Realistic And Easy Wwiii 2017-2023

[Metacomet]

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.

I just say that they had their right to disagree, but I'm not taking any side on the Vietnam era disputes. You are right if someone disegrees with the war in Iraq I don't think is fair to pick in the soldiers, maybe we can make a few exceptions, but on the politicians who decided for the war.

 

[sir_schwick]

I do not believe anyone was justifying the way soldiers were treated after coming home. It is improper and foolish to blame soldiers for the orders of their superiors. Some of that may have been frustration that if they[college students] protested they might be shot(Kent State). Still, I am rambling now. The point is that those who give the orders are not the ones to die, but are the ones to get pissed at.

My stance is that the rehabiliation of Iraq is a good idea that needed slightly more planning. The US should stay until the Iraqi national forces can handle their defense needs. Hopefully it will be a departure from the US foreign-policy of using easily manipulated dictators to control hotspots.

 

[KingOfCiv]

I really like your scenario...BUT!...You need to remove goodyhuts and fix some city terrains because they are starving right off the bat. Another thing would be nice if you added a terrain pack make it look better?! The americans would have a missle shield or atleast some kind of missle defence agaist the ICBM's!? A few other tweaks and this could be a great mod....Are you going to continue the tweak???

KOC

 

[zeon252]

nice work my friend however I think by 2017 North Korea's population will be mostly starved and their military more or less stuck in the 1960's. As for the overall scenario I love the way you tied in you british civil war map with this one but I'm still not sure a revolution would occour in Britain(too stable an economy and even though the populace is pissed at blair for being bush's lapdog the class difference is too small to warrant a revolution of that magnitude) Anyway I like your prediction of what will happen in Iraq although my prediction would be that after we leave Iraq has no military and is subsequently invaded by an arab coalition who then divide up the land between themselves. Great map, keep it up!

 

[PresidentMarcos]

A very fun scenario, actually. I conquered Mexico and Canada, believe it or not, while playing as the United States. It was quite fun, although the having to nuke the EU was somewhat nasty...

 

[navman74]

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.
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.

I basically agree with you, though I do not really see an effort to turn against individual soldiers per se, I do see more clever attempts to make our military as a whole appear in a less than ideal way.
The War in Vietnam was lost, despite the fact that nearly every battle was won. Time and again military forces on the scene ACHIEVED their objectives, winning battles. However the big picture objective from the beginning was not clear, and in the end was not only unachieved, but was so poorly chosen that it was probably unachievable. This is nothing at all like the case today in Iraq, despite what seems to be a concerted effort on the part of much of the world's media to draw it as such.
Ron

 

[sir_schwick]

Exactly. There are many key differences between Nam and Iraq.

1) The terrain - Veitnam was a giant Jungle and Swamp for much of the country. Arial Reconnaisance was not effective and human intelligence was suspect at best. Iraq is pretty flat and open.
2) Population Support - I would not say Americans are popular in Iraq. However, we have not supported a ruthlessly cruel and corrupt dictator in Iraq this time around. President Diem was feared by all Vietnamese and the US was seen as supporting his non-democratic reign.
3) Duration - I highly doubt that the current level of deployment will be necessary for another eight to ten years. Despite setbacks, from what I understand the Iraqi National Forces are coming along decently.
4) Goals - Because of problems in his government, Diem's military was not powerful enough to handle the NVA. The problem would never fix itself so the US would have to continue to maintain their deployment in Vietnam for perpetuity or withdraw and lose the war. Domestic oppossition to Vietnam made that choice very clear. This time around programs to create a victorious exit plan will work.

 

[Chuck2280]

Communisto:
I like the scenario! It loads fairly quickly (even on my ANCIENT K6-2 system).
I'd like to propose a few minor changes to the US however.
First, Madison should be moved slightly east and renamed Chicago. Madison is a nice town (and I kinda like Wisconsin) but it is not nearly as influential or as large a Chicago.
Second, just north (and perhaps slightly west) of where Madison sits there should be an iron ore deposit to reflect the iron deposits in northern Minnesota (from which Pittsburgh, Birmingham, and the Allentown-Bethlehem areas make their steel).
And lastly, just to the north and east of New Orleans (or just to the south and west of Washington) there should be an aluminum deposit to represent the bauxite deposits found in eastern Tennessee (the home of ALCOA).
Other than that, I have found this a most enjoyable scenario (even playing as the US). Good show!

 

[Aeon221]

1) We will not lose in Iraq, b/c they (those who combat us) lack a standing army to apply primary force with.
If you want to see what some famous guerrilla warriors like Mao Tse Tsung and Ngo Ngoyem Gyp have to say about trying that, you can. Its pretty simple.

2) Vietnam was not a defeat. SVA had at least a year between last American troop pullout and reignition of war. SVA lost, and America lost on the propaganda side. Its hard to win that when you support a government without majority support.

3) America COULD have won Vietnam. That would take too long to explain here, but if you want to IM me and argue it out, feel free. Please make sure to read up on some military theory if you do though, b/c I will pull no punches.

***NONE OF THIS HAS ANY BEARING ON THE SCENARIO***

This scenario, while not perfect, is rather good. As a FANTASY SCENARIO BASED ON THE REAL WORLD it is as accurate as its creator says it is. I am quite frankly impressed that someone thought out something as absolutely nutty as this ;p

Communisto, I cannot WAIT for you to get some more experience with this, because I have a feeling that you will be making some really creative scenarios!

