PBEM - New World Order (started 2011)

[JPetroski]

Hi all,

I would like to start a game of Academia’s “New World Order” which you can find here:

http://sleague.civfanatics.com/image...Order_v1.1.zip


Rogue Nations – Cupcoffee
USA – JPetroski
European Union – Rebelious
China – McMonkey
Russian Federation – Radyserb
Allies – Ingvar

This scenario does not seem to come with house rules, so I suggest we use a few generic ones, and some that are scenario-specific. This is my first attempt at creating a PBEM, so if you have any suggestions or notice I have missed something, please let me know!


House Rules

Generic house rules:
01. No tech trading.
02. No reloading!
03. No terraforming.
04. No rehoming of trade units.
05. No 'square stealing' from the AI.
06. No air protected land/sea stacks.
07. No "freezing" of airplanes.
08. No ship chains.
09. No building of new cities. Only re-creating razed ones alowed.
10. No airbases in adjecent to each other or a city.
11. No artificial creating of ZOC with units.
12. No bribing player-controlled cities or units. ONLY neutral cities and units.

Scenario-Specific House Rules
1. The individual Rogue States should be treated separately. (Just because you're fighting Iraq does not mean you're fighting Tripoli)
2. No bribing of cities or units.
3. No war ships may cross straits owned by a foreign power (i.e. the Bosphorus Strait (Istanbul), Suez Canal, Panama Canal, Kiel Canal, Gibraltar strait, Øresund (Copenhagen) etc.). without permission of the foreign power.Submarines are an exception and must fall back upon being spotted.
4. No stealth bombers (B-2 bombers) on carriers.
5. No more than 5 units on an Aircraft Carrier.
6. No more than 2 nuclear missiles on any submarine.
7. No ICBMs on Aircraft Carriers.
8. No "flying" of missiles from sub to sub, carrier to carrier, or city to ship. Missiles must be loaded inside a coastal city.
9. No using of missiles for reconaissance. For that you use aircrafts, and then especially the recon aircraft.
10. The Rogue Nation’s “terrorist” unit is not considered to have a nationality. It can attack anywhere at anytime from anywhere
11. Terrorist units within your own country’s borders may be attacked at any time without penalty.
12. The Rogue Nations' frigate unit is now to be given the same freedom of the terrorist unit, to simulate piracy. Attacks by the frigate will NOT grant any nation an automatic casus belli (this will enable cupcoffee to really hurt other nations financially).

Nuclear Rules

1. ONLY the Rogue Nations may sneak attack with nuclear missiles. All other nations will have the following nuclear rules:
a. The aggressor nation (first nation to strike) may only use conventional weapons on their first turn at war.
b. The defending nation may use ANY weapons on their first turn at war.
c. The aggressor nation may use nuclear weapons on their second turn of war.

The aim of this rule is to allow both sides to use their nuclear weapons. The aggressor should target nuclear weapons with conventional strikes on their first turn if they want to eliminate enough threats to allow them to withstand the initial barrage.

[McMonkey]

China for me please

[Rebelious]

The EU please

[JPetroski]

Cupcoffee:

1. Do your victory point conditions strike you as fair? You're the one I'm most worried about here. Please let me know before you start if we should change some things!

2. Please note that the game starts in February, 2003. The U.S. would invade Iraq in March, 2003 with no U.N. approval. In our game terms, this means that if you restrict yourself to attacking only with your terrorist unit on turn 1, if I should choose to attack Iraq on turn 1, I will lose 50 points. However, if you use regular, non-terrorist Iraqi units against me on turn 1, I won't lose those 50 points (because I would then have a casus belli).

I just felt I should clear that up preemptively so you would know exactly how to hurt me the most

[cupcoffee]

What restrictions to the rogue states have when it comes to diplomacy?
Or more to the point, should I behave like a AI barbarian civ or can I treat it like how the Western allied player would treat their civ, having trade and build up their cities and so forth?

