View Full Version : Let's Play: SuperPower
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 12:54 PM
www.superpower2.com
Okay, never done one of these in my life, so I might need a little assistance to start with. But, I think this game can pretty easily fit into the realm of LP. Combine that with how long I've been playing the game for, understanding its mechanics and micromanagement, and how many different jobs I could possibly create for one save game, I think we could have a good time.
In the SuperPower forums they had things called AARs (After Action Reports) which functioned almost exactly like an LP, only difference being there were no other players than the OP. I had a pretty popular thread posted there for a while, where over the course of 800 years I took over the world with Burundi.
The game is a geopolitical simulator where you take command of one of the 192 or so countries recognized by the U.N. and get to control its military, economy (including control over the trade of resources and services, taxes, and interest rate), laws, treaties, alliances, you name it. If you can imagine it, you can do it in this game. You also get to control the "secret service" (another name for the CIA) where you can carry out espionage, terrorist attacks, sabotages, coup d'etats, and assassinations if you are so inclined. At one point I even secretly attacked my own coutry and blamed another so I could go to war with them and maintain my support.
The first thing we would need to decide on is a country. Seeing as I've already beaten it with the smallest country on the map, I'd be fine with anything. Next, we need the objective. Of course we can take over the world, but there are so many other things to do. Cause wars between nations, develop nuclear weapons, the sky's the limit.
Jobs I can think of that would need to be filled right now are:
-Chief of Staff for our armed forces (can be multiplied to more than one person if we want each to control a different branch, navy, army, air force, strategic forces) Dracorian, Flarecobra, anyone else who wants in
-Secretary of the Treasury (to deal with the tax and interest rates, and to consult with for any and all purchases dealing with money from the treasury, also deals with the allocation of budget) Sifright
-Trade Commission head (to regulate prices of our resources, decide which to tariff, make illegal, increase production, also has say in which countries we will create new trade agreements with) Tev
-Director of the CIA (to deal with all secret service actions, involving terrorizing, spying, sabotaging, or in any way altering of another country's infrastructure through subversive means) Hawk
-Secretary of State (to introduce new legislation and modify existing laws to keep our people happy (or unhappy) and regulate the population through opening or closing our borders. Also deals with changes in type of government and location of our capitol.) Gregness
-Defense Research Supervisor (in charge of prioritizing and allocating funds to different branches of military research as it applies to naval, air, ground, or strategic forces. Also may submit requests for arms deals with other countries) This one can also be combined with the Chief of Staff if need be. Mac
Special Advisor to the President (aka "guy with the shades") Geminex
I think that's it for now, these can always be changed. The next post I'll list screenshots from the game so you can have a better grasp of what we're dealing with.
Dracorion
12-27-2009, 01:49 PM
Can we colonize the Moon? If not, I propose we surface Atlantis. And if that's not possible, then we raze the earth of the impure and we start our own civilization of Übermenschen.
Melfice
12-27-2009, 02:01 PM
A vote for the Netherlands is a vote for awesome!
Do the awesome thing, people.
A Zarkin' Frood
12-27-2009, 02:32 PM
Netherlands yes... they are ahead of the rest of the world, It's only a matter of time until they decide the rest of the world is too dumb. They are also in the desperate need to get out of that deathtrap they'll drown in if they don't do anything... like conquering the world or something. They'll start with those that are the most unfriendly to the environment and then the rest just for fun.
Krylo
12-27-2009, 03:03 PM
Australia.
If Superpowers is anything like Risk (which I'm sure it's not), Australia always wins.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 03:12 PM
Netherlands it is!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp1.jpg
Our budget is looking good as of right now, though the large amount in health care might prove to increase our population by more than we can support. Even right now we are importing 5% of our resources, which isn't terrible, it would just be awesome if we could get it closer to 1%. Maybe through some environmental funding to increase our output.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp4.jpg
Our laws as of January 1, 2001. I have toyed around with legalizing child labor, it increases income, but approval ratings suffer. Abortion, contraception, and same sex marriage all have their different, rather extreme effects on population.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp5.jpg
A complete list of our resources and services. The red numbers mean we're taking a hit and having to import to support everyone. Sorry about the choppy copy/pasting. The red circle next to drugs means they are currently illegal and the building symbols next to some of them means they are government controlled sectors. Yeah, you can play around with privatization if you'd like.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp6.jpg
And our military. I did some research and found that, as it compares to the rest of the world, we are 42nd in military strength, while the U.S. has around 20x our forces. We are also 16th in GDP.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp7.jpg
Now I guess we need to hire henchmen.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 03:44 PM
I`ll be what ever you need Bob. Even to get rid of those unsavoury characters.
The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk
12-27-2009, 03:56 PM
I've been watching a lot of Alias again recently, so if possible I'd like to be in charge of all Black Ops cells and protocols. I shall run it like The Alliance; with twelve cells codenamed SD-1 to SD-12 accordingly, with a mandate of aquiring weapons, funds, intelligence and technology for the good of the nation, with the secondary mandate of using those aquired weapons, funds, intelligence and technology to eliminate threats to that nation, with a complete lack of accountabilty on behalf of the government to achieve those ends.
And if that sales pitch doesn't win me the job, then I shall offer my services to your neighbours, the Germans, and see how you fare then.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 04:04 PM
o_O
Hawk is our CIA point man.
Mac, I'm not sure what you would enjoy doing, so I might just wait until all the other positions have been filled.
I will also promptly rename the covert cells to the names requested by Hawk.
Dracorion
12-27-2009, 04:15 PM
I'd like to throw my hat in with Chief of Staff. Although I'd prefer not being the only one.
After strengthening ourselves, I suggest we start off by conquering France.
After strengthening ourselves, I suggest we start off by conquering France.Bah, at least try being a little more ballsy. You want to show the world you mean business? Conquer Afghanistan for real. That place has been the doom of empires since Rome. Settle things there and you can take on anyone.
The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk
12-27-2009, 04:19 PM
conquering France.
Already on it!! I want satellites tasked to spy on their military installations, and send agents in to perform recon on the most important testing facilities and make contacts in the criminal underworld.
France is going to burn.
EDIT; Tev, thinking big is nice and all, but the steady and absolute increase in power is prefferable for long term goals. France is close, easily infiltrated, and ripe for the taking. We will start there.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 04:23 PM
K, Dracorian is our warhawk...or one of them. As soon as we get everyone onboard who wants to be in, we'll start. The beginning date ingame is 01/01/2001, though in the relations window, the U.S. already hates both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Though, getting into France and taking it might be a difficult task, seeing as we're both members of NATO and half the world would flip a shit if we just went in there. Perhaps there is a way to first garner some hatred towards them.
Dracorion
12-27-2009, 04:24 PM
Bah, at least try being a little more ballsy. You want to show the world you mean business? Conquer Afghanistan for real. That place has been the doom of empires since Rome. Settle things there and you can take on anyone.
Well, I was going to say Germany, but I was afraid no one would take me seriously.
EDIT: Question: If we have our own spiffy little CIA we can use to screw with other nations, does that mean the other guys have their CIAs they can use to screw with us?
EDIT; Tev, thinking big is nice and all, but the steady and absolute increase in power is prefferable for long term goals. France is close, easily infiltrated, and ripe for the taking. We will start there.I'm just saying, everyone and their grandfather has had their ball-sacks in France. The place is starting to smell funny.
Oh, and if you want to criminally put the hurt on France, I'd suggest getting in good with the Albanians. Those people know how to run a well functioning criminal underground.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 04:25 PM
Defense Research Supervisor. Cause hell, somehow we need to get giant Mech`s.
The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk
12-27-2009, 04:38 PM
Though, getting into France and taking it might be a difficult task, seeing as we're both members of NATO and half the world would flip a shit if we just went in there. Perhaps there is a way to first garner some hatred towards them.
True enough, which is why Phase 2 of my plan involves turning everyone and their grandmothers against the french. It's the Sun Tzu way. For now though, recon and espionage will suffice. Getting good intel is critical to any conflict.
I'm just saying, everyone and their grandfather has had their ball-sacks in France. The place is starting to smell funny.
Oh, and if you want to criminally put the hurt on France, I'd suggest getting in good with the Albanians. Those people know how to run a well functioning criminal underground.
It's france, it always smelt funny. But the only way to grow an empire is to conquer those nearest to you. I'll take your tip on the Albanians though. Bob, send an agent.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 04:48 PM
Look guys, if you wanna get at les francois you must work there insecurities. They are a proud, romantic people. You`ve gotta utilize that.
One thing the French are proud of is their resistance movement during WW2, they were cunning saboteurs, inflicting pain to the Nazi's, allowing an Allied Foothold on western europe. Use their history against them.
Anyway, I'll be glad to take on the role of Trade Commission Head since it's still open. After reviewing the numbers it seems that if you want to lower our imports by 4% that we'll have to do something about or food and energy policies as they are the largest fixable import contributors. I'd start by suggesting an aggressive trade campaign with Belgium. Since we plan on putting the hurt to France in the future a slight tariff on French goods is in order to help mitigate the costs of building report with Belgium. One we have secured foods and materials flowing towards us and away from France, we can begin work on our industrial complex and look into shoring up that hit that we are taking on Fabrics and Finished Goods. Also, we're the Netherlands. Amsterdam is our capitol. Why are we losing money on drugs? I may look into that later because if we can put our best foot forward on a legalized drug trade, then we will have leverage when dealing with poorer countries that rely on illegal drug money to fund their armies.
A Zarkin' Frood
12-27-2009, 05:22 PM
Please hold in mind that Germany only has defensive forces which suck. Mandatory service is around 12 and 18 months and might be cut short to six months soon. We have no combat experience and three or so of our dudes are in Afghanistan. That's about half of our entire forces. Furthermore we're pussies.
Crush our conservative video game banning government and replace it with the futuristic Netherlands awesome.
Yeah, our military size is a concern. Unfortunately it's not my department. If it were I'd still keep service mandatory but increase the length to at least four years. We should probably also work on our training and experience level. Maybe participate more often in U.N. peace keeping missions and such.
While I also can't work on the whole video game thing as that's more a Secretary of State matter, I can promise you that the moment they become legal, we will make sure there is a Wii in every living room and an XBOX 360 in every den with enough games to entertain our masses and help them acclimate to the advanced technologies of the day.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 05:33 PM
While I also can't work on the whole video game thing as that's more a Secretary of State matter, I can promise you that the moment they become legal, we will make sure there is a Wii in every living room and an XBOX 360 in every den with enough games to entertain our masses and help them acclimate to the advanced technologies of the day.
You need to garner to the needs of the Sony quotient do not forget.
Instead of military training, why not combine the University and Military institutions as 1. Free education for those that want it, plus they pay it back by serving in the military. I mean, more money goes to the military so if by combining the two institutions, you allow for greater funds to the Military colleges
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 05:36 PM
***EYES ONLY***
January 1, 2001
From: Office of the President
To: Hawk, CIA Director
Re: Deployment of Cell SD-1
I've been thinking over your recommendation for an operation into France, but I am at this time unsure of our covert forces readiness status for such an endeavour. I have in my time seen plenty of foolhardy suicide runs, if only the opposing side had had its back to us. The time does not seem right, I fear our brave men of the shadow will be met with the same fate. But, maybe if you took a year to train them. I promise your efforts would be reflected in your salary.
A Zarkin' Frood
12-27-2009, 05:36 PM
Why not use video games to train all Germans as killers after you've conquered us in five minutes.
No, I thought that was the reason bad Killergames were banned over here, seriously.
Flarecobra
12-27-2009, 05:37 PM
If Drac wants someone to help, I'll do what I can.
Like if you're going after France, first off, one would need to get an idea as to their military strength, who their allies are, stuff like that.
And yeah, try to get some allies first if you can. They could help save your bacon in a pinch.
You need to garner to the needs of the Sony quotient do not forget.PS3's are military gaming stations. According to my brother in the Air Force they have a room set up on most bases just for PS3 play. If you want and XBOX or a Wii you're on your own. We'll think about adding PS3's to those "military university" things.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 05:59 PM
I've gone ahead and legalized rad-killing unicorn motorcycles.
As for France, it seems to me that it would make a lot more sense taking over Belgium and maybe Luxembourg first, or maybe setting sail for some small island nations and slowly building resource production that way, before taking on the relative behemoth which is France. And if we did it that way we could probably build trade relations with the rest of NATO before our diplomatic relations completely break down after the eventual assault on France.
Of course Belgium is our military equal and we would have to spend at least a year training more troops.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 06:02 PM
I've gone ahead and legalized rad-killing unicorn motorcycles.
As for France, it seems to me that it would make a lot more sense taking over Belgium and maybe Luxembourg first, or maybe setting sail for some small island nations and slowly building resource production that way, before taking on the relative behemoth which is France. And if we did it that way we could probably build trade relations with the rest of NATO before our diplomatic relations completely break down after the eventual assault on France.
Of course Belgium is our military equal and we would have to spend at least a year training more troops.
That is why I would suggest that you would instate immediate Military Universities, making you soldiers smarter and better.
What is more dangerous, 10 idiots with a rifle, or a genius with a rifle?
Personally I'm all for taking over Belgium first. The only reason I wanted to tie their economy to ours was so that it would be easier to assimilate them during the French campaign. I doubt France would put up that big of a fuss about us taking Belgium since Belgium practically opened the door for Germany to invade France in WWII.
Also, Belgium has lots of land that we can play with. Having 35% of our country being mostly unusable is a sad thing.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 06:13 PM
If I may interject, you got to look at the possible fallout (and I use that term deliberately) of going after Belgium. You gotta look at who they are allied with, who their enemies are, how much it would hurt you in the long run vs how much you gain in the short run.
Gunning for Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany in order to secure a victory against France, you would take a hit economically in order to assimilate them into your culture. I would suggest looking to the north with Finland, Sweden and Denmark.
Do not go after the Swiss as they are neutral, wait until a good portion of Western Europe is under control before gunning for them.
Sifright
12-27-2009, 06:14 PM
I would be more than willing to apply my self as the Secretary of the treasurey. If I were to be in charge I would raise taxes on the wealthy and use the extra resources in funding experinmental weapons tech alternatively the extra funding could be used to improve existing infastructure.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 06:15 PM
Okay then, if we're going to pursue that route we need to make the world hate Belgium. We could try terrorist attacks on small defenseless nations and frame Belgium, but this might be a lengthy campaign if we don't make it believeable. What I suggest is we build an alliance with a small country, hit it with terrorism, then strike Belgium claiming we are just upholding our alliance.
Sifright, you can have the position, but when raising taxes they raise uniformly. Our popularity might take a hit and I need to remind everyone, we do have to face elections every four years.
All I ask is that you all let me know who you plan on attacking so that I can work on trade partners that won't flood us with sanctions.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 06:22 PM
Okay then, if we're going to pursue that route we need to make the world hate Belgium. We could try terrorist attacks on small defenseless nations and frame Belgium, but this might be a lengthy campaign if we don't make it believeable. What I suggest is we build an alliance with a small country, hit it with terrorism, then strike Belgium claiming we are just upholding our alliance.
Why not enlist in the aid of Belguim itself in that. In every country, there are always a group of dissidents ready to overthrow the government. If you fund them and give them orders on what to do, you have your Belgium terrorists, and the only thing tying them to you are weapons, which you purchase from America or Russia.
Sifright
12-27-2009, 06:25 PM
Might I suggest a legalisation of drugs we appear to importing a vast amount of drugs regardless so we might as well make money off the taxation of it (assuming it works that way)
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 06:33 PM
We can also begin wars between other countries if we get them pissed off enough. I'm going to have dinner then come back and we can make some sort of decision on how to proceed.
