Realistic And Easy Wwiii 2017-2023

[Rita Poon]

Don't have a problem with the US being defeated for the sake of this scenario. Its a near future scenario & that means making a jump in logic. Rather than dismiss Communisto's scenario as implausible, why not suggest ways to give it a more realistic background story? For example-President Bush couldn't be swept out of office in '08. Term limits mean it would be impossible for him even run in '08.

Looks fun. What kind of loading times does this scenario get?

 

[Communisto]

the loading time is real fast

 

[KabeDerlin]

I like the idea for this scenario. I'm going to download it right now and check it out. I would say though, that instead of the US being beaten they are just unable to wage a heavy war for a while due to unpopular support of the people. Vietnam never really beat the US, it just became unpopular. If you look at casualty rates the US were kicking ass. It was just a matter of the NVA and Viet Cong's tenacity.

Other than a few minor details I like the idea of the scenario and I applaud you for coming up with something original. Don't listen to these other boring people like ashep5000. They can go play a much more "realistic" scenario if they want, I'm gonna play this.

 

[navman74]

Don't have a problem with the US being defeated for the sake of this scenario. Its a near future scenario & that means making a jump in logic. Rather than dismiss Communisto's scenario as implausible, why not suggest ways to give it a more realistic background story? For example-President Bush couldn't be swept out of office in '08. Term limits mean it would be impossible for him even run in '08.

Looks fun. What kind of loading times does this scenario get?

Loading time on mine was under 3 minutes, not bad compared to many I have seen...
Ron

 

[navman74]

I like the idea for this scenario. I'm going to download it right now and check it out. I would say though, that instead of the US being beaten they are just unable to wage a heavy war for a while due to unpopular support of the people. Vietnam never really beat the US, it just became unpopular. If you look at casualty rates the US were kicking ass. It was just a matter of the NVA and Viet Cong's tenacity.

Other than a few minor details I like the idea of the scenario and I applaud you for coming up with something original. Don't listen to these other boring people like ashep5000. They can go play a much more "realistic" scenario if they want, I'm gonna play this.

Actually the only point I made was that, unlike it's title, it is not necessarily "more realistic ww3" I made a point several times that it is a good scenario, and I don't wish to speak for ashep, but I believe he was saying the same thing.
On the other, you are correct about Vietnam, we won every battle but lost the war due to..mmm..less than patriotic support from the US homefront.
While Iraq is no and will be no "Vietnam" the only reason as I said I even bothered to point that out was because of the scenario's name. And in case any one may have missed it..YES, A GOOD SCENARIO..NOT REALISTIC IN A STRONG SENSE, BUT THEN NEITHER IS LORD OF THE RINGS, AND IT'S GOOD AS WELL This one is definitely worth your time.
Ron

 

[ruski_timur]

this is actually one of the best modern warfare scenarios I have played to date. Gameplay is great, and you did a great job without altering anything. I'd like to mention once again that the plot is really impressive and it seems like you spent some time on it.

 

[Communisto]

thanks allot guys, you've encuraged me to make another one that should be comming out next week hopefully (school ya know )

 

[Metacomet]

On the other, you are correct about Vietnam, we won every battle but lost the war due to..mmm..less than patriotic support from the US homefront.

Navman74,

Sorry but do you think that patriotic support does anything is wrong right? Because the homefront in the Vietnam era was against a brutal and endless war. The American people must be always patriotic ones, but that doesn't mean shut up any time we are at war.

With your patriotic concept I think we will be Englishmen and not Americans. I strongly recommend you to read Tomes Paine, maybe you did, and his defense of the citizens’ rights to fight against the bad government. That’s the key we are a democracy, and I don’t think disagree with President Bush or the war makes me less patriotic as it didn’t do the same with the Vietnam protesters.

The right to disagree makes this country great, and of course you can disagree with me. It’s the American way.

