 |
| |
|
|
Maznhaden
|
|
Hi everyone! This is my very first scenario that I have posted on Apolyton.net. It is a near future scenario that begins in the year 2008. The goal of the game is to try and make your regional superpower into the world's next superpower by using geopolitics, and economic/military strategy. The US and her allies represent the strongest player at the start of the game but rising superpowers such as China and the EU threaten to take her place. The game actually opens with crisis in the Pacific where Taiwan has formally become independent of China and has joined ASEAN in a bold move. If China invades it could mean a full-scale war between the China and the US + her pacific allies. There are seven playable powers: US+Allies, EU+Allies, CIS, ASEAN, SAARC, Arab League, and China. The scenario is most realistic if played as a multiplayer scenario. Note: this is a beta test scenario and can be subject to change to make it more realistic if need be. Hope everyone enjoys it!
Scenario:
http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php...8387_Modern.zip
Sounds:
http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php...48387_Sound.zip
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jim panse
|
 |
Anvilvania
Oct 2002
time: 06:35
|
|
First of all let me welcome you to the Apolyton Civilizaion II Scenario League on behalf of - me 
I hope you have a pleasant stay & that you shall feel yourself comfortable here as well 
Now to business: I like your scenario idea very well, chaos always ruled supreme 
Anyway, there are a few first-glimpse comments I´d like to state now ...
* I just loaded up the game as the US - the Arabs asked me to withdraw from the vicinity of Baghdad, I rejected their demands and my government collapsed. Thus many cities went into disorder & the nuclear plant in Albuquerque went *kaboom*
* You should re-consider the enormous city sizes for many cities suffer from food shortage.
* Is there any different, alternative timeline up to 2008 or not? Assuming the latter case here are some points to reconsider:
- Baghdad should be under US control I assume, same would go for Afghanistan (Kabul);
- Further, I do believe that the Arab League is not the best choice for the seventh civ due to several reasons including the fact that Turkey as well as Pakistan and Egypt are - at least today - rather staunch US allies.
- On the same notice, why are Mexico, Monterrey, Iwo Jima and Naha US cities? And why Canada is under EU control?
=> Maybe you could leave the Arabic League out and make an US Allies civ?
- The same goes for Bangladesh, Karachi being Indian. The former should be independent, the latter one part of the US allies civ I think;
- Oslo (Norway) and Geneve (Switzerland) are not member states of the EU now and it is highly unlikely they will be in 2008 ...
* I really like the lose-money feature 
I hope these points were not too discouraging, I did not intend that Keep up that work
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maznhaden
|
|
Thanks for the critical analysis of the scenario. That was exactly what I was looking for. This is by NO MEANS the finalized version of the scenario. The scenario was actually first intended to begin around the year 2015 or 2020 to make it more realistic (overpopulation in cities, especially in the developing nations of the world, will probably be more of a problem then than it is now). Also, players like Japan and South Korea are not a part of the US, but rather allies of the US and involved in a war with China over Taiwan's independence. The same is true for the EU where Canada and Australia are allies, not members. The city sizes are exactly as big as they are in real life (verified through wikipedia.org and citypopulation.de). If I do change the start date to 2015 or so it would seem unlikely that the US would still be occupying Afghanistan or Iraq, though they might still be maintaining some assets nearby such as Kuwait or Bahrain. Mexico is a part of the US player since they are strategically tied to us economically and a member of NAFTA. Personally I would like to see an independent Japan, but unfortunately there can be only 7 players and 1 barbarian player. Do you think this scenario would be more better if set in the year 2015 or 2020 (since, if American troops are still near Iraq by then, there would be huge pressure to withdraw them from the American public or face civil disorder as you described)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maznhaden
|
|
I fixed the problem with the initial US Gov. collapse in the scenario. I also fixed several of the food shortage problems that jim panse was describing. The scenario should be far more enjoyable now to play. Finally I recommend that this scenario be as a multiplayer game with all 7 powers played by a human player for better game play. I am currently working on several other scenarios that are superior to this one. They include the following:
-A global WWII scenario
-A battle of the bulge (Ardennes offensive) scenario
-A WWII scenario that takes place in Europe that begins with the D-Day invasion and ends with the capture of Berlin
-A Star Trek scenario that begins with the Dominion war
-A hypothetical scenario where the Americans invade Japan in 1945 rather than use the Atom bomb
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
typhoon
|
 |
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
A bit of advice, regarding the units-
1) If you're going to have a French MBT, I'd suggest the LeClerc- the AMX-30 is at least a generation out of date.
2) The VAB is an extremely dated 60s French armoured car (you've used the FV432 (a British APC) as its graphic, btw.) Europe has many modern Infantry Fighting Vehicles to choose from- the AMX-10, Marder, and the Warrior (which you are using for the YW-523.)
3) Speaking of which, the YW-523 is wheeled. And it first appeared in 1984. Calling it an IFV would be a stretch- a more likely choice would be the more recent Type 90 (YZ-551) or the second generation IFV reputed to based on the BMP-3.
4) Furthermore, you are using the BMP-2 graphic as the BMP-1 and the BMP-3 graphic as the BMP-2. Although Erika has corrected this, I feel that the change shouldn't be with the graphic but with the Rules.txt- BMP-2 and BMP-3 make more sense in 2008.
5) I'd also suggest replacing the T-64 with the T-90- the former has seen only limited circulation with the ex-Soviet army. The T-90 is much more contemporary and has several export customers, including India (could give the SAARC a halfway decent MBT).
6) Ditto the MT-LB.
7) The M-48, although admittedly still in use with several allied nations, has been largely superseeded by the M-60 or by indigenious designs (e.g. South Korea.)
8) Ditto the BTR-50. It is a very old design and a BMP-1 in Arab service would be more likely.
8) For the same reason, I would advocate the replacement of the J-6. It is a jet which the PLAAF of today is trying its best to forget. Instead, perhaps one of the newer Chinese aircraft- the J-11 (Chinese Flanker) or the J-10 (indigenious delta wing, bastaed son of the Lavi and an F-16.)
9) Not much difference between an M1A1 and an M1A2- aside from the latter having a superior fire control system. Not enough to warrant two slots, anyway.
10) You have a Type 79 MBT there, not a Type 63 (which is a copy of the PT-76 amphibious light tank)
Just some comments, hope its alright with you mate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maznhaden
|
|
Thanks for the advice regarding the unit’s typhoon. I am taking all of your points under serious consideration. I enjoy getting some serious feedback on my scenario since it is one of my firsts. Does anyone else have any comments for improvement? Once again, thanks typhoon. The corrections could take a while, but as I mentioned before this is merely a beta version and by no means the finished product (it is also sort of an experiment in helping me to create better scenarios in the future).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005 23:18
Attachment: 
|
