• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Romano Prodi ... We meet again >_>

Good to see the IC count. I feel that if EU and Russia went to war in a few years, Russia wouldn't know what hit them. Which is what we want.

I'm rather surprised Obama is still in office. I figured that given the horrible performance of the USA he would be recognized as the worst War Time President, failing to beat even tiny Nigeria, abandoning his European allies, and giving rise to the Third Power Sphere of Japan through his lack of support to Traditional US allies in the theater. I expected an impeachment.

By the way, what year is it? How long was the war?

Do we have an estimated casualty figure?
 
Romano Prodi ... We meet again >_>

Good to see the IC count. I feel that if EU and Russia went to war in a few years, Russia wouldn't know what hit them. Which is what we want.

I'm rather surprised Obama is still in office. I figured that given the horrible performance of the USA he would be recognized as the worst War Time President, failing to beat even tiny Nigeria, abandoning his European allies, and giving rise to the Third Power Sphere of Japan through his lack of support to Traditional US allies in the theater. I expected an impeachment.

By the way, what year is it? How long was the war?

Do we have an estimated casualty figure?

The Democrats probably won't impeach Obama, if only because they know that they don't have anyone better at the moment.

The year is 2011. The war itself lasted about a year and a half, as I have already noted, wars in MDS tend to be relatively short compared to the vanilla game or other historical mods (due to faster movement, higher casualties etc...)

As for casualties... Difficult to say. There was some what would have been seen as trench warfare in the Middle East and on the Korean front but apart from that movement was relatively rapid. This means that casualties for both sides are going to be high. It is possible that civilian casualties were relatively low as terror bombing was not a tactic used during this war.

Overall I estimate that somewhere between one hundred million and five hundred million people were killed by the Third World War. The highest casualties were probably in Europe (again), China (again) and Africa (in the northern part, again) as this saw the most intensive combat. In South America ALBA crumbled too easily for casualties really to mount while in southeast Asia the front was quiet except for two periods of quite rapid movement.
 
estimate that somewhere between one hundred million and five hundred million people were killed by the Third World War.

Whoa! Hold up there a second. I think you may have overestimated the possible casualty rates of this war, by a VERY large amount.

World War 3 was a massive conflict yes, but remember that in comparison, World War 2, the most destructive war in human history IOTL, killed approximately 66 million people. This war, although on a global scale, was not fought in the same way WW2 was. This war was quicker, and did not involve the sheer brutality and indiscriminate targeting of non-military targets that was seen in World War 2. Also, this WW3 did not involve things like widescale ethnic cleansing or genocide, instead being dominated by combat between armed forces with any civilian losses being collateral damage.

I do not have specific casualty figures, but I do remember that regarding Russia's invasion and victory over Europe, the Russian military suffered approximately 480,000 casualties. I would also predict a similar number of the EU's side in that conflict. In Asia, given the size of the fighting there, I would estimate a figure of approximately 2 million-2.5 million total military dead on all sides (Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, etc combined). The Indo-Pakistani war probably would have killed about 300,000 military combatants combined, while the war in the middle east would have resulted in probably a figure of about 500,000 - 700,000 (at most) total military losses combined for ECON and the Coalition. Latin America and Africa probably would have suffered the least casualties, since the armies fighting in those regions were the smallest of all of the combatants. Perhaps Latin America and Africa would have had a combined casualty rate of at most 150,000-200,000 military dead.

Now, thats military dead. Civilian casualties meanwhile would have been heavy, especially in places like Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, more so for regions where lots of fighting took place for prolonged periods of time. I would put a guess of at most about 1.5 - 2 million total civilian casualties, since this war was relatively "clean" in comparison to World War 2.

So, after adding up all the numbers, I get a figure of approximately 7 million total civilian and military dead from this World War 3, far lower than World War 2's 66 million, and WAY lower than any figure of 100 million or 500 million.
 
Have Obama get impeached and be replaced with Michelle Bachmann who institutes a "Reactionary" state.
 
Whoa! Hold up there a second. I think you may have overestimated the possible casualty rates of this war, by a VERY large amount.

