It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wargames ATS style...

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:41 AM

Originally posted by cpr12r
I want in! I want to get Japan! lol

Aw, i wanted that one...

Whats left then? Hmmm.. I'll take Canada!

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:46 AM
Hmm.. I preferred the original concept as it had more flexibility and reflected today's politics. This seems a little too simplistic for me as only using official military capabilities kind of guarentees that the winner will be who's got the biggest arsenal. A freudian thing.

I predict the US or China.. hope you guys have fun.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:52 AM
Trust me it doesn't if you play it right. In the last wargame I played in China managed to blow up the Panama Canal, and mine the Bering Straits and sink three RN subs. I didn't say you can't use terrorist style tactics, but I don't want to throw people that don't know much about the military in the deep end having to fight terrorism. It's perfectly possible that a small country played right can win this in the end. It's all about thinking outside the box.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I didn't say you can't use terrorist style tactics, but I don't want to throw people that don't know much about the military in the deep end having to fight terrorism.

The worlds military leaders can't even do that.. that is why terror is such a powerful weapon. The rules of war have changed.

It's perfectly possible that a small country played right can win this in the end. It's all about thinking outside the box.

Thats why they now use terrorism. For instance.. someone pays someone else to publish offensive cartoons to create riots and political instability and that may also lead to more extreamists being created.. it's a good way to inlist soldiers. Propaganda is also a very powerful weapon when real weapons aren't that available.. as is assasination. I'm just opting out because I'd get a bit bored without all those unpredictable variables.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:21 AM
But the goal of this is to keep it simple enough to have fun, and not turn it into something that is going to take forever to get through. We're trying to find a balance between realism, and fun. Especially since I'm the only judge.
Even if we rule out terrorism, this will still be a lot of fun as long as everyone puts the effort they should into it. I've always had fun playing net wargames, and we never used terrorism in them.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:31 AM
I am Eritrea. Here is what I have found so far.

Brief recent history:
Eritrea awarded to Ethiopia in 1952
Wins independance in 1991
Referendum in 1993
2.5 year border dispute with Ethiopia starts in 1998.
International commission findings into border dispute published in 2002 on hold due to Ethiopian objections.

Eritrea Capitol-Asmara.
Borders with Red sea,Sudan,Ethiopia and Djibouti.
Population-4.5 million.
Military funding between $151mil-$196mil.
Conscription for 18 year males lsats 16 months.

Eritrean Air Force
14 Mig 29

8 su25

6 su27

4 mi17

(All info above sourced from CIA)

Eritrean Army
320000 troops armed mainly with ak-47/74s
(source Washington Bureau)

I'm having a bit of trouble researching the Navy but I know it has one.
At this time it seems to be a collection of fast yauchts and the like.Still a navy

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:32 AM
Personnel Information (2003-2004)

Minimum Enlistment Age: 20
Available Manpower: 20,340,716
Active Military Personnel: 320,000
Frontline Personnel: 220,000

Budgetary Information (2003-2004)

Yearly Military Expenditure: $2,443.2 Million
% of Expenditure from GDP: 3.6%

Unit Totals (2003-2004)

Airborne Units: 1,230
Armor: 9,357
Artillery: 2,393
Missile Defense Systems: 3,334
Infantry Support Weapons: 8,650
for a brief run down on my country Egypts potential ive done more detailed research will post later.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:34 AM
I got Austria... Please....

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:42 AM
a map to help sorry it's a bit big but up to date.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:59 AM

from external source

My current airbase locations, Question how do we compensate for the experiance and technological advancements,eg my F-16s' will be mincemeat for the Israelis? is all well having the numbers but other factors come in to play I mean on paper the Iraqi's wern't a push over in desert storm but look what happend to them how do we compensate for differant grades of training and experiance ,leadership tactics etc I mean ive got alot of armour to play with but roll it in to the sinai and the IAF are goin toast me because the us wont supply me with jammers/etc for my F-16's that can effect other american types wheras the israelis do have this option from there own avionics industry.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by buckaroo]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:02 PM
That will be up to me. You will send me all plans in U2U and I'll resolve any and all battles, based on the weapons involved, and post the results in the thread, usually as a news report.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:13 PM
That makes alot of sense thanks for clarifying i suppose this is where the other judges come in to play too

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:16 PM
Anyone wanting to join in u2u Zaphod58 and post here ty

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:18 PM
What other judges?
I'm it, at least for now.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:40 PM
good point ,

seeing as though this is a middle east scenario should we not have a list of countries that we really need to participate? like is any one libya yet or sudan or saudi arabia , what i mean to say is who will control theese countries actions if no one selects them? what would happen if say someone is saudi arabia and decides to invade kuwait , but no on has selected them?

And when the research is posted should we all agree that that is a fair summary of capability,or should we all get our information from the same source? if possible this would seem fair to me and would simpify things a little.

Finally for now do you simple treaties alliances becoming part of the make up of the game

I like the way your planning on working posting the results of battles like a news report though

ps since this could go on for ever do you have criteria for total victory would we look at new lands seizes, assets destroyed etc i mean how really can Austria for example win this , maybe some sort of handicap system or fixed objectives for each country ?

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:55 PM
A lot of good information actually comes from the CIA.
I suggest everyone use as much of that as you can. Global Security is another good one. If it comes down to it, I'll try to play any countries that we REALLY need if they don't have players. I don't have the list of who's who in front of me, but we need:

Saudi Arabia

Would like to see, but not necessary:

United States

If anyone is these countries, sorry, but I haven't had time to go through all the pages to see who is who and figure out who is participating.

I'll work up the total victory criteria as we go. That's item 40 on a list of 50 or 60.
Right now we're on about 5.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:14 PM
Can I take Canada? I would like very much to do this simulation!

Thain Esh Kelch can we do an oligarchy? LOL

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Vitchilo]

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:03 AM
Ok folks, keep in mind this is a draft copy, and until we get more countries involved I can't really flesh it out well right now.


A British Airways 747 carrying the British, American, and Japanese Ambassadors has crashed in Africa. The flight was heading to South Africa for a special meeting on the Crisis in Africa. A USAF E-3 AWACS was in the area, and reports several anonmalous readings in the area of the plane before it crashed. Rescuers have reported no survivors as yet, but search operations are still underway. We're expecting a report from the Pentagon within a few hours on the radar data reported by the E-3.

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:50 AM
hi , i am in - unfortunatly , i dont know which country yet - i want UK but have offered first dibs to another player - so i will be UK if he turns it down , or USA otherwise

cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:43 AM
If we are playing a world war (Give or take) then I'd like to team up with cpr12r if he still up for the task and go with Japan! Otherwise I'll stick with Canada..

But if we go with a Middle-Eastern theme instead, I'll take Azerbaijan! Because, they want new territories because of this:

Local scientists consider the Abseron Yasaqligi (Apsheron Peninsula) (including Baku and Sumqayit) and the Caspian Sea to be the ecologically most devastated area in the world because of severe air, soil, and water pollution; soil pollution results from oil spills, from the use of DDT as a pesticide, and from toxic defoliants used in the production of cotton

Nah, just kidding.

I'll take Saudi Arabia!

Zaphod58 please speak out on this? Either way, im in!

[edit on 22/2/06 by Thain Esh Kelch]

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in