Modern Day Scenario for HoI 2

[unmerged(15113)]

Remember that building up to this event is a series of unfortunate ones.
A Norwegian patrol plane is shot down on the border, Russians saying it was an accident. And more.
These makes things escalate a bit.

Additionally, an attack in the Baltics has the same problem. But that would be a direct invasion of motherland territory inside NATO and would be met differently than an attack on Svalbard (if a NATO country is invaded, I think that has a more severe look than loosing an archipelago).
Also, if say Russia invaded Greenland, would then NATO attack with full might? I think not.
Argentina attacked one of the most powerful nations in the world when they invaded the Falklands. That was a local conflict (yet still an attack on NATO ground). I don't remember seeing American B-2s bombing Buenos Aires?

 

[Galleblære]

Remember that building up to this event is a series of unfortunate ones.
A Norwegian patrol plane is shot down on the border, Russians saying it was an accident. And more.
These makes things escalate a bit.

Additionally, an attack in the Baltics has the same problem. But that would be a direct invasion of motherland territory inside NATO and would be met differently than an attack on Svalbard (if a NATO country is invaded, I think that has a more severe look than loosing an archipelago).
Also, if say Russia invaded Greenland, would then NATO attack with full might? I think not.
Argentina attacked one of the most powerful nations in the world when they invaded the Falklands. That was a local conflict (yet still an attack on NATO ground). I don't remember seeing American B-2s bombing Buenos Aires?

Uhm, because Britain didn't request help? That they were a superior military force compared to Argentina? And the fact that the Falkland Islands is outside the area the treaty covered?

Read through this, it clearly states that Svalbard is part of NATO, but is to remain demiliterized. And if you read the whole text, you will find plenty of instances similar to the ones you are trying to create in the event. No invasion of Svalbard though! Why? Because the Soviet Union didn't want to start a potentially large scale war over a non-issue?

http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/SvalbardOutline.htm

 

[unmerged(15113)]

Alrighty then, I admit the scenario is full of holes.
But this whole thing is full of holes. Russia has to attack SOMEONE and IRL they wouldn't be that stupid because the US and NATO would react immediately no matter where it was.
Same with China. I don't think they'd suddenly start invading all neighbouring countries.
The South American scenario is even worse.

Guys, this whole scenario is way off, but I'm trying to build this on hot spots, and the Barents Sea IS a hotspot today as well.

Besides, Russia is already at war with the US when this thing plays out...

 

[Galleblære]

Alrighty then, I admit the scenario is full of holes.
But this whole thing is full of holes. Russia has to attack SOMEONE and IRL they wouldn't be that stupid because the US and NATO would react immediately no matter where it was.
Same with China. I don't think they'd suddenly start invading all neighbouring countries.
The South American scenario is even worse.

Guys, this whole scenario is way off, but I'm trying to build this on hot spots, and the Barents Sea IS a hotspot today as well.

Besides, Russia is already at war with the US when this thing plays out...

Well, if Russia is already at war with the US, they would be at war with Norway and just about all of europe as well, so why all the talk about keeping NATO out of a Svalbard conflict in the first place?!?

I thought this was supposed to occur before Russia had entered war.

I think Bielrussia would be the first step, a "friendly" annexation of the country, and depending on the political views, ukraine could be the next conflict zone.

 

[unmerged(15113)]

Belarus will be annexed before this happens. And we agreed that the Ukraine will be the "secondary" front.

The US is part of the CotW. Europe is the CTF.
Russia and China joins in the PRA before the war and since China and the US are at war, Russia is included here. But they will most likely not suffer a lot (except the Pacific Fleet).
The thought is that while China and India battle the US, UK, Australia and maybe Japan, Russia (annexed with kazakhstan and Belarus) battle Europe (of course with the support of Chinese volunteers).

 

[Galleblære]

Belarus will be annexed before this happens. And we agreed that the Ukraine will be the "secondary" front.

