Cold What scenario?

[Eivind IV]

I had no idea about this one, but I'll check it out. Cheers!

[KASHANKA]

For Vietnamisation - the process started in 1969, but it wasn't until 1972 when all US land units were evacuated.
If I were you I'd either start the scenario in 1975 when the Vietnamese conflict ended, or in 1964 when it was still unclear how the US will handle the problem.
1978 is another interesting date in Indochina, since it marks the beginning of the Vietnamese-Khmer Rouge conflict which lead to a war between China and Vietnam.

[Eivind IV]

I read that as well, Kashanka. It's not quite decided yet, but I might just start in 1975 afterall. Or abstract the war as already noticed.

Btw, I've done some rearranging of civs according to 1975 if that's the end choice:


* One American NATO civ and one European NATO civ.
-The American NATO has Lisbon, Naples and Munich in Europe.
-South Korea and Japan in Asia.
-The European NATO has Australia and New Zealand.

* Many cities rearranged accordingly to alignment.


Comments?

[Patine]

I think Iraq had fallen into the US's pocket by '75, but I could be mistaken (it could have been later). Hard as it is to believe today, old Saddam Hussein was once a staunch pro-US despot, especially during the Iran-Iraq War.

[Case]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
-The European NATO has Australia and New Zealand.

Why? Australia has been very closely alligned with the US from about 1965 onwards and NZ was also towing the American line at this time. Britain withdrew from 'east of Suez' in the late 1960s(?). Stick Australia and NZ in with the US.

Also, the following changes should be made:
* South Africa should be pro-western
* Thailand and the Phillipines should definetly be alligned with the US (either as part of the US Civ or as part of the US-Allied Asian Civ)
* You may want to consider adding Iran to the US civ.

[Eivind IV]

That's why I asked for comments. I'm not an expert on Australian/NZ political history, 'maite'

According to the reading I've done SA was an important member of the non-aligned movment (wikipedia). They might be wrong though, or maybe taken out of the cold war context.

Thailand is in the pro western civ, it's just not on the map posted. Isn't it enough to have the Philipines in the pro western civ as well (ther is no 'us allied asian civ', only a world 'pro western civ')? If not, please enlighten me.

And Iran is indeed a nut I havn't quite worked out yet. Did the Americans have military units inside Iran? If not, I'll let it stay in the pro western civ. Or if they did, only give them a military base or something. This way it can easier be 'overthrown' when the revolution happens.

[our_man]

Originally posted by Case
* South Africa should be pro-western

Was SA not an international pariah by this period?

[Case]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
According to the reading I've done SA was an important member of the non-aligned movment (wikipedia). They might be wrong though, or maybe taken out of the cold war context.

I believe that SA was, while regarded as unattractive, not considered too awful in 1965 and was firmly aligned with the west. It didn't become a pariah state until the late 1970s.

Thailand is in the pro western civ, it's just not on the map posted. Isn't it enough to have the Philipines in the pro western civ as well (ther is no 'us allied asian civ', only a world 'pro western civ')? If not, please enlighten me.

Seeing as both countries hosted huge American bases until the end of the cold war they should be very firmly alligned with the US.

And Iran is indeed a nut I havn't quite worked out yet. Did the Americans have military units inside Iran? If not, I'll let it stay in the pro western civ. Or if they did, only give them a military base or something. This way it can easier be 'overthrown' when the revolution happens.

Yeah, it doesn't fit comfortably into either camp. While the US didn't station any military units in Iraq, US thosands of US 'advisors' were based in the country where they provided vital support the the Iranian military.

[Eivind IV]

Originally posted by Case
I believe that SA was, while regarded as unattractive, not considered too awful in 1965 and was firmly aligned with the west. It didn't become a pariah state until the late 1970s.

Ok, but this scenario seems to be starting in 1975, and not '65.

What's a pariah state btw?

EDIT:
Did some google on it, still not sure though. Have I understood it correctly if it's a state hated by the whole world?

If pariah means non aligned or rouge or whatever, then maybe for simplicity they could by 1975 (even though it's not until late 70s as you point out) be in the 'non aligned civ', no?