There are lots of countries out there, with lots of possibilities.
And Sifright, rad-killing unicorn motorcycles were already legalized.
Might I suggest a legalisation of rad-killing unicorn motorcycles we appear to importing a vast amount of rad-killing unicorn motorcycles regardless so we might as well make money off the taxation of it (assuming it works that way)We already got it legalized. Taxation is next on the list.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 07:29 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp8.jpg
Here's our defense spending budget distribution, because I forgot to post it. I have no problem keeping it how it is. The green areas are the actual budget sliders and the blue squares are a measure of how advanced each seperate sector is. At this rate, each sector is scheduled to improve in a little over a year. I'm saying early February.
As far as what we're going to do. I like the idea of grabbing some trade agreements with Belgium, France, and some others in the area to begin with. And maybe raising taxes slightly, maybe enough to not drop us below 65% approval. Interest rates might also need to be dropped to compensate for the drop in inflation.
It's up to you guys and our Minister of Death to decide who's going down first, where it would be better strategically to take a foothold, and who to make alliances with.
Flarecobra
12-27-2009, 07:39 PM
I'd advice getting some Stealth set up, along with the Precisions. Don't matter how much damage and range you have if you can't hit squat, no?
Plus, with Stealth, it'd be easior to get air recon done, right?
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 07:40 PM
I'd advice getting some Stealth set up, along with the Precisions. Don't matter how much damage and range you have if you can't hit squat, no?
Plus, with Stealth, it'd be easior to get air recon done, right?
Stealth tank is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it?
Stealth tank is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it?No, what you have described is actually 100% awesome. Now if only we had silencer technology for tanks....
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 07:45 PM
I'll up the precision a little, but stealth is really only for the air force, I think it has to do with how hard they are to hit once in battle. Recon is really only done by the secret service.
Battles are very much a hands-off thing, like a real life leader. You say "go kill those people" and they do as you say.
Good news though...
August 11, 2001
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp9.jpg
I managed to ramp the tax rate all the way from 24.5% to 37% while still holding our approval at around 70%...and rising! Our unemployment rate has dropped substantially, so has the corruption surprisingly. The only thing is the inflation rate, which is now in the process of going out of control. I'm afraid to raise interest rates too high to shoulder the blow, but there's really no other way out of it, our economy will have to take the hit.
I would suggest lowering some of the budget sliders from the second post I made, maybe drop health care back a bit, or something. We can't afford to lose much of anything else.
[Update]
Allocated more funds to stealth and precision of our air and naval forces, estimated time until everything levels up: 117-217 days.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 07:47 PM
No, what you have described is actually 100% awesome. Now if only we had silencer technology for tanks....
Don't get me wrong, a stealth tank would be awesome, but you would need to figure out a way to keep it silenced, otherwise the stealth wouldn't work
See if we can't open a market with China. I hear that they like buying western goods now that they are starting to have money and such. Also it will make it easier for our agents to get contacts incase we need to move weapons to help destabilize regions.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 08:06 PM
Negotiations with China were tense, but I managed to hammer out an economic partnership with them, giving us both bonuses to our resource development. I then tried to push a little further for a common market that would let us fill each other's resource needs before resuming normal everyday trade, but that was unsuccessful.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp11.jpg
Here are all of the other possible treaties, just to have them on record.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp12.jpg
And our friends the Belgians just got waffled...harhar...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp13.jpg
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 08:08 PM
The earthquake could work in your favour (can I please join :() by sending aid then suddenlt cutting the off.
Eh, I'll take that for now. At least we got our foot in the door.
EDIT: Next on the list is seeing if we can get a Cultural Exchange Program with China and an Economic partnership with America. If we can become the middle man between China and America's trade then we'll steadily become all kinds of important.
Flarecobra
12-27-2009, 08:17 PM
Sounds good to me.
Geminex
12-27-2009, 08:18 PM
Good lord, I have to get me this game. Seems rather awesome. Aaaanyway...
On the military sector, have you considered an alliance with Finland and Sweden and then a strike against poland? It wouldn't be too capable to resistance, and it should be quite easy to foster dislike against it. It'd place you in a position where you could easily expand south and then strike either against the middle east or central europe. (This shall be known as operation Typewriter).
As for financing this shizz...
I'd expand my intelligence and research sectors, while implementing long-term supply-side policies. That is to say, invest much of the government's budget into further infrastructure improvements. The downsides of higher taxation will be offset by the multiplier effect (every dollar that the government spends will be spent again by the consumer receiving it, generating wealth continuously)...
As for your inflation? If anything it should be going down, since you're taxing the country, resulting in less income and thus in less demand. If you wanna raise it again, interest rates are good...
Alternatively you could implement some labor reforms, decrease the amount of workers, possibly by just raising unemployment benefits or lowering the minimum age for retirement. That'll raise your approval ratings again, counteracting any increases in taxation.
Back to grand strategy, once your infrastructure is awesome, your economy is stable, your research is advanced, your alliances are secure and poland's image is wrecked, (Should take a while), then you start building up your military and initiate operation typewriter.
...
But that's just my two cents.
Dracorion
12-27-2009, 08:19 PM
Okay, I say we take Belgium by, yeah, sending in aid. And buddy up with Finland and Sweden.
Now, everyone's suggestions regarding training and universities and stuff are good, do that. Also, I want missiles. And a stealth tank. Can I have a stealth tank?
Also, I want missiles. And a stealth tank. Can I have a stealth tank?I honestly don't see why you can't have both at the same time. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObzzqNcG7yA)
I mean, honestly....Westwood Games could make it happen.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 08:31 PM
o_O Gwah! One at a time people, one at a time. xD
And Mac I thought you were already in it, part of the military hivemind or something.
Current Developements as of December 15, 2001:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp14.jpg
I managed to trick France and Belgium into signing an economic partnership under the guise of helping Belgium out of its earthquake situation. While at the same time we encountered bad news of our own. A severe drought has impaired our food production. Much of our population will be going hungry this Christmas. But, we have pulled through worse. That was a pretty big hit we took though. Took almost $15 billion to compensate. And wouldn't you know it, China adds to the hurt with a disaster of their own.
Speaking of population, we are doing awesome. If we hold steady we are looking at a .1% increase per year, which is perfection.
I'll get to work on the various trade deals you guys outlined right away. I also took the opportunity to upgrade our covert cells. We now have 1 level 1 cell, 2 level 2 cells, and 2 level 3 cells. We should be able to execute successful operations in small countries now without worry.
Flarecobra
12-27-2009, 08:36 PM
Now, this is just me thinking....but we should also think about doing something with Denmark, no?
Geminex
12-27-2009, 08:37 PM
I take it my masterpiece of strategic advice was not persuasive enough and we're still going after belgium?
Cause if so, I'd recommend that we research to improve our infantry instead of our tanks (central europe=infantry paradise, tank hell) and get on the USA's good side.
Edit:
Now, this is just me thinking....but we should also think about doing something with Denmark, no?
Denmark is interesting. Perhaps we could weaken it covertly, and when the time is right strike through it towards Germany? Don't take it yet, but perhaps prepare to for a future 2-pronged assault against Germany's North.
Also: I'm an idiot. When I wrote about taking Poland I was under the assumption and we were Norway, not the Netherlands.
*Facepalm*
Now, this is just me thinking....but we should also think about doing something with Denmark, no?Well it is in a very good position militaristically speaking, but trade will have to wait until we finalize our ties with China and America.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 08:55 PM
Just checked out Denmark. It would be a bloody war, but we would break them if we took them right now...and they weren't part of NATO.
May 24, 2002
Nailed down an economic partnership with the U.S., but China, Finland, and Sweden all refused them, along with cultural exchanges. Perhaps this just isn't the right time. Our generous foreign aid will eventually bring our relations to the point where we can resume talks.
I increased funding for research, infrastructure, and environment to avert any more disasters. Our economy seems to be leveling out, though I would have rather it leveled out higher. Somehow we seem to have eliminated virtually all corruption in the government. Probably through our new, more aggressive administration policies.
For a moment I thought about eliminating foreign aid and tourism altogether, but our savings would only be about $10 billion, a mere drop in the bucket. Instead I'll just hope for aggressive infrastructure spending to bring us back into the black.
[Edit] Oh, and our resource output seems to be in a death spiral, sitting at around 92% now when it was peaking before at 98%. My inner Republican says return some control of the resources to the public sector, but it's up to you guys.
[Edit2] Our covert ops are standing by whenever you guys decide on a victim.
Well if China isn't playing ball right now, see if we can't get a good deal with Japan.
Also, what African countries are on your guys' destabilization list? I'm thinking about maybe seeing if we can get an economic foothold in the area and knowing what you plan on breaking down will help me decide what I want to help build up.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 09:04 PM
What about Canada? We/they have resources you can plunder.
Flarecobra
12-27-2009, 09:09 PM
I'd say we take down Denmark. Nip that threat in the bud.
Suggest covert units first to weaken their production capability, and if possable, some of their military strength.
Gregness
12-27-2009, 09:10 PM
Haven't read the whole thread yet, but the OP says that secretary of state is still open so I'll take it if no one objects.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 09:14 PM
Haven't read the whole thread yet, but the OP says that secretary of state is still open so I'll take it if no one objects.
Haha, we've completely neglected our legislative branch. Sure.
Also, blehhhhhhhh...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp15.jpg
Seriously, we just built those damn levies!
Geminex
12-27-2009, 09:19 PM
Kay. In that case, less war, more infrastructure. I'd be for attacking Denmark, if anything. And then perhaps focus on Norway. If we take them, Sweden and Finland, we'd have a huge resource boost. Are they Nato?
And question, what does resource output indicate exactly? Because it could be getting screwed through our higher taxation.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 09:26 PM
Resource output really encompasses every product and service being produced in the country. If we have more than we need, we export, if we don't have enough, we import. The different sectors represent different industries, like if you look at the picture the government has control over almost every one. Which I would kind of like to get away from. They also make up the majority of our GDP. I think taxation is only a small percentage.
Also, if we attack Denmark right now, I guarantee the rest of NATO flattens us before we step on their soil. Why not either do some covert ops on other countries to make them hated, or focus our military elsewhere in the meantime?
Africa. It's the proving ground for militaries everywhere.
Flarecobra
12-27-2009, 09:32 PM
Hmmmm....let me do some checking.
What's the report on Libya? Or Algeria?
But most importantly....what's our navy and army's standing at?
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 09:46 PM
Africa. It's the proving ground for militaries everywhere.
Good idea.
What are our standings with Egypt and other African nations? Maybe we can utilize some Covert Ops there. Destabilize the other countries good will and have us swoop in for the kill.
edit: Scratch Egypt. We don't wanna deal with them as they are tough SOB's. Not until we have most of Western Europe in our control.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 11:02 PM
Air Force is 53rd ranked, Navy is 24th, Army is 41st, and Infantry is 106th. If anything, I say we throw a little money into enlisting some grunts. I looked over what we have now and as far as officers go, we're good.
Libya and Algeria are too big for us to take now, I suppose if we drained our treasury to create a doomsday force we could mow through. But, I see major promise in maybe creating war between them and aligning ourselves with one side so we can take what's left of the other. Both are equal as far as military goes.
I'm not even going to start with Egypt. They could eat us with their 14th ranked military overall.
[Edit] And while we're talking spending, I'd like to go ahead and take control of all resources that are operating at a loss and release control to the public all resources operating at a gain. It's worked before.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 11:07 PM
My stance is that we fight covert wars, using a countries populous to turn against the current leadership.
If I may, can we throw some research into new weapons to bolster our forces? Maybe start with some explosive upgrades.
Sir Pinkleton
12-27-2009, 11:23 PM
I don't know this game well, and as such I don't think I could do well in any of the positions, but I'd like to voice my opinions anyway. :p
I think we should start low. what I mean is, make the African countries tear each other apart. Throw in some assassinations, Maybe some blackmail, whatever. Africa should be on our sites right now. Then we could send in foreign aid, and establish our own government (to "stabalize" the area), or just invade them anyway, when they're weak. In the end I just think we should use our covert ops more than anything else.
Alternatively, we could try South America. There are plenty of people there looking for a fight, and there's no reason we couldn't do that. We might have to wait until our forces are a little better trained/equipped for any of this though. If that's the case, we should get as much money as we can (though with the trade alliance with China that shouldn't be too hard to get done) and fnd that stuff.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 11:37 PM
March 17th, 2004
Some major developments...
-Finally landed the coveted cultural exchange treaty with China. We are well on our way to securing the electricity and fossil fuels needed to get us over this hump. The U.S. still won't have any of it.
-Enlisted 1000 rank 1 officers and 2000 grunts to our forces which have pushed us under the 100th ranking worldwide.
-Mixed emotions followed a stunning move, the once 100% government-controlled economy is now almost 90% public owned. This came among heightened tensions brought on by our sudden increase in military spending, but should prove to be beneficial to our future and the future of our....oh...oh my....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp20.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp21.jpg
Early reports suggest Syria's small contingent of 251 armored will be departing Damascus for a strike on the center of Hezafon, with the rest of their military moving en masse down the coast towards Tel Aviv. What brings this on all of a sudden I don't know. But, what are those yellow lines?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp22.jpg
God, is there anything the yanks aren't sending? This is going to get mucky real fast. Our news agencies will monitor the situation as it developes.
[Edit] This is going to be way too much action for me to handle at 11:30 at night. I'll leave it to our military advisors to decide what the right course of action will be. We'll continue this tomorrow.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 11:38 PM
Interesting idea. Isn't Venezuela one of the bigger Oil producing countries. If we could get our hands in there, we could solve our energy problem until we find a viable solution for greener fuels.
Geminex
12-27-2009, 11:44 PM
Reviewing the situation, NATO guarantees that we can attack barely any European targets until we've gathered some power. We either need to establish a power base in a region that's more vulnerable to strikes, or we'll need to work covertly and use diplomacy to destabilize existing alliances. I pretty much agree with Pinkleton in that brute force isn't much of an option. Though Sweden and Finland are both non-Nato, they're not too strong in terms of military and they have quite a lot of resources. Before we target Africa or South America, perhaps initiate an invasion of those two?
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-27-2009, 11:49 PM
Reviewing the situation, NATO guarantees that we can attack barely any European targets until we've gathered some power. We either need to establish a power base in a region that's more vulnerable to strikes, or we'll need to work covertly and use diplomacy to destabilize existing alliances. I pretty much agree with Pinkleton in that brute force isn't much of an option. Though Sweden and Finland are both non-Nato, they're not too strong in terms of military and they have quite a lot of resources. Before we target Africa or South America, perhaps initiate an invasion of those two?
Again, just because they are not part of NATO does not mean that they do not have Allies. Before declaring war on them, we have to see if it is economically viable to do so, comparing our army to theirs.
Bob The Mercenary
12-27-2009, 11:58 PM
Finland would be an easy take, Sweden not so much.
As far as the war goes...
Those yellow lines actually weren't the U.S., they were Syria's navy moving to engage them pre-emptively. The one battle that actually amounted to anything was one right off the coast of North Carolina:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp24.jpg
Syria was demolished.
Although, the battle of Tel Aviv has been going on for two weeks now with no end in sight. It began like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp23.jpg
And after the American reinforcements showed up it turned into this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp25.jpg
The way I see it, Syria has one battalion left in their capital city, just in case they should lose in Tel Aviv. If they lose, and need to deploy them, that would leave Syria wide open for us to take it. If not, then no because they would still be too powerful. All we would risk is some light worldwide disdain for a while.
