Flashpoint: September 2001 Creation Discussion

[Pap1723]

For some reason, I cannot get the idea of making a modern day scenario out of my head. I've kicked around various ideas in my head and the best one I have come up with is to start in September of 2001 right after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York.

I talked extensively with Academia about this idea and he came up with the idea of making it completely open ended. It will be designed as a PBEM and as the various countries, you can decide what you want to do, who you want to attack, and who you want to help.

Similar to the way battles are fought in Iron Curtain, battles will be limited to certain countries, areas, or regions.

I am still very uncertain exactly how to create the scenario, so I am putting this here in hope of help from all of you.

Right now these are the countries I am planning on having...

China
-China, Mongolia

Muslim Nations
-Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan

European Union
-Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemborg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden

Axis of Evil or Rogue Nations
-Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, city of Grozny, Afganistan, Vietnam

United States
-America, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait

NATO
-Britain, Australia, India, Canada, Mexico

Commonwealth of Independent States or CIS
-Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijin, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldera, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Let me know what you think about the countries, and if you have any other ideas or things you would like to see.

Thanks

Pap

[GePap]

dp

[GePap]

I really don't know if that method is the best to use:

it does become a 'clash of civs", with the "Axis of Evil" a very strange grouping...

with 8 civs, it is very hard to try to remodel the modern world post 9/11.

The big problem is that the war with Al qaeda is not one that can be easily replicated with civ engines: look at your list, the Rogue states would get squashed in 5 second, and then what? The Islamic states go to war with the EU, or with the Russian block? to what end?

I think this is a situation were ideological groupings might be best, with a map that voids giant blocks as much as possible:

1 Al qaeda: this should be one civ. First, it should have settlers pop up every so often so that even if at one point all the bases are taken, it remains. Also, have spy units pup up regularly, and rename poisoning the water supply to "suicide" bombing. Then there is the issue of them getitng thier hands on nuclear tech-which means, you should allow tech conquest but limit nuke techs to a few states, and make it the goal of Al Qaeada to try to eventually take a city of a nuclear ho;lding civ to get its hand on the "nuclear terrorism" ability.

2. The US: the other counterpol: out to utterly annahilate Al Qaeda.

That leaves 4 blocks to split into cities..

NOw, Iraq should be barbarian, becuase a war with Iraq leads nowhere (ie, no war with Iran or NK just becuase Iraq was attacked), AND also it means that Al Qaeda has the chance to take over the barbarian cities, thus "justifying" the war on that account for the US.

[Pap1723]

The thing is that the player would have to treat all of the countries under their one Civilization as seperate countries. So if the US decides to attack Iraq, technically they are at war with the rest of the Rogue States, but they aren't really as long as they discuss it with the other player.

I'm going to try to figure out a way to show that war that is not supported by other countries will cause big problems for the US for example.

I don't fully understand your idea, can you expand on it at all?

Pap

[GePap]

Well, is your scenerio simply a world in 2002 scenerio, or is it about the war on terror?

If its just the world circa 2002, and only for multiplayer, I guess it is fine..now, if it may be played for 1 plyer, or if it is about the war on terror, I think that Al Qaeda needs to be one civ by itself, but it needs to be as civ without a set base: if you just had a few small terrorist bases here or there, game over..

I mean, honestly, the Player who gets the rogue states, unless they make friends with some powerful gorups, are dead if they get into a war with any player like the Chinese, US, EU or Russia that have the advantage of huge blocks of productive cities. So the power of those blocks would be better reduced, and if each player is supposed to act as if each state figths eacch other independently, then you could space the states out into non-blocks..

As for Al qaeda, the theory is to have a civ that is not very strong, but has the ability to do damage through spy actions and guerrila warfare, and is hard to just finally kill off- also, if they pop up worldwide and take actions vs barbarian cities in east africa and so, it forces players to chase them down worldwide.

