First Strike PBEM

[Eivind IV]

Originally posted by Eurisko
Sorry, but as I said, I am only willing to take it if Eivind makes some changes..

And what are those exactly, that doesn't involve removing civs?

[Eurisko]

Direct involvement of players in proxy wars, without changing civs etc.

Simply put, IC style proxy wars.

[Eivind IV]

How would that be feasable in FS?

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
How would that be feasable in FS?

Hm?

I am not sure I understand the question, but there are certain ways of pulling it off so they don't escalate too much to be unrealistic, and so that they actually end.

For example, how about this:

Keep the minor western/eastern civs, and keep them AI controlled. They should only be able to build the rogue troops unit, which should have 0 movement (ie should only be defensive).

Wars could proceed like this:

Proxy wars have to be pre-announced such that the participants can prepare for them.

Once a proxy war starts, any side may conquer the city/country in question. In the cities participating in the proxy war, only infantry may be built, such that major military hardware has to come from the supporting nations.

To win a proxy war, the entire nation must be occupied by one side (US and Euro NATO count as one here) for a certain amount of turns, after which that side is assumed to have won the proxy war.

After winning the war, the nation is handed back to the respective minor ally, and it can't be attacked for a certain amount of turns so that it can recuperate, and so that remote participants in a future proxy war can prepare for the next assault.

The victor is, of course, free to station troops within the country itself.

And maybe there could also be a rule that the victor has to pay his own minor ally a certain sum of money to prevent pointless proxy wars only aimed at distracting other nations and draining their military power. A sort of payment to prop up the new regime (or the old one which took a battering from the proxy war).

How about it?

[Eivind IV]

I like it very much. I'll respond more thoroughly tomorrow.

[Eurisko]

If something like that is implemented I would gladly take the US NATO.

[Eurisko]

Hm, actually there would be another way of containing proxy wars at a realistic scale.

For example, how about fixing the amount of shields that an army that a nation can field during a proxy war can be worth?

For example, let's say there is a proxy war for Iraq.

Basra is size 6 and Baghdad size 9, so together that makes 15. Then we could multiply that with 100 (just an example), which would make 1500.

So every nation involved could field an army worth less than 1500 shields total (transport units, such as carriers and transport ships do not count, or carriers could be assigned a smaller, fixed shield value, for example normal carrier 100 shields and NP carrier 200 shields).

So the US could have, for example, an army of 3 Abrams (660 shields), 2 SP howitzers (440 shields) and 2 F-16 squadrons (280 shields) and a carrier (100 shields) in the theater of operations, which would make 1480 shields. The army would have to be pre-determined, and once the proxy war has started, no more reinforcements may be received.

This system is applied in many tabletop games, and it could be interesting here as well.

The numbers would have to be tweaked, and the Soviets would of course need a bonus (depending on whether or not both NATO civs participate) to keep from getting overwhelmed.

Edit: Locally built infantry units should preferrably not be taken into consideration, as they are endlessly available local recruits for the cause.

[EmuGod]

To add to Eurisko's suggestion, how about adding rebel infantry units in the countries that are attacked after the invasion has been completed or if it has been stalled depending on the country's relative stability? For example, let's say the US invades Iraq as in reality. After winning, the Shiite and Sunni factions in Iraq start fighting each other, with the Sunnis trying to oust the Shiite government. These units could be given to the barbarians or non-aligned (or even to the Pro-Soviets if they are communist). The player would then need to stabilize the region. This would mirror reality, in which military units are needed to garrison the countryside as well as the cities to prevent unrest, especially in new regimes.

[Eurisko]

Originally posted by EmuGod
To add to Eurisko's suggestion, how about adding rebel infantry units in the countries that are attacked after the invasion has been completed or if it has been stalled depending on the country's relative stability? For example, let's say the US invades Iraq as in reality. After winning, the Shiite and Sunni factions in Iraq start fighting each other, with the Sunnis trying to oust the Shiite government. These units could be given to the barbarians or non-aligned (or even to the Pro-Soviets if they are communist). The player would then need to stabilize the region. This would mirror reality, in which military units are needed to garrison the countryside as well as the cities to prevent unrest, especially in new regimes.

I don't know, that would probably complicate the matter too much.

