[WIP] Modern day scenario!

[tamius23]

I didn't think that people still believe that numbers are everything! You take a million untrained North Korean soldiers, with outdated equipment, and have them face 250,000 trained South Korean soldiers. With modern equipment and tactics. It would be a slaughter of epic proportions,

You could send 400,000 NATO-affiliated fully trained soldiers, with modern equipment and technology, and have them face 130,000 Afghan peasants with outdated equipment. And who wins? Neither.

[Brightgalrs]

You could send 400,000 NATO-affiliated fully trained soldiers, with modern equipment and technology, and have them face 130,000 Afghan peasants with outdated equipment. And who wins? Neither.

Conversational vs. uncontroversial war

[Lersad]

Please, do remember to not make China socialist!
The PRC stopped being Socialist, in favor of Market-Capitalism immediately after the death of Mao. The DPRK should also be State-Capitalist in economy.
And remember the Shanghai cooperation pact! Also, please make a distinction between Authoritarian Marxism (Stalinism) Libertarian Marxism (Trotskyism, Luxembourgism), and different forms of socialism (Anarcho-Socialism, etc). One form of Socialist/Communist ideology was alright for the nineteenth century, but not for the modern-age.
I am really looking forward to this mod! Victoria 2 is a great game to base the modern age off.

[tamius23]

Please, do remember to not make China socialist!
The PRC stopped being Socialist, in favor of Market-Capitalism immediately after the death of Mao. The DPRK should also be State-Capitalist in economy.
And remember the Shanghai cooperation pact! Also, please make a distinction between Authoritarian Marxism (Stalinism) Libertarian Marxism (Trotskyism, Luxembourgism), and different forms of socialism (Anarcho-Socialism, etc). One form of Socialist/Communist ideology was alright for the nineteenth century, but not for the modern-age.
I am really looking forward to this mod! Victoria 2 is a great game to base the modern age off.

DPRK is one of the only two countries in the world to still have a state-owned economy. The other is Cuba.

It is too early to tell whether the policy changes presented by Cuban leader Raul Castro over the weekend will bring positive change to the Caribbean island, but by simply suggesting that the term of a Cuban leader ought to be reduced to two five-year terms and that a tranche of the economy should be liberalized, Castro and the Cuban socialist leadership have once again thrown into very sharp relief the suicidal nature of North Korea’s anachronistic approach to political and economic life.

“No country or person can spend more than they have. Two plus two is four, never five, much less six or seven, as we have sometimes pretended,” Castro told the 6th Communist Party Congress, the country’s first such congress for fourteen years.

The Party’s failure to create new ideas and revitalize itself has become “an unbearable burden for the economy and a disincentive for work,” he went on.

As a result, the Cuban leader said that the country will place a limit of two five-year terms on all its top leadership positions, including his own, and reduce the state workforce, cut state subsidies, attempt to attract more foreign investment and allow domestic companies to operate with more autonomy.

In a message likely not missed in Pyongyang, the Chinese Communist Party, which maintains close ties with both Cuba and North Korea, promptly sent its congratulations, saying that the congress would “have a momentous and far-reaching impact on the sustained development of Cuba's socialist cause.”

All of which is a far cry from recent goings-on in North Korea.

At the 3rd of its Workers’ Party Delegates’ Conferences in September, 2010, the Chosun Workers’ Party did precisely the opposite of what Cuba is apparently planning; where Cuba plans term limits, the North plans to transfer power to yet another open-ended dictatorship whose only claim to legitimacy is in the name of its leader, and where Cuba plans a measure of economic liberalization, the North is engaged in a constant battle to try and muzzle any kind of capitalist entrepreneurship.

Members of the North Korean leadership have been going to Cuba for many years. They generally meet, greet, shake hands and agree to strengthen bilateral ties in the name of socialist unity. But it appears that Cuba, as with China, Laos and Vietnam before it, has realized that the road North Korea is travelling cannot lead to success.

And while none of these countries seems interested in embracing real democracy, preferring instead to cling to the stability of one-party rule, they are all clearly aware that without some form of political dynamism and liberalization in the economic sphere, they are going nowhere.

China's communist party should have State Capitalism as its economic policy. The DPRK is the least capitalist country in the world.

[KanyeWest]

Conversational vs. uncontroversial war

I believe you mean Conventional versus Unconventional?

[ETTAR]

You could send 400,000 NATO-affiliated fully trained soldiers, with modern equipment and technology, and have them face 130,000 Afghan peasants with outdated equipment. And who wins? Neither.

Are you saying that we lost the war in Afghanistan? The Taliban has ceased to exist, Al-Qaeda is no longer an effective fighting force with all of its top leadership either dead or in hiding, and a Democratic government has been established. How is it that in your mind "neither" side wins?

[tamius23]

The Taliban has ceased to exist,

That's not controversial, that's completely wrong.

Are you by any chance American? The view of the world can be distorted depending on where you look at it from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

The war in Afghanistan isn't over and won't be for years. However, I know the UK has promised to pull out from Afghanistan in the next few years, basically admitting defeat and leaving it to the Americans.

The democratic government has been established, but does not control most of the country. Whilst al-Qaeda isn't an effective fighting force, it never was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-qaeda

It's a tiny group compared with other groups in Afghanistan.

[KanyeWest]

That's not controversial, that's completely wrong.

Are you by any chance American? The view of the world can be distorted depending on where you look at it from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

The war in Afghanistan isn't over and won't be for years. However, I know the UK has promised to pull out from Afghanistan in the next few years, basically admitting defeat and leaving it to the Americans.

