Europe (2002-2014) Political

First of all, I'd like to say a few words about this scenario. This scenario focuses on realism and realism only, while keeping distance from all RP games. Like in real life, politics play the biggest role in the game, and war is used only as THE last option. I spent days gathering economic and military data for each country, and adjusting everything for map so that scenario depicts real world as realistic as possible. This is what I came up with...

Scenario starts on 1st January 2002 and ends on 30th June 2014, where every turn represents 6 months (so 25 turns in total). There are 20 playable nations, 2 of which are pseudo-nations (NATO/EU and public).



Like I said, economy plays the biggest role in this scenario. 16 normal countries don't have any army (apart from NATO/EU, Russia, Ukraine and public), so I'm going to explain them first. First of all, we have nations GDP. In order to depict GDP in game, i took Europe's largest economy, Germany, and gave her max amount of starting money, which is 50k. That means that GDP of Germany in 2002, which is 2.007 trillion USD, is actually 50k in coins. By simple math, we can get to conclusion that 1 coin=40.140.000 USD, which gives us ability to give every nation exact amount they are supposed to have. Next thing is GDP growth. In-game, money growth is represented like this -> (+382). In real life that would be GDP growth. Making realistic GDP growth is hardest thing in this scenario because:

1. If German GDP growth was 1,2% that means that money growth in game should be like: money growth=GDP/100*1,2/40.140.000/2. And why divided by 2? Because, as i previously said, each turn represents 6 months. And in 6 months, nation had achieved half of its annual GDP growth.

2. Because city income is under normal conditions constantly rising, and because of high income of trade cities, that means that I will have to nerf GDP growth literally every turn.

The largest player in economy and in entire game is trade between the nations. Every nation has its trading partners. When one nation exports its goods to another nation, in gives her money, and when it imports them, it gives money to another nation. On map, the trade will be represented as 1 city states owed by one nation within other nations territory. These states represent foreign companies on domestic soil. Every foreign company on that land is set so that it, again, represents real life trade worth. In other words, french companies in Germany are giving France an income (or GDP growth) of around 2k. But it would be extremely unrealistic if i let France stay with its 2k income (i mean, France doesn't have 20% GDP growth!). That's why I'll need to nerf every nations income. Also, every country has its companies (trade cities) in remaining 17 countries, and all 17 normal countries have their companies (trade cities) in that country.

So, how does economic side of scenario work in-game? First of all, there are sanctions units. They have custom collateral damage, which decreases company population, and therefor, other nations income. So, by attacking their cities with sanctions, u decrease their GDP growth. But, sanctions cant break diplomatic relations (they can't take foreign company). Unit that is yet unnamed has the goal to break diplomatic relations by taking foreign company from other country, therefor, decreasing and even possibly devastating other nations economy. So whats the catch? Well, you also have YOUR companies on his land which give you huge income. And by breaking your relations with him, you are also in risk of losing your companies in his land, therefor devastating your own economy, potentially harming yourself even more than you harmed him.

Also, when I said that 16 normal countries don't have any army, it wasn't actually true. Sort of. apart from NATO/EU, Russia, Ukraine and public, all other 16 countries are NATO/EU members, and therefor protected by NATO/EU player against Russia and/or Ukraine. But what if 1 NATO/EU member decides to attack another NATO/EU member? Because NATO/EU player cant attack himself from German base to Austria (for example), every NATO/EU member state needs to have its own army, a replica of NATO/EU player's units in that nation. So even though NATO/EU and Germany have same units in Germany, there's 1 major difference. Lets take these 2 problems:

1. Rouge NATO/EU player attacks NATO/EU member.
2. Russia wants to invade Germany, but cant because Germany has 2 exactly same armies (1 owed by Germany, other by NATO/EU)

1. A way to solve the solution would be that NATO/EU member units have max defense and attack against NATO/EU player units. Therefor, if NATO/EU goes rouge, his units would just suicide.

2. A way to solve this solution is to NATO/EU member units have minimum defense and attack against Russian units. Therefor, Russia only needs to attack NATO/EU units, and not German ones.

Therefor, each NATO/EU member has its own army that can fight other NATO/EU members.

Non-NATO/EU members (Russia and Ukraine) have standard units.


Last thing. Every country has 2 more cities. One will be on top of the map, and it will represent Foreign Reserves. If taken, Foreign reserve will give the player huge income in order to ease the effect of sanctions. Other will be simply a nerf city, and it will be on the bottom of the map. Its purpose is to regulate the economy throughout the scenario.

