11-07-2003 21:24									#1
	September 11 - The Day the World Changed Remove this text

I've been toying with the idea of making a scenario based on the current state of the world. But as I am a novice at scenario design I'd love to get some help/advice from the group.

All I've done so far is place cities, and set their population to correct amounts to be accurate for today.

The civs are America, America's allies (Japan, UK, Israel, S. Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Australlia & New Zeeland), Continental Europe, Russia, China, India, and the Arab World. The map looks really nice so far.

The scenario will begin on either September 11 or September 12. With the hyperpower of the US awakened and pissed off. The easy plot is US vs. Arab. However I want all the other hot spots in the world involved as well. North vs. South Korea. China vs. Taiwan. Pakistan vs. India. Russia vs. Chechnya.

I'm unsure how to handle this scenario though, it can't just be a straight battle scenario because the US would easy destroy everyone. It would work well as a multiplayer diplogame, but those aren't played much anymore, and I'm not sure how much scenarios are even played in MP. The key to this scenario as I envisioned it was a diplomatic one. Basically the fight is not just between the combatants, but the true battle is to sway the onlookers. Just as we've seen with the recent war in Iraq.

Sure the US could tromp over the Arab world, but that could piss off Europe, China, Russia, etc. Will this turn into a world war? What will the alliances be? Plus warfare has to be totally rethought to include non-traditional warfare. Assassinations, suicide bombing, terror tactics, public opinion, etc.

So what does everyone think? Is this scenario even possible? How can it be done?

	11-07-2003 22:36									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

here is the map layout:

Attachment: 911scenario.jpg
This has been downloaded 260 time(s).

	11-07-2003 22:47									#3
	Remove this text

If you need some help with the graphics: I would be glad to help you. I tried something very similar to your project a while ago and you may want to have a look at it. Maybe it will prove useful (the file can be found here http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...The+World+Today but be sure to download the corerct ones ).

regards

	11-07-2003 22:55									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Lumping Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, the Central Asian states and Indonesia into one civ with the Arabs is a really bad idea. Turkey should be an ally of the US, so should Pakistan and Saudi Arabia be. Iran should really not be with any other civ.
Despite the UK's initmate friendship with the US, they are still a part of Europe, and would not support any further US military action.
Canada does not support the US in a military manner.
Spain, Italy and Poland would be better suited as the US allies, but they are also an important part of Europe.
Keeping Africa, South and Central America, and Indochina empty is not accurate.

Quite frankly, I must say that I don't know if it is possible to do a realistic scenario based on the present-day situation in the world.

	11-07-2003 22:58									#5
	Suffering from ads?

By the way, to all Spaniards, Poles and Italians here, my comment was plainly about the governments. I regard it as a fact that governments, even those that were democratically elected, hardly ever represent their people.

	11-07-2003 23:25									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Stefan Härtel By the way, to all Spaniards, Poles and Italians here, my comment was plainly about the governments. I regard it as a fact that governments, even those that were democratically elected, hardly ever represent their people.

Stefan, well said.

Too bad there's no IDIOCRACY government into Civ to better perform italian government... anarchy, maybe...

	11-07-2003 23:28									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I was going to create a barbarian civ to populate the empty land. I'm not sure how to do that though, but that was the intention.

As for the civ nitpicks, we only get 7 choices. I can't make a different civ for every single country. I think an Arab world untied into one civ is acceptable.

I set this all up before the Iraq war, so things have changed a bit since then as well. However since the scenario will begin right after 9-11 there is plenty of time for relations to deteriorate.

	11-07-2003 23:54									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

First off, hack off the top of your map above Archagelsk and below Jakarta. With due respect to Australia, there's no real reason to include anything above/below these respective latitudes in this scenario. In fact I would strongly consider lopping off most of the Pacific if you could salvage the Phillipines.

One suggestion I would make is to change the color of non US civs to the same one (obviously after you have done everything else) and have their leaders be major folks in the game (Putin, Blair, Anon, Hussein, Sharon, Arafat off the top of my head). Then if you disable the embassy function you may prevent the US from indiscriminately attack cities while preserving some sirt of diplomatic tone.

If you wanted to be fancy, divide the US city graphic into small cities that look like bases and big ones like normal. Then lower the requirement for sewer systems to one of the pop levels that changes the graphic size. Give US mainland cities sewer systems but not the tech to build more. Then the US would look like cities at home and bases abroad - just eye candy but it might look neat.

