Wargames ATS style...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I was wondering, witht he current state of affairs, and such, the john titor civil war, and the dissention in the united states and elsewhere, as well as the power struglles that are occuring in the middle east, and the many problems that are plaguing this world, I was wondering if we could make a wargames sort of thing based on today's political climate.
THis would require in essence to revolve around the major super powers of the world, but also throwing in the little guys. My suggestion is that we have alot of different people all prominent ATS members, act out what could happen in the world. I know I am fairly new to ATS, but after reading many of the posts on prophecies, new world order, apocalypse, etc. I have come to have a very powerful assertion on people who are not ATS members on these things, mostly just to pose the question "what if?". If we could do something like this, I think it would give a somewhat good idea.
Of course, I cannot run this by myself. We could call this a project, preferably Project ZeroHour denoting the possibility of all out war in this world, and the possible problems of the next few years.
What I am asking is if this would e a good idea, or if we could have a large client base to do this.
I was just wondering if we could do this. All suggestions would be wonderful.




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
That actually sounds like fun. It would be interesting to see how different people run the different parts of the world, and what would happen.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
We did something like this in History class way back when as an end of the year assignment. We were all given a different country and we had to play out World War II as if we were running the countries. The outcome was very intresting. I think it's a pretty cool idea, but possibly it would take quite a bit of reserch. Sounds like fun though



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Hey sounds good to me. And for the record I got deebs on India.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
This sounds pretty good
Maybe they could have like a trial version or something. Would be interesting to see what members get countries and what counties they get.

Im shooting for Burkina Faso...or maybe Zambia
(joking)
I will be unstoppable



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vegemite
Hey sounds good to me. And for the record I got deebs on India.


oh crap..I wanted india..no probs though...
Why India for you may I ask?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
This sounds really cool.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I think this is a really good idea, I too am interested to see what members would be chosen, how they'd be chosen, and who got which country.


Oh, and I humbly ask to represent Japan, if this plays out to be something that happens.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Definetly sounds like an amazing idea that could have very interesting results...dibs on Iran



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I'll take any country they want to give me. I don't have a real preference, but it would be a blast to do the research, and see how different people react to the different situations we'd get into.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The only possible way I think we can do this as a game is to first pick the major countries that we want to play with. This will be rather easy, but we then have to figure out their future goals over the next couple of years.

There should also be set dates (such as we start at 2000 and end at 2012), and each "turn" would be the lapse of a year or a half year. During a specific country's turn, they can do several things:

One of those things should be "Political Factors" which they can thus place into countries to influece them. So, if the US decides to place 8 PF's in... Iraq, then somethings happens there at Iraq. This would all have to be worked out--the amount of "Political Factors" a country gets per turn (this would be based on thier political standing in the world), as well as the effect a certain amount of PF's would have in a country.

Second thing that should happen is during a specific year a "crisis" should happen that would effect a country or several countries. One of those would be the Titor Revolution. So then you set a date for that and what exactly it would cause in the US.

Third, any documents can be nigotiated between countries, public as well as secret. Backstabing, of course, will be present and welcome (this is the real-world simulation!).

Fourth, you may declare war on any country at any time. To attack this country you can do several things. First you must place "Military Factors" (again, regulated by turn, plus 'roll-overs' if you don't use them all) in the country. The country will also have a basic set military defense. So lets say that again the US decides to work their turn at Iraq, but this time they want to place 20 Military Factors there. Iraq only has 5 "Defense Factors". So then the fight would be 20-5 or 4-1. Then you consult the lovely chart and see that a 4-1 fight means the attacking country 4-1 chance to win, and you use the 4-1 section of the chart to decide who wins. I quite haven't figured out yet how you would see who wins the battle, since the first option would be use a dice. maybe a virtual dice rolled by a neutral player? But anyway, you go down the chart, and if you rolled a 3, you see that the catigory is D, all defenseive players remove troops and PFs. (A=Attacking player removes all Troops and Political Factors, D=Defensive player removes all Troops and Political Factors, and X=Both players remove equal amounts of Troops and Political Factors--I have it all worked out
)

Then, of course, the "end of the world" is at 2012. This is the end of the game.

Maybe I have it all wrong, who knows. Anyone else have any ideas? This is starting to seem a little complex...



