Realistic democracy game with World 2003

[maciek]

CITIZEN SIGNUP: http://world2003.hyperboards.com/ind...162548&start=0

World 2003 Facts:

Map: 256x204
Number of new units: ~100
Time: 1st May 2003
Detail: brigade-level (smallest unit is brigade)
Requirements: 700MHz CPU, 128MB RAM
Recommended: P4 1.6GHz, 512MB RAM

How about playing a realistic democracy game with the World 2003 scenario?

The scenario starts on 1st of May (we haven't updated the political and military situation recently as it hasn't changed much since May), and you can play as one of 31 most powerful nations in the world.
World 2003 features more than 80 modern units (plus the standard units in PTW). There's some advanced features such as special forces, weapons licence trade (for example, when playing as one of the eastern European nations, you have a choice to purchase MiG-29s from Russia or F-16s from USA).

In upcoming version there will be UN peacekeepers, and "improved" terrorism aspects (I know, terrorism should never be improved, but this is a game after all) which should make the game even more interesting. The gameplay in World 2003 is quite different (more realistic) from that in standard Civ3 PTW and it takes some time to learn and get used to it.


World 2003 forum - http://world2003-forum.tk

[Nubclear]

LYNCH THE SPAMMER!!!

[maciek]

Excuse me?

[Kloreep]

Don't mind the troll.

Sounds like a cool scenario. I'm going to bookmark for the future. But I frankly doubt you'll get many players right now; I know I'm stretched thin enough with four DGs. (And I'm not even active in one.) Worth a try, though; I'll sign up as a probably inactive member.

[maciek]

Actually, it's an idea for the future, not really for now. In about two or three months we should have all realistic building and unit costs (so for example, airflits will be really expensive just like in real life), it will make the game much harder and interesting (losing a single unit could cost you your job!).

BUT... because it's a modern world scenario, it lacks such aspects as exploration, early settlements, etc. Also, because World 2003 strives to be as realistic as possible, there's no such concept as balance (real world is hardly balanced...). Obviously, playing as USA wouldn't make much sense (too powerful and thus too easy, unless you take on China ).

If there's anything we can do to improve World 2003's fitness for a democracy game, please tell us, I think it could be a terrific experience.

[Togas]

It might be a heck of a lot of fun to do a World 2003 PTWDG with TEAMS playing several super powers. Perhaps the USA, UK (with Ireland, Canada, Australia, and other small protectorates), Europe (without England), Russia, China, OPEC (Arab Nations), Isreal (as we seem to have several Israeli members), and South America.

Just think about the politics and UN mess of fun that could be

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Togas

Just think about the politics and UN mess of fun that could be

--Togas

One man's nightmare is another man's fun.

[Panag]

hi ,

, great idea , several times people have talked about it , but it never got any serious attention , .......

on what size , 362X362 , .....

have a nice day

[Tassadar500]

How about we do this after our Viking game? Either that or after the PWDG is done. It seems like a great idea. I like Toga's idea of teams.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

, great idea , several times people have talked about it , but it never got any serious attention , .......

on what size , 362X362 , .....

have a nice day

Such a map, I would fear, would create a techocracy. the only ministers for each team would need the highest end computers. (We may be heading down that road in this game as MrWIA pointed out last chat)

AU 402 was on a similar huge map and it made my P4 1800 cry for mercy. Admittedly, I really need more RAM in the sucker, but still...

[Panag]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Such a map, I would fear, would create a techocracy. the only ministers for each team would need the highest end computers. (We may be heading down that road in this game as MrWIA pointed out last chat)

AU 402 was on a similar huge map and it made my P4 1800 cry for mercy. Admittedly, I really need more RAM in the sucker, but still...

hi ,

dont you start to act now that your comp dates back from the iron age hé , ........

and yes , the magic keyword is ram , some people leave a dozen programs open , ....... all they need is more ram , 768 should do fine on a winxp ( tested ) , ......

have a nice day

[UnOrthOdOx]

I know, Im just too lazy to go and buy some. (not even a money problem)

Still the point remains valid. With larger maps, people will be unable to play, period. My old PII 400, for example, would not load up our current game.