Stefan is right in that you have to stagger all of South Asia into differing civs: Saudi Arabia, (Yemen?,) Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan (could obviously be Barbarian controlled) and India should all be rivals. I would divide most of the non-American units into immobile defenders and missile-style (ie they die after attacking) attackers - that should prevent fighting from spilling all across the map.

If you can figure out a way to drive world events via the acquisition of techs you may have an interesting little scenario. You may be able to tell that I have tinkered with all these ideas but never found the scenario to implement them in.

	12-07-2003 00:00									#9
	Inflate your Upload Space

Another wacky idea - if you could prevent US troops from actually taking cities, then you avoid the messy question of Baghdad producing Marines. Instead of city objectives, you would need to kill units like Bin Laden, Arafat and Hussein. Similarly other world leaders could be the target of enemy civs or even terrorists (Chechens in Moscow, bombers in American cities).

I have no idea how you could accomplish this, though. Giving the Americans the missile flag won't prevent an unopposed unit from taking over a city. Does placing settlers in even-odd squares create cities that can be attacked but not taken over?

I have experimented with placing units from Civ A into cities belonging to Civ B. Weird, unpredictable things result. Sometimes it crashes - go figure! Sometimes Civ A's units can come and go without affecting the city. Sometimes when Civ B's units try to come inside they attack the Civ A unit and take over their own city. I dunno if any of this is germane to your idea, but I thought y'all would like to know.

	12-07-2003 01:08									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I also think you should diversify the regions a bit. Rather than having one European civ, or one Arab civ, you could probably have a few US ally cities among them to represent the countries that follow the US.

quote: Originally posted by Michael Daumen Does placing settlers in even-odd squares create cities that can be attacked but not taken over?

No, those are entirely unreachable... But there's another possibility, the one Henrik (I believe) mentioned to create map labels ( Or did he do what you said?).

Anyway, you can hide a city by removing the city flag from a city square.
This will remove the city graphic (the city name remains), making the city accessible from the city screen only.
For all other purposes of the game, the square will behave like any other square.

In such a way, a city can't ever be captured. Things like the defense bonus etc. and the city location on the radar map would also be lost though... The city graphic could be represented by a separate city terrain or a city unit.

Such cities could continue producing units, even when foreign units occupy the same square. In fact, the city owner can disband any foreign units (and get the usual production bonus) from within the city screen.

	12-07-2003 01:24									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Please, at least make Iran barbarian (it is a strict opponent to nearly all Middle Eastern nations, and most of all, it was one of the greatest enemies to the Taleban regime) and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia US allies (self-explanatory). Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan (if that's what the two Central Asian cities are supposed to represent) can be Russian, since they're both part of the Community of independent states.
Turkey must be an ally of the west. It is a western-world nation. It is saecular (if that's the correct English word). It aims to become a member of the EU. If you include it in the Arab world, that would be a horrible mistake. Make it either European (although it is uncertain when exactly it will become a member) or US ally.
None of the above-mentioned nations, except Saudi Arabia, are Arab nations. They are neither in the Arab league, nor are their ethnical, traditional and political backgrounds Arab (they don't even have the same language). Not even their religious backgrounds are necessarily the same. Iran is Shi'ite, which is a thorn in the eye of many Arab nations, because they are almost entirely Sunnite (except Saudi Arabia, which is to a large extent Wahabite, and, of course, Iraq, as we hopefully all know).
Leaving Chechnya with the Arab civs is OK for the purpose of the scenario, IMHO.
But even with the seven civs you selected, there can be a whole lot more accuracy.
And please, put the UK to the Europeans. They are part of the EU.

	12-07-2003 01:38									#12
	Suffering from ads?

You suggest to make Spain and Italy part of the US allies, yet you want the UK in Europe? The UK is probably as pro-US as you can get.

	12-07-2003 01:59									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well we all know that the nations that are US allies in the region (sorry, not Arab, but Islamic) are split. The governments go along with us, but the people all hate America. I think it would be inappropriate for Pakistan to be a US ally when it is assume much of what is left of Al Queda and the Taliban is hiding out there.

This isn't a scenario just to replay the Iraq war and the War in Afganistan. And this scenario won't end on July 11, 2003. It is opperating under the premise that the Islamic world, while not unified politically, is at the street level, united in opposition to the United States. There is a sense that in some of the moderate governments, there may be a fundimentalist revolution to turn the nation radical. This is the assumption of this scenario.