For example, can I make deals with the allies that I'll lay off in Ireland, if they leave Burma alone?

To clarify some more, I was planning on playing them in a similar manner as you would the pro-soviet civ in the Iron Curtain scenario, basically as the Western Allies, except as a counter to the Western Allies and western aggression in general.

Speaking of multinational civs, any specific rules about them?
I'm guessing we can assume the EU countries are so close to each other that an attack on Germany could count as an attack on the whole of EU, but how would a war between Zimbabwe/South Africa etc. be handled? Should it be just a war between those two? Can Somalia or Australia send aid, or must the join in on the war?

[JPetroski]

One Major Rule Addition
- The Rogue Nations' frigate unit is now to be given the same freedom of the terrorist unit, to simulate piracy. Attacks by the frigate will NOT grant any nation an automatic casus belli (this will enable cupcoffee to really hurt other nations financially).

What restrictions to the rogue states have when it comes to diplomacy?
Or more to the point, should I behave like a AI barbarian civ or can I treat it like how the Western allied player would treat their civ, having trade and build up their cities and so forth?

For example, can I make deals with the allies that I'll lay off in Ireland, if they leave Burma alone?

To clarify some more, I was planning on playing them in a similar manner as you would the pro-soviet civ in the Iron Curtain scenario, basically as the Western Allies, except as a counter to the Western Allies and western aggression in general.

I think the only prohibitions for negotiations in this scenario should be:

1. The USA and Rogue Nations may never negotiate; and
2. The Rogue Nations may never make promises not to use terrorist units or frigates.

Please assume that you really have no control over terrorist units or pirates and that they must attempt to do the most damage possible every chance they get. This might cause some problems with countries wanting to invade you, but at that point you can negotiate with others in the UN to get them to veto.

If you want to establish trade rights, non-aggression pacts, or even work with different civs to try and topple the leader, I think that would be great.

Speaking of multinational civs, any specific rules about them?
I'm guessing we can assume the EU countries are so close to each other that an attack on Germany could count as an attack on the whole of EU, but how would a war between Zimbabwe/South Africa etc. be handled? Should it be just a war between those two? Can Somalia or Australia send aid, or must the join in on the war?

I think we should operate under the assumption that the Allied nations are all in a defensive alliance with each other, and free to defend each other if attacked.

[cupcoffee]

I understand, but what if I want to have peace with the Russians, can't I simply divert the Chechnyan terrorist and have them perform as Kurdish rebels in turkey instead?
I'm also assuming that the Western Allies can "sell" equipment to each other, can I do the same as the rogue states?

Edit:What I'm trying to say is that I probably won't be playing mainly to ruin things for everyone else as that would be counter intuitive for me. I'll try to develop my cities, build them up and form trade relationships with everyone.
Can I at least trade with New York? I mean, most of Venezuela's oil export DOES go to the USA.

[JPetroski]

How about this?

When using frigates (pirates) or terrorists, roleplay as a barbarian civ.

With every other situation, by all means, roleplay the "misunderstood pariahs" You can try to persuade other nations that you are doing your best to contain terrorists and that you are against them too, you can develop trade and cities, you can act like any other civ.

The UN rule should make it difficult for other civs to attack you if you do your best to maintain peace. OTOH, as the game progresses, perhaps you'll find it is in your best interest to antagonize certain situations in collaboration with other parties? I don't know.

I have no way (or inclination) to stop you from using a certain unit against a certain target. My only request is that you don't, for example, disband, fortify, or sleep a terrorist unit (in Ireland, for example) instead of using it. I think a good rule of thumb should be to either attack with a terrorist unit, or move that terrorist unit towards a target, every single turn.

This could be a very interesting game for you if your goal is to peacefully win.

Edit - Maybe the US and Rogue Nations SHOULD be allowed to negotiate after all, considering your point about Venezuela, and the fact that everyone is supposed to treat all of your "nations" independently.