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Oh, it's going to be insanely complex, and probably take awhile to set up, but it sounds like a lot of fun.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Darkflame, and those that have either seen or overcomplicated this game already, which is always fun,( Axis and Allies is a great game) I think we would instead have to make an assertio to how many armed fighters(infantry=A), Tanks and other terrain dominated land vehicles (armored)(tanks = B), unarmored land vehicles( hummvvees= C), Aircraft (fighters planes= D), Ships( Ships= E) and finally bombers would be dictated ont ehir loaded ammunition, and each group of ships or whatever would have an assigned power factor. We could do this by every month, not every 6 months, and the game doesnt end until everyone is dead.
Each #ry wont be run by one individual, their will a certain Reichstag of power, like You would have the president, and his cabinet, and then possibly, the civilians. The civilians will keep the game in check, as thye can start a civil war, or whatever, riots, assassination attempts, etc. Of course they can be killed by the governmental figures, which provides the average ATS meeting, while showing how power affects us. No calling countries, most major players will need to be interviewed, possibly by the people who run ATS. I am giving a shoutout, becuase It would be nice to have some sort of officiality to it, not to mention the insight of the higher ups.
And yes we will use all the major players. But, more importantly, we will use many of the minor players to. We will have someone be insurgency in Iraq, someone be al-queda(sp?) , and etc. We wont have "Secret societies", becuase this game is based more on, how a country given its current track will fair. And aout 2012? No that wont end the game. I do believe somehting catastrophoic wuill happen, but I think it is much more important to base on reality for now.
So what I am asking for is a moderator to slip this under the door of the ATS high-ups. Please?

And if we cant get the required officialization, we can run this by ourselves In an axis/ allies thing. Every week, we will have our logins, and such to discuss what we need to discuss. And likedungeons and dragon, you cna do anything if it is what your country would do to get to the top.
Eliminate opposition voters? You can do it.
Eradicate all negotiators from another country? Do it.
One thing I ask we dont do is drop the bomb too early. It will happen if a war goes on, but right there, a bomb is pretty much endgame stuff, because then everyone will shoot theirs. Its how the world works. Anyway, if anyone could give me a firm standing on this, more ideas, even a possible ATS sponsorship, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Oh, I so want in on this. THe Tyrannical dictatorship of Wolf must not go unnoticed.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I want in! I want to get Japan! lol



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Yeah this sounds like fun to me as well.

You'd need to assign a judge or two to moderate it. Maybe taking points off your "army" for "loses" etc.

Great idea any way



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Well yeah, we ahve a starting army, and etc. You gian for wins (looting)( but lose soldiers) and you lose troops for losses, as well as supplies. Again, small arms invasions wont do anything becuase of nuclesar weapons. Some countries you jsut shouldnt invade. Small arms will amke up about 50% of all militar anyway so, yeah.
All stnading world alliances will be in place too.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
When I was teaching high school history, I created a similar scenario for my students to act out. They formed into 3 groups and each group was allocated a fictional red, green or brown country. The idea was to teach about war and diplomacy and the difficulties countries have in interacting. I gave them large maps I had drawn up and a little background about each of the countries (history, resources, politics, geopgraphy, population, military, etc).

The kids really got into it, planning and discussing moves during their lunch hours. Green and Brown countries, to my delight, formed a peace and trade treaty that permitted Green to utilise Brown's abundant natural resources in exchange for advanced technology and defence against Red. Red promptly invaded Brown. They justified the invasion by saying that Red was drastically short of water, which Brown had in abundance. Why didn't they negotiate for the water? Because invading was simpler.


When Red easily took Brown's wells to the south, they chose not to keep the water, but instead to poison the wells! When I requested that they provide me (as the U.N.) with a plan for their invasion, they gave me a piece of paper that said "Scorched Earth".

In the end, Green went to war against Red to defend Brown, bringing their advanced weaponary to the fore. They eventually won, but not before Red had destroyed their capital city and salted the Earth.


I think that if this is going to happen here on ATS, there need to be guidelines in place to ensure that at least of modicorum of reality prevails. Otherwise, gung-ho countries will be invading each other left, right and centre and poisoning each other's wells and taking slaves and burning down capitals.


You haven't known fear until you've seen a 14-year old wearing his dad's army berett with a drawn-on moustache declaring that "If Red can't have the water ... nobody can!"

[edit on 22/8/05 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
We would have to find a way to regulate, without taking the realism out of it as well. That's going to be the real challenge. But it does sound like it would be a lot of fun.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

You haven't known fear until you've seen a 14-year old wearing his dad's army berett with a drawn-on moustache declaring that "If Red can't have the water ... nobody can!"


I know exactly what you mean. I know people that think if the US was nuked to the point of being beyond redemption, the US should destroy the world, going by the same logic (if not us, then no one). Scary stuff.

My world history teacher in 10th grade held a similar activity that he had his classes participate in.

We were simulating the first world war, and how it grew so large with the treaties tying all the countries together.

Each country was assigned critical strategic information and stats for strength, defence, etc., but these stats were considered "top secret," obviously, because the stats were not balanced or fair, and the strategic information would be very valuable to the enemy, to say the least.

Treaties were made, plans were drawn out, and there was some spying and backstabbing. Through intelligence work of sorts (talking to friends from other classes who were on the 'inside' and knew the critical info
), our group managed to gather the stats for all the other countries, and I suppose most other groups did the same.

I can't remember how it all ended, but I remember that it got pretty messy and involved before there was any clear result. It also ended up turning out pretty much exactly like WW1 did in real life, which I thought was awesome.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join