Also, with a PBEM, like this would need to be, large maps mean longer before contact. Not neccessarily a good thing. (for PBEM's)

[Tassadar500]

Well then what size should it be? How about this. One person plays the turns for all teams... and he would have a fast computer. What about that idea?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Typically, no bigger than standard works best for PBEMs.

At least in my experience.

[Panag]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I know, Im just too lazy to go and buy some. (not even a money problem)

Still the point remains valid. With larger maps, people will be unable to play, period. My old PII 400, for example, would not load up our current game.

Also, with a PBEM, like this would need to be, large maps mean longer before contact. Not neccessarily a good thing. (for PBEM's)

hi ,

okay you lazy bugger , order it true the net then , .........


did someone say huge comp , ... would an x-raid with several work stations do it , ......

have a nice day

[joncnunn]

If we're being realistic, Europe would need split up into much more than EU / non-EU. Spliting apart developed regions to reflect splits in governement opinion like Europe matters much more than underdeveloped regions.

1. UK + Northern Ireland.

2. France + Germany + low lands + other countries opposed to the war in that region.

3. Spain + Italy + Protrogal + other countries that supported the war in that region.

4. Eastern EU & NATO countries that supported the war.

5. Countries about to join the EU and NATO that supported the war.

6. Russia + Bellarus + Ukraine

7. Serbia + Montego + Macedonia + Albania

I'm not sure if Ireland supported the war or not, if so, place them with the UK, otherwise with France.

Assign Iceland to whoever Ireland ends up being assigned to.

Assign Greenland to Canada.

In the Americas the split out should be:

1. Canada

2. USA + Puerto Rico + US Virgin Islands

3. Mexico

4. Cuba

5. UK British islands attached to UK

6. Other Carabenean islands.

7. Perhaps all the countries south of Mexico could be lumped together?

Middle East: Since it's May 1, 2003 as start date:

1. Attach Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Isreal to US. But assign some Syrian-Irannian guerrlias to this territory near Bagdad, the Iranian border, some where in Saudi Arabia, and Gaza Strip and West Bank.

2. Turkey + Eqypt

3. Iran + Syria + Libya.

Asia:

1. China + North Korea + Vietnam.

2. Merge the former USSR republics south of Russia.

3. Japan + South Korea + Philapeans + Taiwan (but leave a small base just south of Japan to attach to US)

4. India

5. Pakinstan

6. SE Asia

7. Attach Afghanistan to US, but place some Syrain-Iranian guerralias inside territory.

8. Give Australia most of the South Pacific Islands, but leave Guam and other US protectores as part of US.

Africa: Perhaps all of Africa outside the Middle East could be merged together?

[Togas]

If a modern team game were done, the maximum # of teams would be 8. That's all PTW supports.

So in my previous post, I suggested those 8 possibilities.

--Togas

[OPD]

wow this could be really good. Is it possible to have 8 humans players and 16 AI in the same game?

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by OPD
wow this could be really good. Is it possible to have 8 humans players and 16 AI in the same game?

Unfortunately, no. Not even AI civs can go over the 8-civ rule.

[joncnunn]

I think the 8 possibilites need changed to minimize situations where a group had govts on opposite sides of the Iraqi war issue.

Also with only 8, Isreal needs included in a group rather than being on their own.

Originally posted by Togas
If a modern team game were done, the maximum # of teams would be 8. That's all PTW supports.

So in my previous post, I suggested those 8 possibilities.

--Togas

[Tassadar500]

Israel should not be included in a group.

[GodKing]

Isreal can be included in the US group also - Ya, I know, I know.... lets not get into a spam fest or we can just move it over to OT....

Just think about it.

[Panag]

hi ,

, we could go a couple ways with this , we could start a huge PBEM game , .......

Israel , , as for the game we shall have to put it with the US , there is no other way , or we can play Israel as a civ , thats going to be intresting

have a nice day

[OPD]

If it were up to me I'd go

1. US
2. Middle east
3. China
4. Russia
5. India
6. Pakistan
7. Europe
8. Great Britain

1. US would include Israel and Japan
2. All middle east
7. Not that I'm an expert on European affair but I think the EU is realistic enough to be a nation. European colonies around the world would also be part of this ie. Africa and SA.
8. GB separate from Europe for political reasons. Commonwealth countries part of GB too, ie. Australia, Canada and parts of Africa. FP on UK soil would mean GB wouldn't be too powerful.