***MILITARY***

I previously explained how each NATO/EU member, NATO/EU player, and non-NATO/EU units work. Now, im going a bit in-depth about realism of these units. First of all, there are 3 things that indicate military strength of a country: military budget, military equipment, and size of army. By taking all of this into consideration, we get to conclusion that every player will have unique strength, cost, and unit diversity. Also, every country with sea/ocean entrance will have its sea/ocean borders.

Also, NATO/EU player will not only have European units, but also US and Canadian units!

***MAP***

I found a perfect map for this scenario. Its a blank European map, with size of around 4500x3400, which is HUGE! And not only that it has outlines of borders for each country, but also provinces within that country! Even though most of the countries will be made of 1 part, there is 1 exception. Country provinces (regions) which have population majority of some other nationality will be countries for themselves (like Donetsk and Lugansk regions. And even though they will still be controlled by Ukraine, Russia will have on 1st turn invisible event units (0 cost) called separatists.

***PEOPLE***

People are last ingredient. But I will leave them as a surprise

Don't forget to add the French empire, swiss empire and penguin empire!

Holy crap, this seems gud.

HUE!!!!

Excited

Get hyped

Escrito por Death1942, 19.01.2015 at 13:09

I'm afraid that I'm a lot more skeptical about this map than my peers seem to be.

Not that I'm trying to undervalue your work: the idea seems amazing. You've obviously thought this through really well. But I can already see some problems.

First, the compliments.

I find the balance of power between the European states, NATO, and Russia incredibly meaningful. None of them can kill the other, because it means that there's nobody to keep check on the faction that can kill them. Genius. Stroke of sheer genius. I believe we call this a Mexican Standoff (correct me if I'm wrong).

Trade, in the sense of direct nation-to-nation commerce other than a general control of a trade area is something that has never been seriously attempted in an AtWar map/scenario. I haven't seen the map yet, so I can't do a detailed review, but I have high hopes for this.

Sanctions seem like an interesting idea. A way to directly reduce a player's income without war.

Next, the problems as I foresee them.

The income reduction cities may not function as intended. I assume those will be done per player, which means you'll basically have to go for a flat income reduction per player. If a player's income gets reduced for whatever reason (territories lost, sanctions, etc.) then the flat income reduction may seriously cripple that player, which if a player's income rises (gained territories), the flat income reduction will not be adjusted to suit the new reality. In fact, I might even suggest that taking out the income reductions and just letting the economies grow 2%/turn is a better solution than a flat reduction.

Modeling a real-life nation-state as one country and separatist regions as separate countries are a bit problematic because it means that any player may take it without destroying another player. Having the Donetsk region as a separate entity allows Russia to take it without taking Ukraine also, but it also allows, say, Poland to occupy it without occupying either Russia or Ukraine. This may become seriously problematic. Furthermore, having most nation-states be just one country disallows partitions and territorial concessions. Also, for example, if Russian troops occupy Warszawa, I seriously doubt that the Polish military will be crippled. Any sensible military will move their central headquarters if enemies threaten it, and Silesian industries will still be productive (albeit with possible loss in morale) even if Warszawa is under occupation. If each nation-state is just one country, taking their capital will seriously cripple their income (which, combined with the flat income reduction, may result in zero or even negative surplus) and zero out their production.

Lastly, some suggestions.

It might be wise to give each player a new city on the corner of the map, similar to how you have foreign reserve cities, and make that city the capital of the nation-state country, and make a new country with only 1 city near a player country's capital, and make that the player's capital (for example, Russia will have the "Kremlin" country with only one city, the "Kremlin" right next to Moscow, and that will be the Russian player's capital. Russia itself will have its capital in the corner of the map). This will mean that territories under occupation will not be productive (since you can't take the capital), and that a player will be able to produce troops and gain full income from whatever territories he still control until he is literally completely defeated and loses.

I'd recommend that you make sanctions units incredibly expensive, so that the country declaring a sanction also suffers as severe a loss as the country being sanctioned. After all, a general embargo or economic sanctions harm both sides, not just one. It will take a concentrated effort from several countries to ensure that the sanctioned country's economy is cripple without crippling the sanctioning countries.

Overall, I am very glad that someone's actually doing something like this, and I will, to quote Rankist Sharck, "Get hyped."