[Mercator]

As much as all those different civs are important, we don't exactly have WWIII on our hands yet, so what exactly would be the point of this scenario? Whoever kills the Axis of Evil first wins?

How about letting trade play a big role... That is, let all civs have intricate (very profitable) trade relationships with eachother, but only make freight available by events (or not at all). In fact, the trade routes should be so profitable that the civs might get into trouble financially if they are reduced.

Say, you could have France and Germany have big trade routes with Baghdad. That way, normally, the EU player would oppose anyone from taking Baghdad, because that would (at least temporarily) decrease trade for them (since Baghdad would be reduced in size). I'm not exactly sure how all of this could reliably be implemented, but well, it's an idea...

Aside from this you could make Al Qaeda a civ that's very much intertwined with the Muslim civ. Any attack on an Arab city (some more than others, perhaps) will cause terrorists to appear. Particularly in the "Axis of Evil" countries (I wouldn't really make a separate Axis of Evil civ), but of course also some in the US or wherever... Sabotage success rate shouldn't be too high, though, and any surviving spies would be relocated back to Al Qaeda cities in the ME or so, so there's actually little chance many terrorists find their way far outside the Muslim world.

Edit: and only giving Spies (=terrorists) to an Al Qaeda civ would give them an extra advantage over the others too.

For some Al Qaeda cities you could use "invisible cities", that is, remove the city flag by hexediting. Those cities do exist in any normal sense of the word, but they don't have a city graphic and can not be captured. That could be an idea for "terrorist hide-outs" and gives them a chance to survive against the major powers as GePap mentioned.

[Case]

Why seperate the US from Australia and Britain? Both countries have, for all intents and purposes, mirrored the US's foreign policy perfectly since September 2001.

Originally posted by Pap1723
Muslim Nations
-Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan

The problem with that is that the Muslim world is no less divided then the Christian world. Whatever the views of their populations, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf States have been solidly in tune with US government policy.

-Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, city of Grozny, Afganistan, Vietnam

Why Vietnam? The US has been steadily mending relations with Vietnam. Burma and Sudan are contenders though.

NATO
-Britain, Australia, India, Canada, Mexico

AFAIK, there are almost no similarities between all these countries (and only two out of the five are actually NATO members ). Canada would be best lumped with a European bloc, Mexico would be be neutral or left out, and India should be clearly alligned with the US.

Commonwealth of Independent States or CIS
-Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijin, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldera, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Georgia and a few of the 'Stans should be alligned with the US, not Russia.

[Pap1723]

You are probably right, should I then include a Neutral Barbarian civ and group more of the countries that do not fit anywhere else there?

Is SEATO still around?

There will be a lot of new neutral coutries.

I like the idea of having Al Qaeda with hidden units, etc...They are going to be grouped with the Rogue Nations just because of the limitations of the engine. They will be getting units via techs, and events...I really like the idea of tying things in with the Muslim Nations. Any attack on a Muslim nation would cause problems to the Al Qaeda and terrorists in general so I like the event popping up there.

I do plan on making trade a big bonus everywhere. Would it be true that if I had a trade connection from say Baghdad to Berlin, if Baghdad was taken over, wouldn't the trade end??

Anyway, after the discussions here, I am going to make Israel a Neutral country and the United States will have troops near them to either take over the city and continue like it is today in real life, or you can leave them be, and leave them on their own, my choice

I think I will leave most of Central and Southern Africa as well as South America as Neutral cities so that whoever wants to, can lead massive invasions, or they can keep it peaceful. I might intersperse Rogue Nations cities throughout both continents and have them as the antagonists. Then it is up to the world Superpowers to either let them continue or to stop them. This can cause possible conflcts between superpowers and if someone gets out of hand, then it could turn into a fun game.

Pap

[Pap1723]

I was kicking around the following idea...

I was thinking of not allowing the Muslim Nations and the Rogue Nations to build any tanks, destroyers, cruisers, or aircraft unless they actually construct them theirselves.