The democratic government has been established, but does not control most of the country. Whilst al-Qaeda isn't an effective fighting force, it never was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-qaeda

It's a tiny group compared with other groups in Afghanistan.

Don't mention that to anyone on any American political site, though; they go balls-to-the-wall insane if you even give a hint about any of that.

But that's besides the point; perhaps there should be some sort of attrition-effect in Afghani/desert-filled provinces? Or, perhaps the fact that republics in the modern-era are not allowed to take full-on course action like previous nations were before the Geneva conventions and what-not. I only know of one campaign that was taken against guerrilla/rag-tag forces and was successful, and it was thus by the British Empire in Malaysia when the Communist rebels tried to take control of the country-side and sap away the strength of the local colonial forces. Only by the quick mind of Harold Briggs was the Empire successful, albeit in a foolhearted decolonization effort.

[Hibernian]

Don't mention that to anyone on any American political site, though; they go balls-to-the-wall insane if you even give a hint about any of that.

Huh? Americans don't know that the Taliban still exists? Who the hell do they think they're fighting over there?

Anyway, this is all beside the point since the VIC2 game system simply cannot simulate Guerrilla warfare accurately. This mod will not be able to have a realistic version of the Afghanistan war.

[Ethan194]

Huh? Americans don't know that the Taliban still exists? Who the hell do they think they're fighting over there?

Anyway, this is all beside the point since the VIC2 game system simply cannot simulate Guerrilla warfare accurately. This mod will not be able to have a realistic version of the Afghanistan war.

What month is this mod set in exactly?

[ZomgK3tchup]

Way to devolve a perfectly good thread into another Americans is Dumb! clusterfudge.

I feel as though he means that the Taliban no longer exist as the dominant force in Afghanistan nor do they control the government.

[KanyeWest]

Way to devolve a perfectly good thread into another Americans is Dumb! clusterfudge.

I feel as though he means that the Taliban no longer exist as the dominant force in Afghanistan nor do they control the government.

No longer exist as the dominant force? Then who is, the retreating American Army or the retreating Afghani Army?

Oh, and don't complain about the truth. By the way, your grammar is way off. It's 'Americans are dumb', not 'is'. We generally learn this by our early ages in the United Kingdom, but that is besides the point. Don't instigate a riot when we were clearly trying to end it ourselves. Derp.

[safferli]

Guys, if this thread doesn't behave, I will have to close it. Additionally to the normal forum rules, and the forum rules of the V2 forums (which all apply here), consider all rules of the OT forum to also apply for this thread.

[ZomgK3tchup]

No longer exist as the dominant force? Then who is, the retreating American Army or the retreating Afghani Army?

Simply put, nobody.

Oh, and don't complain about the truth. By the way, your grammar is way off. It's 'Americans are dumb', not 'is'.

lrn2internets

A solution to the War on Terror in Afghanistan:

- Areas that are not under the government's control are controlled by Terrorist rebels.
- All provinces that are under Terrorist rebel control get a special modifier that increases consciousness, militancy, what have you.
- Terrorist rebels only rise in provinces with this modifier.
- When Terrorist rebels occupy a province, this modifier spreads to that province.
- If the Terrorist control Kabul for a year, then it becomes an Islamic Republic and severs relations with the United States.
- If this occurs, then the United States gets an event that will give the option to invade Afghanistan again at the cost of high consciousness and militancy or to admit defeat and lose prestige.
- If no provinces are under rebel control or have the aforementioned province modifier, then the United States wins the war in Afghanistan.

[KanyeWest]

"Terrorist rebels"? They were the former government, not terrorists.

[Kalelovil]

Let's get this thread back on track.

How are you going to represent Nuclear Power?

[ZomgK3tchup]

"Terrorist rebels"? They were the former government, not terrorists.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims by a non-government authority.

Terrorist rebels, of course, are a generic term for a broader range of events that are possible with this system to simulate the War on Terrorism. Calling them the Taliban would work, but that would require them to be an entirely separate rebel type that essentially does the same thing.

Let's get this thread back on track.

How are you going to represent Nuclear Power?

All touchiness aside, this thread is on track. We can't have a modern-day scenario without the War on Terrorism.

Nuclear power is a broad term. Do you mean nuclear weapons or nuclear generators?

[Kalelovil]

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims by a non-government authority.

Terrorist rebels, of course, are a generic term for a broader range of events that are possible with this system to simulate the War on Terrorism.


All touchiness aside, this thread is on track. We can't have a modern-day scenario without the War on Terrorism.

Nuclear power is a broad term. Do you mean nuclear weapons or nuclear generators?

Nuclear Generators.

First, you would need to add uranium as a new non tradeable good.

Set up a series of decisions for countries which do not possess reserves to negotiate access to some.

[ZomgK3tchup]

First, you would need to add uranium as a new non tradeable good.

MO, nuclear power is too obscure of an energy source to get its own trade good and by the time it becomes mainstream, physicists will be concocting something bigger and better (like simulating thermonuclear fusion).

[Kalelovil]

Nuclear Power is not an obscure power source.

75% of French power generation is nuclear.
49% of Ukrainian power generation is nuclear.
37% of Swedish power generation is nuclear.
31% of South Korean power generation is nuclear.
29% of Japanese power generation is nuclear.
26% of German power generation is nuclear.
20% of US power generation is nuclear.
18% of British and Russian power generation is nuclear.
Etcetera.

It is already very much mainstream.