The US is part of the CotW. Europe is the CTF.
Russia and China joins in the PRA before the war and since China and the US are at war, Russia is included here. But they will most likely not suffer a lot (except the Pacific Fleet).
The thought is that while China and India battle the US, UK, Australia and maybe Japan, Russia (annexed with kazakhstan and Belarus) battle Europe (of course with the support of Chinese volunteers).

Oh, I forgot about this whle CotW and CTF thing. Frankly, I think it should be thrown out the window in a way, since multiple alliances are now possible. NATO is a lot stronger than most people believe. NATO was and is a defensive pact, so it is natural that some members disagree on the use of military force in fareign countries.

If you still feel like breaking up NATO from the start, I suggest having an even that does this, have a new conflict situation that shatters NATO. If you recall, I was never quite fond of the CTF COTW thing, as it takes way too much preassure on a situation that existed a year ago. Great steps have already been taken by Bush to improve relations with France and Germany, so I don't think it's a very realistic divide.

I realize that this is a game, but at the same time it's called "the modern day scenario". People will download this game, expecting a "realistic" situation of the world today, and then play on and see what happens. With the current model, we are looking at an alternate earth.

So to put it simple; what I am hoping for is a more "realistic approach" for creating conflicts, not having conflicts just for the sake of having them.

 

[unmerged(15113)]

I agree that NATO get a small part in this scenario. However, today's political situation is a bit different than what it is in HoI2. IRL today it seems countries can decide not to participate in alliance members wars, which is impossible in a HoI2 alliance.

The split in NATO was because the interests of the US and the European were different. This will also happen in our scenario. The US walks alone into Iran, Syria, Turkmenistan. This shatters the UN Security Council, and each of them will most likely damage US-European relations as much as Iraq.

Then they attack China because of Taiwan. Europe has no obligations in Taiwan, but the US does (as Japan is in the American sphere of influence etc). So most of Europe would most likely be in doubt if they wanted to attack China along with the US as Europe wouldn't have any danger towards their territory. Additionally, European-Sino relations are extremely good, escpecially from France.

Since the american and european interests would be so split, the stress from a common alliance would be too big and it would be more practical to have their own alliances. Especially when Russia attack Europe (wouldn't be too nice then to have the European armies fighting in SE Asia).

Besides, all our conflicts are built on hot spots in addition to predicted hot spots. So we do have a certain level of realism. However, this can be approached in numerous ways and none of them will appeal to everyone. Personally, I liked the way the first team on MDS1 had, so I stuck with that one.
There will always be complaints from people, but from where I see it, most (if not all) of the team supports the current timeline (including me) in addition to most of the experienced posters on the forums.

I'm sorry we can't satisfy everyone. But hey, as time goes, we'll make the choices more numerous and make it possible for more scenarios inside this one. But we have to start somewhere.
Eventually, you will be able to play a China allied to the US and still have a deep scenario. But we must have something to start with, as I said. And the current timeline is the one I want to follow.

 

[brandnew70x7]

Well, if Russia is already at war with the US, they would be at war with Norway and just about all of europe as well, so why all the talk about keeping NATO out of a Svalbard conflict in the first place?!?

I thought this was supposed to occur before Russia had entered war.

I think Bielrussia would be the first step, a "friendly" annexation of the country, and depending on the political views, ukraine could be the next conflict zone.

An invasion to seize the russian parts of the Baltics or eastern Ukraine would work well. A Byellorussa annexation probably wouldn't cause a war, becuase they both are willing to reunite if I recall correctly. But it would probably incrase the escalation much as Anschluss did in Germany. And NATO as an alliance would MOST CERTAINLY react unitedly (Save maybe France, thats not a jab or antyhing, but they have no military obligations) if the Ukrainians or Baltics were attacked.

