However, Oceania should own something in India, due to the numerous references to the 'Malabar front'.
1984 said:
1984 said:
1984 said:
Last edited:
-
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.
Eastasia has the smallest area.Brasidas said:
Funny, I've always pictured Eastasia having the most industry. It says so (in one way or another) in the book. "Eastasia is known for its industry " etc in Chapter 2 (Goldstein's Book).Brasidas said:
No manpower from Japan for Eastasia. No manpower from the Americas, south Africa and Australasia for Oceania (as the capital is Airstrip 1.)Brasidas said:
I almost agree. But I suggest a 1950s mod when we can have 3 upstart nations (Oceania, Eastasia, Eurasia) destroy the world powers and start fighting amongst each other. We can have a much looser interpretation that way.Brasidas said:
No, I'm pretty sure the alliances changed again and again in the space of a short time. Re-read your copy, and you'll reconsider.
Brasidas said:
Obviously nobody agree's with my view of the book, and im not fussed if people dont. Wasnt planning on it being a scenario either way, i agree it would be boring constantly bombing your own civilians
But still, I wouldn't see much point in 3 super powers just trying to beat eachother. True, the novelty holds up being based on the book, but as I said earlier, not for me.To be fair, I can understand and fully appreciate why people dont see it that way, was only giving my own interpretation of the book :wacko:
If there were 3 states, then I also got the impression the alliances changed quite quickly. Seems to me if one became larger and more powerful than the other in the alliance, then the other half would ally with the enemy to bring it back down. Thats where I see a stalemate, and not much point...
However, was it at the end of 1984 Orwell lets slip that things actually end up better? Something to do with the appendix and a 'review' of sorts of Newspeak.
Last edited:
Well, I'll get mine out again, but I still swear to God there were more references to changing alliances. I remember noticing that in the short period between Winston going into captivity and getting out again, the alliances changed. Sorry, but right now I have no idea where my copy is. For now I'll take your word and those quotes for it.
That said, I'm willing to help out on this scenario. Anybody got ideas on how we'll do it?
That said, I'm willing to help out on this scenario. Anybody got ideas on how we'll do it?
Last edited:
How to do it is pretty straight-forward. Three countries with relatively balanced OOBs, modify an existing scenario file with the chosen design, playtest. Things like who owns what provinces are easy to set. Tweaking unit stats and creating initial OOBs are simple too.
But I'd say a consensus is needed as to what the hell the game's supposed to look like.
Some people want it to be completely impossible to achieve any strategic victory. Mib's idea is to play the campaign of the three successor states dividing the world among themselves in the 50s. I would suggest a campaign in the 1984 era in which the deck would simply be stacked equally and that the human player would be at war with the other two powers regardless of which faction he played.
Before anyone spends time on the game, I'd strongly suggest that an overall vision be adopted, whatever it is.
To Akaki, yes I've read the book. The edition that I read had no illustrations whatsoever. Now that I think back to the Civ2 scenario, it did indeed include Siberia as Eurasian. I simply went by what the region I think of as eurasia, a sort of a Hitler's wet dream of a map covering the Caucauses, Turkey, european Russia and all points west.
I would also suggest that the scenario be based upon 1984 but not a slave to it if those maps are indeed what Orwell had invisioned. A three-way divide of africa was fun in Civ2, and a solid stretch of territory through south asia to Cairo felt good as Eastasia.
Scenarios that are hard-coded to see the stalemate be unbeatable except by losing are a complete turn-off to me. What's the point of playing if you aren't killing or being killed and there's a horizon to try for?
A scenario with the successor states and the post-ww2 states sounds interesting, but a lovely part of the game concept is the simplicity of three equally-matched powers.
Modifications that I would make would include the capital of Oceania being in north america. Arguments about who would lead whom are kind of beside the point. It makes manpower gain much easier to figure if the capital is where most of the population is.
But I'd say a consensus is needed as to what the hell the game's supposed to look like.
Some people want it to be completely impossible to achieve any strategic victory. Mib's idea is to play the campaign of the three successor states dividing the world among themselves in the 50s. I would suggest a campaign in the 1984 era in which the deck would simply be stacked equally and that the human player would be at war with the other two powers regardless of which faction he played.
Before anyone spends time on the game, I'd strongly suggest that an overall vision be adopted, whatever it is.
To Akaki, yes I've read the book. The edition that I read had no illustrations whatsoever. Now that I think back to the Civ2 scenario, it did indeed include Siberia as Eurasian. I simply went by what the region I think of as eurasia, a sort of a Hitler's wet dream of a map covering the Caucauses, Turkey, european Russia and all points west.
I would also suggest that the scenario be based upon 1984 but not a slave to it if those maps are indeed what Orwell had invisioned. A three-way divide of africa was fun in Civ2, and a solid stretch of territory through south asia to Cairo felt good as Eastasia.