Opinions?
Geminex
12-28-2009, 12:02 AM
It's an interesting idea. It'd give us a power base somewhere where we could actually do something without our forces, as well as a boost in productivity. My only problem with it is that Egypt and a lot of the other countries in that area might not be happy about it, so we'd need to reinforce quickly and build up forces. We'd also need to protect our supply lines, so Navy Ahoy.
Interesting battle, though.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-28-2009, 12:10 AM
What we don't need is a war like this right now. Too open, and we do not know what was the cause of it. Unless the US is going to pacify both sides, I would say we should keep out of it and watch. It would kill us politically and we would be voted out faster then Sonic the Hedgehog.
Bob The Mercenary
12-28-2009, 12:16 AM
This'll be my last post before I finally fall asleep. But, when I increased taxes to 50% and interest rates to 16%, the populace hated me for, like, a week. Because of all of our spending in infrastructure and propaganda, the approval rating heals itself pretty quickly.
If not Syria, Finland would sound like a good starting point. Or maybe the Albania vs. Libya scenario. There's also the option of buying territories off people, or pillaging small island nations for a while.
Just saying.
Eltargrim
12-28-2009, 12:23 AM
I vote Finland for proximity; while having a vast, sprawling empire is appealing, contiguous borders are a hell of a lot easier to defend. Once we have a stable power base at home we can think of expanding by sea.
Also, strong votes for having other countries do our dirty work for us :p
Wigmund
12-28-2009, 12:30 AM
I volunteer to be General Advocate of Really Horrific Ideas.
Kinda like this:
What's the situation in Africa? Specifically the nation of Niger.
Niger, historically, has had stability problems and has nice deposits of many nice resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger#Exports).
I say, that if possible, we send covert agents into Niger to destabilize it. Then we it is nice and ready, send in a 'Peace-keeping' force and seize the nation. And if we get away with this, we start harvesting uranium and set up our own atomic program. And since Niger provides most of the world's uranium, we should be able to create some friends.
Flarecobra
12-28-2009, 12:37 AM
If we're going to go all-out on someone, I'd like us to be prepared. We could send in a strike force yes, but who'll defend the homeland? We don't want to be streached out too thin. Let's build up some more, wait for a better target. Preferably one closer to home.
Plus, if one attacks us...perfect excuse to go after them. After all, they attacked us first.
Wigmund
12-28-2009, 12:49 AM
Problem is that we're in the middle of Europe and since NATO appears to be active everyone will defend each other (so far). Going into Africa will allow us to tap more resources in lightly-defended and poorly-managed nations.
There's a whole string of nations down there to be messed with and conquered. The Netherlands has done it before, let's reclaim the Empire!
Geminex
12-28-2009, 01:06 AM
That's exactly what I was trying to say before. We can't attack the high-value targets, because they'll gang up on us. Though I agree with flarecobra in saying that we need to stabilise our country and prepare economically for war. But we've already raised infrastructure spending, and we haven't had a disaster in a while, so we should be ok.
Is there any way to use covert ops to increase the scale of the middle-east conflict, to embroil more countries in the battle? We benefit from instability.
Wigmund
12-28-2009, 01:13 AM
Bring Iran and Saudi Arabia into the Israel-Syria War?
Geminex
12-28-2009, 01:30 AM
Exactly! Iran, Saudi Arabia, throw Egypt into the mix and you have a great big pie of instability, with the USA embroiled in it. With any luck, Turkey will get pulled in and then the Nato's involved, making it an official continental clusterfuck. We either cut ourselves a slice of the resource-rich areas, or exploit the world's inattention to invade a country or seven. I'm just not sure if that's possible, but if it is we should attempt it.
Gregness
12-28-2009, 01:40 AM
Ok, I've read the thread now and the impression I get is that we're all trying to pull this in different directions. I think we'd benefit from coming together and figuring out what exactly what it is we're trying to do here. Military world conquest? Covert ops kingmaking?
I, for one, think the world has gone far too long with no real leadership and who better than us to take the reins!
Edit: However, I think we need to build up quite a bit more before we can make any overt moves. In the meantime, we should turn our society into a thing of wonder admired the world over!
To wit, what exactly is the effect of legalizing abortion and same sex marriage and polygamy(if they aren't already)?
Geminex
12-28-2009, 02:10 AM
Well, what we want is world domination, eventually. To do that, we need to build up our power base. Economic power. And military power.
Economic power: We're strong. But not quite strong enough. The Netherlands don't have enough resources to significantly influence other countries through trade. Nobody's going to keel over and die if we stop exporting whatever it is they buy from us. For now we'll just keep strengthening our economy, so we can support the military sector.
Military power:
This included armed forces as well as covert ops. We've been progressing here, building up covert forces as well as infantry and advancing whatever research we've been involved in. We're fairly good already, and have potential to advance a lot further, so we can actually afford to challenge some high-value targets. High-value targets are targets whose defeat and conquering would bring us significant strategic and economic advantages. Pretty much anything with a lot of people and resources. We can't exert much military force, however, since our immediate neighbors are all allied and an assault against one of them would result in them wiping us out. In other words, we cannot apply our military force fully due to a network of alliances.
Options:
Strike against Sweden and/or Finland:
Benefits:
Would bring both countries under our control, giving us increased access to resources
Both countries close to home, easy to defend
Demerits:
They're both fairly closely allied with a lot of European countries, attacking them might annoy some of our neighbors. We don't want to aggravate anyone who's bigger than us.
We'd need some time to strengthen our forces before we could take on both countries
Probable method: Strengthen Navy and Infantry forces, begin assault by attacking the weaker of the two, landing troops and then taking our the stronger one, once forces have been built up. Use covert forces to weaken the stronger's infrastructure and the weaker's defenses beforehand, as well as sullying both country's international image, so we don't elicit too much outrage when we attack.
Strike against an African nation:
Benefits:
Africa's resource-rich as well as unstable, making an invasion fairly easy, as we wouldn't have to worry about upsetting any allies or facing strong military opposition
Demerits:
We would annoy a few of the larger countries and possibly alienate our own population by just attacking.
Our target would be faaar away. We'd need a lot of air and sea power to stage the attack and even more to uphold supply lines until our new colony is self-sufficient. Due to the unstable nature of the area, we probably wouldn't find too many allies willing to help us. We could probably establish a presence, but keeping that presence there would be very financially draining.
Method:
Establish a large Navy, coast up to one country or another, drop all our dudes on their coast. Take over the country. Rinse and repeat with the next one along the coast. Use covert forces to further destabilize the target beforehand.
Attack against the middle east:
Benefits: The situation's already unstable, so attacking now would probably benefit us in the long term without us meeting too signficant resistance.
Demerits:
Same as Africa. Far away, difficult to reinforce, difficult to benefit economically.
Bob The Mercenary
12-28-2009, 06:28 AM
March 17, 2004
After reading over your posts, I completely forgot what time period we were dealing with...
HEY! U.S.! LOOK OVER THERE! WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHAARGARBL!!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp30.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp31.jpg
I was hoping more countries would join in to defend Iraq, I even threw out the idea to a couple of them, but I guess Saddam just doesn't have many friends. To garner some further hatred, I convinced the U.S. to annex Iraq. If you guys don't like this, I can always revert to a save I made before it happened. Now, the U.S. world relations look something like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp32.jpg
The Syria-Israel War ended with a Syrian surrender after losing most of their forces, but they maintained all of their land, Israel got its land back.
We have lots and lots of options, unfortunately, none of those countries would volunteer to start a war with the Americans. It would have to be the Americans going after them. And in an effort to stay somewhat realistic, the only wars I might be interested in starting would be between Iran/North Korea and the U.S.
What say you?
Sifright
12-28-2009, 06:44 AM
neither would appear to benefit us much I say we continue to collect taxes and build infastructure and industry so that we might be in a better position to enact our wishes at a later date. A slight bump to higher interest rates looks unavoidable I would suggest droping healthcare spending by a percentage point or two as well.
The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk
12-28-2009, 08:11 AM
What we need is a boost to our own image, so that we might take another country without it looking like we're the bad guys. To this end, I propose using SD-1 to attack ourselves. A simple terrorist bombing will certainly draw sympathies from the rest of the UN. The catch of course; we blame it on Denmark. This gives us a valid enough reason to mobilize against them without it looking like we're the bad guys.
Simoutaneously, SD-2 and SD-3 will attack Libya and its neighbours, stirring up unrest in northern africa and breaking any alliances they might have. We can then profit from the ensuing conflict by offering arms deals to the losing side, giving them a sudden edge and keeping the war going on for longer, weakening all parties.
That then just leaves Isreal and Syria, who are ripe for further conflicts right now and still weak from the last war. Using SD-4 we shall stir up more trouble there once again, and further escalate the situation by bring Iran into the conflict. SD-5 will then attack America, blaming it on North Korea.
If we play this right, we should start a full scale world war, and in the confusion our "Peacekeeping" forces can take Denmark, Libya and Syria. Not bad for a days work.
Melfice
12-28-2009, 09:40 AM
There's a whole string of nations down there to be messed with and conquered. The Netherlands has done it before, let's reclaim the Empire!
In that case, let's have some real fun recreating the Old Kingdom.
Annex Suriname, the Antilles (although the Dutch Antilles should still be part of the Netherlands in the game) and Indonesia.
South Africa speaks for itself.
... actually, I think that's it, as far as the old colonies goes.
I guess Tasmania? I mean, it was discovered by the Dutch. So was Australia, if I recall correctly, though we never colonized it.
Then wage war on Spain, France, and England at the same time, while living on uneasy foot with Germany.
Wigmund
12-28-2009, 11:10 AM
In that case, let's have some real fun recreating the Old Kingdom.
Annex Suriname, the Antilles (although the Dutch Antilles should still be part of the Netherlands in the game) and Indonesia.
South Africa speaks for itself.
... actually, I think that's it, as far as the old colonies goes.
I guess Tasmania? I mean, it was discovered by the Dutch. So was Australia, if I recall correctly, though we never colonized it.
Then wage war on Spain, France, and England at the same time, while living on uneasy foot with Germany.
Problem would be that if the US would get horrifically pissy if we moved into the Americas (Suriname, the Antilles). South Africa and Indonesia are pretty powerful nations in their own rights, same with Australia.
It sucks being on the lower tier...
That's why we need to go for West Africa.
http://www.joli-ecotours.com/images/westafrica_xl.gif
Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, and the coastal area from Senegal to Benin should be ripe pickings.
As Trade Commission Head, I would love to have those African resources to play with. Also, see if we can’t get in good with Egypt. Having the most stable and most powerful African nation on our side will be very helpful. Plus if we open trade with them then we can maybe get in on their textiles industry and help boslter our own.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-28-2009, 11:58 AM
What is the situation like in Darfur right now? We can easily spin that to our advantage by sending some of our highly trained troops and start defending the people from slaughter. We could play up the peacekeeping role and instead of declaring war or having a police action, we are there to keep the peace.
/edit: I say we should work on bolstering ties with Venezuala and Canada to get at the oil deposits so we don't have to be at the mercy of the Middle East when it comes to fossil fuel, while we work on alternate energy sources.
Flarecobra
12-28-2009, 05:37 PM
Fearless Leader? Are you there? :P
I notice the relations window you made up for the Iraq Attack deal...think you can show us how it looks for us?
Geminex
12-28-2009, 05:58 PM
That's why we need to go for West Africa.
Conquering any western african nation is tempting, but the quite large distances involved would make it difficult to reinforce and even more difficult to get the resources we produce there back to where we need them.
Wigmund
12-28-2009, 06:27 PM
It's not much farther away than anything in the Middle East or the Caribbean. And, depending on how the game is set up, if we treat the locals better than their own governments were, they'll defend themselves for us.
Bob The Mercenary
12-28-2009, 09:34 PM
Sorry, been working and such. I'll be starting up the game momentarily, but I'm thinking of reverting to the save I have after the Syria and Iraq wars, but before I triggered the annexation. I'd rather have it as relatively realistic as possible for now. And in the real world, the U.S. is only occupying Iraq.
Also, I'm all for increasing relations with Venezuala and Canada, but I'd like to know your opinions on going for Finland first, as opposed to west Africa. Not that I would be opposed to going directly for Africa if you were to command me to. Also, Hawk's idea about attacking ourselves didn't sound half bad, now that we're talking invading Africa.
Still March 17, 2004
-At the request and, might I add, genius of Mac I secured an economic partnership and common market with Canada. Venezuala was a bit more resistant, but we still worked out a partnership and, luckily, a cultural exchange which we can later use to construct a common market for their oil. It is too soon to see any real effects of any of this yet.
-The wars are winding down. Syria was finally pounded into submission and signed a cease fire today. The U.S. has destroyed all of Iraq's conventional forces, and are now simply sitting their fleets in the Gulf and bombarding the region with rockets. This should also end soon.
And, at Flare's request, our current relations with the world. Just to put things in perspective, anything around a 20% is considered "very good" and could be used for military trespassing or other deals. At 40% you get more into the area where we can start forming alliances. I've given billions of dollars in grants to nations before just to ramp up that rating. I've even sold nuclear technology.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/SP35.jpg
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-28-2009, 09:43 PM
What is the stance on having a nuclear arsenal? I am sure we can design weapons on the QT, but are we pro or anti nuke?
Dracorion
12-28-2009, 09:48 PM
Well, I'd really like to know who Finland's allies are, but if we can screw with them economically to piss them off while still appearing to be not total dicks, we could attack ourselves, pin it on them and invade.
As for Africa, Lybia sounds nice.
Bob The Mercenary
12-28-2009, 09:56 PM
Finland has no allies as far as I can see, is in pretty good standing with the world, and has a mostly random group of nations as their top "friends". Russia and some of NATO. To screw them economically, I don't think an embargo would be wise. But, maybe some light sabotage...
[Edit] And researching nuclear tech would cost $25 billion, take three years to complete, and make us a little unpopular.
Flarecobra
12-28-2009, 10:13 PM
Can we get a little breakdown of the possable threats to us in West Africa?
And some of those little countries are looking quite ripe....like a tasty orange...
And Syria's looking quite nice...perhaps we could "Help out" some of the other countries in military actions to get our troops some actual combat experance?
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-28-2009, 10:21 PM
Finland has no allies as far as I can see, is in pretty good standing with the world, and has a mostly random group of nations as their top "friends". Russia and some of NATO. To screw them economically, I don't think an embargo would be wise. But, maybe some light sabotage...
[Edit] And researching nuclear tech would cost $25 billion, take three years to complete, and make us a little unpopular.
How unpopular are we talking here? And there is no way it could be done in secrecy?
Bob The Mercenary
12-28-2009, 10:23 PM
We could take what's left of Syria if we enlisted about 5000 more grunts and built our air force up just a little more. The mideast might not like us much, though.
As for the African breakdown:
Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Mali, Burkina Faso...essentially every nation on the west coast and a little inland we could mow through without stopping, as long as no one else joins in to stop us. Though, as we start more wars, our popularity will fall sharply. I'd stay away from Morocco though.
Mauritania, Guinea, and Burkina Faso are all the most...not hated...least liked on the continent. None of them have allies. Unfortunately, they aren't linked to each other. We would have to make some collateral damage if we decided to move in.
@Mac: We would recover from the hatred eventually, but say goodbye to any further economic deals. And from that point on, every move we make will be looked upon with added suspicion, like we're plotting something. It might even incite some people into building missile shields.
[Edit] Aaaaand Mauritania, the Congo, and Gabon all have the highest concentrations of resources in that area.
