Realistic And Easy Wwiii 2017-2023

[superisis]

"They will do whatever it takes to force the country to succumb to anarchy, so they can seize power."

Exactly, unfortunately they seem to be succeeding: The peak in the past two years of US soldier body count, for any month, in Iraq was hit in June this summer only to be topped by higher numbers in July, topped by higher numbers in August, topped by even higher numbers in September. The will to fight off the invadors does not seem to subside.

Johan

 

[sir_schwick]

Its an armed resistance, casualties should be expected. Consdering the size of the country and the amount of resistance, US casualty rates are encouraging. It is going to be messy for a while, but American's will be committed for at least another few years. There is actual progress vs. Vietnam.

 

[Lord_Azazel]

great work on this scenario I enjoy playing it...
but I really think you should delete the goody huts.
when I start it's like 5-6 goody huts that gives me things

 

[Shortyman]

It looks like a great scenario, but there is no way that those islamofascists will defeat the American army. Even if they did supress the army a bit, the US will never need to keep putting thousands of troops into Iraq to destroy the enemy. The troops are doing a good job anyway. It also doesn't seem possible that it would create such a debt that they would have to sell a lot of land to Mexico to help their massive debt. It's just not going to happen.

 

[blackheart]

It also isn't probable that China or anyone else for that matter would make any large gains in SE Asia. France tried for 8 years and couldn't, America tried during 3 presidencies and couldn't, China tried after America and couldn't, so I doubt they could now.

And I really doubt Dubya or any America president would even consider selling American territory.

 

[primeminister99]

The point isn't that the Iraqi rebels will defeat the American army persay its that they feel they are fighting for their country and they will be more tenacious than the Americans who are fighting in a foreign backwater. Therefore they will be more inclined to continue fighting until the end -- whereas the US needs more substantive indications of success. It's like Vietnam in that way.

As anyone with half a brain knows (Saddam Hussein's) Iraq and Al Qaeda didn't have connections, nor did Iraq have 'weapons of mass destruction' -- therefore changing the rationale for the war will only hurt American efforts unless they massively cut down on Iraqi civilian casualties (non-combatants) and improve the quality of life of the average Iraqi. So that means it is quite realistic that it will be difficult for this administration, or a future one to continue justifying the war if it doesn't succeed. As such I wouldn't be surprised if continued Iraqi resistance prevents the country from becoming a successful democracy.

Nothing is guaranteed but it is realistic to expect Iraq to be a nexus for a world war 3 scenario.

As for this scenario I don't see why the US would sell land to Mexico under any circumstance. I don't understand the British Civil war thing either -- Britain is far too stable for that. Sure its theoretically possible for N.Ireland to join the rest of Ireland, for Wales and Scotland to become independent therefore the United Kingdom wouldn't exist. I just think they would be peaceful about it, besides the UK has been in existence for so long that I doubt they would break up considering the association the people have with the country. Other than that it looks pretty good.

 

[hypo]

I played through this as the chinese and I noticed a few things

1.) Hong Kong doesnt exist
2.) remove goodie huts
3.) not all civs should have all the techs (ex. China should't have stealth bombers)
4.) a lot of the wonders should not be buildable (i.e. Leonardo's workshop)
5.) China shouldn't have an aircraft carrier (why would they need one?)
6.) US cities should be connected by railroads
7.) disable cultural conversions
8.) playability wise, Mongolia is pretty much useless (better to be part of Russia or China)

It's a good start but really needs a lot of touching up.

 

[Shortyman]

Primeminister99, 80% of Iraq is now compleyely stable. You must be just watching the news and don't go on the internet to see how it is doing. Another thing is that there weren't a lot of civilian casualties. You must be refering to the ludicrously outrageous stat posted by a socialist university (100,000 killed). The actual number is around 10,000-15,000, which is quite low considering the length of the war and the amount of people in Iraq. Thirdly, the quality of life for the Iraqis is pretty god damn good for being in a war.

 

[Shortyman]

Primeminister99, 80% of Iraq is now completely stable. You must be just watching the news and don't go on the internet to see how it is doing. Another thing is that there weren't a lot of civilian casualties. You must be refering to the ludicrously outrageous stat posted by a socialist university (100,000 killed). The actual number is around 10,000-15,000, which is quite low considering the length of the war and the amount of people in Iraq. Thirdly, the quality of life for the Iraqis is pretty god damn good for being in a war.


PS: Isn't it great how a scenario like this can cause a great debate?

 

[riley555]

Lol this ww3 scenario doesn't make much sense either. Isn't Al Sadir a terrorist? there's no way he would or could become a leader of an Arab country he wouldn't make himself such a target. Terrorists take all of their time to hide away and order up as much american blood as possible before dying. He would have neither the charisma or necessary skill to be a leader of any state. Nor do terrorists have the want or desire to lead a country. 2nd, the U.S. sells land to Mexico to pay off some debts? that doesn't make sense at all, there is no way, under any circumstances the U.S. (especially being a powerful super power) would EVER sell any of their land. However the unification of Korea is realistic, even today both leaders of North Korea and South Korea want Korea as one again.

 

[riley555]

Primeminister99, 80% of Iraq is now compleyely stable. You must be just watching the news and don't go on the internet to see how it is doing. Another thing is that there weren't a lot of civilian casualties. You must be refering to the ludicrously outrageous stat posted by a socialist university (100,000 killed). The actual number is around 10,000-15,000, which is quite low considering the length of the war and the amount of people in Iraq. Thirdly, the quality of life for the Iraqis is pretty god damn good for being in a war.