World War 3 was a massive conflict yes, but remember that in comparison, World War 2, the most destructive war in human history IOTL, killed approximately 66 million people. This war, although on a global scale, was not fought in the same way WW2 was. This war was quicker, and did not involve the sheer brutality and indiscriminate targeting of non-military targets that was seen in World War 2. Also, this WW3 did not involve things like widescale ethnic cleansing or genocide, instead being dominated by combat between armed forces with any civilian losses being collateral damage.

I do not have specific casualty figures, but I do remember that regarding Russia's invasion and victory over Europe, the Russian military suffered approximately 480,000 casualties. I would also predict a similar number of the EU's side in that conflict. In Asia, given the size of the fighting there, I would estimate a figure of approximately 2 million-2.5 million total military dead on all sides (Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, etc combined). The Indo-Pakistani war probably would have killed about 300,000 military combatants combined, while the war in the middle east would have resulted in probably a figure of about 500,000 - 700,000 (at most) total military losses combined for ECON and the Coalition. Latin America and Africa probably would have suffered the least casualties, since the armies fighting in those regions were the smallest of all of the combatants. Perhaps Latin America and Africa would have had a combined casualty rate of at most 150,000-200,000 military dead.

Now, thats military dead. Civilian casualties meanwhile would have been heavy, especially in places like Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, more so for regions where lots of fighting took place for prolonged periods of time. I would put a guess of at most about 1.5 - 2 million total civilian casualties, since this war was relatively "clean" in comparison to World War 2.

So, after adding up all the numbers, I get a figure of approximately 7 million total civilian and military dead from this World War 3, far lower than World War 2's 66 million, and WAY lower than any figure of 100 million or 500 million.

While I agree with some of your reasoning here, I'm going to have to argue that the combined casualty figure would be at least in the 10 millions. China alone would have suffered inevitably massive civilian casualties if only because of the sheer proximity of the population to one another. Africa is hard to judge because of the inherent death rate present before the fighting started, but mobilizing thousands of militia and masses of hungry villagers around a fundamentalist cause wouldn't be too difficult if you could convince them that things would get better. The Middle East is ripe for the propaganda used by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to attract the impoverished and under-educated when the government supports them openly, enforces their ideals, and all of the Islamic world is at war with the 'Infidel' West.

I would say that this war would be more realistically between 14 - 22 million dead. Wars today are faster and deadlier and can utilize High Explosives, while the population of the Earth has increased exponentially, and civilian centers are ripe for unintended collateral damage, that, in a war this size, are not going to be worried over as much as a 'Hearts-and-Minds' Conflict such as Afghanistan.

I'm not sure that we're supposed to be discussing this, now that I think about it, so I'm going to leave it at that, just in case.
 
Whoa! Hold up there a second. I think you may have overestimated the possible casualty rates of this war, by a VERY large amount.

World War 3 was a massive conflict yes, but remember that in comparison, World War 2, the most destructive war in human history IOTL, killed approximately 66 million people. This war, although on a global scale, was not fought in the same way WW2 was. This war was quicker, and did not involve the sheer brutality and indiscriminate targeting of non-military targets that was seen in World War 2. Also, this WW3 did not involve things like widescale ethnic cleansing or genocide, instead being dominated by combat between armed forces with any civilian losses being collateral damage.

I do not have specific casualty figures, but I do remember that regarding Russia's invasion and victory over Europe, the Russian military suffered approximately 480,000 casualties. I would also predict a similar number of the EU's side in that conflict. In Asia, given the size of the fighting there, I would estimate a figure of approximately 2 million-2.5 million total military dead on all sides (Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, etc combined). The Indo-Pakistani war probably would have killed about 300,000 military combatants combined, while the war in the middle east would have resulted in probably a figure of about 500,000 - 700,000 (at most) total military losses combined for ECON and the Coalition. Latin America and Africa probably would have suffered the least casualties, since the armies fighting in those regions were the smallest of all of the combatants. Perhaps Latin America and Africa would have had a combined casualty rate of at most 150,000-200,000 military dead.