Flarecobra
12-28-2009, 10:45 PM
Hmmm...If we make a move on Africa, Mauritania sounds like a good starting point...
Bob The Mercenary
12-28-2009, 11:01 PM
I'll also throw in my vote for Mauritania. Forces are currently standing by for deployment orders. Just rushing in, we have a small chance of drawing more people into the war than we want, or losing trade agreements, or getting embargos placed on our ass...but if you're all in, then I'm in. No guts, no glory.
By the way, where's our Chief of Staff...
>_>
Flarecobra
12-28-2009, 11:24 PM
What's our military standing at?
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-29-2009, 12:07 AM
Instead of an invasion, why not destabilize the ruling power and we step in saying we are there to stabilize the country.
Geminex
12-29-2009, 01:06 AM
Might be best. But it'll take a lot of covert operations. And once again, Africa's far away. Our supply lines will be murder. We'll lose a lot of money in the short term.
Let's at least get Finland and build up our Navy before undertaking such an endeavor. Let's destabilize our target covertly, build up diplomatic relations with its neighbors in the meantime and prepare for a naval invasion of Finland.
Also, what high political rank can I have?
Sir Pinkleton
12-29-2009, 01:46 PM
I vote to ally/get buddied with Finland's friends, bomb yourself and blame it on them, m plant evidence of corruption with their officials, whatever else you can ruin their reputation with, and invade. Get it out of the way, and I think we can handle the backlash.
Then move in to Mauritania, and we can talk further there.
Wigmund
12-29-2009, 02:27 PM
Might be best. But it'll take a lot of covert operations. And once again, Africa's far away. Our supply lines will be murder. We'll lose a lot of money in the short term.
Let's at least get Finland and build up our Navy before undertaking such an endeavor. Let's destabilize our target covertly, build up diplomatic relations with its neighbors in the meantime and prepare for a naval invasion of Finland.
At least with West Africa we wouldn't have to pass through anyone's territorial waters to get there (maybe Britain's), but with Finland - that can only be reached by sailing close to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark (the Kattegat). So we'd have a bottleneck in our connection there.
And it would most likely be costlier to invade Finland than the West Africa nations. They have more resources and manpower that can be applied against other areas of interest - other than being in Europe, what does Finland provide us?
Melfice
12-29-2009, 02:45 PM
other than being in Europe, what does Finland provide us?
The Netherlands would get it's lakes back. 'Cause we all know Finland steals everybody's lakes.
Bob The Mercenary
12-29-2009, 08:47 PM
Also, what high political rank can I have?
How's Special Advisor to the President sound? Really you can be anything you want, because everyone's giving opinions on everything lately regardless of their positions. In the beginning I aimed at making this more RP-like, but the way we're doing it is fine.
Loading up the game now. From what you guys have said, I plan on moving our covert ops into West Africa to begin the destabilization process. After that, I'll begin heavy diplomacy with Finland's friends to grant us a possible attack option. What would you guys say would be the best route to take, making everyone hate Mauritania? Or just being a general menace in the region, making everyone hate each other?
When everything's panned out a bit, we can see which way we would be better off going. When I was Burundi, I began by taking Rwanda, then during World War III which broke out of nowhere I moved into and conquered an empty India.
[Update]
March 21, 2004
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp36.jpg
You'll see that we are most fortunate to have Mauritania suffering from a drought right now. And I looked up Finland's closest friends, and strangely, their closest friend is Sweden, who is also not an ally. All of NATO is very close to them, which may work in or against our favor. Since they are all NATO, they love us right now, which gives us a lot of room to do what we want, but they won't love us so much after this.
Their next closes friend is Russia, which I just finished signing a cultural exchange with. Sweden refused, but I feel it is more due to the financial upkeep of the treaty itself than its underlying principles. They won't harm us.
Flarecobra
12-29-2009, 09:36 PM
Yessssss...Destablization...anarchy! Then we come in and "Restore order and peace."
Oblivian is at hand!
Then we decide we wanna stay. :P
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-29-2009, 10:59 PM
Yessssss...Destablization...anarchy! Then we come in and "Restore order and peace."
Then we decide we wanna stay. :P
Since when did you become Megatron?
Dracorion
12-29-2009, 11:56 PM
Yessssss...Destablization...anarchy! Then we come in and "Restore order and peace."
Then we decide we wanna stay. :P
I concur. Charge up the loading ramp!
Since when did you become Megatron?
Flare was always Megatron, she just doesn't post much.
Bob The Mercenary
12-30-2009, 12:27 AM
March 7, 2007
Okay, lots and lots of stuff...
-Our covert ops were successful in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, but not Guinea itself. Our agents there are feared captured, killed, or worse. Terrorism was also attempted all along the western contingent from Liberia to Sierra Lione. All failed, but our agents were able to get away without leaving a trace. All units were then given a thorough talking to and sentenced to one year of hard training.
-An idea popped into my head while sending agents to Finland to conduct some surveillance. Why not terrorize them and blame Mauritania? We could kill two birds with one stone, destabilize Finland and create more furor towards M. All three attempts were successful and Finland is now on a razor's edge of war. All that would be needed is a little coersion...perhaps by us if the time is right.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp38.jpg
-Because of all of these attacks, the western edge of Africa has just become a little more of a flashpoint. No activity as of yet, but I'm thinking that if we wait, it will come.
-Both Iraq and Syria announced plans to construct missile defense systems in the name of national security. Either they are very paranoid, or they know something we don't...
-We lost the '04 elections. -_- And no amount of reloads proved otherwise. I couldn't understand. We have nearly 80% approval and 90% stability. But, the public being as it is, I was forced to change our political system from two-party government to one-party to stay in power. The transition was surprisingly smooth and even proved beneficial to our economy.
-Speaking of the economy: Our's is absolutely booming due to our recent expansion of markets into China, Venezuela, and Canada. We have just celebrated the breach of the 101% resource mark and our unemployment rate has dropped from 18% to 13.3%. Per capita is around $30,000 and inflation is falling after our interest rate hit 20%. We still have a deficit, but it's manageable.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp37.jpg
-Put half our army (all of our ground forces) through rigorous training which improved them to 39th ranked in the world.
-Republicans won '04 elections in the U.S. The cremation of Iraq continues longer than anyone expected with the city of Basra being under heavy fire for almost four years now.
My plan now is to maybe continue a few more attacks in Finland, then move into an actual NATO country nearby to get them on our side when we finally move in.
Flarecobra
12-30-2009, 12:39 AM
Sound plan. Shall we prepare the insulting e-mail to Finland, and have it sent from a W. Africa E-mail service? :P [/joke]
Geminex
12-30-2009, 07:16 AM
13.3% unemployment? What the hell are we doing over there? It should be around 6% at most! Get that infrastructure going. Communications. Healthcare. Transport. Should help our economy quite a bit, increase efficiency, lower costs.
I guess in the military sector everything is rolling... I have some proposals for long-term strategy:
We currently have 2 primary strategic targets: Northern Europe and Western Africa. There is one thing those two have in common: Energy. Both are, unless I'm mistaken, major suppliers of oil and gas to much of the western world. Hell, IRL Nigeria gets 80% of its GDP from this, and I think a lot of other nations along Western Africa aren't far behind. Not to mention that besides producing a lot of their own oil, I think Sweden, Finland and Norway have a lot of pipelines ferrying oil from Russia to Western nations.
So my proposal is more or less: Set up an energy monopoly. If we get the Northern European countries (Codename: Santa) and Western Africa (Code name: Falco), maybe reach into the middle east when our Navy and covert is better we can gain major control over what oil goes where without needing huge and expensive armies or even antagonizing the NATO too much. A lot of our work can be done through covert means or by diplomacy and in the end we come out with outposts all over the world and an excellent bargaining position when trading. We'll see whether the NATO gets pissy about Norway if they're dependent on us for energy.
So, what do you say?
And special presidential advisor sounds awesome. Do I get sunglasses and appear omniously at meeting? Do I get to make veiled threats?
Have we managed to set up a trade agreement with Egypt yet? They are one of the largest agriculture producers in Africa and they are also the most stable and powerful nation in that crap-pile of a continent.
All said it'd be a lot cheaper to ship food from them then to move it from China or the Americas. Also it gets supplies out of an area that we're going to be turning into a war-zone soon.
Dracorion
12-30-2009, 12:34 PM
And special presidential advisor sounds awesome. Do I get sunglasses and appear omniously at meeting? Do I get to make veiled threats?
I encourage this. But only because then I can be suspicious of you and have guys tailing you and maybe order your assassination.
Wigmund
12-30-2009, 01:08 PM
And special presidential advisor sounds awesome. Do I get sunglasses and appear omniously at meeting? Do I get to make veiled threats?
Mister Burke?
http://wikicheats.gametrailers.com/images/thumb/8/87/Fallout_3_megaton_burke.jpg/350px-Fallout_3_megaton_burke.jpg
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-30-2009, 05:53 PM
Why attack a NATO country btw? We are talking about a group that could kick our asses and turn the Netherlands into the Never Existed Lands?
I support more covert attacks on Maurtiana and Finland. Maybe attack ourselves and blame Finland on it.
I suggest not a direct attack yet. But I also suggest we get in the good with Egypt as others have said.
Plus what is the status of turning our universities into compulsory Military Schools?
Bob The Mercenary
12-30-2009, 07:03 PM
When I said attack NATO, I meant terrorism framing Mauritania so NATO would then have a reason to hate them too.
Update probably coming at midnight.
Sifright
12-30-2009, 07:04 PM
I support an Invasion of Africa assuming this will eventually (in the next 2-4 years) will end up being economically beneficial.
Bob The Mercenary
12-30-2009, 07:29 PM
If we stay in occupation of the area only, we can steal their resources, but let them keep their population and debt. Annexation may come later, depending on if we can support the land by that time. Or we can just oppress them.
After the terrorism in Africa, I plan on doing it to a couple NATO nations, then finally attacking ourselves to finish it off as we swoop in to "defend our freedom" and play hero. The attack on us has to be significant though, I'll probably end up assigning all of our cells to the task and setting the difficulty of the attack to high.
Geminex
12-30-2009, 08:03 PM
Cool. What's our funding for covert ops? Whatever it is, if we're going for the energy monopoly, it should be higher. And universities--> military schools= Big no-no. We have a pretty good advantage in quality of education, let's not squander that.
Do we have enough troops to "defend our freedom"? And, for that matter, enough ships?
What's the status of our military, in terms of strength?
Also, could you check which countries are major oil-producers?
Flarecobra
12-30-2009, 08:11 PM
-Put half our army (all of our ground forces) through rigorous training which improved them to 39th ranked in the world.
Asked that.
Though I am curious about our navy and air forces.
Bob The Mercenary
12-30-2009, 11:13 PM
Cool. What's our funding for covert ops? Whatever it is, if we're going for the energy monopoly, it should be higher.
Funding for everything is basically set as far as we can afford to go right now. Any further spending will just force us deeper into the money pit. Besides, I just splurged a bit on them. We now have three elite (lvl 3) cells, two level 2s, and one level 1. If you really want me to go all out I can, I mean it's not like we're going to go bankrupt. I just hate to see that red number get much higher.
Do we have enough troops to "defend our freedom"? And, for that matter, enough ships?
What's the status of our military, in terms of strength?
Though I am curious about our navy and air forces.
10306 soldiers, 96th ranked
2391 armored units, 39th ranked
123 air force units, 52nd ranked
43 naval units, 24th ranked
We would wipe the floor with Mauritania. It wouldn't even be an issue. The issue would be if more than just the west coast joined in the war. But, we really have no choice as expanding the military any more right now would increase our debt even more. I say we take Mauritania. Build up our army there, then move on to the next target.
Also, could you check which countries are major oil-producers?
Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria are the largest producers in the region we're attacking. The ones next door to Mauritania have a modest amount. The largest producers in the world, though, are a bunch of as-of-yet unbeatable countries.
I'm sending the ops out now.
[Edit] Also, I'm a complete idiot. Our unemployment rate is 3.4%. That figure I posted earlier was our "below the poverty line stat".
Wigmund
12-30-2009, 11:29 PM
Nigeria, Angola, and Algeria are the largest producers in the region we're attacking. The ones next door to Mauritania have a modest amount. The largest producers in the world, though, are a bunch of as-of-yet unbeatable countries.
What's the picture for Nigeria?
QUESTION: How does this game treat resources? Are there listings for everything or just generic "oil, minerals, etc."?
Dracorion
12-30-2009, 11:41 PM
The most important question is: do we have missiles?
Flarecobra
12-30-2009, 11:56 PM
Let's do a little more destablizing there, and send in some to attack and occupy that place.
Then we build it back up in our own image.
And this just struck me. What kind of Government are we going to become? :P
The most important question is: do we have missiles?
Last I saw....no. We do not.
Bob The Mercenary
12-31-2009, 12:48 AM
April 18, 2009
Address to the Nation
[BEGIN TRANSCRIPT]
Good evening.
People of the Netherlands, I come to you tonight not as your President, not as your leader, but as one of you. A citizen. It is on this day our nation joined the ranks of the United States, Great Britain, Spain and others as one of those who have suffered the effects of terrorism on their home soil. I can assure you that around the world, others are now sharing the heartbreak and sorrow you so personally felt this morning as the news broke.
On a day that began so positive, with the formation of new economic ties with Egypt, we were met with the worst catastrophe in our nation's history. The last time we sustained such loss of life was during World War II. It would be a sin, an act of degradation towards the lives of those who died, and towards our very principles and duties as human beings, to allow their deaths to be in vain. The time for mourning is now, but the time for action is swiftly approaching.
Analysis of evidence collected from the attack, surveillance videos, eyewitness reports, and forensics reveal the perpetrators almost certainly originated from the African nation of Mauritania. As you know, several months ago a string of violence erupted up and down the west coast of Africa which these same groups have already been linked to. It is also a matter of public record that our policy is to deal harshly and quickly with any country or entity that would harbor such murderers within their borders. And at this time, sanctions have failed to produce any substantive change in relations between us.
Shortly after the attack I ordered our entire army reserve, navy, and air force to ready status. At this moment they are converging in Rotterdam to prepare for deployment to and armed engagement with the nation of Mauritania. Their objective: find and destroy any who would plot harm against us or our allies. We will hunt them, we will find them, and we will put them to justice.
At this time I wish you all to lend your prayers to our armed forces and the families of those who lost their lives today.
God bless you all. Good night.
[BREAK TRANSCRIPT]
Flarecobra
12-31-2009, 02:45 AM
Dunno which is more fitting...
http://i31.tinypic.com/i27biw.jpg
Or
http://i31.tinypic.com/6z7otk.jpg
Wigmund
12-31-2009, 03:05 AM
I don't think we'll even have to bring tanks, most of Mauritania's population are nomads and the largest city has about 800,000 people in it. So unless they have some big shit hidden in the sands, the 3rd Dutch Schoolboys Brigade should be able to handle this invasion.
http://www.digalist.com/up/0722/013549.jpg
Go get them lads! Make the homeland proud!
Flarecobra
12-31-2009, 03:20 AM
But what if someone tries to move in while we're moving in? Have to let them know we mean business.
Oh, and about Finland...
Remember this. (http://i32.tinypic.com/5ouvrt.jpg)
Karrrrrrrrrrrresche
12-31-2009, 09:37 AM
But what if someone tries to move in while we're moving in? Have to let them know we mean business.
Oh, and about Finland...
Remember this. (http://i32.tinypic.com/5ouvrt.jpg)
Unless their leaders name is Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, we're fine.