Are you fuc*ing kidding? The Iraqi people are living off dirty water and flour right now. Also the 15,000 killed is from airstrikes. There have been 100,000 EXCESS deaths since the U.S. led invasion, meaning deaths from lack of food, lack of health care etc as a result of the invasion. Also obviously YOU are watching the news, because the news is biased towards the war. They didn't bother reporting little facts like when the documents on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" were proved to be fraudulent, they never report the total number of Iraqi deaths, and they only show the pro-american Iraqi's on t.v. talking about Saddam Husseins horrible rule, but they never show the anti-american flag burning ones (which are the majority of Iraqi's, which is why Al-Qaeda is increasing faster than they're being killed). All CNN and the media in general reports on is selective information and only the information that supports the U.S. governments agenda....that's all the media exists for. Also many Iraqi's prefer Saddam's death squads over American occupation. Let me give you some advice, if you're gonna watch CNN at the very least get some outside information as well. Also, it's pretty weak and pointless that you attack Primeminister, his argument is way more organized and intelligent than yours. I'm not just saying that because I agree with him, anyone can look at his argument then look at yours and see that his is alot more credible.

 

[tommybabs]

Are you fuc*ing kidding? The Iraqi people are living off dirty water and flour right now. Also the 15,000 killed is from airstrikes. There have been 100,000 EXCESS deaths since the U.S. led invasion, meaning deaths from lack of food, lack of health care etc as a result of the invasion. Also obviously YOU are watching the news, because the news is biased towards the war. They didn't bother reporting little facts like when the documents on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" were proved to be fraudulent, they never report the total number of Iraqi deaths, and they only show the pro-american Iraqi's on t.v. talking about Saddam Husseins horrible rule, but they never show the anti-american flag burning ones (which are the majority of Iraqi's, which is why Al-Qaeda is increasing faster than they're being killed). All CNN and the media in general reports on is selective information and only the information that supports the U.S. governments agenda....that's all the media exists for. Also many Iraqi's prefer Saddam's death squads over American occupation. Let me give you some advice, if you're gonna watch CNN at the very least get some outside information as well. Also, it's pretty weak and pointless that you attack Primeminister, his argument is way more organized and intelligent than yours. I'm not just saying that because I agree with him, anyone can look at his argument then look at yours and see that his is alot more credible.

When you talk about "the news", you should remember that we all live in different countries! The news over here in the UK is completely different from the news in the US, or Germany, or Syria!

 

[sir_schwick]

However the unification of Korea is realistic, even today both leaders of North Korea and South Korea want Korea as one again.

Yeah, Kim Jong Il wants the whole country to himself. Sorta the same way that Hitler wanted Poland and Germany to be 'unified'.

 

[Corvex]

It's not that there's no will to reunite Korea, there just might not be (an "acceptable") way.

 

[krazydude]

I haven't tried the scn yet, but regarding your story

"A group of radical muslims in north-east India began to think their nation had had it better under the rule of britain and wanted to rejoin the commonwealth. They imediately resorted to terrorist action, funded by Al-Qaeda."

I don't think Al-Qaeda would support a group who wants to join commonwealth

 

[douche_bag]

awesome scenario communisto, i played as north korea then whooped south korea , about that, i captured Seoul from the south koreans and it seemed to be thier only city. shouldn't they have been elimenated?

 

[krazydude]

douche_bag: If they haven't been eliminated that's because they must have another city somewhere.

 

[wade-13]

I have not yet played this map...but look forward to it.

In all honesty, from reading the story line I don't believe its very realistic...

Most likely:

1. The European Union would solidify with Germany as its leading power.
2. Great Britain (UK) would likely unite formaly or otherwise with the United States.
3. Quebec would cause a conflict between the US/UK and the EU.
4. India and Pakistan would go to war.
5. US/UK and EU would go to war.
6. Russia WOULD change to communism (look at the headlines--they already are)
7. China and Russia would reunite.
8. Terrorism would play a minor but menacy role.
9. The US/UK or EU would have to join up with "United Indistan" to defeat the New USSR.

Or at least I think this is much more realistic.

I like the idea, but I think I may have to work with the editor to create a more realistic scenario...

Thanks.

 

[Teutonic_Knight]

Cool scenario. Gets the imagination going.

 

[Corvex]

I have not yet played this map...but look forward to it.

In all honesty, from reading the story line I don't believe its very realistic...

Most likely:

1. The European Union would solidify with Germany as its leading power.
2. Great Britain (UK) would likely unite formaly or otherwise with the United States.
3. Quebec would cause a conflict between the US/UK and the EU.
4. India and Pakistan would go to war.
5. US/UK and EU would go to war.
6. Russia WOULD change to communism (look at the headlines--they already are)
7. China and Russia would reunite.
8. Terrorism would play a minor but menacy role.
9. The US/UK or EU would have to join up with "United Indistan" to defeat the New USSR.

Or at least I think this is much more realistic.

I like the idea, but I think I may have to work with the editor to create a more realistic scenario...

Thanks.

1. Probably. But then, France is the one with nuclear weapons
2. I sincerely doubt it
3. Why would either care about Quebec in the future when they have never done so in the past? And what makes you so sure Quebec will separate when they haven't done so in the last 250 years.
4. Maybe.
5. Why? Their trade is worth too much to bother.
6. Authoritarianism isn' t the same as communism
7. Reunite? When were they ever together in the first place? I suppose that they were both part of the Molgolian Empire 800 years ago.
8. True.
9. Maybe. Maybe not.