 

[El Justo]

all neat ideas, however...
lumping india and pakistan together in an alliance seems a bit far-fetched. the US selling off portions of the country? absurd! a british india reincarnation? unlikely. the quagmire in iraq? i can understand your viewpoint but we all know that the US wouldn't invest that much blood for such little treasure (assuming it's 2010 or wherever you had it).

an A+ for creativity but i would tweak it some so that any alliances/nation states are calculated guesses rather than hastily arranged concoctions.

keep going though. we always need more good scenario makers here at cfc!

 

[navman74]

Navman74,

Sorry but do you think that patriotic support does anything is wrong right? Because the homefront in the Vietnam era was against a brutal and endless war. The American people must be always patriotic ones, but that doesn't mean shut up any time we are at war.

With your patriotic concept I think we will be Englishmen and not Americans. I strongly recommend you to read Tomes Paine, maybe you did, and his defense of the citizens’ rights to fight against the bad government. That’s the key we are a democracy, and I don’t think disagree with President Bush or the war makes me less patriotic as it didn’t do the same with the Vietnam protesters.

The right to disagree makes this country great, and of course you can disagree with me. It’s the American way.

No, I have nothing against EDUCATED protest, what I find annoying is that people will seize on another persons words, with the other persons agenda, and assume it to be correct..and that covers both sides, I would hate people to think that just because Bush says something, it is correct as well..I just wish people would think before they decide, mostly. Arguments such as M.Moores, were not thought out, and many people believe it,just because they saw it in a movie. The election contributors gaining from the war? Give me a break..those companies contribute millions to each side every election,just to guarantee they always are INside rather than outside.
I can see no real argument against the war, that would stand up to my arguments actually, except if someone just doesn't believe in war, and I can agree with them in that case, but then I would hopt they don't believe in say abortion either..if it is so wrong to kill enemy soldiers, it must be even more wrong to kill unborn children..(No, I am not an anti-abortion freak, I believe in choice actually lol, just using it as an example) to this, suddenly many of the "its wrong to bomb them" crowd has a problem.
Personally, I believe war is a final solution, not a first choice. Many of the most "anti-war" people you can find, have been to war..these people also believe that however horrible, some things are worth fighting, and maybe dying , for. One of the things I believe is worth fighting and dying for, is a country where people can disagree with me..I just hope they think base it on logic rather than someones twisted "truth".
Wow, I talk too much. Thanks all
Ron

 

[navman74]

El Justo..love the signature(Phillies announcer)

 

[El Justo]

El Justo..love the signature(Phillies announcer)

thanks. cool, eh?

i haven't DL'ed any of your files. have you included custom gfx? what is the size of the map? how may civs? maybe a screen shot?

 

[citizen001]

why is New Zealand the same colour as countries in South America, shouldn't they be part of Australia or Oceania.

 

[Communisto]

they're their own countrie with a similar colour (it changes in-game)

 

[Metacomet]

No, I have nothing against EDUCATED protest, what I find annoying is that people will seize on another persons words, with the other persons agenda, and assume it to be correct..and that covers both sides, I would hate people to think that just because Bush says something, it is correct as well..I just wish people would think before they decide, mostly. Arguments such as M.Moores, were not thought out, and many people believe it,just because they saw it in a movie. The election contributors gaining from the war? Give me a break..those companies contribute millions to each side every election,just to guarantee they always are INside rather than outside.
I can see no real argument against the war, that would stand up to my arguments actually, except if someone just doesn't believe in war, and I can agree with them in that case, but then I would hopt they don't believe in say abortion either..if it is so wrong to kill enemy soldiers, it must be even more wrong to kill unborn children..(No, I am not an anti-abortion freak, I believe in choice actually lol, just using it as an example) to this, suddenly many of the "its wrong to bomb them" crowd has a problem.
Personally, I believe war is a final solution, not a first choice. Many of the most "anti-war" people you can find, have been to war..these people also believe that however horrible, some things are worth fighting, and maybe dying , for. One of the things I believe is worth fighting and dying for, is a country where people can disagree with me..I just hope they think base it on logic rather than someones twisted "truth".
Wow, I talk too much. Thanks all
Ron

Now I should agree with your argumentation, not with your ideas but it's OK. About Michael Moore movie as a historian I can say that it won't be an accurate historial document, like that movie in the 90's about the Clinton Presidency. It's a movie to enjoy if you don't like President Bush, but I'm not saying that everything was a lie. It's no a documentary it's a propaganda toll.

