Flashpoint: September 2001 Creation Discussion

[POTUS]

Israel is not neutral. FYI, they sent troops to Iraq. (14 soldiers and 10 doctors and an undisclosed number of advisors to the Iraqi Army)

India also is not neutral, and would probably best represented as its own nation, maybe with Israel, close allies to India.

Neutrals could probably be barbarians, with a few solldiers in each city and, if they are killed, it represents them joining one side or another. Eastern Europe should be in this group.

Include the Palestineans in Anti-Western, too.

[Pap1723]

I placed all of the cities...disregard the oil fields on the north of the map, they are actually tundra, i just forgot to change the graphic.

Let me know if something should be changed, added, or deleted.

Pap

Minimap


East Asia


East North America


India


Middle East


Russia


South East Asia


Western Europe

[our_man]

Why is Belfast neutral? It's still part of the UK.

I'm pretty sure that Paris is bigger than Berlin.

[our_man]

There's a city in the Middle East called Syria. As you already have the capital of that country represented, I suggest changing the name to Beirut.

I'm not too sure of Turkey being lumped with the Muslim civ. It looks more to the West than the East.

The position of Jerusalem looks a bit off. Although it appears there isn't enough room to put it where it should be.

[fairline]

Originally posted by our_man
I'm pretty sure that Paris is bigger than Berlin.

I wouldn't have known O_M, but this site says that Paris has a polulation of 2.15 million compared with Berlin's 3.39M:

http://www.citymayors.com/features/euro_cities1.html

[our_man]

Wow! I always thought Paris had a population of 10 million. Guess I was wrong

Oh! OK, I was using the urban area population rather than the actual city population for my figure.

[lord of the mark]

Youre going to have to make some (fairly controversial judgements) to implement this well.

First, start with Gepaps idea that AQ is mainly spies (though in some areas partisans) who appear via events.

Now you could have a western seizure of an islamic city result in MORE AQ units appearing (they hate us more, resulting in more recruitment) OR you could have fewer AQ units appear (they fear us more, and respect AQ less, resulting in less recruitment)

Or you could have it play differently depending on which city is taken (taking Kabul shows we're strong, resulting in less recruitment, taking Baghdad shows we're hateful, resulting in more recruitment, etc) Or you could play with different units - taking a muslim city results in fewer AQ spy units (disrupts training and financing networks, etc) but MORE partisan units(spontaneous revolts, etc)


An AQ spy attack on a western city (not sure how to code this as an event) should result in more troops etc for civ attacked (country, world, rallies around) but more AQ spies and partisans appearing (Following the "strong horse")


US should start with relatively few BUT very powerful units. Making it trivial to defeat any opposing conventional forces (assuming no war with China or Russia) but US should have far too few total units to avoid constant revolts in conquered citys, and to deal with partisans.

US should be able to trigger event "mobilize national guard" (perhaps by researching such a tech). This results in much more abundant low cost infantry for use against partisans, etc but results in higher unhappiness in US cities (perhaps by obsoleting a happiness wonder)


US can build wonder "multilateral support" - this results in much lower partisan revolts in response to conquest of islamic cities. But it causes impassable terrain to appear around select Islamic cities (US is now constrained in its actions)


How about make most AQ units immune to bribery, but make select ones bribable? When you manage to find and bribe one, you get benefits (fewer AQ recruits, more money, whatever, showing benefits of spy activity to turn AQ - at least those who can be turned)


all in all lots of potential, but you''l need very complex flags and triggers, I think. I guess this would be easier to do with TOT?

[lord of the mark]

Heres a more elegant approach.

Toss out worrying about the details of china, europe, etc. Dont make this a detailed sim - make an abstract approach to the essence of the problem.


Fundamentally 4 civs -
1. US/west
2. Rogues
3. Friendly muslim states
4. AQ.

US has strong conventional forces
Friendly muslim states are very weak
Rogues are relatively weak, but have tech path leading to nukes.
AQ has spies and partisans triggered by events.

Single player, playable as US only.

If you DONT take rogue cities, Rogue civs develop nuke tech. When they reach tech goal, you LOSE.

OTOH, each time you take a Rogue city, AQ partisans appear outside of Friendly muslim cities. If AQ takes more than X friendly Muslim cities, you LOSE.

You dont have enough units to to both attack most rogue states quickly, AND to defend all friendly muslim cities.


This can be made VERY hard.


You can make different rogue cities have different impacts on nuke progression, both through their tech contribution, and events. You can have them differ in how many and where partisans show up - and you can make taking certain ones cause you to lose $ (to proxy diplo cost of attacking certain rogues)

For extra fun, make the impact on nuke progression random in the case of Iraqi cities (so taking Baghdad can either be a triumph or a useless waste of resources) not sure how to code this.

[Arthedain]

Interesting ideas, trying to fight the terrorists in the woirld..
Pap: Maybe you should talk with Steph, he started to make a scenario called "the world today" but it got lost in his HD crash. He had some interesting ideas about China etc.