[cupcoffee]

Can't I build up some terrorist to be able to use them effectively instead of just wasting one terrorist each turn on a unit that will heal up before I can continue to do any harm?

I just think the victory points are a bit too restrictive, I have to get everyone pissed off at me, Europe can't peacefully expand into eastern Europe, and what exactly will the Chinese be allowed to do with their terrorist units?

On a different note, what do you think about being able to bribe civilians to represent money being spent on humanitarian aid?
Otherwise you'll have no choice but to kill them once you conquer a city, no matter if you're the rogue state or not.

Edit:what ever the case, I'll try to keep everyone informed about the origins of all non-homed units, after all, I don't think America would accept Iraqi traders if it was in the middle of a war with them.

[JPetroski]

I'm open to suggestions. This is my first time attempting to make a PBEM, and that hasn't been helped by there being no house rules included with the scenario!

Do you have a proposed draft of rules that would be better? It really doesn't matter to me one way or another and I'd be glad to go with your judgment.

Can't I build up some terrorist to be able to use them effectively instead of just wasting one terrorist each turn on a unit that will heal up before I can continue to do any harm?

I just think the victory points are a bit too restrictive, I have to get everyone pissed off at me, Europe can't peacefully expand into eastern Europe, and what exactly will the Chinese be allowed to do with their terrorist units?

On a different note, what do you think about being able to bribe civilians to represent money being spent on humanitarian aid?
Otherwise you'll have no choice but to kill them once you conquer a city, no matter if you're the rogue state or not.

Edit:what ever the case, I'll try to keep everyone informed about the origins of all non-homed units, after all, I don't think America would accept Iraqi traders if it was in the middle of a war with them.

[cupcoffee]

Perhaps not penalizing countries for keeping conquests, otherwise it might discourage any kind of expansion and with that any tension between the states so it's not just "Rogue states vs. the World". If China was to invade Taiwan, they shouldn't be penalized for keeping the island, for example.

We can see who else wants to join and what they think, and we can try to play it with the current rules, but I'm worried I might disappoint you if you were expecting a super aggressive Rogue state.

[JPetroski]

OK. We can drop the penalization for keeping lands. That works.

How about you also get +2 for trade routes established? That should give you a better chance of playing diplomatically, should you so choose.

Finally, sure, build up terrorists for a stronger attack if you like. My basic point is try to role-play them as terrorists and not look at them as another military asset for your civ to be hoarded indefinitely until you are attacked. Try to think of them as separate entities.

Further, remember that we all have to treat your nations as seperate entities so it would be perfectly possible for you to capture Jerusalem from Syria, for example, while still maintaining friendly relations and trade routes elsewhere.

Edit - I have kept the +5 for returning lands, but have not penalized someone for keeping them (other than missing out on these points). Does that work?

[cupcoffee]

Ok, we'll see if we can work with it, now you just have to wait to see what complaints everyone else might have.

Also, what do you think of the idea of bribing civilians?

[JPetroski]

Unit bribery in general is something I would be more comfortable letting an experienced PBEM player rule on. That could be you

I also assume that we should ALLOW all civs to attack neutrals now so that it is not a given everyone dog piles you.

How about this:

-50 points for declaring war against a human-controlled civ without UN authorization
-25 points for provoking a human-controlled civ into attacking you
-10 points for attacking a Neutral civ without UN authorization
Edit (Rogue Nations not penalized for doing any of this)

This will allow expansion to an extent, but will also require people to weigh their options carefully.

Now - McMonkey, Rebelious... Any thoughts?

[Rebelious]

Now - McMonkey, Rebelious... Any thoughts?

Well, I’m the European Union and I wanted to keep on with the unification process, especially of the eastern countries, for example, Hungary joined the EU in May 2004, how could I achieve that in this scenario without invading the country or losing any points??? (in fact I should win points for that ) Maybe by bribing the city or something? Too bad there are no events for this…