Scenarios that are hard-coded to see the stalemate be unbeatable except by losing are a complete turn-off to me. What's the point of playing if you aren't killing or being killed and there's a horizon to try for?
A scenario with the successor states and the post-ww2 states sounds interesting, but a lovely part of the game concept is the simplicity of three equally-matched powers.
Modifications that I would make would include the capital of Oceania being in north america. Arguments about who would lead whom are kind of beside the point. It makes manpower gain much easier to figure if the capital is where most of the population is.
I like the idea - and don't see the problem. The Scenario would use as a starting point the world map and three superpowers. In SP, whichever superpower the human player chooses - automatically places the other two into alliance and at war with the HP. Also the idea of very low level of technological advance will tie up reources and seeking improvements. A high level of dissent to tie up consumer goods and tweaking the cost for supplies to make themn more expensive.
The idea would be to win against the other powers. You couldn't play it like the book unless you want to end up a very depressed individual. That said, the inital setup is appealing and I think would offer enough challenge.
I am involved in a no-time-limit game where I have played to 1948(!?!) and the world looks pretty simliar to Orwells version of reality. A land hungry SU and an Isolationist USA along with a Japan who has taken and puppeted China but did not attack USA has made for an interesting game (although with USSR with 500+ units - the game has slowed done considerably.
BTW For any who can't find their copy of 1984 - it is online at numerous places for free!
The idea would be to win against the other powers. You couldn't play it like the book unless you want to end up a very depressed individual. That said, the inital setup is appealing and I think would offer enough challenge.
I am involved in a no-time-limit game where I have played to 1948(!?!) and the world looks pretty simliar to Orwells version of reality. A land hungry SU and an Isolationist USA along with a Japan who has taken and puppeted China but did not attack USA has made for an interesting game (although with USSR with 500+ units - the game has slowed done considerably.
BTW For any who can't find their copy of 1984 - it is online at numerous places for free!
I've been also thinking of making a 1984 mod but mostly I've just created in-game complications . Some problems that occured while creating the mod, and how I tried to deal with them:
1. Creating Ingsoc and other ideologies is a small probem since they all have to be max. autocrat. ->
Ingsoc could be max autocrat / 5 left-wing (LE or LWR in game)
oblitteration of self -||- / 1 left-wing (NS)
Neo-Bolshevism - ||- / 10 Left-Wing (ST)
You just need to change the names in text files.
2. (and this is most important!) Ceasing wars between countries means return to satus quo in terms of territory (occupied provinces return to their owner). In Orwells '1984', probably, after ending a war between countries all the territory changes stayed as they were on the last day of battles.
The solution is rather simple - you need to create another country wich owns ALL provinces in the game and the three great powers only occupy the provinces (well maybe one prov could be owned by each country) and all three are at war with the "ghost" country. If a war between two countries ends they won't return to pre-war borders, because they will only obtain the "Ghost's" provs.
3. The changes of alliances. It's rather annoying when we have a random event making our current war end and starting another. Maybe we ought to create random events but with A/B options like:
We're currently allied with Eastasia and at war with Oceania. Should we ally with Oceania and strike on Eastasia?
A) Oceania was, is and will be our ally. Forever! (peace with OCE, war with EAS)
B) Eastasia was, is and will be our ally. Forever! (no changes)
Of course the AI will need to make simillar decisions. The AI could get agressive towards one nation if it gets too powerful (controls many key provinces) and friendly towards another, if it gets too weak.
. Some problems that occured while creating the mod, and how I tried to deal with them:1. Creating Ingsoc and other ideologies is a small probem since they all have to be max. autocrat. ->
Ingsoc could be max autocrat / 5 left-wing (LE or LWR in game)
oblitteration of self -||- / 1 left-wing (NS)
Neo-Bolshevism - ||- / 10 Left-Wing (ST)
You just need to change the names in text files.
2. (and this is most important!) Ceasing wars between countries means return to satus quo in terms of territory (occupied provinces return to their owner). In Orwells '1984', probably, after ending a war between countries all the territory changes stayed as they were on the last day of battles.
The solution is rather simple - you need to create another country wich owns ALL provinces in the game and the three great powers only occupy the provinces (well maybe one prov could be owned by each country) and all three are at war with the "ghost" country. If a war between two countries ends they won't return to pre-war borders, because they will only obtain the "Ghost's" provs.
3. The changes of alliances. It's rather annoying when we have a random event making our current war end and starting another. Maybe we ought to create random events but with A/B options like:
We're currently allied with Eastasia and at war with Oceania. Should we ally with Oceania and strike on Eastasia?
A) Oceania was, is and will be our ally. Forever! (peace with OCE, war with EAS)
B) Eastasia was, is and will be our ally. Forever! (no changes)
Of course the AI will need to make simillar decisions. The AI could get agressive towards one nation if it gets too powerful (controls many key provinces) and friendly towards another, if it gets too weak.
I find MikeZ options very playable. Of course some penalties should be added to both choices