[Panag]

Originally posted by OPD
If it were up to me I'd go

1. US
2. Middle east
3. China
4. Russia
5. India
6. Pakistan
7. Europe
8. Great Britain

1. US would include Israel and Japan
2. All middle east
7. Not that I'm an expert on European affair but I think the EU is realistic enough to be a nation. European colonies around the world would also be part of this ie. Africa and SA.
8. GB separate from Europe for political reasons. Commonwealth countries part of GB too, ie. Australia, Canada and parts of Africa. FP on UK soil would mean GB wouldn't be too powerful.

hi ,

then the same would happen to France also , ......

they also have large overseas areas , ......

have a nice day

[joncnunn]

This list also fails the reality check of how the govts acted for the Iraqi war.

Roughly half of the EUs current members supported the war while roughly half opposed. All of the prospective new EU members supported the war. The EU as a whole fails the test of having a single foreign policy. Much like the ex-colonies here under the Ariticles of Conferercy with each state having it's own foreign policy.

Canada and South Africa opposed the war while Australia supported it along with the UK.

In the middle east: The US has bases in Saudi Arabia and Quatar, Al Quieda had opperatives inside Saudi Arabia preparing for their terrorist strike in May 2003, US and allies had virtual control of Iraq by then. While Iran and Syria were providing covert help to the former Iraqi regime. US should probably include Afgahistan as well.

So group the portion of EU that supported the war with the UK and Ausrarlia and relabel it "New Europe", while relabeling "Europe" below as "Old Europe" after reducing to France, Germany, low countries, other countries opposed to the war in that region and attaching Canada.

Middle East, India, and Pakistan would also need changed up, most likely neither India or Pakistan would be a seperate enity just keep those two countries in different groups.

If there's any way to do this without running out of slots, Japan shouldn't be attached to the US but should be the major country of a group including S Korea, Tawain, and other countries they have strong economic ties to in the East Pacific.

Originally posted by OPD
If it were up to me I'd go

1. US
2. Middle east
3. China
4. Russia
5. India
6. Pakistan
7. Europe
8. Great Britain

1. US would include Israel and Japan
2. All middle east
7. Not that I'm an expert on European affair but I think the EU is realistic enough to be a nation. European colonies around the world would also be part of this ie. Africa and SA.
8. GB separate from Europe for political reasons. Commonwealth countries part of GB too, ie. Australia, Canada and parts of Africa. FP on UK soil would mean GB wouldn't be too powerful.

[Panag]

Originally posted by joncnunn
This list also fails the reality check of how the govts acted for the Iraqi war.

Roughly half of the EUs current members supported the war while roughly half opposed. All of the prospective new EU members supported the war. The EU as a whole fails the test of having a single foreign policy. Much like the ex-colonies here under the Ariticles of Conferercy with each state having it's own foreign policy.

Canada and South Africa opposed the war while Australia supported it along with the UK.

In the middle east: The US has bases in Saudi Arabia and Quatar, Al Quieda had opperatives inside Saudi Arabia preparing for their terrorist strike in May 2003, US and allies had virtual control of Iraq by then. While Iran and Syria were providing covert help to the former Iraqi regime. US should probably include Afgahistan as well.

So group the portion of EU that supported the war with the UK and Ausrarlia and relabel it "New Europe", while relabeling "Europe" below as "Old Europe" after reducing to France, Germany, low countries, other countries opposed to the war in that region and attaching Canada.

Middle East, India, and Pakistan would also need changed up, most likely neither India or Pakistan would be a seperate enity just keep those two countries in different groups.