Geminex
12-31-2009, 10:01 AM
Seriously, it's common sense that combat prowess rises exponentially with length of name. He probably killed all those guys himself, with a name like that.
Anyway, in character:
Excellent... Mr. President. Our proud nation's first true combat operation, executed with cunning, deceit, and strength. Let us hope it pays off...
I guess the question on all our minds is... what next? Once we have taken those poor dupes, do we consolidate, or expand? When will the western coast be ours?
An expansion towards Senegal might be advisable... though possibly diplomatically unfeasible. We wouldn't want to annoy our neighbors...
Sir Pinkleton
12-31-2009, 05:50 PM
So, the plan is to take Mauritania, and then to make NATO hate Norway more? And then to invade Norway? Or are we going to try and secure more of West Africa before that?
Flarecobra
12-31-2009, 05:59 PM
You mean Finland?
Geminex
12-31-2009, 07:24 PM
Well, our army's in west africa already, me might as well finish off our work there and then return home to take Finland, Sweden and Norway.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
12-31-2009, 07:26 PM
What does Maurtiana have anyway?
Geminex
12-31-2009, 08:57 PM
It's a staging area, primarily, I think. I'm not sure about the resources, but I'm guessing mining industries.
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 10:09 AM
November 30, 2009
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/SP38-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp40.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp41.jpg
At 1600 hours on April 30th, mere weeks after the attack on our nation, our forces made landfall at Nouakchott, Mauritania's capital city. By May 6th, we had complete control of the country. The battle could almost be considered a joke, were it not for the brave souls we lost in its midst. What's more, we were given full support of our operation by the entire world.
Our troops are currently in a state of occupation, working day and night to keep supply lines open and crush any residual opposition. We have placed operatives in key positions to give us ample access to their (anemic) resource supply.
OOC: Okay, so now that we have a foothold, I tried what Geminex suggested and invaded Senegal just to see what would happen. We took them easily, though the war took about two months to complete, what with Senegal's guerilla tactics. I chased them up and down the coast. When they were dislodged from their home country, they ran and hid in Mauritania. This game of chicken didn't last long, as our death squads managed to hunt the last of them down. We also lost four naval vessels in the initial invasion, but still maintain the 24th ranked navy.
The only thing, our diplomatic relations with the world dropped drastically after the attack on Senegal. We hold an unfavorable rating with 2/3 of the world, but lost no treaties or allies, which is very positive. It means that the attack brought them to the very edge of their friendship, but didn't break it.
It's up to you guys whether you want to stay in Mauritania and set up base camp until we can garner more of a sympathy vote, or just go ahead with the Senegal invasion save file. Here's what it would look like:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp42.jpg
If we do it that way, there's a chance a neighboring nation might do some covert ops of their own on us. That would make it easier to continue our invasion into Africa, but it's up to you.
Solid Snake
01-01-2010, 10:23 AM
...I really should buy this game, shouldn't I?
...Too bad it apparently costs over $150 now.
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 10:27 AM
On eBay I saw copies being sold anywhere from $4 to $24. Here's one of them. (http://cgi.ebay.com/SUPERPOWER-2-PC-GAMES-2004-WITH-DISPLAY-BOX-MANUAL_W0QQitemZ260524983475QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVid eo_Games_Games?hash=item3ca87fc4b3)
Before you buy it, just be aware it is heavy on the micromanagement and can get very tedious. In a way, this LP might be making it sound like it's more fun than it actually is. Although, if you're into graphs and charts and numbers, you might get a kick out of it. I'd suggest reading some reviews.
Flarecobra
01-01-2010, 11:59 AM
Hmmmm...Perhaps we should hold tight there, secure our holdings, and let the world get over it.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-01-2010, 01:26 PM
Can't we spin this in saying that Senegal was aiding Maurtiana during the "terrorist attacks"
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 01:44 PM
To do that we would've had to have spent more time doing attacks on ourselves or others and framing Senegal. There is no direct way in the game to make excuses or explanations to other countries. And if we do that for every country we invade, eventually the AI will catch on, if it hasn't already.
In other news, most troops have returned home and our intelligence services remain on high alert.
Oh, and how would everyone feel about building a few destroyers so we have access to offshore bombardments if needed? They might be a little pricey, but doing this coast war like we are I think it would be worth it.
Sifright
01-01-2010, 01:59 PM
Any chance of an update on our economic situation hows the budget looking (I need the relevant information before I say yes or no ^^)
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 02:31 PM
You ask, I deliver.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/budget1130.jpg
Figured I'd take the liberty of pushing a $10 billion stimulus towards the environment, education, telecom, and infrastructure sectors. Our population has grown by 300,000 since we took office, so we'll either need to figure out some way to reduce the population or increase jobs (possibly through the closing of our borders or limiting the number of children per household). Our debt is also increasing by about $188 million/month and I'm trying desperately to hold inflation steady, but at this rate, the interest rate will just continue to rise. I'm very resistant to upping the tax rate above 50%.
Also, we need a design for our destroyer.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/blueprint.jpg
The small blue dots are what levels of research we have completed so far in each area. If I max all of them out, that destroyer would cost about $1,600,000,000 each to build. If you change the design from a level 6 rating in one of the areas to level 5, that decreases the cost by $100 million. Changing from a 5 to a 4 decreases it by $50 million, and so on down the line, decreasing by about 50% per level, just to give you an idea of how it works.
Right now we don't need much, just something that can move and fire. We also need a name and a color.
Karrrrrrrrrrrresche
01-01-2010, 03:47 PM
Also, we need a design for our destroyer.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/blueprint.jpg
The small blue dots are what levels of research we have completed so far in each area. If I max all of them out, that destroyer would cost about $1,600,000,000 each to build. If you change the design from a level 6 rating in one of the areas to level 5, that decreases the cost by $100 million. Changing from a 5 to a 4 decreases it by $50 million, and so on down the line, decreasing by about 50% per level, just to give you an idea of how it works.
Right now we don't need much, just something that can move and fire. We also need a name and a color.
No sensors, or any missile thing.
Armor to half.
Guns all max.
Speed max.
Counter measures to half.
Flarecobra
01-01-2010, 04:49 PM
The Pillar of Oster lives?
Course, that was designed to be every ship EVER...
Hmmm... How about the Van Speijk?
Sifright
01-01-2010, 05:46 PM
Ok assuming we are not going to go to war any more for a few years I would suggest pooling money into tourism on the budget so that we can grow our income from that prehaps we should pare down health care spending as well to help ease the budget burden that will also help us remove the extra population burden.
I think we need to go for minimalist healthcare spending and prehaps education spending we need to shrink our national debt as it stands we are losing budget money to the debt and the situation looks like it will only get worse so slashing spending looks to be the best option.
We are also losing 5B a year in trade any idea whats causing this and if it can be rectified?
Ravashak
01-01-2010, 06:08 PM
Hmmm... How about the Van Speijk?So the doctrine will be to, instead of surrender, the captain is to blow up one's own ship?
Flarecobra
01-01-2010, 06:20 PM
No, fight until you run outta ammo. Then ram the enemy, then blow it up. :P
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 07:09 PM
March 3, 2015
Way way too much happened in these six years for me to possibly hope to RP in this post, so here comes a condensed summary.
-July 10th, 2010 - The U.S. finally withdraws half its troops from Iraq.
-We landed an economic partnership with the U.S. and Romania, giving us needed vegetables and fruit.
-Ukraine and Russia signed an arms agreement which, years later, led to an alliance.
-(This one came before I saw Sifright's post, I will be making the changes to healthcare spending) In an effort to get rid of our excess population, I closed our borders to immigration and limited the number of children per family. I called this the "GTFO Act of 2012". Eventually, after I set the interest rate at 40% and the inflation rate went from 4.4% to a stable 3%, I opened the borders back up and lifted the limit. We are still in a nosedive, with a deficit of $90 billion and debt of over $600 billion.
-September 30th, 2011 - Slovakia declares war on Tonga.....then quickly signs a cease fire. Presumably because Slovakia discovered that they are, in fact, a landlocked country.
-I let the private sector take control of the fossil fuel, electricity, vegetables and fruit resources after they post higher than expected gains and no longer need our support to bring in income.
-The United Arab Emirates began researching missile defense...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp47.jpg
...and the world flipped a shit.
Maybe they had good reason to go through with their research, what with the entire world just waiting for a reason to puree them. I noticed before this happened that they weren't on very good terms with anyone except the Saudis, but I didn't realize increasing defense equated to killing someone's family. That list goes on for about fifty more countries, and keeps growing, and has been going on now for almost three years. Their government must be in tatters, I'm impressed at their resilience. Also in response to that, Brunei and Qatar began their own missile defense programs. Still, I'm waiting for the final straw. They could literally be going to war at any time. And it could be with anyone. In the diplomatic relations window, they are blood red with almost the entire planet. Except the Saudis. Damn Saudis.
But back to our situation. I think with this little distraction we have an opening for another attack. I did some research and found Gabon and the Congo to be the most resource rich (and vulnerable) nations left in Africa. We could go in and make another dual strike, hopefully without many noticing.
Sifright
01-01-2010, 07:18 PM
Well... that's just odd seeing as how every one hates the ARE why not try suggesting to nato they go to war with them? we join in an occupy as many territories as possible in the ensueing chaos?
Flarecobra
01-01-2010, 07:29 PM
...Wow.
What's our military standing right now, and locations?
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-01-2010, 07:33 PM
I like the idea of taking out the Congo and Gabon and try and aquire resources. Maybe have Maurtiana a target to give us leeway, or we have the troops in Maurtiana go after Gabon and Congo, if allowable.
Also, this is an odd one, but what are the laws like pertaining to gay marriage and marijuana?
Also, this is an odd one, but what are the laws like pertaining to gay marriage and marijuana?We legalized drugs at the outset of the game. Not sure about the other one though.
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 07:50 PM
...Wow.
What's our military standing right now, and locations?
It's about the same as it was when we invaded Mauritania. Not much has changed really.
Also, this is an odd one, but what are the laws like pertaining to gay marriage and marijuana?
As of right now gay marriage is illegal, and drugs in general are legal. We actually export them now. I've never actually found out what legalizing gay marriage does. It could have something to do with the birth rate, or just affect our approval rating.
I like the idea of having someone initiate a war with the UAE for us, but who should it be? I'm pretty sure any NATO country can take them out in one shot, then we can just move in. We're not quite capable of taking them by ourselves. Maybe have the U.S. do it, so that the mideast hates them even more and we can maybe get them taken out in the process.
Flarecobra
01-01-2010, 08:42 PM
I approve of that course of action.
Plus, with all that terratory....
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 09:23 PM
March 28, 2016
The threat from the mideast did nothing to hide it's presence, and only one thing was left to do...
Extinguish it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp52.jpg
Coerced by us, Israel's armies reached the shores of Sharjah in the northern UAE and met the full force of the Arabs in combat while their navies met in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia quickly joined in to back up their ally in a battle further south, towards the Arabian border. We didn't follow too far behind as our entire army snuck between the two battles unseen and took the region in between.
That's when our commanding officer recieved the call. Our navy had been engaged off the coast of Mauritania. The Saudis had sent everything they had...we wouldn't last long.
"They are lost," I radioed to the commander. "For them" was my order.
At that moment, the southern battle ended with an Israeli defeat. What was left of the Saudi army, mostly stragglers and the wounded, remained. The commander saw his chance to avenge his friends back home, now at the bottom of the Atlantic. He surged forward with the entirety of the Netherland army and engaged them in Dubai.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp50.jpg
It was never close. We steamrolled them without losing a single man...then turned our heads south. The army was left standing at the border, facing into Saudi Arabia itself, with only the garrison at the capital left in front of them. The objective was the defeat of the Emirates, but they were as of yet distracted. If we could just take out the rest of them, we would not only have the Emirates, but all of Saudi Arabia.
I ordered them to charge the capital, the opposing forces met just outside of Riyadh. A perfect match.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp53.jpg
It was bloody, but we came out victorious. However, we had only taken two regions when the word came on the wires...the war was over, the UAE and the Saudis had surrendered. We could go no further, or else risk a larger war. So we took our winnings and cashed out.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp54.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp55.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp56-1.jpg
I think we just created East and West Arabia. xD And thanks to Israel not letting go of the regions they took, we also have a North and South UAE.
Though, we lost our economic ties with Canada. Thank God no one put any embargos on us. And we were kicked out of NATO. I say good riddance. We're going to take them over eventually anyway.
Flarecobra
01-01-2010, 09:26 PM
Do we still have Mauritania, or did we lose it?
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 09:28 PM
We still have it, but our navy was taken out.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-01-2010, 09:56 PM
Fuck Canada (me saying that o_O), do we really need there ties?
/edit: How are we on renweable green fuel research?
Flarecobra
01-01-2010, 10:28 PM
Hmm...Guess we need to get cracking on our navy.
Bob The Mercenary
01-01-2010, 10:49 PM
October 10, 2017
Flare, after what I just witnessed...
We don't need no steenkeeng navy!
Hey Mac, remember how you suggested we get some markets opened with Venezuela?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp54-2.jpg
How's about we just take the country. I think that's easier.
Let me explain how this awesomeness happened. I was working on the budget when out of nowhere, Saudi Arabia declares war on us again. Mind you, they have no army. So I say, "okay fine" and proceed to walk into their country and take two more regions...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp55-2.jpg
After that, Venezuela declares war on me, seeing my land grab. I pause the game as I see them ready to deploy troops to Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and mainland Netherlands. I quickly called up the diplomatic relations window to see who hates them the most and might be able to give me a hand. The United States was at the top of the list.
They declared war on Venezuela and booted them out of our country while at the same time grabbing the half of SA that I didn't grab yet. It was hilarious, I was in a panic trying to occupy all the regions before the U.S. did while they did the same. They ended up getting this much of the pie.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp56-2.jpg
The U.S. took out the regiment that was going for our mainland, one portion of our army won a nailbiter in Mauritania (I was 100% sure it was a lost cause), and what was left of our troops in SA I sent to take over Venezuela itself because, having declared war on us, they left themselves wide open.
Now I think may be the time to rest and rebuild a bit. Maybe allow our relations to thaw some. We've made ridiculous gains today.
[Edit] I forgot to mention. During that madness a lot of countries made alliances. Finland and Sweden were two of them. This could be good for us, but it would mean instead of trying to take them over, we should get friendly with them, hopefully friendly enough to get in on the alliance.
The other alliances were Mali/Guatamala, Romania/Belarus, and Hungary/Slovenia.
Wigmund
01-01-2010, 11:34 PM
I guess at this point we need to start reclaiming the old colonies in the Caribbean along with Suriname and Guyana.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-02-2010, 12:16 AM
We have Venezuala and Saudi Arabia, we have a a huge exporter of oil right now. What I would do for a suggestion is to ramp up the cost of oil as we have a near monopoly for sale to the international markets while we work on renewable green resources.
Wigmund
01-02-2010, 12:49 AM
Considering how trigger-happy everyone seems to be, raising oil prices might be a very bad idea.
Eltargrim
01-02-2010, 01:02 AM
Alternatively, use the oil to raise our international standing; nothing makes friends like cheap oil; make them want to get it from us, and then they'll ignore our...indiscretions.
Flarecobra
01-02-2010, 01:10 AM
Yeah, it's time to rest, rebuild, and recover. Let us solidify our holdings, and rebuild our navy.
Geminex
01-02-2010, 01:17 AM
This is excellent!
Not just the land gains, but look at those staging areas! And all of them in oil-rich regions!
God, had I known something like this was possible, I would have suggested it much sooner...
