What I meant was, didn't you have rules as to HOW to win the mega-campaign -with points or somesuch? So following those rules, who won?
-
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.
What I meant was, didn't you have rules as to HOW to win the mega-campaign -with points or somesuch? So following those rules, who won?
Well, I suppose we could look at the victory points; but no, we didn't have an official win condition apart from the consensus of the players.
As I see it, we ended up with three mostly equal alliances:
while the latter is the strongest in terms of industry and army, it is in no way strong enough to overpower the other two combined.
Malaysia is a wildcard. It has a long tradition of independence. While presently affiliated with East Asia, I believe it would soon disentangle itself and return to neutrality protected by its huge navy and army. It could also become kingmaker in a war. Or perhaps it would serve as a gateway of sorts between the alliances, being the only country with cordial relations to all of them.
An interesting thing about this timeline is that, except for Germany, we don't see any nazi-style centralised economies even though most of the world is controlled by fascists (Oceania being the only bastion of democracy). I suspect most would be run in the style of OTL China, with a strong centralised government and a free market (or "free" market, I don't know) running beneath it.
In the end, I think this world is slightly less dystopic than that of the first Great Game, seeing that we have a pair of actual democracies in the mix. Then again, the most powerful country on earth is an ultra-conservative fascist dictatorship run by a man believing himself to be a prophet of God.
- Oceania, consisting of Norway and Italy.
- East Asia, consisting of Shaanxi and Japan.
- the Franco-German Alliance.
while the latter is the strongest in terms of industry and army, it is in no way strong enough to overpower the other two combined.
Malaysia is a wildcard. It has a long tradition of independence. While presently affiliated with East Asia, I believe it would soon disentangle itself and return to neutrality protected by its huge navy and army. It could also become kingmaker in a war. Or perhaps it would serve as a gateway of sorts between the alliances, being the only country with cordial relations to all of them.
An interesting thing about this timeline is that, except for Germany, we don't see any nazi-style centralised economies even though most of the world is controlled by fascists (Oceania being the only bastion of democracy). I suspect most would be run in the style of OTL China, with a strong centralised government and a free market (or "free" market, I don't know) running beneath it.
In the end, I think this world is slightly less dystopic than that of the first Great Game, seeing that we have a pair of actual democracies in the mix. Then again, the most powerful country on earth is an ultra-conservative fascist dictatorship run by a man believing himself to be a prophet of God.
The nuclear war in this timeframe was quite more devastating as well than it was in the first GG.
Yeah, that too. It's possible that nuclear winter will set in and end civilization. Then alliances, industry and army will be irrelevant.
Nuclear winter doesn't exist. Its a myth. Its more like nuclear autumn.
The only way humanity could die, it hypothesized, is to kill the planet completely (ie. stopping the sun or bathing us in massive radiation without any notice). However even with a notice of say 20 years or so, which we would probably have then we could still survive.
So its most likely that humanity will never die properly. I'm looking forward to when you get to vicky in the next mega campaign.
Does anyone think Italianopolis worked well? Was it a good idea?
The only way humanity could die, it hypothesized, is to kill the planet completely (ie. stopping the sun or bathing us in massive radiation without any notice). However even with a notice of say 20 years or so, which we would probably have then we could still survive.
So its most likely that humanity will never die properly. I'm looking forward to when you get to vicky in the next mega campaign.
Does anyone think Italianopolis worked well? Was it a good idea?
My opinion is that EastAsia won the game. Malaysia and Japan, at the height of their power, could have gone on to claim ultimate victory. Instead they chose to break their alliance, largely to keep the game competitive IIRC.
Depends on what you're comparing it to. For the circumstances of USIA at the dawn of Victoria, it was definitely a good idea. Had France gone Parisopolis though, it would probably not have been such a great idea. The spread-out and sparsely populated America needed that strategy to stay competitive at all IMO, otherwise I wouldn't have had even half the IC I had now.
...Of course Nuclear Winter doesn't exist. I hope it will never come to pass!
But : Nuclear Winter has never been said to wipe out humanity! -only the countries who had the cold war - that is US/USSR or Nato/Warzawa pact countries...Even with lots of clouds, the equator would get more heat than the temperate zones.
Making an Extintion Level Event for humans could be comparatively easy..Even in the real world..but it would most likely be a biological thing, like deliberatly spreading an "improved" ebola or somesuch..Blowing us all up is rather more difficult than making a 99% deadly virus, with a long incubation period -say 2 years- and releasing it simultaniusly around the globe. Might even not kill us all, but maybe random chance would take out the rest (Ohh Look -1% of us survived..but none of us can get babies..) -well hopefully not EASY
-But compared to bombing the Globe..This is all getting a bit Paranoid and Depressing..:wacko:o
Sigh.
Most doomsday events are not about the extinction of the human race, but the extinction of current human civilisation.
Most doomsday events are not about the extinction of the human race, but the extinction of current human civilisation.
Way to ruin the endgame.
EDIT: Also, winning by choosing not to win? Dammit people, don't pull punches. It cheapens the game.
To be fair though, what really ruined the endgame was the nukes (even if they did please the peanuts).
Maybe they couldn't agree wich one of them would win the mostest?
..That would be a valid, if a bit childish, reason to end their alliance..
Maybe they couldn't agree wich one of them would win the mostest?
..That would be a valid, if a bit childish, reason to end their alliance..
We didnt. End of story.
There were multiple alliances capable at some point in the game to end it, ours is different only because it was closer to endgame and a part of established quadrpolar (later tripolar) world order.
Anyhow nuclear mutant cockroaches seems to be sole clear winner of this campaign
The interesting thing about the endgame was how it bound players together. Oceania had really no choice but to play as one, same with France and Germany. I mean, it would have been suicide for these players to turn against each other. That to me was unpredicted, simply because throughout the rest of the game the alliances were rather mutable.
Also, KoM, I did end up with more divisions than simply the home guard in Germany, you just couldn't see them. I think it would gone much more poorly for me outside of the nukes, but I would be interested to know if you could have broken the troops that got there eventually.
Also, I didn't nuke cities, just armies! That was the whole point of the tactical missiles, rather than strategic nukes. The cities would still be there! Or mostly there.
Also, KoM, I did end up with more divisions than simply the home guard in Germany, you just couldn't see them. I think it would gone much more poorly for me outside of the nukes, but I would be interested to know if you could have broken the troops that got there eventually.
Also, I didn't nuke cities, just armies! That was the whole point of the tactical missiles, rather than strategic nukes. The cities would still be there! Or mostly there.
Shanxi begs du differ.
I meant on Norway! No first strikes here.
As a matter of gameplay, yes, no infrastructure was harmed. But tactical nukes don't destroy that large a portion of a well-dispersed armoured division. You need a lot of nukes to wipe out ten thousand tanks with their supporting elements. Even worse, tac nukes generate more fallout per megaton than stregic ones do, due to the p^{2/3} scaling. Therefore I'm of the opinion that, tactical or strategic, there is little left of the Baltic coast that's inhabitable, and a lot of people dying of radiation poisoning even if they survived the actual explosions.