September 11 - The Day the World Changed

[OzzyKP]

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?

[OzzyKP]

here is the map layout:

[jim panse]

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/showthrea...he+World+Today but be sure to download the corerct ones ).

regards

[Stefan Härtel]

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.

[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.

[Prometeus]

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...

[OzzyKP]

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.

[Michael Daumen]

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.

[Michael Daumen]

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.

[Mercator]

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.

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.

[Stefan Härtel]

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.

[Mercator]

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.

[OzzyKP]

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.

[OzzyKP]

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.

[Stefan Härtel]

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.