Originally posted by Case
Seeing as both countries hosted huge American bases until the end of the cold war they should be very firmly alligned with the US.

Ok, US civ it is!

Cheers!

[Eurisko]

Hey Eivind,

how about canning the unalligned civ and using India instead? The other nations which are in the unalligned civ could become neutral, India in the hands of the AI is just way too easy prey for China and others, as many, many Iron Curtain PBEMs have shown

[our_man]

Hate might be too strong a word for a pariah - in terms of international diplomacy at least. The best way to put it is to say that other countries shun their company (there, I should have been a diplomat).

Making SA unaligned I think is the right call.

[Eivind IV]

Finally I can commit to this again, as I've finished all my exams. Now it's christmas holidays for me until the new years. Yep, you read right - over a month!

I just finished the tech tree today so now I just have the easy part left:

1. Improvements to cities + balancing production etc.
2. Unit placement
3. Events
4. Fine tuning graphics for icons etc. + text files.
5. Done!

I reckon this'll be ready in beta before Christmas!

(also update the units in the first post)

[Eurisko]

Eivind, sign me up as the US NATO in the playtest at Evo, please.

[rmsharpe]

Here's my perception of geopolitical affairs in and around 1975. An explanation will be presented.

[rmsharpe]

I'll start with the Americas.

Mexico was solidly under the thumb of the PRI, a one-party leftist/socialist regime. Mexico was not openly hostile to either Washington or Moscow, a kind of American Titoism.

Brazil's Geisel, unlike his predecessors, believed that Brazil could play both sides of the fence, and recognized regimes like those in Angola, Mozambique, and mainland China. He also renounced the alliance Brazil had with the United States.

In Argentina, Juan Peron had died and his wife Isabel had taken over. She led a short ruled regime that was replaced with Jorge Videla, who was best described as being kind of an idiot. I went with neutral since the U.S. administration (Carter) changed and respectively changed the policy towards Argentina from cordial to lukewarm.

Now, in Africa. Benin and the Republic of Congo had Marxist coups and had the governments replaced. It's unlikely either will be in the game since they're both pretty insignificant, but that should be noted anyway.

I had a tough time trying to figure out where Uganda stood. Uganda did not have a pro-Soviet regime so much as an anti-U.S. and anti-Britain regime. Amin was actually more pro-Libyan than anything else, something that can't really be reflected in the game. I threw him in the "neutral" category, even though Amin would be removed by neighboring Tanzania four years later, who I had also colored green.

Somalia under Siad Barre was officially socialist, but they hosted U.S. bases and received a lot of support from non-socialist countries. This comes in contrast to Ethiopia's Mengistu Haile Mariam, whose regime was a lot more Soviet-style and ideological than Barre's.

Zambia is a hard nut to crack. Kenneth Kaunda wasn't really pro-Western or pro-Soviet, he kind of stood in the middle. Zambia, aside from Mexico, might actually be the only real neutral country in the game.

Rhodesia under Ian Smith was not popular in the circles of power in Washington and London, so Rhodesia did not really have a pro-Western policy, but more of a pro-independence and anti-communist policy. Like Somalia and Ethiopia, this could be a potential Soviet ally/neutral country conflict.

South Yemen was the only Arab communist state and despite it's policy not necessarily always being in line with Moscow, it was still not a hostile regime towards the Soviet Union. I'd move them into the pro-Soviet category.

Albania's Hoxha broke ties with Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia was becoming too "anti-Soviet." Then he broke ties with the Soviet Union for being too 'anti-Soviet." After that, he broke ties with Deng Xiaoping, saying that China had become too "anti-Soviet." Albania managed to isolate itself from all of it's allies, hence it's inclusion in the green non-aligned category.

South Africa belongs in the pro-Western category. It wouldn't be another 10 years before the United States even considered economic sanctions against South Africa. U.S. "support" (although it was not always vocal) for South Africa in the seventies was vital for the strategy of containing communism.

Australia and New Zealand were just made pro-Western because I didn't want to interfere in whether they were really NATO countries or not.

That might be all I changed and all I feel I really need to explain. The last thing, the only reason Eivind's name doesn't appear on the map is that I started with a fresh world map and recolored it, so it doesn't appear on there.