This is done all the time in scenarios, why am I getting grief? I've been playing The Rise of Nations scenario lately (which I very much enjoyed) and it had "Other Europeans" as one civ which made up Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Austria, and Poland. It also had a "Heathen" civ which were all the native americans, africans, chinese, japanese, indians, etc. I think it worked very well, and even though the situation of Japan and the Incas and Indians were *totally* different in 1500 AD, it fit for that scenario to make them one civ (and it wasn't even Barb).

Plus if I cut out all the nations that aren't today directly in conflict with the United States then we'd have a scenario of the US vs. Afganistan, Iraq, and maybe Syria & Palestine. This would be like 3 cities in my scenario.

Suspend your disbelief and roll with it.

	12-07-2003 02:03									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

One thing I could do though, as someone suggested, would be to put US bases in the area. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and such.

And while I had no qualms about throwing most all the Islamic world together in one civ, I was waffling on Turkey. I suppose I could throw them to the EU, but again the assumption is radical elements in Islamic countries have taken over.

	12-07-2003 02:26									#15
	Suffering from ads?

quote: You suggest to make Spain and Italy part of the US allies, yet you want the UK in Europe? The UK is probably as pro-US as you can get.

No... I forgot to explain... if he was going to have a European civ, all EU members should be thrown in.

In any case, I was only making suggestions. Of course, the final decision is up to you, OzzyKP.

	12-07-2003 02:57									#16
	Tired of ads?

Leave those damn brits to their own island i'd say.

They are a burden to the rest of the world.



As for the italian goverment, apart from the fact that Berluskoni is a rather cool guy, it was the italian people that voted him.

	12-07-2003 04:40									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

I wouldn't put Canada as a US ally. We leaned toward France and Germany on the Gulf War issue. Britain and Australia sent troops. Canada refused.

	12-07-2003 11:46									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Palaiologos Leave those damn brits to their own island i'd say. They are a burden to the rest of the world. As for the italian goverment, apart from the fact that Berluskoni is a rather cool guy, it was the italian people that voted him.

Vote for him? Never!!!



Hope you'll get from your government as many taxes as Berluskazzo is planning to put on our heads and you'll see what kind of cool guy he really his...


Hope he's going to die soon.

	12-07-2003 12:15									#19
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Palaiologos Leave those damn brits to their own island i'd say. They are a burden to the rest of the world. As for the italian goverment, apart from the fact that Berluskoni is a rather cool guy, it was the italian people that voted him.

But we've got so much to offer the world; bad cooking and cheap weapons spring to mind for starters

Berlosconi is a fascist

OzzyKP: I thing Stefan is right about lumping the Moslem world together as 'Enemies of the US'. It's this kind of attitude that's got the world in the mess it's currently in To lump a largely pro-Western and generally secular society like Turkey together with the likes of the Taliban is the same as saying Germany slavishly follows the US line because they are both Christian nations. Your point about the goverments of the US Moslem allies supporting the US while the general population are against them would apply equally to the UK, for example - only 1/3 of the population supported the war on Iraq at the outset and Parliament only gave their backing because they were hoodwinked over WMD. A similar vote now would almost certainly see Blair's Government defeated.

As for having Iran and Iraq as part of the same civ, that's somewhat like having France and Germany as a single civ on the eve of WW2.

	12-07-2003 14:37									#20
	Support Apolyton

quote: I wouldn't put Canada as a US ally. We leaned toward France and Germany on the Gulf War issue. Britain and Australia sent troops. Canada refused.

Ever grateful to that too

But if I understood things correctly, the scenario is at the begin of the whole mess. You know, when Schröder still spoke of total solidarity to the US and all that sh*t (which is why Germany -who sent troops to Afghanistan and Djibouti- should be allied to the US no matter what). Where did Canada stand at that time?

quote: But we've got so much to offer the world; bad cooking

I've yet to see a non-british supermarket which offers frosted lamb in mint sauce

	12-07-2003 17:06									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

But I think you're contradicting yourself again, Stefan. On the one hand you want one EU, while you think the muslims should be split among their differing relationships.

I think it would be much better to have a more varied landscape. Not strict blocks (EU, US, Islam etc.), but rather more assigned according to their stance on the issue. E.g. have Spain, Bulgaria and Poland be part of the US allies, Turkey part of the EU, and the muslim world a bit more divided.
If not more accurate, it would at least make for a more interesting game.

