mythusmage
Prince
WW3 has already occurred, 1946 to 1990. AKA: The Cold War. I shant be the only one who points it out.
POLL: WW IV Scenario
- Thread starter Gojira54
- Start date
WW3 has already occurred, 1946 to 1990. AKA: The Cold War. I shant be the only one who points it out.
Gojira54
The folly of Man
The original limit was to be 18 cities. Here is China's 18largest cities accurately mapped. 4 of them all are all on top of each other in the Hong Kong area, so really if I were to map these cities it would only be 14 or 15 cities, as I may merge Beijing and Tianjin, depending on the map limitations. Out of curiosity, I will map all 162 and see what we get 
Attachments
Gojira54
The folly of Man
All 162 mapped on Google Earth for proper placement. This was very painful. Note most cities are so close together you can't even see them, especially along the eastern coast. Also note the Urumqi is in Central Western China, but is still the farthest westward pre-placed city. I am leaning towards city limits now...
Attachments
Gojira54
The folly of Man
Does anyone play 362 maps, or should I keep this at 256?
Gojira54
The folly of Man
One thing I am finding makes a good balance of play in my sister scenario The New Civil War, is that the largest faction is locked in a permanent war individually with the next 3 largest factions, and the remaining 27 civs are neutral. Makes some sense here too, as the big boys are the ones most likely to have devastated everything. This would lock China in a war with India, Brazil, and Japan, with everyone else for hire..... Sounds odd including Brazil over US and Russia, but keep in mind technology just got knocked back to clubs and axes - it's the population that counts....
wolf_brother
King
As has already been said by myself and several others, total population isn't what matters most - you also have to take into account population centers, as well as infrastructure, available resources (and how easy they are to get to), political stability, etc etc etc.
Same as with China, India & Brazil are rapidly industrializing/modernizing countries that have very large population centers in a very small area. For Brazil, that means up and down the Atlantic coast. For India, its around the major rivers - the Ganges and the Indus predominantly.
Japan over all simply has a very small area into which almost all of its total population is squeezed, as only 11% of the land is arable.
These are countries that are simply not going to be able to stay together, or recover, or even function as something remotely like a 'nation-state' in any sort of sense after any scenario involving nuclear exchange.
If you absolutely insist on basing relative 'power' for the start of the scenario, and whose at war with who, upon total population levels of various countries than I would suggest first removing major population centers. Anything that can even be remotely described as a agglomeration should be wiped from the map.
Gojira54
The folly of Man
OK - Limiting the Chinese cities to those at 2 million and over reduces it from 162 to 61. Using Teturkhans 256x256 world map, I am able to condense these 61 cities into 29 high population urban centers, which will be represented by cities. I think I'm done with China.
Attachments
Gojira54
The folly of Man
Hey Wolf Brother - I understand what you and others are saying. My point is that there will bee no infrastructure left whatsoever. There will have been few nuke strikes, but rather a few strategic ones, coupled with bio-weapons such as man-made lethal flu-like diseases, dirty bombs, EMP pulses, etc - not to mention the ecological disasters that would naturally occur after all of that.. The major population centers will be all that is left, the rest will be roving or camped barbarians. The major population centers will be the ones that will most likely have places to hide until it is safe, medical supplies, canned goods, etc. so it makes sense that barring nuclear strikes against them they would be best fit for survival.
I am fully aware that Japan and other countries will be starving - that is my intention. All will start off starving and have a rough time even without war, as pollution and damage from the war will be everywhere, natural resources will take a long time to recover, and bands of survivors will be constantly attaking cities to get some resources from themselves. Cities "lucky" enough to start with a high pop count will lose that pop count very quickly. Some cities which can survive on arid land in the modern world will probably die off from starvation pretty quickly. I expect that.
There are 224 countries in this world. 31 are in this scenario. That leaves 193 to expand into and plunder. Japan will need to expand quickly and focus on diplomacy and trade to survive being that close to China if locked into war with it.
Considering how weak and unstable China will start off as, I would think that as long as they are attacked early enough they should be weakened to the point of not overpowering the globe. They will take the longest to get on their feet, but will be the most powerful if that all goes unchecked.
I am fully aware that Japan and other countries will be starving - that is my intention. All will start off starving and have a rough time even without war, as pollution and damage from the war will be everywhere, natural resources will take a long time to recover, and bands of survivors will be constantly attaking cities to get some resources from themselves. Cities "lucky" enough to start with a high pop count will lose that pop count very quickly. Some cities which can survive on arid land in the modern world will probably die off from starvation pretty quickly. I expect that.
