Modern World

GM: Waterice Man. Game ended with no resolution.

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 14 Jul 2009, 23:43

After further research, I have decided that it would be substantially easier if, as only 11 countries remain on the role, we followed a system where as many nations as possible have three SCs, but none have fewer. This would reduce the current figure to a more managable 66 home SCs, with 36 neutrals (Total: 102)
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby unfunfunt » 15 Jul 2009, 00:20

It's true, NATO would be the problem. With the EU and Canada as separate nations, however, I don't think it would be a big deal. I was talking more about places that would rely on the United States for military support if a conflict broke out. For example, when Russia annexed georgia last year, the United States threatened to get involved. While they eventually didn't, they certainly would have had they been on a war footing. I'm also talking about countries like columbia, which basically relies on american foreign aid to feed it's population. If a war broke out, the states would move to protect their investment in the area. If, on the other hand, England invaded France, I can't see the Americans getting involved, at least not right off the bat.

I just think it would solve a lot of problems. The states would have to position many of their 28 armies overseas, would be in everyone's way, and it would enable you to make triangles in places where it would otherwise be stretching it (south america, for instance). It would also solve the south korea problem (as I see it, he has nowhere to go, and china and japan would always crush him).
What's the difference between peanut butter and jam?
User avatar
unfunfunt
 
Posts: 892
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 20:28
Location: Canadia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1255)
All-game rating: (1262)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 15 Jul 2009, 16:23

I will do some research into major American foreign bases
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby unfunfunt » 15 Jul 2009, 17:39

I did it already. According to this wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... tary_bases

America maintains military bases in a whole bunch of countries. The ones that might be of interest for gameplay purposes are : Bulgaria, Ecuador, Greenland, South Korea,, Kyrgyzstan, kuwait, Israel, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Djibouti, and naval bases in Guam, Bahrain and Greece. The rest are in countries that are part of the EU, turkey, or japan or are deployed because of the war in Iraq.
What's the difference between peanut butter and jam?
User avatar
unfunfunt
 
Posts: 892
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 20:28
Location: Canadia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1255)
All-game rating: (1262)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern World

Postby Samarkand » 15 Jul 2009, 19:34

unfunfunt wrote:America maintains military bases in a whole bunch of countries. The ones that might be of interest for gameplay purposes are : Bulgaria, Ecuador, Greenland, South Korea,, Kyrgyzstan, kuwait, Israel, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Djibouti, and naval bases in Guam, Bahrain and Greece. The rest are in countries that are part of the EU, turkey, or japan or are deployed because of the war in Iraq.


Bulgaria is in EU.
The military facilities there (primarily the Graf Ignatievo air force base) are not US possesion but US is granted some rights to use them along with the Bulgarian air force. Under the contract US is limited to less than 2,500 personnel with no familly members. Currently, there are less than that. I would seriously doubt that this will impact the gameplay in any way.
On that day we’ll say to Hell: “Have you had enough?”
And Hell will answer: “Is there more?”


Second place in the first round in the Wonderful Mansion tournament with a solo in 1907.
Eat that, Edi Birsan :)
User avatar
Samarkand
 
Posts: 852
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 20:44
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT+2

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 15 Jul 2009, 22:36

Excellent. We could quite easily fit three, four, or even five units in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and maybe even in Europe.

I'll update the front page to show the current plan, then do a preliminary map showing considered overseas bases for use as SCs
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 15 Jul 2009, 23:10

I've decided that it would be best if no foreign units are placed smack in the middle of foreign territory. However, it could be interesting to put them on the edge. This map shows potential American and European overseas SCs.

Overseas SCs.png
Overseas SCs.png (33.73 KiB) Viewed 1264 times


Note that the American bases are preliminary, and many may be removed, especially Israel's contingent

I thought the American units in Asia would help Turkey and South Korea getting squished, and to provide a small buffer against Chinese dominance.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby unfunfunt » 15 Jul 2009, 23:18

Waterice man wrote:
Note that the American bases are preliminary, and many may be removed, especially Israel's contingent



Would it necessarily be a bad thing if america had some SCs that they were guaranteed to lose? That way when they roll into canada they don't get builds, they just break even.

Samarkand wrote:Bulgaria is in EU.
The military facilities there (primarily the Graf Ignatievo air force base) are not US possesion but US is granted some rights to use them along with the Bulgarian air force. Under the contract US is limited to less than 2,500 personnel with no familly members. Currently, there are less than that. I would seriously doubt that this will impact the gameplay in any way.


I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the topic. Clearly wikipedia does not an expert make.
What's the difference between peanut butter and jam?
User avatar
unfunfunt
 
Posts: 892
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 20:28
Location: Canadia
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1255)
All-game rating: (1262)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 15 Jul 2009, 23:20

unfunfunt wrote:Would it necessarily be a bad thing if america had some SCs that they were guaranteed to lose? That way when they roll into canada they don't get builds, they just break even.


Many rightful SCs have been removed from the USA and the EU, else the USA would win automatically
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Modern World

Postby Waterice man » 19 Jul 2009, 15:09

I've redone the SCs map

SCs.gif
SCs.gif (24.8 KiB) Viewed 1226 times
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The word 'surrender' derives from old French
User avatar
Waterice man
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 31 Dec 2008, 18:36
Location: Britain. Chances are, you used to be in our empire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Test Game 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron