First Strike PBEM #2

[John Henry Eden]

I'm looking at it from an out of character perspective here, just to be clear.

Really, I'm not so sure about the house rules in this PBEM. While they do provide a peaceful alternative to "winning" this PBEM, they also seem unclear on certain points and stifling on others.

What nations are "untouchable" per house rules is just one aspect of this.

Also, the selection of playable nations and what cities/countries they hold seems a bit... off. Putting the NATO together into one huge nation seems hard on everyone else (and a bit on me as well, but purely from a "having hundreds of units to move around each turn" perspective ), it should probably have been divided into a US-NATO and a Euro-NATO which are allied. Similarly, not having Japan or Australia in one of the playable nations while Brazil is a playable nation seems odd.

Quite frankly, I'm starting to dislike this scenario due to these flaws. It's only turn 2, but could I ask you guys to check out Academia's Iron Curtain? While the graphics may look dated, I think it's a better take on the Cold War. This is probably an old version, I think there's a newer one around but the scenario league page for it is blank.

[JPetroski]

While I agree that this scenario has some irritating features, it's not as though that scenario is free from them either.

For example, I'd imagine the Indian player might be upset at having no chance to unify Pakistan and Bangladesh without going to war with the SEATO player, and the fact that the Neutrals are represented by barbarians just invites all sorts of trouble. Further, it's not like breaking up the "you may never trade with" civs into many instead of few parts makes the game any less challenging for the Soviets.

While I might complain about having few places to trade with, it makes the game interesting for me because it is driving my strategy. It's fun having to take certain positions and you can bet your butt there are certain things I will not let happen without a fight. Is there a strong chance I'll fall far behind and collapse? Sure, but look what happened in real life.

I'm game to continue. Maybe someday we can all sit down and try to design the perfect PBEM Cold War scenario, but until then, we might as well play this one through as a playtest for the future of sorts.

[Eivind]

Hello everybody!

Sorry to butt in. I just dropped by the pbem section here to lurk around a bit, and were pleasantly surprised to see people still playing my scenarios .

So to clear up a little bit of John Henry Eden's concerns; The house rules are of course only guidelines and you are all free to negotiate and organise this game as you please. And in the first release of First Strike, an American NATO and Euro-NATO civ was indeed the case. But playtesting proved that having two NATO civ's with the profitable Atlantic trade was very unfair to the Soviets. So in the second installment I chose to balance it out by merging them together, and of course removing dozens of cities and units from the new super-civ for it to become playable. That also freed up another human player, so instead of the usual Nato vs Warpac scenario, this allowed for the Third World dimension to surface, as India and Brazil became playable. These civs may align themselves freely. But I understand that playing the two big civ's may be overwhelming. I played NATO once, and it certainly was a commitment, to say the least!

That being said, Iron Curtain is a fine scenario that I have enjoyed playing many times back in the golden pbem years. But I think you will find that the civ's are just as massive there.

Oh, and to declare war on neutrals or any other, use Dario's diplomatic tool that is included in the scenario folder.

And JPetroski, are you the same John Petroski as made the Ansteig scenario? If you like this scenario, you should also check out my Medium Aevum scenario, as it is made with similar pbem friendly multiplayer rules and regulations.

Ok, sorry for taking up your time, and good luck with this and any other pbems! Take care amigos!

[John Henry Eden]

Well, it was just a suggestion. It seems less problematic than this one.

Anyway, as for your previous diplomatic post:

1. Relations between the NATO and China concerning Hong Kong and Taiwan are our matters and therefore not subject to any suggestions by the USSR.

2. If you want Manila you will have to wage a proxy war over it.

I was just warning you that I might escalate things much further should you decide to attack Japan or Australia. You can of course attack them, but depending on how threatened NATO interests already are and would further be, an attack on such crucial nations could prove a foolish provocation for a nuclear war.

[John Henry Eden]

Ok, sorry for taking up your time, and good luck with this and any other pbems! Take care amigos!

No worries, nice to see you post.

I see your point with the Atlantic trade. The inclusion of Brazil certainly is interesting, it isn't a nation you usually see in scenarios.

As I said, my only gripe with the house rules is that a nation as unstable as Chile is the unassailable nation of the pro-westerners and Japan is free game.

[cupcoffee]

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
1, Pollution (total: 0)

VP, all:
1. Brasil: 0
2. India: 0
3. China: 0
4. WARPAC: -2
5. Nato: -4.5

Like Eivind says, the rules are guidelines, so we can obviously remove any off limits rules on Chile, Cuba or even the neutral countries.
And what I'm hoping to see is I suppose a little roleplay and creativity in this game, at least when it comes to reasons for war.
Such as the NATO suggesting that they can take the Spanish cities when they joined NATO in real life, however a NATO invasion of Sweden they had better come up with a really, really good and plausible reason for it, and since we have to wait some turns before actually attacking the country, it will give time for all the other players to debate whether the war is legitimate or if the aggressor should get the penalty points if they attack the cities.

You just have to look up in wikipedia for potential and legitimate proxy wars, and it's not like the rival powers can't declare a second proxy war for the same country after a cooling down period.
Basically any country that had a significant armed opposition or suffered from political instability could be a target of proxy war, such as South Africa, while a stable country like Japan would be hard to justify a Soviet proxy war, unless we are talking of a full scale war between NATO and WARPAC.
That's my thoughts on it at least.