There are 224 countries in this world. 31 are in this scenario. That leaves 193 to expand into and plunder. Japan will need to expand quickly and focus on diplomacy and trade to survive being that close to China if locked into war with it.
Considering how weak and unstable China will start off as, I would think that as long as they are attacked early enough they should be weakened to the point of not overpowering the globe. They will take the longest to get on their feet, but will be the most powerful if that all goes unchecked.
Bowsling
Deity
You can't just base it on numbers. Spain will have a large advantage because it will start relatively strong, sheilded by another civilized nation (France) and it's only barbarian neighbor being Portugal, who will have 1 stronghold. the US on the other hand, starts squished between the two strongest rogue nations, and very spread out. Eastern US will be half decent, and completely separated from western US, which will get conquered by the first nation who feels like it.
Gojira54
The folly of Man
Perhaps I'll settle the population debate this way - I had the basic idea of having a scenario that IS based purely on the population of Earth as it is today. I spent WEEKS researching all the global popultion data for this. The next thought was how can I make this a fun and playable yet somewhat realistic scenario with the Chinese overpopulation issue. Knocking everyone back to the Stone Age helps with that, as the Chinese overpopulation is only possible with Modern Technology. Remove that, and their power wilts. Take away their resources, add environmental damage and roaming barbs, the are nerfed further.
Point is, my idea was for a real-world population based scenario, and this post WW3 environment was the vehicle I chose to make this scenario. I did not start off with a post-apocalyptic idea, then decide to base it on population. Attempts to change the population base of the scenario will fail, as that is my whole idea. There are a ton of other post-apocalyptic scenarios, but none like this. As Steph said, start off with an idea then figure out how to make it fun/playable/realistic.
I also would hate to think that all those hours compiling the population data of all 224 nations in the world, the top 3000 cities in the world, all cities in the world over 1 million population, and mapping all these cities in Google Earth would be a complete waste of time. I've also researched all 48 continental states, their capitols, top 50 cities, leaders, political climate, and individual culture for the New Civil War scenario, and the same thing for all the counties in California for the Battle For California scenario. All three of these scenarios take place in the same post-WW3 environment, and all have twists of the same theme.
I plan on releasing these as a trio - Global, National, and State level. I may even do one at the County level for Orange County as I have been occasionally working on my own OC map for years, but I am not even going to start work on that until the other 3 are done.
Point is, I have put a HUGE amount of effort and thought into how the starting cities will be laid out. The only thing that might change that is if I can find no way to make the scenario fun and at least somewhat balanced. That is the challenge - making the idea work. Until I've reached that point, any attempts to change me from that idea will be ignored.
Point is, my idea was for a real-world population based scenario, and this post WW3 environment was the vehicle I chose to make this scenario. I did not start off with a post-apocalyptic idea, then decide to base it on population. Attempts to change the population base of the scenario will fail, as that is my whole idea. There are a ton of other post-apocalyptic scenarios, but none like this. As Steph said, start off with an idea then figure out how to make it fun/playable/realistic.
I also would hate to think that all those hours compiling the population data of all 224 nations in the world, the top 3000 cities in the world, all cities in the world over 1 million population, and mapping all these cities in Google Earth would be a complete waste of time. I've also researched all 48 continental states, their capitols, top 50 cities, leaders, political climate, and individual culture for the New Civil War scenario, and the same thing for all the counties in California for the Battle For California scenario. All three of these scenarios take place in the same post-WW3 environment, and all have twists of the same theme.
I plan on releasing these as a trio - Global, National, and State level. I may even do one at the County level for Orange County as I have been occasionally working on my own OC map for years, but I am not even going to start work on that until the other 3 are done.
Point is, I have put a HUGE amount of effort and thought into how the starting cities will be laid out. The only thing that might change that is if I can find no way to make the scenario fun and at least somewhat balanced. That is the challenge - making the idea work. Until I've reached that point, any attempts to change me from that idea will be ignored.
Gojira54
The folly of Man
I'll add that I am farther along with the US scenario than the Global one, and have been playtesting various settings to make the LSA (a coalition of the smaller 18 states and Washington D.C.) not being too powerful or weak to start. No alliances allows LSA to overpower the nation. Everyone at war with the LSA kills LSA off pretty quickly. California, Texas, and New York at war with the LSA seems to keep the balance in check, though New York seems to be the sacrificial lamb at some point.
I mention all this to illustrate that there are a number of ways to keep this population thing while keeping the game fun and balanced.