Now, thats military dead. Civilian casualties meanwhile would have been heavy, especially in places like Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, more so for regions where lots of fighting took place for prolonged periods of time. I would put a guess of at most about 1.5 - 2 million total civilian casualties, since this war was relatively "clean" in comparison to World War 2.

So, after adding up all the numbers, I get a figure of approximately 7 million total civilian and military dead from this World War 3, far lower than World War 2's 66 million, and WAY lower than any figure of 100 million or 500 million.

You're right, one hundred million is probably an overestimate. However I reckon that at least 20 million people are dead because of this war. Even though there was no systematic killing of civilians, modern weapons are so destructive than any sort of intense street fighting between two evenly matched militaries (eg, not Baghdad style insurgency) that you can probably expect a lot of dead even when one side is driven out after only a short time.
 
I would say that the total death number reaches 10 million by the time the guns stopped firing. 20 million would include all the post-war related issues like famines, lack of infrastructure, etc.
 
I Think it died alot more than 5 million people, but not as much as ww2.

Remember the massive populations of china and Korea, in the last Korean war it is estimated around 2.5 million dead, both civilian and military. And this orean war just as fierce so at least a million koreans have died. And the massive conflicts in east asia between Japan and it's allies versus the Sco was just as brutal as the Korean conflict, but huge in comparison, it is possible that it can have died 10 million people in china itself, and then we have japanese casualties, russian and the war in indochina, that was very brutal.

And do not forget the Indo-paki war, very bloody, possibly almost a million dead.

Africa is a warzone already and a massive continent-spanning war would probably cost several million dead, and several million more after the war in famines and revolts.

Coalition-Econ war in the middle east was long, bloody and pretty much trench warfare with massive casualties, several millions the least.

And in europe the military casualites must be at least 2-3 million combines, but civilian is probably much smaller, maybe a million.

And then we have the south american conflict, probably several millions.

And the all pre-ww3 conflicts, the japanese invasions, russia-georgia conflict, and whatnot.

It probably died something around 20-50 million people in the war.
 
@Asalto: When they do, Japan is going to be ready for them. I have been spending years and countless IC on building up the new Japanese Navy, and I get the feeling my investment is going to pay off huge against the US Navy. Then after that, it will be time to create my own version of "Homefront".....

@talt: I think a more correct comparison may be the British overseas Dominions before the Statute of Westminster, however with a much stronger control by Japan through its Governor Generals and technocrat administrators. So, they are bound to Japan as sovereign Japanese territory, but on the ground, they get to keep their municipal governments, their own police forces, culture, language, etc. Its just that now they have Japanese bosses, whose authority is backed by the mighty Japanese Military should any problems arise.

Regarding the Queen, I may have her royal highness pass away sometime in 2012 or 2013, but I am not really sure yet. British monarchs seem to be quite resilient when it comes to age, just look at The Queen Mother, who lived to 101 years old!

@hoi2geek: Japan will not be going for world hegemony, but instead Pacific hegemony.

RE Casualties: Good points raised by everyone. I guess the figure of between 10-20 million dead probably works the most accurately. Now that I think of it, that puts this WW3 more on par with the First World War, which killed something like 16 million people IIRC.

@everyone else: thanks for the comments!

Although the war is now over, Japan continues to massively invest in its military forces. The latest manifestation of this investment is the completion of new wings of Strike Fighters as well as the launching of more Frigates for the navy.
newshipsnewplanes.png


Only a short time later, the Japanese Navy gets some more toys for its fleet. 6 brand new Nuclear powered battlecruisers finish their sea trials and enter regular service. These ships, similar to Russia's Kirov class battlecruisers, possess massive offensive capabilities and give Japan's navy a tremendous advantage over other surface navies in sheer firepower, armed with massive quantities of anti aircraft and anti ship missiles.
battlecruisers.png


Meanwhile, massive resources are being dedicated to the upgrading of weapons and equipment in the Japanese military. Older combat systems are being phased out of service or being put in storage, replaced by more modern systems, vehicles, and weapons.
newweapons.png


