off the difference between Improved Biplanes and Monoplanes.
And Again same thing for 1943/4ish. Otherwise things like the B-29, Hawker Tempest etc. could be built in 1941, but I can't find any thing to name a 1944ish aerial technology

As for tanks, I can't seem to find much on Interwar Tanks, right now it is upgraded from WW1 tanks to WW2, what could split the difference?
 
well aye im just the French will come in handy for you as long as you can put there white flag to good use :lol:

putin runs his country by putting people in his country who disagree with him in jail and those who disagree with him outside his country he has them poisoned

as for the planes and tanks I will have to look at that later this week

all I can think of off hand is maybe the sopworth camel 1916 as it set the standard design for next 20 years

most of the interwar thinking with tanks was light and cruiser tanks
 
dacubz145 said:
What would you say should be the tech differences for the Tanks and airplanes?
This is how the techs for WW1/interw/ww2 planes
#)Tech (Year) - unlocks

1)Aerial Warfare (1912) - Plane (Simple plane that can only preform reconnaissance)
2)Aerial Bombing (1914) - WW1 bombers (Up to 1918)
3)Dogfighting (1914) - WW1 Fighters (Up to 1918)
4)Aerial Combat (1920) - Improved Biplanes (All post WW1 Biplanes, excluding several WW2 era ones obvoiusly)
5)Monoplanes (1932) - Monoplane (All monoplanes made between 1932 and 1936)
6)Radar (1936) - Fighters, Bombers (All planes made between 1936 and 1941)
7)Air superiority (1941) - Fighters, Bombers (All planes made post 1941)

A couple things I am looking for here, I beleive a 1917ish tech is required for improved WW1 planes, any idea for a name? Are there any obvious improvements around this time?
Same thing for cerca 1925ish, to split off the difference between Improved Biplanes and Monoplanes.
And Again same thing for 1943/4ish. Otherwise things like the B-29, Hawker Tempest etc. could be built in 1941, but I can't find any thing to name a 1944ish aerial technology

As for tanks, I can't seem to find much on Interwar Tanks, right now it is upgraded from WW1 tanks to WW2, what could split the difference?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is for the mod.
IIRC using bomber planes didn't actually happen until 1917, so there's a tech. Before, Airship bombing was used.
 
Hello dacubz145. the mod isawesome and very nice to play, but I have a question. When I play scenarios 1914 or 1920 the initial situation is the same( countries, leaders, countries in war,.....). Is it possible?.
Best wishes.
 
Hello dacubz145. Your mod is awesome and very nice to play, but I have a question. When play scenario 1914 or scenario 1920 the game is the same (countries, leaders, countries in war,....). It is possible?
Best wishes for you.
 
Hello dacubz!

I was absent from the site for a while, so I hadn't noticed that you updated the mod. I'm trying it now and I'm glad to see that you put everything back together. But I have encountered a bug: it won't let me switch any civics. Is this intentional? I have started two games, one as Turkey and one as the Philippines, and both times I get about five turns in and I'm frustrated because I can't change any civics. Is there an event that triggers civic changes, or is this a bug?
 
So does anybody have an explanation, perhaps a soothing word, for my civics bug? I would really like to play the mod over the holidays, but I don't have much motivation if it doesn't work. :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bite
  • Sticky
Civilization VII – Features Thread
6 7 8
Replies
158
Views
44K
bite
bite
The_J
Old World update #135
Replies
7
Views
2K
PiR
PiR
FXS_Sar
  • Locked
Civilization VII Update 1.2.4 - August 19, 2025
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
10K
The_J
The_J
Sullla
More Tables for the New Growth Formula
Replies
10
Views
2K
pmarc
P
UncivilizedGuy
Historical Timeline Project
Replies
11
Views
4K
UncivilizedGuy
UncivilizedGuy
Back
Top Bottom