I mention all this to illustrate that there are a number of ways to keep this population thing while keeping the game fun and balanced.
A 3rd WW is likely to have catastrophic environmental effects viz. both (1) resource wars (dams being bombed etc.) and (2) probably just enough of a thermal push to melt the Himalayan ice cap, leaving a billion people or so without water. Hence my vote to reduce both Chinese and Indian populations dramatically.
Best,
Oz
Best,
Oz
Underpaid
Multi units...
There are very, very, VERY many factors that contribute to the outcome of a WW3.
Some include but are not limited to:
Basically, there are way more factors in making these decisions than what you'd expect.
Some include but are not limited to:
- Nukes would most likely be used on the largest urban centers or other strategic locations, possibly wiping out an upward of maybe 99% of the population if the population theoretically wasn't shielded in any way.
- Because of this, many moderately sized (but not big-city) cities will become refuge camps for the surrounding countryside (as the nukes kicked them out of the metro area around the big-cities). This will give rise to the importance of cities that are not so powerful now.
- I'm pretty sure not THAT much technology should be eradicated. I mean, middle school kids even know basic science and math principles that were advanced to the best scholars of the ancient ages.
Basically, there are way more factors in making these decisions than what you'd expect.
1. Nukes argue for my Himalayan ic cap melt
( 
)2. Refugee camps on the order you envision is unlikely: service infrastructure isn't developed to cope with a such scenarios.
3. Our entire knowledge base and communications infrastrure (internet; all things electronic) would be destroyed (EMP) and I sure as heck don't know how to build a trireme.
4. You might want to consider including Switzerland (yes, Switzerland) as (1) they have nuke shelters for their entire population (2) all males are armed and in the active military or militia (3) their data cahes will probably be better protected than most, and (4) who's going to target the Swiss to beging with?
Best,
Oz
wolf_brother
King
Our digital knowledge base would be eradicated; most-to-all cities in the western world have one if not several public libraries - and that's not even counting, private libraries, archives for record keeping, etc etc etc. Then there's educational centers; universities often have their own libraries, as well as hordes of informational textbooks - the same can be said about various public and private schools for K-12 levels.
So while you may not know how to build a trireme, considering that any average high-school graduate knows a basic smattering of physics & mathematics, and would have at least a basic base upon which to build, a small community could easily be conceivably building triremes within a few months (depending of course on their priorities).
Let's see: 1MM refugees crowds into a city of 10MM. Every service is strained. Order breaks down. Water-born disease spreads. Fires start. Books burn. Librarians are hardly sworn to defend their stacks to the death. Civil peacekeeping and defense personnel are strained defending food and water supplies, oil tanks, etc. -- all without radios and thereby communiation with the outside world and hope of aid of any sort. Buildings burn and/or books are used anywhere it's cold as fuel. Faculty and other human "knowledge nodes" are scattered: organized intellectual/scientific activity is indefinitely put on hold as basic survival needs are addressed on a Biblical scale. Meanwhile books are burned and record archives flooded by ruptured water mains. Mass movement of population precludes carrying much printed mattered, most of it probably wasted on religious texts.
It will be quite some time before more than very basic skills -- probably largely without books -- are taught, or a polity capable of organizing itself to build a trireme (remember: complete civil collapse) emerges.
Just MHO.
,Oz
wolf_brother
King
Suggested reading for the day; Dies the Fire by S.M. Stirling.
Any response I could possibly make would
Any response I could possibly make would
- Be way to long
- Further deviate from the OP
Lots of nice Ideas expressed here, but the biggest head scratcher for me is why would China or any country after the proposed strikes hangs together? China should fragment just like USA as would most countries .. I could see 1-3 say communities hanging together based on shared assets or a common mil base to provide security, rest don't get. Also don't bet on all major cities being targeted, if there isn't a strat target there most would not be targeted .. premise is if the infrastructure, comm, etc is gone they will die or impose more of a burden then if attacked (similar to the wounded target in infantry combat). Just some points .. looking fwd to giving this a whirl though when done.
Gojira54
The folly of Man
OP?
JSnider I agree, which is why I am making the US version of exactly what you said. For the purpose of the global war I am assuming the countries have sort of kept it together, but their complete lack of infrastructure and possibly very high corruption will be used to represent a barely functioning government.
JSnider I agree, which is why I am making the US version of exactly what you said. For the purpose of the global war I am assuming the countries have sort of kept it together, but their complete lack of infrastructure and possibly very high corruption will be used to represent a barely functioning government.