In international news, Chinese forces evacuate Afghanistan. The Chinese army had occupied about 2/3rds of the country during WW3, while Iranian troops had taken over the rest of the country, including the southern province of Kandahar as well as western Afghanistan. Now however, with domestic problems still prevalent in China itself, Chinese occupation forces in Afghanistan are recalled back home. Not wanting to leave the country completely lawless, China is able to convince Russia to take up the job of keeping order in the country, with Russian troops moving into places like Kabul as the Chinese board airplanes and go home. The Russians immediately get to work in policing the restive and war torn region, engaging in fierce battles with local Afghan insurgents.
afghanistantransfer1.png

tajikrussiantroopsinact.jpg


In the Caribbean meanwhile, the Americans get around to taking care of some unfinished business. After some rather lengthy planning, US forces invade Cuba. Cuban army forces vow to fight to the last man in defense of their embattled island fortress, as American reinforcements pour into the country and start to fan out in all directions.
usinvadescuba.png

060308n4772b3541.jpg


Some statistics. The worlds most powerful armies post World War 3. European unification has given the European Federation the most powerful army on earth, a huge force that not only has numbers on its side but also very high quality. Japan comes second, with a more powerful army than Russia, the USA, and even China, whose army has dropped all the way to 5th place.
topgroundarmiespostww3.png


The worlds largest and most powerful navies after World War 3. The US navy still occupies first place, but Japan is beginning to catch up, especially in the vital area of capital ships. Japan will have another 6 aircraft carriers coming into service by August, nearly tying the Americans in aircraft carriers. Meanwhile, the EF has the world's 3rd largest navy, however their fleet is largely made up of frigates and destroyers, with only a handful of light aircraft carriers and missile submarines to give their fleet any serious firepower. The EF is reportedly working to make up for this, building more light carriers and possibly working to get its own supercarriers as well.
postww3navies.png


Worlds most powerful airforces post World War 3. Japan may score only in 5th place compared to the larger airforces possessed by countries like Russia, the EF, or India, but in this case quantity does not generally matter too much. Japans airforces are very technologically advanced, allowing them to take on opponents in the skies that have far more aircraft than Japan possesses.
topairforcespostww3.png


In Khabarovsk protectorate, a Russian partisan uprising takes place, centered around the town of Birobidzhan. Japanese forces are ordered to clear out the insurgents, crushing their rebellion with great speed and efficiency. The rebels may be beaten here, but bombings and ambush attacks by small bands of partisans in the region will continue for some time to come.
russianrebels.png


Back in Japan, the navy gets even more new capital ships for its fleet. Another 6 aircraft carriers come off the line and enter full time service. Japan now has 13 fleet aircraft carriers in its navy, giving Japan naval power that only the Americans could even possibly compete against.
moresupercarriers.png


Finally, in October, the Cuban government surrenders to the United States. It took months for the Americans to finally crush what was left of the Castro Regime, due to the massive resistance put up by Cuban military and militia forces in Havana. The city has been reduced largely to rubble, and many thousands of Cuban and American soldiers died in the fight for Havana, but finally Cuba has been defeated. At long last, the Americans finally have their revenge.
cubadefeated.png
 
NO CUBA!

What will happen to the awesome Music they produce now!? Will it be corrupted by people like Nicki Minaj?!
Only time shall tell I guess
 
Expansion of Japanese naval forces is the most impressive! I especially like the deployment of nuclear battlecruisers. Those monsters are apart from being floating forts also great propaganda tools.

I see Russians returned to Afghanistan now. Maybe this won't be necessary too heavy burden for them because Russia seems to be quite wealthy now and there shouldn't be problems with the cost of occupation. Moreover, they have a lot experience with Afghanistan from the past.
 
Well, now that the two greatest questions about this AAR answered, I am now pondering about the fate of all of Latin America, should Japan decide to pursue total Pacific domination. Would Japan establish protectorates or client states to places like Peru, Chile, and Mexico(all of which have a Pacific coastline)
 
I wonder what will happen to China now. First the fate in the Chinese government is broken so I would expect massive risings in China itself. Furthermore, I can imagine that either Japan has to be very kind to the Chinese living under the Japanese flag (the conquered lands in China) or they would face immense rebellion of sorts.

And of course now the question remains, will Japan fight the USA once again?

Tim