Iron Curtain PBEM#1

[academia]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
How is large civ's representing many to be handled? If India wanted war with Pakistan (which it doesn't, I'm just making a point!), could the SEATO aid with units from distant SEATO cities, or only with units from Pakistan. And during peace time, could SEATO produce units in Australia, for instance, and send them to Pakistan. Or can only Pakistan produced units stay and operate from Pakistan? I find this very confusing as you may understand. Dealing with nations seperately makes more sense as I see it. I realise SEATO is a defense pact, but given the history of India-Pakistan, I don't see why other nations should be involved. The same would apply to the pro civ's. How are they to be handled?

well, you have a good point here...
i mean, in the case of the pro-east civ, they are handled as separate nations ALWAYS. They work as separate entities.
In case of war, the player establishes (like in NWO with the rogues) that some X country declares war on some other X country.

But in the case of SEATO, taking into account that it was a military pact , i´m not sure about it...
I feel that in the case of SEATO, it should be considered as an entire civ. But i totally understand your confusion, and to be honest, i´m a bit confused too.

In any case, we have some days till eurisko´s return, so i´m willing to hear your ideas or suggestions. what do you guys think about this issue???

[Bostero]

i was thinking in this, as well.
if we take eivind's example, we could use a house rule that SEATO be able to send troops from all other countries to Pakistan, but only the player can use those units to attack ONCE they are RE-HOMED from a pakistani city.

this way we make sure that we do not use militar units, directly from other countries that are not involved but in the same CIV.
that would be for SEATO.

in the case of India. the indian player would be allowed to attack whatever seato unit inside the pakistani zone.

As pakistan is so ****ing smaller than India, then India can only take one city per turn ( to give a chance to pakistan).

just ideas.

[Eivind IV]

I think units produced within a country should be used as if they were from that country, and not send them to other cities to be rehomed. If India wants to attack Pakistan it should not have to fear beeing met by "Australian" Pakistanis. This should apply for both the pro civs and for SEATO.

As for potential Pakistan-India wars, the international community would probably not tolerate an annexation of Pakistan by India anyway, so Pakistan's faith should then be decided by the super powers (UN), should India decide to invade anyway. Are we playing with UN here anyway? If so I'd like to offer some support to South Korea via a UN mandate (given that the permanent members - in this case Russia - hasn't got veto power).

[academia]

As for potential Pakistan-India wars, the international community would probably not tolerate an annexation of Pakistan by India anyway, so Pakistan's faith should then be decided by the super powers (UN), should India decide to invade anyway. Are we playing with UN here anyway? If so I'd like to offer some support to South Korea via a UN mandate (given that the permanent members - in this case Russia - hasn't got veto power).

Nope, we dont have a UN council here... i´m not sure if its useful.
I mean, in case of an indian invasion of Pakistan, i think that other countries should have the chance of helping Pakistan. For instance, i´m using USA so i´d probably intervene in favour of SEATO.

But regarding "interal SEATO affairs"... i´m still not sure.
Maybe we can have a UN votation to allow the intervention of other SEATO countries to help pakistan?
but again, SEATO was a military alliance... if a member country is attacked, the rest of the members should send some aid.

[Eivind IV]

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about SEATO alone, also the pro cities. And most importantly during peace times.

Should one be able to move military from Cuba to Syria? Or from Australia to Pakistan? Makes absolutely no sense as I see it. Units produced in Cuba should stay on Cuba and be dealt with as Cuban, Australian as Australian.

[Voltar]

I say whatever and allow unit movment.

[academia]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
You're missing my point. I'm not talking about SEATO alone, also the pro cities. And most importantly during peace times.

Should one be able to move military from Cuba to Syria? Or from Australia to Pakistan? Makes absolutely no sense as I see it. Units produced in Cuba should stay on Cuba and be dealt with as Cuban, Australian as Australian.

Well, my point is that in the case of SEATO, we are dealing with a military alliance. And i think that its similar to the US civ (which contains cities that are not part of the United States). In that case, the US can move units from, let´s say, los angeles to tokyo, no matter that one city is part of US and the other from Japan.

But in the case of the pro-east, i want it to be considered as the rogues in NWO. They are separate entities, and we apply that "movement restricition" that you mention in your last post. I agree with you on that, and that´s the intention of this scenario and NWO.

So, my point is that i dont consider that we should apply the same rules to SEATO and the Pro-east civ.

I support that idea, and according to their posts, dario and voltar too (the unit movement).

Anyway, bare in mind that in case of a indian-pakistani war, we should establish a war zone, so you wont be afraid of suffering bombings or an invasion to indian soil. You wont fight a total war against SEATO everywhere. Moreover, you can always ask for foreign military aid...

did i convince you?

[Eivind IV]

Originally posted by academia
But in the case of the pro-east, i want it to be considered as the rogues in NWO. They are separate entities, and we apply that "movement restricition" that you mention in your last post. I agree with you on that, and that´s the intention of this scenario and NWO.

So, my point is that i dont consider that we should apply the same rules to SEATO and the Pro-east civ.

I support that idea, and according to their posts, dario and voltar too (the unit movement).

Hmm, pardon me, but I'm confused again. As I've bolded out it appears you're saying two things. At the one you say we implement the "no movement between countries" rule, and on the next you say we don't. Are you saying this no movement only applies to the pro-east, and in that case why only them? I mean during peace time it should apply to the SEATO as well. Having Aussies in Pakistan just because they have a DEFENSIVE alliance, doesn't mean they establish bases in each others' country. When/if war comes they should owever be allowed to move freely, but keep them homed to their original city. What do you say?

[academia]

Having Aussies in Pakistan just because they have a DEFENSIVE alliance, doesn't mean they establish bases in each others' country. When/if war comes they should owever be allowed to move freely, but keep them homed to their original city. What do you say?

ok. i like the idea
Then, during peace times, no-movement allowed between pro-east / SEATO countries. in case of war, free move.

[Eivind IV]

Great! I'm pleased!

What do you think about Japan/USA?

[academia]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
Great! I'm pleased!

What do you think about Japan/USA?

well, i´m actually in the middle of a second korean war, so taking into account that the USSR is sending troops to help north korea, i feel that it´s fair that i send units from USA to Japan (to attack korea later).

[Eivind IV]

Again, I'm refering to during peace times. Will the same prinicple apply to USA/Japan?

[Eivind IV]

Who's next, Denis?

[academia]

Originally posted by Eivind IV
Again, I'm refering to during peace times. Will the same prinicple apply to USA/Japan?

yep.

and it´s eurisko´s turn...

[Eurisko]

Sorry for the delay, will have this turn up tomorrow.