Pity about our navy, but we can rebuild that when we're economically stable. I'd definetly advise that we let our holdings in South America and the middle east remian constant right now. Consolidate, fortify. Right now, we should focus all of our resources on continuing in South Africa. See if you can't do the whole covert shmick which we screwed mauritius over with again- Only this time do it for all of Africa's west coast. It's ok if it takes a while, we can use that time to reinforce our ground army.
And why the hell is propaganda so high? Can't you cut that in half and put whatever's left into education?
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-02-2010, 02:04 AM
Considering how trigger-happy everyone seems to be, raising oil prices might be a very bad idea.
Not at the outset, but we increase it slowly over time while the world is in the middle of a Mexican standoff. Once a starts shooting b and c decides to invade, they'll be forced to by our high oil.
I say when given the chance, once we are strong enough, take on Canada, starting in Newfoundland and grab the Hibernia Off-Shore Oil platform >=D
Bob The Mercenary
01-03-2010, 12:52 AM
The world just went through some big changes, that's why everything is spoilered. There's lots and lots of screenshots.
We finally signed cease fires with both Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but that was far from the end of the war. Problems began when India of all people declared war on us. Their troops were dispatched to all of our holdings.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp60.jpg
We were doomed unless I did something. Oh no, who ever will come and save us...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp61.jpg
Yay! The Americans are here! They took no time in storming India's mainland and staving off at least some of their invasion forces.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp62.jpg
While we abandoned Mauritania and snuck in to take some Indian goodness...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp63.jpg
This is what we managed to steal in the insanity. You'll see off to the left we lost some of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to India.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp64.jpg
We also lost the coast of Venezuela.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp65.jpg
Aaaaaand some of Mauritania.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp66.jpg
India had 65 allies fighting alongside them against the U.S. Then for some reason, the U.S. went balls to the wall and declared war on Serbia and it's 35 allies, making this war the United States vs 100 countries or about half the planet.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp68.jpg
Yeah. You don't fuck with a country that's crazy enough to do that.
At one point, during the initial invasion of India, the U.S. had 200,000 of its units against 1,500,000 units from 65 different countries...and somehow won...then just for good measure took their still #1 ranked navy and drifted over to South America, taking out most of their navies. Then they went back over to Indonesia and finished their navy. They even floated to the arctic circle north of Russia to take on Turkey and Tunisia's navies.
Bad. Ass.
On October 31st, 2018, the U.S. signed a cease fire with Serbia, eliminating 35 countries from the war. They were in the straight just south of Saudi Arabia for what seemed like years, as every fucking nation on the planet sent their navies in swarms, 300-style, being taken out one by one.
On April 10th, 2019, Japan declared war on Venezuela and took over the coast that we had lost. On October 5th, 2019, they signed a cease fire.
Other things of note:
-Germany allied with Spain
-Denmark allied with Hungary
-Japan allied with Ukraine, meaning they are now allied with Russia by proxy
-Greece allied with Germany
-Latvia allied with Moldova
-Colombia allied with Liberia
-The USA, India, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Papau New Guinea, Phillippines, Singapore, Slovakia, Australia, Mexico, Albania, Belarus and about a dozen other random ass countries researched missile defense.
-Slovakia declared war on the UAE -_- Can someone seriously educate these people that they can't go to war with nations they can't a) physically reach b) physically occupy or c) even compete with?
The war is still "on" as much as India being a smoldering crater and the ocean being filled with scrap metal and blood can be described as "on". It just isn't officially over yet. And after all that, the US still has the #1 navy.
I'll just let that all sink in.
Solid Snake
01-03-2010, 01:46 AM
Well, it seems like the programmer of this game has some secret Neocon ties. Wouldn't be surprised to learn Dick Cheney had a hand in Superpower 2's creation process.
Still, it seems like your empire's crumbling a bit at the scenes -- it looks increasingly spread out and piecemeal. I wish instead of spreading out on so many regions, we could concentrate on solidifying power in just one region and ensure we kept opposing forces out. As is, it just seems like trying to hold all your possessions has resulted to all of them being equally vulnerable.
To me, Venezula's close proximity to the United States (a close ally at this juncture that you do not, Neocon jokes aside, want to fuck around with right now) makes South America the least attractive region. Not that it seems like this game follows actual real-world political strategies, but allowing historical realism to seep through, we shouldn't portray ourselves as a threat to the U.S' beloved Monroe Doctrine. Besides, I imagine South America is the most distant territory to latch onto.
I prefer a North Africa strategy. Our meddling in North African regions seems to offend other countries the least, it's furthest from United States possessions, it's closest to the Netherlands, African countries can be gradually picked off with minimal casualties, and we can develop what we conquer. (Note: I've never actually played Superpower 2, so forgive me if all my assumptions are completely and utterly wrong.) In the end it's not my choice, but that's my two cents on the matter. If we slowly but surely built up Northern Africa to be an impenetrable fortress, we'd have an ideal staging ground for a double-pronged invasion of Mediterranean Europe, and the United States would be too busy worrying about enforcing its territory in Iraq and India to give a damn.
Can we trade territories for favors / increased relations / alliances? If so I'd consider outright "giving" the United States Venezuelan and/or maybe even Saudi Arabian territories in exchange for tons of financial and diplomatic support. At this point being the U.S.' lapdog may not be such a bad thing -- the apprentice can eventually betray the master, but for now, playing Darth Vader to the United States' Emperor would at least make for an exciting experience (and who the hell is going to fuck with the Netherlands if the threat of war against the U.S. runs implicit?)
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-03-2010, 01:48 AM
Wow.
I mean jesus christ what the fuck?
Flarecobra
01-03-2010, 03:30 AM
Um...World War 3 anyone?
Bob The Mercenary
01-03-2010, 12:13 PM
And why the hell is propaganda so high? Can't you cut that in half and put whatever's left into education?
With all that's going on, we need at least some funding in propaganda so our population doesn't turn on us. It's what's been keeping our approval rating from imploding.
Well, it seems like the programmer of this game has some secret Neocon ties. Wouldn't be surprised to learn Dick Cheney had a hand in Superpower 2's creation process.
Believe it or not, it's actually 100% Canadian developed.
I prefer a North Africa strategy. Our meddling in North African regions seems to offend other countries the least, it's furthest from United States possessions, it's closest to the Netherlands, African countries can be gradually picked off with minimal casualties, and we can develop what we conquer. (Note: I've never actually played Superpower 2, so forgive me if all my assumptions are completely and utterly wrong.) In the end it's not my choice, but that's my two cents on the matter. If we slowly but surely built up Northern Africa to be an impenetrable fortress, we'd have an ideal staging ground for a double-pronged invasion of Mediterranean Europe, and the United States would be too busy worrying about enforcing its territory in Iraq and India to give a damn.
Can we trade territories for favors / increased relations / alliances? If so I'd consider outright "giving" the United States Venezuelan and/or maybe even Saudi Arabian territories in exchange for tons of financial and diplomatic support. At this point being the U.S.' lapdog may not be such a bad thing -- the apprentice can eventually betray the master, but for now, playing Darth Vader to the United States' Emperor would at least make for an exciting experience (and who the hell is going to fuck with the Netherlands if the threat of war against the U.S. runs implicit?)
I tend to agree with everything you just said. Except to give regions away we have to first annex the region into our nation, which could take some time. Especially since the world seems to loathe our very existence right now. But, I'm all for being the U.S.' lacky if it means momentary invulnerability.
Once we have the regions under our control, it really wouldn't take much giving to get people back on our side. I estimate we can get three, maybe four countries allied with us for those regions. And if we're lucky, some debt assumption. I've also drastically increased our foreign aid to get our relations going in the right direction again. We managed to get out of the war, but the U.S. is still formally engaged.
[Edit]
I guess at this point we need to start reclaiming the old colonies in the Caribbean along with Suriname and Guyana.
We can also eventually get started on that.
Dracorion
01-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Although the question arises of how in hell are we going to become a power comparable to the US and still be on their good side.
Maybe we can build ourselves to be not as powerful as them but still pretty powerful, and allow one or two other countries to get powerful as well but not as powerful as us. Then we ally with them against the US. And then we conquer those countries.
Ravashak
01-03-2010, 12:56 PM
I didn't pay that close attention to the map, but the ABC (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao) and SSS (Saba, St. Maarten (think this was the one that's half french), St. Eustatius) islands aren't part of the state? (or are they too insignificant to be on the world map xP)
Melfice
01-03-2010, 01:20 PM
I didn't pay that close attention to the map, but the ABC (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao) and SSS (Saba, St. Maarten (think this was the one that's half french), St. Eustatius) islands aren't part of the state? (or are they too insignificant to be on the world map xP)
I would assume option 2, because I'm sure Bob would have noticed them.
Though, it's not like they actually contribute to much of the Netherlands' worth.
Perhaps in the drugs-supply chain we've got going, but beyond that? :P
How do we look imports/exports-wise? In order to gain some ground in that Sweden/Finland alliance, I'd propose maybe a free-trade deal with them since they are close and it won't cost us much to ship crap to them. Since we got booted from NATO, I'm willing to be a little vindictive and up the tariffs on their goods a bit to cover the loss.
As for our new "colonies," I support the idea to build them up and consolidate power as opposed to running rampant throughout the globe grabbing things we can't hold onto long enough to draw a profit.
Wigmund
01-03-2010, 07:40 PM
We can also eventually get started on that.
That was before the world went apeshit.
I agree with everyone else that we to consolidate what we hold right now and then start plotting again. Hopefully by that time our favorability rating should have edged back up with everyone else.
Solid Snake
01-03-2010, 07:55 PM
We managed to get out of the war, but the U.S. is still formally engaged.
First off: I'd forget about Caribbean conquests for now (unless you really do control the ABCs or whatever the hell those tiny islands are, in which case you'd have something of a staging ground.) Again, anything in the New World is too close to the United States for comfort. If the US were ever to declare war, you wouldn't have time to quickly flesh out a peace treaty before an invasion likely sacked everything you possessed near the United States. On the flip side, holdings in North Africa may well remain secure just long enough for you to make any concessions necessary to keep the US from kicking your ass before you actually have the resources to level the playing field.
In the meantime, however, the comment I've quoted has conjured another idea in my mind for a potential strategy: could we utilize covert operations to keep the United States in this conflict, forcing them to steadily drain resources and spread out into disparate territory? This would gradually weaken the United States and siphon its ability to deploy military forces elsewhere. We should consider using faked terrorist attacks to prevent any possibility of a ceasefire agreement anytime soon, while encouraging the US to take faroff territories. One idea, for example, would be to fake a New Zealand terrorist attack on the US, just to force the US to declare war on New Zealand, invade one of the furthest, isolated countries on the map, and station military forces there.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-03-2010, 07:59 PM
New Zealand? The land of Lord of the Rings and Flight of the Concords? Nuuuuuu.
In seriousness, that could be feasible, but aht about Australia and Oceania region. They are still relatively close.
Geminex
01-04-2010, 03:26 AM
In regards to giving up our territories in other places: Hell no. I'm not sure what strategy you're pushing right now, but if it's oil then you really, really want to hold on to Saudi Arabia. You can give them our South American holdings if you must (if we ever get around to annexing them), but I'd recommend to keep and consolidate what we have. It's not worth much, but as far as staging areas go, it'll be invaluable later. Admittedly, what we hold of India might be worth quite a lot, should we gift-wrap it and present it to the nato, so that could be one option. Alternately, could we give what we own of the Indian main land back to India, in return for whatever parts of Africa they took?
The problem with getting the US involved in more wars is that it probably wouldn't hurt them too much, while giving them more and more territory. Yes, it'll be draining to hold that territory, and it'll weaken them, but it then belongs to THEM. Meaning that eventually, we'll have a map where every country is either highly developed or belongs to the US.
Maybe not that drastic, but my point is that our strategy consists of picking off smaller, valuable countries off 1-by-1, and it'd be mildly annoying to have the US get there before us, so to speak.
Besides, I thought we needed our covert forces to focus on taking the rest of the African West Coast? We can go for North Africa afterwards, but I don't think they're very resource-rich, and Europe might get anxious if we were to turn our attention there.
I agree to the Free-trade-area with Sweden and Finland, though it'll get in the way of us taking them and their oil later.
So, to sum it all up:
1: Consolidate
2: Focus covert, diplomatic, economic and military resources on taking the rest of Western African coast.
3: Use leverage which we'll hopefully have to clear the way for taking the rest of the middle east.
But that's what I've been preaching for a while now... -.-
How's our military? What casualties did we take?
Ravashak
01-04-2010, 05:28 AM
Are there means to weaken the USA, without taking a huge risk of them squashing us like bugs, or them recreating a British Empire-size emperium? Preferably weakened to the point that they can be conquered by a coalition of other nations.
Because, well, being a lapdog is sort of safe at the start, i guess, but that doesn't mean we should stop aiming to be more important than we are now.
Other point, do Sweden and Finland have oil as well? Thought that was a Norwegian thing.
P-Sleazy
01-04-2010, 01:35 PM
Just out of curiosity, what have you done with your interest rates during this entire 20 year time period?
Bob The Mercenary
01-04-2010, 08:23 PM
I would assume option 2, because I'm sure Bob would have noticed them.
Though, it's not like they actually contribute to much of the Netherlands' worth.
That is correct sir!
In the meantime, however, the comment I've quoted has conjured another idea in my mind for a potential strategy: could we utilize covert operations to keep the United States in this conflict, forcing them to steadily drain resources and spread out into disparate territory? This would gradually weaken the United States and siphon its ability to deploy military forces elsewhere. We should consider using faked terrorist attacks to prevent any possibility of a ceasefire agreement anytime soon, while encouraging the US to take faroff territories. One idea, for example, would be to fake a New Zealand terrorist attack on the US, just to force the US to declare war on New Zealand, invade one of the furthest, isolated countries on the map, and station military forces there
Or we could just make them go to war with anyone we want at gunpoint (like Russia if you want some fireworks). This game has a couple very very cheap exploits built in that they never fixed, or just couldn't fix without breaking the game. One being that, as long as the relations are bad enough between two countries, you can get them to declare war on anyone with a simple "request war declaration" treaty. I've started many a WWIII through this exploit, just frame someone with enough terrorism, then request war.
Or...if you want to get the world really pissed, just force them to annex the regions they inhabit. It would be United States vs 190 countries.
Another common exploit is taking government control of every resource and changing your government type to socialist. Somehow some way this always manages to bring a disparate country out of the money pit. The only thing, it doesn't usually work on countries that are okay to begin with. Like if you tried it in the U.S. your population would flip out.
The only reason I haven't used either of these is that I would like some semblance of realism. But, if you want me to force the U.S. to reduce itself to a parking lot, by god I'll do it.
In regards to giving up our territories in other places: Hell no. I'm not sure what strategy you're pushing right now, but if it's oil then you really, really want to hold on to Saudi Arabia. You can give them our South American holdings if you must (if we ever get around to annexing them), but I'd recommend to keep and consolidate what we have. It's not worth much, but as far as staging areas go, it'll be invaluable later. Admittedly, what we hold of India might be worth quite a lot, should we gift-wrap it and present it to the nato, so that could be one option. Alternately, could we give what we own of the Indian main land back to India, in return for whatever parts of Africa they took?
The problem with getting the US involved in more wars is that it probably wouldn't hurt them too much, while giving them more and more territory. Yes, it'll be draining to hold that territory, and it'll weaken them, but it then belongs to THEM. Meaning that eventually, we'll have a map where every country is either highly developed or belongs to the US.