 

[Galleblære]

I agree that NATO get a small part in this scenario. However, today's political situation is a bit different than what it is in HoI2. IRL today it seems countries can decide not to participate in alliance members wars, which is impossible in a HoI2 alliance.

The split in NATO was because the interests of the US and the European were different. This will also happen in our scenario. The US walks alone into Iran, Syria, Turkmenistan. This shatters the UN Security Council, and each of them will most likely damage US-European relations as much as Iraq.

Then they attack China because of Taiwan. Europe has no obligations in Taiwan, but the US does (as Japan is in the American sphere of influence etc). So most of Europe would most likely be in doubt if they wanted to attack China along with the US as Europe wouldn't have any danger towards their territory. Additionally, European-Sino relations are extremely good, escpecially from France.

Since the american and european interests would be so split, the stress from a common alliance would be too big and it would be more practical to have their own alliances. Especially when Russia attack Europe (wouldn't be too nice then to have the European armies fighting in SE Asia).

Besides, all our conflicts are built on hot spots in addition to predicted hot spots. So we do have a certain level of realism. However, this can be approached in numerous ways and none of them will appeal to everyone. Personally, I liked the way the first team on MDS1 had, so I stuck with that one.
There will always be complaints from people, but from where I see it, most (if not all) of the team supports the current timeline (including me) in addition to most of the experienced posters on the forums.

I'm sorry we can't satisfy everyone. But hey, as time goes, we'll make the choices more numerous and make it possible for more scenarios inside this one. But we have to start somewhere.
Eventually, you will be able to play a China allied to the US and still have a deep scenario. But we must have something to start with, as I said. And the current timeline is the one I want to follow.

But that would be insanity from the US and would never happen. They can't invade Iran and Syria, and certainly not go into a war with China without support from their NATO allies. Their forces are spread too thin as it is.

I just feel much of the project has a "gamey" feel to it, artificially constructing problems to create a scenario.

And again, NATO isn't something you can just say "no" to. If a NATO member is attacked on territory supported by the treaty, it would bring in all members, no question asked.

Don't confuse different oppinions "offensive wars" with the commitment still within NATO.

Perhaps NATO could be represented through events, if possible. If a NATO member is attacked, events pop up for all members allowing them to support. Can the HoI2 events see the difference between the aggressor and defender in a war?

 

[unmerged(15113)]

But that would be insanity from the US and would never happen. They can't invade Iran and Syria, and certainly not go into a war with China without support from their NATO allies. Their forces are spread too thin as it is.

I just feel much of the project has a "gamey" feel to it, artificially constructing problems to create a scenario.

And again, NATO isn't something you can just say "no" to. If a NATO member is attacked on territory supported by the treaty, it would bring in all members, no question asked.

Don't confuse different oppinions "offensive wars" with the commitment still within NATO.

Perhaps NATO could be represented through events, if possible. If a NATO member is attacked, events pop up for all members allowing them to support. Can the HoI2 events see the difference between the aggressor and defender in a war?

We can artificially make NATO through "guarantee independence" and "non-aggression". Don't know if that'll be sufficient though. Also, one can't differ between attackers and defenders in event terms. Only if country A is at war with country B, which makes things too difficult...

Of course NATO members have a choice! If they want to, they can leave at any time they want! The catch is of course that they most likely will never again be supported by other NATO countries.

 

[unmerged(31967)]

Don't forget this is a global wargame. So we cannot 100% stick to the reality. We can make a mod without major conflict, but i don't think it would be fun to play and worth to make it...

 

[Galleblære]

We can artificially make NATO through "guarantee independence" and "non-aggression". Don't know if that'll be sufficient though. Also, one can't differ between attackers and defenders in event terms. Only if country A is at war with country B, which makes things too difficult...

Of course NATO members have a choice! If they want to, they can leave at any time they want! The catch is of course that they most likely will never again be supported by other NATO countries.

That is the core of the problem I have with this scenario, NATO is being totally ignored. It just won't happen. This isn't some lazy saturday golf tournoment you are turning down, it's a defense pact that has existed for 50 years that has deep roots in each member state.