If there's any way to do this without running out of slots, Japan shouldn't be attached to the US but should be the major country of a group including S Korea, Tawain, and other countries they have strong economic ties to in the East Pacific.

hi ,

bases are being closed as we speak in suadi arabia , .....

the biggest us and uk base in the region , and the most important is diego garcia , its has all thats needed , of the shores , huge container ships with in case they are needed , they are full of military equipment , long runways allow massive take-off of several b 52's at the same time

the US is always somewhere , true its everlasting presence of carriers and fleets , .....

have a nice day

[Togas]

Well, if we did a "Real World" Team Demo game we really don't need to focus on the "who's who" of the Iraqi war. We just need to to pick the 8 most influential world powers and let them come up with their own issues to fight over.

--Togas

[Arnelos]

joncnunn,

If you try to model the civs based upon how countries lined up one particular contentious issue and then kept splitting them by contentious international issue, you'd end up with every country having its own civ.

As important as the Iraqi war was, it's not a clear indication of alignment of individual countries to others of their "civilization". For instance, it's rather clear that a number of countries sided against their own populaces in making their official stands on the war and others sided with their populaces, but did so by going against DECADES of policy precedent (Germany...). Other countries are internally divided by cultural issues that played a role, such as Canada being staunchly anti-war rather than at least wishy-washy on the subject if a guy who wasn't named "Chretien" was in charge (sp?)

I'd think the most important issue is not how countries happen to have lined up during the most recent crisis but how they've lined up over the course of recent history and how we might expect them to line up in the future. Obviously, some liberties will have to be taken. I'm considering TRADE relationships here as much as alignment on contentious non-economic geostrategic issues:

1. Anglo-American Bloc (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Afghanistan, possibly Iraq)
2. French Bloc (France, Spain, Low Countries, Italy, parts of Western Africa)
3. German Bloc (Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, Poland, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia)
4. Southern Slav Bloc (Serbia, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus)
5. Russian Bloc (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan)
6. Turkic Bloc (Turkey, Bosnia-Herzigovina, Albania, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan)
7. Arab Bloc (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Lybia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, the Sudan, Kuwait, the Palestinians)
8. Iran
9. Pakistani Bloc (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar)
10. India (include Nepal, Sri Lanka)
11. China (include North Korea)
12. Japan
13. ASEAN Bloc (South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, etc, etc. etc.)
14. Nigerian Bloc (Nigeria, much of the surrounding area that isn't "French")
15. Congolese Bloc (western Congo-Kinshasa, Congo-Brazeville, Angola, Zambia, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Gabon)
16. Ugandan Bloc (Uganda, Rwanda, eastern Congo-Kinshasa, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique)
17. South Africa
18. Ethiopian Bloc (Ethiopia, Somalia, surrounding area)
19. Brazil
20. Argentina (include Uruguay and Paraguay)
21. Chile (include Bolivia and Peru for kicks)
22. Colombia/Venezuala (Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuala, the Guineas, Panama)
23. Cuba
24. Caribbean Bloc (Mexico, Guatemala, Bolize, El Salvador, Hondorus, Nicaragua, various island nations other than Cuba)

Admittedly, the area where I'm least precise is Central America because I ran out of civ spots (I originally had North Korea seperate from China, but I had to put them together to seperate Colombia/Venezuala from Mexico and much of Central America). Some of the individual countries might also get moved between various African blocs if someone has an exception to which bloc I'm putting them in. If you really feel pressed, you can always add Japan to the ASEAN Bloc (which would be wrong, but not THAT bad) and then seperate out some other countries from other blocs such as Israel (which really should be its own bloc).

As for which of these should be players... You can just let people pick and then tailor the scenario. I'd probably recommend, however:

1. Anglo-American Bloc
2. French Bloc
3. German Bloc
4. China
5. India
6. Russian Bloc
7. ?
8. ?

Choices for #7 and #8: Arab Bloc, Iran, Pakistani Bloc, ASEAN Bloc, Turkic Bloc)
I think the countries in Latin America would be significantly less interesting to play due to the lack of inter-state armed conflict... but I guess you could spice things up if you really wanted to. Likewise, it might be sorta neat to play one of the African blocs because you could see LOTS of action, but you wouldn't be very powerful, so I don't recommend it.

[mrmitchell]

nice idea

but it would be very complex

i suggest completing it and polishing off everything and waiting a little while before we start

because we've got ptwdg, ptwdg ii, c3dg, isdg....etc