As far as trading regions to India in return for regions they took from us. Actually, when they invaded Mauritania, Mauritania reassumed possession of those territories. Though, if we simply signed a "free region" treaty, that would get us on very good terms with India, who currently has no army or navy. In my opinion, I like the idea of annexing as much as possible, then much later trading useless regions for alliances and the like. We'll annex them, then see how it effects our economy. Then we'll make a decision as to give them away or use and abuse them.
How do we look imports/exports-wise? In order to gain some ground in that Sweden/Finland alliance, I'd propose maybe a free-trade deal with them since they are close and it won't cost us much to ship crap to them. Since we got booted from NATO, I'm willing to be a little vindictive and up the tariffs on their goods a bit to cover the loss.
I'll get to work on this right away. Might be a while before they sign anything with us though. I do like being a member of a trade federation close to home along with a possible alliance.
How's our military? What casualties did we take?
6478 troops, 109th in the world
1086 armored, 58th in the world
Air force and navy were both completely destroyed.
Just out of curiosity, what have you done with your interest rates during this entire 20 year time period?
Interest rate now stands at 50% with a 90% income tax.
Yeah, it's hard times.
[Edit] And our national debt just broke $1 trillion.
Bob The Mercenary
01-04-2010, 09:11 PM
October 30th, 2023
The USA finally signed a cease fire and ended this bloody war, but not without first watching with disdain as India produced a single patrol boat...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp61-1.jpg
...which was promptly destroyed.
I began the process of rebuilding and managing our tattered nation, leading me to the resource screen where I noticed something odd.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp60-1.jpg
Our people were hopelessly addicted to tobacco, yet we weren't importing or producing any of it. It was costing us $1.5 billion in, what I can only assume to be rehab sessions...or Nicoret. I remedied the situation by making all tobacco products illegal until we can find a proper source of...tobacco products. But you can still smoke a doobie! We're one of the leading producers of them!
I tried some practice saves where I annexed each territory we owned and saw what their effect on our economy and world relations was. If we annex India, our economy goes virtually bankrupt, so I would recommend either signing a free region treaty, or using that as primarily a staging area. We can safely annex Venezuela, the third of the UAE we own, and the center third of Saudi Arabia. These three combined cut our deficit in half and it continues to fall, we are still only at 100% resources (we could go up higher, when I took over the world I had something like 9875525642385%, I was making bank), but at least I'm not getting warnings anymore every couple minutes saying that I might lose the game at any second because my spending is out of control.
We are also friendly with NATO again, though not nearly enough to re-enter, I doubt we'll ever be able to do that. Half of Africa and Asia hate our guts, but they won't bother us for now.
Geminex
01-04-2010, 09:47 PM
Nice! In that case, I say we do what you've already done and Annex Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and UAE.
I know we shouldn't even be thinking of military endeavors yet, but what's the situation of the nations on the African West Coast, down to Nigeria? Just whether we could beat them (in sequence)?
Unless we're excessively desperate, I wouldn't use any of the game-breaking you've mentioned...
Oh, and where are our covert forces engaged?
How did we manage 1 trillion in debt? Even over 23 years, that's a bit much for a nation like us... Then again, we conquer across oceans, so whatever.
I don't know what financial advice to give you... I'm not sure of the situation.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-04-2010, 09:52 PM
Keep tobacco Illegal. We gotta some how trim that debt.
Bob The Mercenary
01-04-2010, 10:03 PM
How did we manage 1 trillion in debt?
For every month we have a deficit, a certain percentage gets added onto our debt. Take a $30-60 billion deficit over 22 years, and I guess that's what you get. Although I did spend some on stimuli to different resources along the way to keep them in the green.
Keep tobacco Illegal. We gotta some how trim that debt.
Will do, though when we annexed Venezeula we seemed to have hit a patch of it. Nothing earth shattering. It maybe covers 1/15 of our consumption.
Geminex
01-04-2010, 11:12 PM
Perhaps skyrocket the tobacco tax? Just enough to reduce consumption to what we get from Venezuela?
And how can we best make our population like us without spending obscene amounts of money?
P-Sleazy
01-04-2010, 11:28 PM
Reduce income taxes by 3%. people love reductions in taxes! Alternatively, you could also decrease the interest rate. People love lower interest rates. It allows them to buy new homes!
Perhaps skyrocket the tobacco tax? Just enough to reduce consumption to what we get from Venezuela?No, that's silly talk. We're getting our people clean of the stuff. Turn that Tobacco into a serious export to places like America, China, and France. A dealer doesn't make money using his own stock, even at a high tax.
Bob The Mercenary
01-05-2010, 12:29 AM
January 1, 2028
What other way to celebrate the new year than with some war!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp75.jpg
Yup, they're at it again. This time with Zimbabwe and their 34 allies, including Russia and Pakistan. All of this was just another attempt for the U.S. to show off its naval superiority one more time against anyone with something that still floats. The war wasn't much of a contest and hey is that a nuclear sub?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp76.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp77.jpg
The U.S. and Russia played chicken with their subs for honestly, like, three years straight. The entire war was "U.S. moves fleet to South America, Russia moves fleet to India, U.S. moves fleet to India, Russia moves fleet to South America, over and over and over and over...they could never reach a point simultaneously so the war ended with only saber rattling between the two powers. Unfortunately, the business never got out of control.
http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bloghuntoctober_4.jpg
"One ping please."
I did get a lot done in terms of treaties though. We got new economic partnerships with Ireland, Hungary, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Spain, and the UK. We even nailed common markets with France, Italy, Canada, Greece, and Hungary. So I guess we're back in business. I also lowered the tax rate by 3% as suggested and released India back to India because it was honestly worth nothing to us.
And I annexed Mauritania, which really didn't do much of anything. Just gave us a new military playground. Out of our next possible targets I say we go for the Congo. Highest concentration of resources, easiest match for us.
Flarecobra
01-05-2010, 12:47 AM
How far along is the military recovery?
Geminex
01-05-2010, 12:52 AM
Congo, fair enough. As long as we get around to Nigeria eventually.
Is 3% really gonna make that much of an impact, considering that we're at 90% income tax?
Bob The Mercenary
01-05-2010, 01:15 AM
Military recovery I haven't even started yet because we have no money to support one. The one we have right now is enough to take the Congo, maybe after we get some income from there we can rebuild our forces.
We'll get to Nigeria, but right now they would squish us. And I only did 3% because that's what B_real said, and it did actually give us 1 percentage point on our approval rating. Just to mess around I tried lowering it down to 30%. The game immediately ended and claimed we fell into economic ruin. So...yeah, keeping it up there for a while.
Solid Snake
01-05-2010, 01:33 AM
I may be overreacting regarding your debt load, but I'm honestly worried enough that I may encourage you simply to consider backing off from invasions entirely and concentrating exclusively on righting that ship. If invading the Congo severs additional trade agreements, alliances or other diplomatic relationships, we'd just be digging ourselves a bigger grave. Now that Mauritania is a part of our empire, improving their lagging infrastructure and education so their citizens can work better jobs and pay extra taxes may help.
Geminex
01-05-2010, 06:17 AM
That might not be a bad idea, actually. I mean, elements of our empire can function without draining us financially (e.g. covert), and now that we have some resources at our disposal we possibly could work off that load. Snake's right, 1 trillion does seem a bit much, and 90% income tax must be screwing our economy so hard, its small intestine should be running out of its ears right now.
Assuming a 10-year time-frame, if we stopped any offensive military activity, how much money could we stick into lowering that debt and decreasing our income tax? Complete military abstinence, minimize spending. Then maybe follow that up with a 5-year stint wherein we build up the infrastructure of conquered regions.
Of course, the resources we'd get out of conquering Congo might make that 10-year period even more fruitfull
Flarecobra
01-05-2010, 11:49 AM
Agreed on the military part. Maintain enough to be able to defend ourselves for now, make some popcorn, and just watch the world go to hell in a handbasket.
And be ready to swoop in to gather the spoils. :D
Bob The Mercenary
01-06-2010, 11:50 PM
May 26, 2029
Our attempt at economic recovery continues. After some minor bickering and smoke-filled backroom deals, we finally got a common market with Ireland, Denmark, and Poland, the three closest friends we have right now and our best shot at allies. Along with that I secured economic partnerships with Germany, Spain, UK, Poland, and Denmark. And...would you look at that...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/aid.jpg
The Brits loosened their belts a little bit and threw some money our way. Due to our good behavior (not invading anyone) they have agreed to pay for 10% of our resource consumption, slowing our decline into economic oblivion.
On that topic, we are still in a nosedive. And I have no idea what's causing it. I tried something called the "global tax modificator (not a typo)" which applies a tax to all resource exports. It's another known exploit to set this to 100%. I tried it and it took us from a deficit of $98 billion to a surplus of $117 billion. That only lasted for so long though, as we quickly lost all of its effects and our budget once again dropped into the red.
I am at a loss. I've tried increasing the tax rate, decreasing it, increasing/decreasing the interest rate, going through every resource manually and screwing with their tax rates... We are losing 1% of our population per year due to the laws I have in place. You would think that would cut costs. Some have suggested decreasing spending in different areas of the budget window (see the second post I made). I'm afraid to do that because decreasing spending in any of those will only lead to bad results. No government or infrastructure means no stability and massive corruption. No education means no jobs. No environment means no resources. We only lower those sliders when we are absolutely on the verge of going bankrupt.
The only solution I can see working is...invading someone. I tried the Congo, but I think 30-something countries ended up kicking our ass. We need to do something drastic, therefore I turn to you, my think tank.
Gregness
01-07-2010, 03:18 AM
...We are losing 1% of our population per year due to the laws I have in place. You would think that would cut costs...
What if you tried the opposite? Change whatever laws we need to change to get people immigrating/giving birth/whatever so we can get some new taxpayers.
Geminex
01-07-2010, 04:39 AM
*Perks up*
Did somebody say... "we require drastic action"? You said that, didn't you? You're actually asking me for ideas pertaining to economic strategy and world domination that are so crazy that they just might work?
Yessss...
Mr. President, we will not disappoint you. Our progress in this world of weak alliances and petty skirmishes has been slow, faltering. No longer. Our ambitions have been hidden, our plans subtle. No longer. The world will rue the day they allowed the Netherlands to be backed into a corner.
Gentlemen, we're at an economic breaking point, have minimal military forces and are about as unpopular as is possible. Let's take over the world.
First proposal: Pull everything out of our African and South American properties, form a Coalition with the US and take over the Middle East. They'll be doing all the fighting, of course, but I'm sure we can get some oil-rich regions. I have a hunch that whatever we're spending on infrastructure in our properties could be screwing us over, but I don't know. Could we get a full economic breakdown of our situation?
Second proposal: Get together with Sweden and Finland to take Norway. They're close, they're developed, and if we use covert right we can not only justify our attack, but get them kicked out of the Nato before we do.
Not sure what else to do. Gimme the data, then we'll see.
Sir Pinkleton
01-07-2010, 11:56 PM
It is a little difficult to make any decisions, because we don't have the game ourselves. it could be something that you don't even notice, and if that's the case, then you aren't able to tell us that factoid for us to realize to fix it.
Regardless, for getting out of debt, I have a few ideas. First, are armies are mainly mercenary, right? We're not paying them annually, are we? because that could be a drain on the economy. We might as well strip ourselves of a few of them, only for the time being anyway.
Second, we need much more exports and much less imports. I think you've said that we're already basically this (I think you said we were self-sufficient?) nut if we can push it that much farther, it might do something.
Raise the prices on the oil we're selling, just a tad.
Really, we need to look at where all our money is presently going to, and cutting as much of that away as possible, and then make as much money as we can. can we get an updated look at our budget, in case it's different from the last time we saw it whenever ago?
Oh, last thing. the more trade aggreements with people, the better. eventually, we could get to the point where everyone who isn't sending money through us will be doing far worse off. Then, you can severe ties with a chosen country (justify it with terrorism), do our little dance, and then Muaratania the heck out of it. That's one idea to reaching power, anyway. An abundance of wealth.
Bob The Mercenary
01-08-2010, 09:21 PM
January 11, 2030
I found the problem! And it was much much easier to fix than I thought it would be.
First, I'll tell you what I tried (also why it took so long for me to get this post up). Sorry if I don't address everyone's posted suggestions. I outlawed abortion, contraception, and anything else that would inhibit our people from churning out babies. That just made the problem worse. I got new common markets with Russia, Ukraine, Portugal, the US and a few others. I also added on economic partnerships to some of those. All in all the treaties gave us a modest increase in resource production, but we were still losing cash at an alarming rate. I tried dropping every one of our budget sliders to zero so I could have enough of a surplus to lower the tax and interest rates to try to stimulate the economy that way. That, in a word, sucked.
For each of these I let the game progress several years into the future. When I found that absolutely nothing I tried worked, I got desperate and looked over our territories. A last ditch effort would have to be made to stop the bleeding and make at least some of our debt back. This effort would be in the form of selling regions. In doing so I found the issue.
Ladies and gentlemen our problems resided in a malignant tumor known as the United Arab Emirates.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp90.jpg
Since they were the smallest regions we owned I decided to gain some clout with the Americans and sell them off cheap, at just $300 billion a piece. At first I tried for more, but it was a hard sell. The Americans agreed and our debt was immediately cut from $1.6 trillion to a more manageable $700 billion. Then I noticed something else. Our deficit had gone from nearly $102 billion, down to $15 billion, and dropping. The upkeep of those three tiny regions must have been so damn high that it was sucking nearly $100 billion out of our treasury a month to support their environment, education, infrastructure...everything.
With just a little tweaking of the budget, and maybe some taxes applied to some resources (oil) we'll be back into a surplus and ready to rebuild our military.
In other news, Venezuela continues to get hit with terrorism and assassinations almost on a daily basis. What remains of them anyway, the coast that Japan is occupying.
And here is the current economic situation as requested:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp91.jpg
After the selloff, our relations with the United States skyrocketed. At which point I saw it logical to take this next course of action. I hope you're all happy.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp92.jpg
Flarecobra
01-08-2010, 09:38 PM
Well, from what I've seen (Dubai), UAE IS an expensive place....so it does make sense..
Karrrrrrrrrrrresche
01-08-2010, 10:04 PM
I do not like it at all good sir. Great empires can only be forged in the fires of adversity and conflict, not the gentle winds of peace.
We should declare war on them immediately.
Solid Snake
01-08-2010, 10:06 PM
Yeah, go ahead and declare war on the United States. See how long we last. =P
Bob The Mercenary
01-08-2010, 10:29 PM
Yeah...no. Especially since they just assumed our debt.
:)
Yup, we're officially out of debt and making money now! I'm working on some new designs for our army units as we speak. Also, I put our covert ops on vacation to save some cash for the time being.
Bob The Mercenary
01-08-2010, 11:17 PM
December 5, 2031
Our economy is booming right now. We have money coming out our ears. I have increased all our important budget sliders back to max for now. At this rate we'll be able to build our African invasion force in just about two-three years if we get the blueprints right. I also opened our borders and changed number of children per family to unlimited. Now, just as long as our new ally doesn't do anything stu...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp94.jpg
God damnit.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp95.jpg
Here we go again. They wasted no time in assaulting South America's newly built navies and sending them all to the bottom of the ocean. Russia once again began it's pursuit, but the war (like the last one) stayed exclusively to the ocean. In its midst, China also declared war on Venezuela, bombarding an area occupied by Japan, which shouldn't bode well for the future.