[JPetroski]

Oh Eivind, please don't remind me

You might be interested in a new scenario I'm about to release. It is about the Imperial Roman Prince, Germanicus' punitive expeditions against Arminius (of Teutoburg Forest fame/infamy):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=411065

And back into character:

To the United States:

If you feel it is more important to stretch your resources across the globe and prop up your puppets than it is to relinquish control of three regions you have dubious (at best) claims to, then that is your prerogative.

Our prerogative is to increase our available trading partners. It is ironic that the United States, a nation that so often harps on the benefits of free trade, would seek to restrict it.

To be blunt, we have no interest in waging proxy wars on the Eurasian landmass or distant Africa for considerable cost and minimal gain. Trade routes to the Asiatic islands and continents must be made available.

We offered a peaceful solution to this legitimate issue. You offered a curt response. Do you care to try again, or is detente doomed to fail?

(We will entertain any offer that expands our trade partners - even if the use of roleplay trumps house rules--for example, trade rights with certain cities--pending agreement by other players of course).

[JPetroski]

Basically any country that had a significant armed opposition or suffered from political instability could be a target of proxy war, such as South Africa, while a stable country like Japan would be hard to justify a Soviet proxy war, unless we are talking of a full scale war between NATO and WARPAC.
That's my thoughts on it at least.

Frankly, I think an embargo by one country on another is a legitimate casus belli, especially considering that the aim of a proxy war is simply to (at the end of the day) lift the embargo.

If, for example, I took Australia, it wouldn't stay "Soviet," but would go "pro-eastern" and allow my trade goods to arrive.

[McMonkey]

Hello everybody!

Nice to hear from you Eivind. Hope life it treating you well!

Getting the balance right is very difficult. I found this out when I tried to introduce complex house rules in Rise of the Dictators. The problem is that everyone can have a different point of view and what seems logical one will seem illogical to another. I'm happy to use Eivind's house rules as a framework and then come to consensus agreements between ourselves for additions and modifications. The good thing about the three turn declaration for Proxy wars is that it gives us time to debate things. A proxy war can always be undeclared if the consensus is that it is not realistic or whatever... I think this scenario will work best if we all roleplay and work it out as we go along. Sometimes the debates can be as much fun as the gameplay. The most important thing to keep in mind is that this is a game and whatever happens we should just have fun with it and not get bogged down on technical issues. If in doubt put it to the vote!

[cupcoffee]

So should we say for now that all nations, including the neutral civs, Chile and Cuba are open to potential proxy war with the understanding that there has to be some sort of agreement between everyone whether the war is legitimate or not?

[McMonkey]

Sounds good to me.

[Ingvar]

I agree. I guess it remains players to go tough on others and actually use force when their interests are threatened.

[John Henry Eden]

Historic treaty signed by the USSR and the NATO


Carter and Brezhnev sign the First Treaty of Berlin

In May 1975, the world changed.

The USSR and the NATO have reached a historic agreement which is the first step on the path to ending the Cold War.

The First Treaty of Berlin will provide liberty to East Germans and prosperity to citizens of the USSR, while ushering in a new age of understanding and cooperation between communism and capitalism.

As per the treaty, the minor western allies will open their ports to trade goods from the USSR, in return for the USSR de-mobilizing their forces in the GDR and disowning its regime, handing over complete control of Berlin and Leipzig to the NATO within half a year (3 turns).


Germans spill into the streets after hearing about the signing of the treaty, unable to contain their joy.

However, this is but the first step in this detente. The Second Treaty of Berlin, set to be ratified in 1979 or 1980, will negotiate the release of Czechoslovakia and Hungary in return for a full opening of all NATO markets to the USSR and vice versa, cementing the mutual understanding between our blocs and fully re-integrating the USSR into the world economy.

These steps will soon enough turn the "Cold War" into a specter of the past, into an anachronistic mindset held only by authoritarians unable to move on and tolerate. Only those who seek to benefit from discord between east and west will try to fan flames which have become but a dim glimmer, and they will surely be met by the iron resolve of both the USSR and the NATO.

Let it be said that we would loathe for anybody to interpret this as a victory for solely the NATO or for solely the USSR. This is a victory for both of us, and for you. We all win. The doomsday clock has been turned back to 11:30, our children no longer have to live in the shadow of arms, under the threat of a global nuclear holocaust. The finance banker in New York, the artist in Paris, the kollektiv farm foreman in Kiev, the ammunition plant worker in Nanking, the doctor in New Delhi, the auto repairman in Brasilia. They all won.

Also, the NATO wants to stress that we will no longer mingle in the internal affairs and politics of foreign nations, so long as they respect the sovereignty of every other nation. The time of backroom deals made by old men in expensive suits smoking expensive cigars and drinking expensive whiskey is coming to an end.

We ask all other nations to join the USSR and the NATO, to get with the times. Trade, don't hate, is our motto.


We are the world.

The turn:

Cleaned up 1 pollution, made 1 trade.

1. Brasil: 0
2. India: 0
3. China: 0
4. WARPAC: -2
5. Nato: -3

[McMonkey]

Realising that the strong arm tactics are going to be ineffectual against the mass protests Ernesto Geisel tries playing his last card. His government announces a swathe of far reaching policies that promise more political freedom, improved wages for government employees and lower taxes. It is hoped this will relieve pressure and steal some of the socialists thunder. An election is called for July. Will these measures be enough to save the current regime or will the wave of popular support sweep the socialists into power?

[cupcoffee]

I'm not sure about this, I'm thinking it would be better if we keep the trade restrictions on the USSR and NATO, not just to act as a handicap for the super powers, but to ensure that there is antagonism between the two powers, this is after all a cold war scenario.