 

[akinkhoo]

ASEAN is already under the influence of China, China doesn't need a pact with anyone. if china move troop into SEA, they can use the excuse of anti-terrorism.

will ASEAN become a Pan Islamic Superstate as the terrorist has hope for? well it would be an interesting plot... Thailand will surely resist it, a league of remaining SEA nations... who will Singapore side given it's chinese majority? will malaysia be able to hold on the seperation of religious and state as it always has?

N. Korea should be dead by the time China has offensive capability... it is not wise to keep a tiger that may bite it's master...

Pakistan won't join M.I.E. it will be the other way round... would britain join northern ireland? i doubt so...

USA, even in debt won't sell any land... Mexico is hardly rich enough to pay any price... even after a fail war, it should has no problem remains a superpower...

 

[sir_schwick]

I know this is a scenario, but some of your historical assumptions are ridiculous:

1) The US was never defeated in Vietnam, they "withdrew" from Vietnam the same way the Romans withdrew from the Britains in the 400s.
2) The US had trouble in Vietnam because we supported a corrupt and ruthless dictator(Diem). In Iraq there is some effort to encourage a democratic process. Al Sadr is not even the most powerful cleric in Iraq.
3) India and Pakistan will only join forces when hell freezes over, and even then it is not likely.
4) India would never cede control of any land to any party, especially terrorists. Israel is the perfect historical case on why terrorism is a failing tactic. Most Israeli's have learned to accept suicide bombings as part of their environment.
5) China does not need anybody's permission to operate in SE Asia and would pwn N Korea if they tried to conquer S Korea. Nuclear exchange on their border is not what China wants.

Here are my story ammendments:

The US withdraws from Iraq because a leader that is not on cordial terms with the US is elected. This new leader uses turmoil in other MIddle Eastern countries to create a modified OPEC, but with more political and military authority.
Radical military elements in India manage to gain control of a nuke and launch it at Pakistan. Similair elements on the other side manage to launch some of their nukes before the exchange can be called off. China uses the oppurtunity to gain territory(mostly resources) under the guise of 'conflict resolution' and 'peacekeeping'. The EU and US do not have the distance advantage and are forced to concede the round to China. An incident between Chinese and EU forces ignites a conflict, the US and her allies support the EU. Russia now has to determine whether to take Eastern Europe or gang-bang China.

 

[Communisto]

i never said india and pakistan would join forces gaargh!! people never pay attension!!

 

[Raven9983]

A very leftist view of a potential Third World War. I don't see terrorists ever managing to gain a seat of power anywhere, especially in Iraq (which is the adversary, not allied Iraqi security forces and police or say the Iranian Army in a comparison the the VC) and India, which has been at war with similar groups for decades. Instead I can see a third world war being ignited by a terrorist group setting off a nuclear weapon somewhere in the Free World and a massive, and truely effect war on every terrorist stronghold and the nations that harbor them. This can also lead to the destruction of nuclear weapons world wide. It'd also fit as a scenario since use of nuclear weapons in Civ 3 usually results in the world declaring war on you.

 

[KabeDerlin]

The right to disagree makes this country great, and of course you can disagree with me. It’s the American way.

While I agree the right to spit upon men who went through hell for their country and lost friends in battle and saw the terror and horrors of war only to come home to a country who hates them and despises their very being is not right and never in my eyes will be right. The American movements in the Vietnam era needed a target and they chose the easiest one. I see more and more of this beginning to happen again in the Iraq problem.

1) The US was never defeated in Vietnam, they "withdrew" from Vietnam the same way the Romans withdrew from the Britains in the 400s.

We were defeated. The US Government in an effort to cover up it's stupidity of underestimating the enemy just made it sound better by calling it a withdrawel. Our mission was to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam and as we didn't succeed in that mission it can only be called defeat.