Also, sectarian violence would not occur in many countres (mostly the middle east). And one has to see proxy wars as civil wars sponsored by foreign powers, not direct invasions of a country. So once the proxy wr is over, once can assume that the civil war is finished for now, meaning that there will be no more sectarian violence.

One should keep countries garrisoned anyway, in case another proxy war breaks out.

[Eurisko]

Btw, I also though about a way to involve China in proxy wars.

Since China was pretty much it's own side (closer to the US than the USSR, but still pretty distanced from both), China should get involved in it's own proxy wars as well.

So I thought that maybe the neutral civ could be replaced with a maoist communists civ. Since the barbarians do little to nothing in FS (a few of them in Brazil, Afghanistan and Iran, all events that could be simulated otherwise), maybe the neutrals could be made barbarians which do not move instead.

This would open up another facet of the cold war, namely inter-communist quarrelling for power between Chinese sponsored maoist rebels and soviet rebels.

[Eivind IV]

Ok, here we go:

I like your suggestions, Denis. Although Iraq is on the exeption to proxy-wars list, the idea sounds intriguing. Also, for fighting proxy wars you must exclude planes and missiles, and only support them with ground troops. Only land units may be used in proxy wars.

With extensive use of Dario's Diplomacy tool, this could be very interesting. You would force war, and before you save your turn force peace, so that the AI won't attack you from another pro country independent of the proxy war you're fighting. Once war is won, you can hold the city maximum five turns, and if unchallanged by the other team by then, it must be given over to your pro-civ, together with a sum of, say, 500 gold, and you can start trading with the city. You may then station maximum 4 troops in that country.

And although that shield system sounds complicated, it could work if everybody adheres to it. Is everyone in agreeance here? Ready to try it out?

[Eurisko]

Should planes be excluded?

I don't know. I think that planes should be allowed, since they add an important layer of strategy and tactics to the game.

I do understand that planes could unrealistically shift the balance of a proxy war, but if we used the shield system, it would not be a problem since one could not conquer countries by plane-overkill.

I strongly suggest using the shield system, since it adds an important strategy element to the game. Normally, a proxy war would be fought by stuffing 50 units on carriers and transports and duking it out, so that the winner is most likely the person physically closer to the proxy war, since he can reinforce faster, but the shield system could really change that. If the shield system was to be applied, proxy wars would solely be decided by tactical factors, and all outside strategic factors, such as unit production during the war and reinforcing, would be set aside, levelling the playing field.

Players could solely concentrate on fighting the war, without being at a disadvantage because it is being fought closer to the opponent.

If, for example, you implemented the maoist civ, the soviets and the Chinese could fight for, for example, Vietnam without the soviets being at a disadvantage because they are farther away. This would make proxy wars more exciting.

And the selection of units would be vital. Instead of cramming hordes of all kinds of units into a fleet and landing them all at once to overwhelm the enemy, one would have to think very well about what to take to the battle. Another bomber, or another tank? Will the enemy focus on bombers, making AA units and fighters a necessity? Does the terrain have heavy defense bonuses, requiring artillery instead of motorized infantry? Is the country large, which would require you to leave one interceptor behind and bring a reconaissance aircraft with you instead?

One would also have to be careful with whatever units one has, since the war would obviously end if one side wastes all it's shields. So there would be two ways of winning:

1. Annihilate the enemy force.
2. Capture and hold all cities for a few turns.

Btw, I think the number of countries which can have proxy wars should be extended. Every minor nation should pretty much only have a un-invadable capital (such as Havana or Tel-Aviv), and the rest should be left up to the players (one does not have to accept a proxy war). I think the distribution of minor cities/countries is fair enough for more countries to be included in the list of possible proxy war targets.

And what about the maoist civ? Would that be a possibility? I pretty much got the idea from Patine's "Cold War" scenario, in which certain cities are in the hands of the Chinese to represent maoist influence.

[academia]

soooooooo????

[Eivind IV]

I've only been waiting for the other players to come with their opinion. This far only Eurisko and I have been vocal. I've been ready all along.

Do you and Nilat agree to the new system? If so, then Eurisko can play the America turn.

[Eurisko]

So, what do we do now?

Does anybody else have any suggestions?

Do we use the shield system?

If so, what are the details?

Will air units be allowed in proxy wars?