If you want help with historical/military stuff, I am hardcore in that area, so PM if you want anything like that.

...I will admit to thinking that the US would never sell land. Ever. But thats just an opinion ;p

 

[Communisto]

yea the part about land selling by the U.S was kinda a far throw on my part, but i needed something to bring the U.S a bit further donw for the purpose of the story

 

[Vasileius]

What about enabling "Retain culture at capture" and "Reveal entire map" options ?

P.S. Add airports at the western world cities and change the populations . i.e. Athens is far bigger than Oporto (put Lisboa better) or Glasgow ...

 

[Vasileius]

Plus , you have a huge Muslim offensive power near the European occupied Indochina ...

Also , when I attack with a nuclear weapon the whole world attacks me ... I just hate it ... It's pretty moronic Turkey with 2 cities trying to invade Europe ...

 

[Vandal]

why not just have American Civil War #2? Mexicans would never have enough money to buy any kind of land from usa. The US would never even sell the land (ever hear of "manifest destiny"). However this sounds like an interesting scenario and ill play it when i have time.

 

[newcivplayer]

if u play as india u will surely loose. i cant imagine india with just two infantry per city and muslim india with modern armors.

did anyone win this game playing as india.

if yes tell me the secret

 

[navman74]

if u play as india u will surely loose. i cant imagine india with just two infantry per city and muslim india with modern armors.

did anyone win this game playing as india.

if yes tell me the secret

You could go into the editor and add more. However the game takes a long time now to load, so it would be best to just build them I think in-game. Besides, India in real life trying to dominate the world would need a lot of time building up first anyhow,right?
Oh and I agree, probably trade down the modern armor for one step lower, although my guess is he did it as a balancer to keep them from losing quickly,in which case maybe trade them for infantry and defense.

 

[newcivplayer]

India in real life trying to dominate the world would need a lot of time building up first anyhow,right?

in terms of military india is very strong. may be we are backward technologically and industrialy

 

[silver 2039]

Are you serious? India has one of the larges economies in the world, has recently launched a sattlite, and Banglore has become the silicon valley of India. Plus outsorcing.

 

[newcivplayer]

u r right. my mistake. sorry

but it is not uniformly distributed. lack of infrastructure in most of india. many places in india(esp in ap) are still backward.

 

[superisis]

To Sir Schwick:
2. The question is not whether Americans are popular or not in Iraq, it is wether the are getting closer (i.e. more popular) to the iraqis or not. That path is nowhere near certain in any direction. The US was seen as supporting Diem precisisly because they were supporting Diem. And although the US (in this case) is not supporting a specific person that should rule Iraq, their history of taking democracy from sovreign states, not giving it to countries, would make many an intellectual (as not to say an ignorant) iraqi a tad suspisious of the altruistic intents of the US invasion (if there indeed where any).
3. Coming along decently? Well, that is hard for me to argue either way, frankly it's probably hard for the experts to argue either way, however the months of July and August 2004 where the two months with the highest american death toll since the war began in 2003.
4. well, there is a plan no doubt and the US will exit (no doubt there), but even if the plan is followed and the general elections are held as planned (though there are talks of posponing them) there is no sure indication that the elections themselves would be a success (due to the fear methods used by terrorists), and an infant government would have a hard time running such an unstable country as Iraq on its own without a strong public support making it legitimate (through voter turnouts). A weak Iraqi government would need the help from US troops to keep the country relativly stable. Thus the US paradox, remove the troops and risk losing the country to another dictator (thus making the entire war redundant and a failure) or keep the troops with all that that entails (deaths, social/economical costs, etc).

As for casting the blame on the troops. I agree with you on most points except that in some cases troops are responcible for their actions and are not just mere pawns following orders. Take the German SS as one example or the Abu Graib prison wardens as a contemporary one. However I do believe that often the soldiers get the harsh end of the stick. Plowing through H*ll (not sure whether I'm allowed to use that word) getting injured physically and mentally, embracing one's most repulsive characteristics and justfying one's most abominable actions by diminishing the value of the innocent victims to (often) racial inferiors and exalting the reasons for performing these actions, will either make a person fiercely loyal to his caust or utterly disillusioned in it. In either case, returning from an unstable environment to be greeted by another can be quite devastating. And I do believe that the protesters energy and focus is better aim towards a higher altitude.

I'm a go to bed now, sorry for any speeling erorrs I maed , I'm dead tired and have a hard time thinking in english right now (and dictionaries are so bloody annoying to use). I was planning on writing some comments on the game aswell but I'll have to push that till tomorrow, so goodnighta nd ahve a godd nihgtsleaepab... zzzz

 

[sir_schwick]

I do agree that Iraq has a long way to go before it can stand completely on its own. That point will eventually arrive, however. The real question is whether the US would allow true political autonomy, a kind that would allow a non-US freindly government to be elected.

Also, the reason for the increased attacks and resistance is this: the groups who are fighting realize they cannot seize any power if the progress of reconstruction continues. They will do whatever it takes to force the country to succumb to anarchy, so they can seize power.

These are very lucid and interesting points, sorry I cannot discuss them with more evidence or in further detail.