 |
|
GoPostal
|
|
My suggestion:
NATO
WARPAC
Arabs
China
Neutral
USA
West Minor (ARVN, S Korea)
East Minor (NVA, VC, Cuba)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:33
|
|
My suggestions, first, start in 1979 (you get the revolution in Iran, invasion of Afghanistan, the Sandinistas take over Nicaragua, Vietnam invades cambodia, after the peace between Egypt and Israel)
NATO + allies (Japan, SK, Israel, Australia)
WARSAW PACT
China & allies (Burma, Cambodia, Albania, Pakistan perhaps Iraq?)-basically, non-democratic regimes that are not seen as part of the western block but are anti-soviet.
non-alliegned (India, Egypt, Brazil, NZ, Yugoslavia, swaths of Latin America, Africa and Asia)-large but spread out.
pro-soviet (Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Angola, North yemen, Ethiopia, Syria)
pro-western (Saudi Arabia & Gulf states, South Africa, Chile, Honduras, Guatemala)
Independents (states that are active but not any one side- either Iran or Iraq, preferably Iran. Perhpas switch Nicaragua there as well.
B; Neutrals anyone left- used for various insurgent groups that can come up as events.
The fact is that the map is pretty complex, and thus spreading people out by lining up some non-conventional groupings helps.
On techs, you can show the devide of techs and weapon system by having such techs as "soviet weapons level 1,2,3"Western weapons level 1,2,3""Chinese weapons" and so forth. So, for example, the non-alligened states can own both T55's and M-60's, since they buy form both, but they can't own T-80's nor Leopard 2's until they get the tech. Soviet allies get only soviet weapons, western only western wepaons, and low levels the poorer they are"
Make sure complex weapon systems are very expensive to make, and be frugal with industry to keep the number of big ticket units low. You can make infantry and guerrilas cheap though. Maybe you can change the space race in some way so that you can win by "winning the cold war" type of peacefull end, as to possibly avoid nuclear war. nukes for anyone but China, WARSAW and NATO hsould be units they might have but can;t make. (this applies to India, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan)
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Case

|
 |
The backlash starts here
Feb 2000 time: 15:33
|
|
The problem with scenarios covering the entire world is to figure out how to include the myriad of neutral and non-alligned civs.
My advice is to keep things as simple as possible: don't even bother including neutral and genuinely non-alligned civs on the map. Lump like-minded alliances together (ie, instead of having a NATO civ and a US civ, lump them, along with Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, etc, into a single 'Free World' civ).
quote: Also, how should I handle units? |
I'd recomend that you use the method that Andrew Livings used so well in his classic 'Crisis of the New World Order' civ: maximise variety by using generic units (ie, modern tank, nuclear sub, modern jet, etc) and give each civ a few unique units to add some 'chrome'.
quote: Originally posted by Patine
I'm not sure, though, how to arrange the players (or even nations within the players), though I think Khomeini should be one of the leaders. |
Aside from funding the resistance in Lebanon. Khomeini's government had virtually no influence outside Iran's borders. Nasser was the last leader of the Arab world to enjoy any kind of genuine influence or popularity (not to mention that Iran isn't an Arab country).
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|