Instead, I was thinking of giving Russia extra outdated T-80 and T-62 MBT's as well as extra older aircraft that they will then have to sell to the other countries.

This way, Russia will rely on the countries also because their main income will be from selling equipment.

China, the US, European Union etc will also be able to sell equipment as France used to do it all the time with Iraq.

I didn't really clearly state what I am thinking here because it is still a new idea forming in my head.
Let me know what you think.

Pap

[POTUS]

I'd make it Russia and CIS, EU, America and allies, China, Western Muslims, Anti-Western Muslims, and India, probably with Neutrals as Barbarians.

[curtsibling]

Don't forget that the US sells plenty of hardware too!

Northrop Grumman being one of the biggest arms exporters on Earth.

For the top news on the current military playing field, check this useful link!

http://www.militaryweek.com/intell.shtml

[Case]

Originally posted by Pap1723
Is SEATO still around?

AFAIK, SEATO collapsed in the 1960s. It was never a coherent alliance anyway - the treaty was very weak, and none of the member states was particularly intrested in helping all the others (for instance, when Australia signed up, our government made it perfectly clear that we wouldn't lift a finger to come to Pakistan's aid if they were attacked by anyone).

[Arthedain]

Make so that the EU can be able to bribe some of the states in Eastern Europe so they can join the EU (So they join of "free will", not by force, like IRL).

[Pap1723]

POTUS, I like the idea of having the different countries like you said...

China
-China, Mongolia

European Union
-Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemborg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Canada

USA and Allies
-America, Britain, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Australia

CIS
-Same as before

Muslim Nations
-Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan

Anti-Western Nations
-Syria, Iran, Libya, Jordan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, North Korea, Cuba

Neutrals
-Israel, India, Mexico, Most of South America, Most of central and southern Africa, pretty much everyone but the listed above

I don't know the type of relationships with all of these countries. Should the following be Muslim or Anti-Western:
Lebanon and Sudan

Pap

[Pap1723]

The temporary units list is supplied below, let me know what needs to be addded or taken out.

Possible Units List

Infantry
Engineers
Chinese Infantry
US Infantry
Airborne Infantry
Fanatics
Arab Infantry
CIS Infantry
Type 69
Type 88
Leopard 2
LeClerc
M-60
M1A2
Challenger 2
Merkava
T-62
T-72
T-80
T-90
J-7
J-8II
J-10
H-5
Eurofighter
Tornado
B1-B
Tiger
F-15
F-22
F-35
B-52
B2
AH-64
MiG-25
MiG-27
MiG-29
Su-37
Su-47
Ka-50
Tu-160
MLRS
ICBM
MRBM
UAV
Republican Guard
PRNC Infantry
Terrorists
Frigate
Guided Missile Destroyer
AEGIS Cruiser
Carrier
SSK
SSN
SSBN
Transport
Freight
Cruise Missile
Spy Satellite
Mech Infantry
Mobile Artillery
Mobile SAM

[POTUS]

Israel is not neutral. FYI, they sent troops to Iraq. (14 soldiers and 10 doctors and an undisclosed number of advisors to the Iraqi Army)

India also is not neutral, and would probably best represented as its own nation, maybe with Israel, close allies to India.

Neutrals could probably be barbarians, with a few solldiers in each city and, if they are killed, it represents them joining one side or another. Eastern Europe should be in this group.

Include the Palestineans in Anti-Western, too.

[Pap1723]

I placed all of the cities...disregard the oil fields on the north of the map, they are actually tundra, i just forgot to change the graphic.

Let me know if something should be changed, added, or deleted.

Pap

Minimap


East Asia


East North America


India


Middle East


Russia


South East Asia


Western Europe

[our_man]

Why is Belfast neutral? It's still part of the UK.

I'm pretty sure that Paris is bigger than Berlin.

[our_man]

There's a city in the Middle East called Syria. As you already have the capital of that country represented, I suggest changing the name to Beirut.

I'm not too sure of Turkey being lumped with the Muslim civ. It looks more to the West than the East.

The position of Jerusalem looks a bit off. Although it appears there isn't enough room to put it where it should be.

[fairline]

Originally posted by our_man
I'm pretty sure that Paris is bigger than Berlin.

I wouldn't have known O_M, but this site says that Paris has a polulation of 2.15 million compared with Berlin's 3.39M:

http://www.citymayors.com/features/euro_cities1.html

[our_man]

Wow! I always thought Paris had a population of 10 million. Guess I was wrong

Oh! OK, I was using the urban area population rather than the actual city population for my figure.

[lord of the mark]

Youre going to have to make some (fairly controversial judgements) to implement this well.

First, start with Gepaps idea that AQ is mainly spies (though in some areas partisans) who appear via events.

Now you could have a western seizure of an islamic city result in MORE AQ units appearing (they hate us more, resulting in more recruitment) OR you could have fewer AQ units appear (they fear us more, and respect AQ less, resulting in less recruitment)

Or you could have it play differently depending on which city is taken (taking Kabul shows we're strong, resulting in less recruitment, taking Baghdad shows we're hateful, resulting in more recruitment, etc) Or you could play with different units - taking a muslim city results in fewer AQ spy units (disrupts training and financing networks, etc) but MORE partisan units(spontaneous revolts, etc)


An AQ spy attack on a western city (not sure how to code this as an event) should result in more troops etc for civ attacked (country, world, rallies around) but more AQ spies and partisans appearing (Following the "strong horse")


US should start with relatively few BUT very powerful units. Making it trivial to defeat any opposing conventional forces (assuming no war with China or Russia) but US should have far too few total units to avoid constant revolts in conquered citys, and to deal with partisans.

US should be able to trigger event "mobilize national guard" (perhaps by researching such a tech). This results in much more abundant low cost infantry for use against partisans, etc but results in higher unhappiness in US cities (perhaps by obsoleting a happiness wonder)


US can build wonder "multilateral support" - this results in much lower partisan revolts in response to conquest of islamic cities. But it causes impassable terrain to appear around select Islamic cities (US is now constrained in its actions)


How about make most AQ units immune to bribery, but make select ones bribable? When you manage to find and bribe one, you get benefits (fewer AQ recruits, more money, whatever, showing benefits of spy activity to turn AQ - at least those who can be turned)


all in all lots of potential, but you''l need very complex flags and triggers, I think. I guess this would be easier to do with TOT?

[lord of the mark]

Heres a more elegant approach.

Toss out worrying about the details of china, europe, etc. Dont make this a detailed sim - make an abstract approach to the essence of the problem.


Fundamentally 4 civs -
1. US/west
2. Rogues
3. Friendly muslim states
4. AQ.

US has strong conventional forces
Friendly muslim states are very weak
Rogues are relatively weak, but have tech path leading to nukes.
AQ has spies and partisans triggered by events.

Single player, playable as US only.

If you DONT take rogue cities, Rogue civs develop nuke tech. When they reach tech goal, you LOSE.

OTOH, each time you take a Rogue city, AQ partisans appear outside of Friendly muslim cities. If AQ takes more than X friendly Muslim cities, you LOSE.

You dont have enough units to to both attack most rogue states quickly, AND to defend all friendly muslim cities.


This can be made VERY hard.


You can make different rogue cities have different impacts on nuke progression, both through their tech contribution, and events. You can have them differ in how many and where partisans show up - and you can make taking certain ones cause you to lose $ (to proxy diplo cost of attacking certain rogues)

For extra fun, make the impact on nuke progression random in the case of Iraqi cities (so taking Baghdad can either be a triumph or a useless waste of resources) not sure how to code this.

[Arthedain]

Interesting ideas, trying to fight the terrorists in the woirld..
Pap: Maybe you should talk with Steph, he started to make a scenario called "the world today" but it got lost in his HD crash. He had some interesting ideas about China etc.