Turkey should definitely pe pro-US/EU, by the way, even if you're assuming radicals taking over.

quote: As for having Iran and Iraq as part of the same civ, that's somewhat like having France and Germany as a single civ on the eve of WW2.

I don't think that's a very good comparison. They might be opposing sides, but they both have a common enemy. Especially if you think in terms of popular support as Ozzy is saying. In a current global context, it's highly unlikely any Arab/Muslim nation would be openly attacking another. Some might support the US, but none would actively participate.

	12-07-2003 17:20									#22
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Since a large part of the map will be made up of cities which the US will NOT be attacking (hopefully), and that outside of American aggression there is very little combat going on in this scenario - Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, and perhaps the Koreas. Therefore, the allegiance of these cities and the political stances of each nation are of lesser importance. I suggest you first pick the leaders that the player needs to negotiate with, make them the heads of other civs, then worry about the makeup of each civ later. Perhaps take a page from Verne & tech's Russian Civ War and make multiple versions with civs of differing members.

Thanks Mercator, I wondered how Henrik had done that in his scenario.

	12-07-2003 17:53									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think he did it differently though, because he didn't use any hex-editing. There's a thread about it somewhere... I think.

	12-07-2003 19:51									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Sorry Mercator, but I must disagree with you.
First:

quote: But I think you're contradicting yourself again, Stefan. On the one hand you want one EU, while you think the muslims should be split among their differing relationships.

I don't think I'm contradicting here. After all, the EU is a political fact, while a Muslim unity isn't.
The nations of the EU might be disagreeing amongst themselves, but in the end, they have to find a way of working together again. This isn't so in the Muslim world.
Having a united Arab League player is one thing, and acceptable IMHO, although that would mean Iraq and Saudi Arabia together. But lumping all the Muslim nations is totally different. To put it open, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the former Soviet Central Asian nations and Turkey have absolutely nothing in common, neither among themselves nor with the rest of the Muslim world, which is the Arab one (except perhaps Pakistan and Afghanistan). Only because their citizens are Muslim doesn't mean they are brothers. It would be the same as if the EU were lumped with Russia, North and South America and Oceania.

quote: I don't think that's a very good comparison. They might be opposing sides, but they both have a common enemy. Especially if you think in terms of popular support as Ozzy is saying. In a current global context, it's highly unlikely any Arab/Muslim nation would be openly attacking another. Some might support the US, but none would actively participate.

Let me prove you wrong here.
-Afghanistan was torn in decades of civil war despite the fact that nearly 100% of its population is Muslim
-Iran and Iraq were in war with each other for eight years (1980-1988). Nearly one million people died, and nothing was achieved. Both regimes stayed in power, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Mullahs in Iran. Even though both countries started diplomatic relations again a few years ago, they remained hostile to each other, and would never have cooperated.
-Several times, Iran was at verge of war against the Taleban in Afghanistan
-Morocco is keeping the Democratic Republic of Sahara occupied since 1979, against the resistance of the population, which is nearly entirely Muslim, just like Morocco
-Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990
-India and Pakistan have been hostile against each other since 1947, although India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan has in total (and Pakistan is an Islamic Republic)

And it is a fact that the population of those Muslim countries, whose governments support the US, feels hatred towards the US, while those people, whose governments oppose the US -best example is Iran- support the US.

There is no unity in the Muslim world, despite what some people may want us to believe.

	12-07-2003 20:09									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Prometeus Vote for him? Never!!! Hope you'll get from your government as many taxes as Berluskazzo is planning to put on our heads and you'll see what kind of cool guy he really his... Hope he's going to die soon.

Heh, heh, heh.

Cool down!
Greece has been ru(i)nned by the same socialist party for 25 years now, but i don't see any right wingers wishing them dead.
In the last elections the socialists brought shiploads of Azeris, Tatars etc. from Cyprus and the Caucasus, legalized them in a week, and forced them to vote for them. These caucasians numbered about 300.000 and the socialists won the elections by 150.000(IIRC)
But nobody in Greece was upset about it. Take things easy!

	12-07-2003 20:37									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Michael Daumen Since a large part of the map will be made up of cities which the US will NOT be attacking (hopefully), and that outside of American aggression there is very little combat going on in this scenario - Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, and perhaps the Koreas. Therefore, the allegiance of these cities and the political stances of each nation are of lesser importance.

Well the premise was not that it was a scenario of the US beating up on the Islamic world. But a challenge to see whether or how the rest of the world will get involved. Can attitudes be changed in the events file? Like a terrorist attack against the United States makes other nations like the Islamic civ less, and when the US takes an Islamic city they like the US less. But it depends on the city. Like if the US took Istanbul then the other countries would really hate the US, but if the US took Kabul, then they don't care as much.

The intention was to bring the political aspect into the game. As relations sour between the US and the rest of the world, could the US cross some line and actually get the world to go to war with it? Anything is possible, and thats what the scenario will draw on. Look at the huge change of attitudes toward the US in Europe between 9-11 and the Iraq war. Thats a big shift.

Anyways thats the idea. Perhaps because of the polorized world today its difficult for you guys to seperate the reality of current politics with the semi-fantasy of this scenario. This is a game. Damn near every scenario I've ever played had to bend history to make it playable. But you guys excuse it more because it happened decades or centuries ago. Since this is happening right now, perhaps that is more difficult.

I don't want this to be a traditional shoot 'em up scenario, I want it to be clever and innovative. I like the idea of having leader units that can be objectives. They could have the missle flag, so they'd have to stay within a city. So for example, Osama could hide in any Islamic city and the only way the US can win the scenario is to find that city. However attacking cities will get the world pissed off at the US and bring on a huge war it can't win. The Bush unit could be the same way, but it would have movement of 1, and couldn't go anywhere without the Airforce One unit perhaps. A state visit to another nation would improve relations dramatically, but it would put W in more danger of being attacked.

And after attacks by the US many new terrorist units are created to show the outrage on the Arab street. Only difficulty though is getting to the US. Pulling off an attack on US soil should be a key priority for the Islamics, but it would have to be difficult. I'm not sure how to do this. Also, building and transporting a nuclear weapon would be a key priority. Pakistan would have some nukes, but they'd be extremely short range. Only far enough to reach India

Maybe the great wall could be a wonder the US can build, renamed "Department of Homeland Security" which would help defend itself from terrorists, but would have a trigger of angering the US people. I like the idea of having civilian units like in the World Today scenario. Another interesting idea.

As for Iran and Iraq, of course they don't like each other, and its stupid to put them together. But thats exactly what President Bush did, they are both charter members of the "Axis of Evil" so its not my oversight its his. So assume this is from the perspective of a US neo-con or a Islamacist radical. They see the world polarized and so will the scenario.

	13-07-2003 00:42									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Stefan Härtel I don't think I'm contradicting here. After all, the EU is a political fact, while a Muslim unity isn't.

More like an economical fact. Indeed the EU should be a

quote: The nations of the EU might be disagreeing amongst themselves, but in the end, they have to find a way of working together again. This isn't so in the Muslim world.

Yes, that's true... But a scenario would mostly consist of the military and diplomatic aspects. Diplomacy is ratehr simplistic, and limited to general attitudes of the 7 leaders, so the exact composition of the different civs doesn't matter too much anyway.

As for the military aspect, while the EU might agree on one position, in practice, countries could choose not to make troops available or so.

In any case, there IS a large amount of disagreement within the EU, which leads to compromise at least. By representing the EU as one civ, there is no way you can represent this compromise.

quote: To put it open, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the former Soviet Central Asian nations and Turkey have absolutely nothing in common,

I agree to some extent. The former Soviet states would fit better in the Russian civ, Turkey better as an EU member or US ally, and Afghanistan as barbarian or so. But I think Iran and Pakistan can safely be lumped together for the purpose of this scenario.

quote: Let me prove you wrong here. [...]

I know plenty about history. So I'm quite aware that the Muslim world is and has been far from a united front. But apart from, say, Afghanistan, the entire Muslim world can probably be split in one or two "factions" (pro, and anti US, basically) as far as their foreign policy on the global (non-Muslim) theater is concerned.

	15-07-2003 05:25									#28
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I wonder if this thread will degenerate into a flamewar? I hope not

	15-07-2003 18:21									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm trying my best to keep the discussion limited to the context and implementation of the scenario, rather than world politics.

	15-07-2003 18:53									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think that Pakistan is pro western now(actually i think that it was always so) after the coup. India , their main enemy, is pro Russian, so they went to the other side.

I mean look at their army: F-16s, M-16 rifle etc. It is all western based.

That is in contrast to Iran that is tottaly anti-american.

Most propably the Paqis should be US' allies while the persians belong to some anti US islamic civ group.