 

[Galleblære]

Don't forget this is a global wargame. So we cannot 100% stick to the reality. We can make a mod without major conflict, but i don't think it would be fun to play and worth to make it...

But we can make a mod that tries to reflect the currect situation as accuratly as possible which then leads to war. Quite possible. I just don't like this divide in NATO.

 

[unmerged(31967)]

If we keep NATO togheter, there is nothing to play (they are unstoppable)
And its not a good idea to make NATO as an alliance(it's a defense pact)
If NATO is an alliance then ALL NATO members will join the Iraq War and they go to war with China. This is more unrealistic.
If you don't like it, then think about that:
In this mod US fighting in the middle east and Far East, European Members are fighting in Europe. (since the US Army is mostly whitdrawn or will be withdrawned from Europe this is not unrealistic)
US will be also in war with Russia, so it will help to the Europeans.
We make guarantee of Independences and military access between all NATO members. This is the best way to simulate NATO.

 

[unmerged(15113)]

The main point here is that NATO is a defence pact.
And in our mod, the US is the agressor. Besides, as samu points out: if we make NATO an alliance, they will all attack Iraq. Which didn't happen. And then we are REALLY off realism.
NATO will have a split until Europe also is at war. Then both the US and Europe will be at war with the same alliance and therefore remake NATO in a way.
We already had a split of intervention in NATO. Why can't it happen again?

 

[Galleblære]

The main point here is that NATO is a defence pact.
And in our mod, the US is the agressor. Besides, as samu points out: if we make NATO an alliance, they will all attack Iraq. Which didn't happen. And then we are REALLY off realism.
NATO will have a split until Europe also is at war. Then both the US and Europe will be at war with the same alliance and therefore remake NATO in a way.
We already had a split of intervention in NATO. Why can't it happen again?

My point here is. What happens someone attacks a NATO member in the MDS? Only "half" of NATO joins in on the defense.

You guys already made it pretty clear that you don't think NATO would react to a Russian attacks and bombings in Norway, which is why I am questioning this aspect of the mod.

Seriously, ask yourself why no NATO member has been invaded since their entry into the alliance? Because it works.

There NEEDS to be a way to represent NATO, it is too dang imortant to be left out of the loop.

 

[Archangel85]

with independance gurenteered, every NATO Member is at once at war with the agressor. And it ONLY works defensive, not on the offense.

 

[Galleblære]

with independance gurenteered, every NATO Member is at once at war with the agressor. And it ONLY works defensive, not on the offense.

It's not that automatic. In HoI2, you can break a lot of guarantees, and still get away with it. Maybe it can be possible to tweak the AI files?

 

[unmerged(15113)]

No country within NATO has ever been attacked because there hasn't existed any threats to do this (since SU collapse). That's why the alliance is having hardship now. Since no country is invading another one in north america or europe, the only way the alliance can get into war is on other continents, which brings in doubt if the war was nescessary etc which is why US-european relations have problems.

But some countries might be more considerate when they get at war with a large aggressor that have the power to exterminate the country. If the country is not at any risk orginially, support for such a war would be minimal. (Why should e.g. Hungary be at the risk of nuclear annihilation if Russia only wanted to invade Finland? (example)).

I know you think we should represent NATO better. But the HoI2 system doesn't allow us to have a compromise. Either this or that. And I think "that" is too inclusive, while you think "this" is too uninclusive. It's a choice we have to make. Through good relations, events, independence guarantees and access we can make it so that a US-European war is impossible...that's the closest we can get.

BTW, you're the one that wants choices here. You wanted the choice to turn away from the designated path and flip everything upside down.
Now we give you that possibility..

 

[unmerged(15113)]

I suddenly remembered that I haven't seen any South American war events yet. Are they done?
Masternick201 said he'll do it, but I don't know.