Also,
-South Korea allied with Japan
-Chile allied with Colombia and Liberia, I'm assuming to support their drug trade
-Belgium allied with Denmark
This is shaping up to be quite the showdoAUGH I'M HIT!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp96.jpg
I guess maybe aligning ourselves with an aggresively suicidal country wasn't such a good idea. We have also taken a failed assassination attempt from Tuvalu and the Central African Republic, and failed sabotages from Guinea in which we caught the saboteurs. They are now being probed for information...with extreme prejudice.
This is getting pretty heated, and if it continues like it did with the UAE and Venezuela, we have a whole mess of terrorism attempts about to come at us. And maybe even war. My honest suggestion, and we do have the money to do this, would be to begin researching nuclear weapons and developing our missiles. No one would attack us because they would have to face the U.S., and when our missiles are done they wouldn't touch us.
Unless you favor first building up our conventional forces.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-08-2010, 11:21 PM
Wouldn't that make us hated by the world though getting nukes?
Dracorion
01-08-2010, 11:22 PM
Who needs conventional forces when you've got the US as your ally? Nukes and missiles!
Also, if we're going to take all of Africa I suggest we start with Egypt.
EDIT: Wouldn't that make us hated by the world though getting nukes?
Maybe, but as you can see we're already pretty hated.
Solid Snake
01-08-2010, 11:26 PM
I think we should use our covert forces to deliberately goad China and Japan into war with each other. If China and Japan got many allies into both sides of the conflict, and if we stayed neutral in the massive cataclysmic warfare that ensued, we'd be in an ideal position to pick up the pieces.
In the meantime, I'm still a fan of Operation: transform West Africa into South Amsterdam.
Bob The Mercenary
01-08-2010, 11:55 PM
Today is a glorious day for our military, because today we roll out the next generation of ground units, aircraft, and naval vessels that our great nation has been so deprived of. The lineup includes:
-Geminex-I Infantry Vehicle
-TEV-I Tank
-Sifright-I Artillery Gun
-Dracorian Attack Helicopter
-MAC-I Fighter Aircraft
-HAWK-I Attack Aircraft
-Solid Snake Frigate
-Pillar of Oster Destroyer
-Gregness Aircraft Carrier
-Pinkleton Class Attack Submarine
-Flarecobra Ballistic Missile Submarine
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-08-2010, 11:59 PM
Today is a glorious day for our military, because today we roll out the next generation of ground units, aircraft, and naval vessels that our great nation has been so deprived of. The lineup includes:
-Geminex-I Infantry Vehicle
-TEV-I Tank
-Sifright-I Artillery Gun
-Dracorian Attack Helicopter
-MAC-I Fighter Aircraft
-HAWK-I Attack Aircraft
-Solid Snake Frigate
-Pillar of Oster Destroyer
-Gregness Aircraft Carrier
-Pinkleton Class Attack Submarine
-Flarecobra Ballistic Missile Submarine
Can we see these new glorious weapons =D
-TEV-I TankOn the one hand, this is awesome. On the other hand, this isn't a stealth tank.
Gregness
01-09-2010, 12:18 AM
Edit: first thing, WOOT an aircraft carrier!
Speaking of the economy, I know you said we're booming right now but I wonder if we still need so much spending into propaganda. I know we needed it back when we were actively expanding, but now that we're consolidating and the economy is churning maybe that's a place we can save some money.
Also, is our popular support rating broken down by region? That is, can we see hoe popular we are in venezuela and our african holdings to see how well the assimilation is progressing? I'd recommend we not do any expanding until we're sure we won't be facing some sort of insurrection (do they even have those in this?).
Bob The Mercenary
01-09-2010, 12:28 AM
Edit: first thing, WOOT an aircraft carrier!
Speaking of the economy, I know you said we're booming right now but I wonder if we still need so much spending into propaganda. I know we needed it back when we were actively expanding, but now that we're consolidating and the economy is churning maybe that's a place we can save some money.
Also, is our popular support rating broken down by region? That is, can we see hoe popular we are in venezuela and our african holdings to see how well the assimilation is progressing? I'd recommend we not do any expanding until we're sure we won't be facing some sort of insurrection (do they even have those in this?).
Our spending in propaganda right now is negligible compared to our income. I think we have $2 billion allocated to it while we have a $60 billion surplus. I halved the spending just for the heck of it though. Our approval ratcheted up after I maxed the budget out again so I doubt we'll be needing it for much longer anyway.
They do have insurrections, believe it or not. But, they can only happen if both your approval and stability are in the absolute tank. It never says you were overthrown, the game just kinda ends as if you had just lost an election. There is no breakdown per region. The approval rating is just an overall sort of thing.
[Edit] I think it's worth developing nukes because the game operates it like a secret weapons development program that only you know about until the first one goes off.
Sir Pinkleton
01-09-2010, 12:29 AM
Fuck yeah, Pinkleton Class Attack Submarine. I find it oddly fitting that I'm playing a 4e gnome who has his own sub. :)
Anywho, since you're already spending the max on stuff, I agree with idea of making people fight each other. Also, is there any defense against covert ops on our country? Because we'll need more of it, it sounds like.
So, stick with America, maybe not in fighting, but support them. Develop at least one nuke. Make China and Japan fight. Destabilize more of Africa and invade.
Flarecobra
01-09-2010, 01:49 AM
Anyone else find the irony in naming someone who's usually assocated with fire to a ship that travels under the water? :P
Anyway, force sizes? And I suggest getting Russia to attack China. See how that develops.
Bob The Mercenary
01-09-2010, 01:55 AM
August, 2032
The U.S. signs a cease fire with Zimbabwe. But...well...you know them.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp100.jpg
Another day another war. Odd timing on this one though. They stormed the beaches of Yemen and obliterated their defenses. This time Russia's navy did catch up to their's and managed to cut them in half before being completely destroyed themselves. Yet, the U.S. still retained the #1 navy in the world. But, this time the Russians also took the ground war to them.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp101.jpg
Russia's entire armed forces swooped down and demolished what was left of the U.S. forces from the previous wars. It was pathetic. Thankfully it stopped there and the American national guard in California was left alive.
On October 13, 2032, they signed a cease fire. Soon afterwards, China ended their war with Venezuela. And there was peace once again.
Well...for now. I have been hard at work on our invasion forces. After mixing in some mid-range units with our new pimped out models, we now have the #7 ranked military in the world.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp102.jpg
I also tried researching nukes, but that must wait until another day. It seems to be hit or miss whether the world will care or not. Our troops are all prepped for their next mission, the only thing left is to pick a target.
The Japan vs. China thing might not be as good an idea as you think. China has no allies and the only allies Japan has are South Korea and Ukraine. Maybe you could get Russia in the mix if you get China to hit Ukraine directly, but I'd rather just continue our conquest for now.
[Edit] Russia vs China might be doable.
Wigmund
01-09-2010, 02:06 AM
Once the nuclear program is developed can you use covert actions to set off nukes in opposing countries and pin the blame elsewhere?
Bob The Mercenary
01-09-2010, 02:10 AM
Once the nuclear program is developed can you use covert actions to set off nukes in opposing countries and pin the blame elsewhere?
No, though that would be awesomeness of untold caliber. The only two ways to release nuclear weapons are through silos or nuclear subs.
Also, I failed to name a death machine after you. Would a stealth bomber do?
Flarecobra
01-09-2010, 02:40 AM
Time to get our grunts asses into gear. 24th ranked? Needs Moar Training!
Wigmund
01-09-2010, 02:46 AM
No, though that would be awesomeness of untold caliber. The only two ways to release nuclear weapons are through silos or nuclear subs.
Also, I failed to name a death machine after you. Would a stealth bomber do?
Stealth bomber? I'm loving that.
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope
01-09-2010, 02:46 AM
Time to get our grunts asses into gear. 24th ranked? Needs Moar Training!
Lok'tar O'gar. Be happy too
Geminex
01-09-2010, 05:45 AM
I just wanna say that I totally called that it was infrastructure spending in our overseas properties that was screwing us over.
...
Well, ok, really all I said was that we should commit suicide by invading Norway, but in the process I totally mentioned infrastructure spending!
Pettiness aside, I like these developments. US is always a good ally, and our army's really growing nicely!
Though I must object to one development.
*puts on sunglasses*
Mr. President, you... disappoint me. An infantry vehicle? An armored support vehicle for the weakest branch of our military? I am... hurt. Wounded. Not by the insult, but rather because you seem to have learned... nothing. All this mentoring, all this advice, all this effort to instill some wisdom into you? For nought, apparently. For this decision, Mr. President...
*takes off sunglasses*
was without a doubt, most... unwise.
Ahem.
As for what to do... I guess continue with our efforts to take over the world's oil supply. Africa first, then the middle east.
You know, eventually we're gonna have to take out the US. Either that or get their oil-rich properties from them.
...
Tell me, how large is our most valued ally's army? And is there any way to disable its nuclear forces using covert strikes?
Should the answers to these questions be "too large" and "no" (which they probably are), never mind and instead tell me how much longer a string of covert operations to decrease Africa's popularity with the rest of the world and let us invade without getting slaughtered by an international coalition would take. I wouldn't care too much, but once we've got Africa it'd be best to be able to move on to the middle east immedeatly.
Though wait a minute. If we invade western africa, is there a way to get their oil and resources, but not have to pay infrastructure?
Bob The Mercenary
01-09-2010, 10:12 AM
Mr. President, you... disappoint me. An infantry vehicle? An armored support vehicle for the weakest branch of our military? I am... hurt. Wounded. Not by the insult, but rather because you seem to have learned... nothing. All this mentoring, all this advice, all this effort to instill some wisdom into you? For nought, apparently. For this decision, Mr. President...
*takes off sunglasses*
was without a doubt, most... unwise.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp104.jpg
The proper changes have been made, I assure you. How careless of me. Though it might be a while until we can start manufacturing those things.
Tell me, how large is our most valued ally's army? And is there any way to disable its nuclear forces using covert strikes?
Actually, the way they're looking right now, we could take their ground forces easily. It's their navy that would be an issue. And yes, it is possible to sneak in and destroy their warheads, but to take every one of them out it would take years and years. And that's depending on how successful we are against their CIA.
If we invaded it's possible we could take a few states, but we would lose our navy and it's 50-50 whether the world would hate us for it (as we're attacking a direct ally) or love us for it (as the U.S. has been a complete douche).
Geminex
01-09-2010, 05:20 PM
I approve most strongly of these recent changes.
Doesn't our treaty let us position troops on each other's territory? Couldn't we just disperse our troops across their country, break alliance and take every state except for Hawaii? Of course, that'd still leave the Navy. Could we get some allies in this operation? Who else has a big navy?
Of course, all this is highly hypothetical. We can wipe out our closest ally later... for now, let's concentrate on Africa, get ourselves some more resources and oil.
Bob The Mercenary
01-09-2010, 11:04 PM
Doesn't our treaty let us position troops on each other's territory? Couldn't we just disperse our troops across their country, break alliance and take every state except for Hawaii? Of course, that'd still leave the Navy. Could we get some allies in this operation? Who else has a big navy?
Of course, all this is highly hypothetical. We can wipe out our closest ally later... for now, let's concentrate on Africa, get ourselves some more resources and oil.
I tried your suggestion and positioned troops all along the east coast of the U.S. then declared war. The game crashed. Literally, the first step any of my troops took caused the game to CtD. Then, after the game crashed, some process hung to the point where I had to restart the computer to stop it from being so jumpy. All of NATO also ended up declaring war on us.
Your idea has been summarily rejected from our war plan.
I highly suggest we trudge on into Africa. We can take basically anyone we want, though after some light terrorism.
[Edit] I name a nuclear bomb after you and the best you can give me is a fatal error?
Geminex
01-10-2010, 05:01 AM
How was I supposed to know how neoconservative that game is? Does this happen every time the US seems to be losing, or only if you come close to victory through liberal use of brilliant deception?
Besides, all that was only idle musing. We both knew it was too good to be true. I'm Africa all the way. Though with our 6th ranked, awesomely named military, do we need to limit ourselves to the west coast? Or could we take some of the more productive central regions as well? How's the terrorism going, by the way?
Karrrrrrrrrrrresche
01-10-2010, 08:57 AM
[Edit] I name a nuclear bomb after you and the best you can give me is a fatal error?
That actually seems pretty appropriate to me.
Bob The Mercenary
01-10-2010, 11:49 AM
I'm Africa all the way. Though with our 6th ranked, awesomely named military, do we need to limit ourselves to the west coast? Or could we take some of the more productive central regions as well? How's the terrorism going, by the way?
Most of Africa is our playground right now, with the exception being Egypt. They have potential to whoop us. But, if we focus on the rest of Africa, there are only a few countries with sizeable militaries that would be better off taken one by one.
The decision we have to make is, do we do this slowly? Terrorising small nations and gradually taking the entire continent? Or do we go Final Solution on their asses and bulldoze through all at once? We have the capacity to support a pretty large war right now.
Either way I want us in control of all the diamond-rich African nations.
Sifright
01-10-2010, 12:11 PM
my vote is to spend a year or two building an enourmous army up and then rolling through them in a final solution style attack. (by army I mean Infantry fighting vehicles artillery tanks and air defence I'm not sure we need a huge airforce as it's quite expensive)
Melfice
01-10-2010, 12:32 PM
While I am not in any advisory position, I'd suggest a compromise between the two.
Storm the west coast of Africa; regroup, resupply, stave off eventual retribution, then storm on again.
This would be easier on the army (aside from any freak reactions from other countries), leading to two or three relatively short campaigns over a very short one that could leave us potentially vulnerable or a very long, drawn-out campaign.
Gregness
01-10-2010, 01:50 PM
Let's tortoise this thing!
Flarecobra
01-10-2010, 02:26 PM
I suggest slowly. We don't want to end up pissing off the wrong person and end up having someone drop some nukes on us.
Ravashak
01-10-2010, 02:46 PM
Get a medium sized African alliance to declare war on you, then take them out. After that, start consolidating before overextending.
Geminex
01-10-2010, 05:55 PM
I'm inclined to take the West Coast and maybe South Africa in one fell swoop, then regroup in South Africa. If, for some reason, our taking of the west coast didn't piss off everyone to the point of murdering us with spoons, we can take some of the more valuable central and East African Nations. But really, I think the entire value of Africa lies in it's western, resource-rich regions, and that's all we need. Taking anything apart from that isn't entirely necessary. So yeah. I say we go Blitzkrieg on their asses.
Bob The Mercenary
01-11-2010, 08:59 PM
May 4, 2035
At 0300 hours on a cold Christmas morning, 2033, I positioned our troops along Senegal's southern border, facing Sierra Leone, after recieving word that our mission was a go. We launched our invasion soon after and in two days we had control of the country. Their defenses were laughable.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp200.jpg
I left our navy in fortify mode just offshore of our mainland, just in case things got hot.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp201.jpg
After that area was settled, we continued south into Liberia, where we encountered our most intense resistance. Several other African nations joined in the fight against us, seeing the very real threat to their freedom approaching to the west.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp203.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp204.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp202.jpg
Our losses were trivial, but the dead will be remembered. A couple fighter jets were shot down by Liberian rebels and a few dozen soldiers were slain, but it was worth it. Then Niger got involved.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp208.jpg
I dispatched our northern divisions to deal with them, while the western divisions cleaned up the remaining regions of any countries that had dared declare war on us. The southern division was sent to the Central African Republic and the Congo, taking both without issue.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp209.jpg
After that was all said and done, I checked the map to see who else was currently at war with us. Pakistan and Croatia were the only ones left. We invaded and took them with ease.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/BobtheMercenary/sp210.jpg
That's a look at our take. I am putting our troops on extended leave while our relations with the world heal. I hear west Africa is nice this time of year.
Surprisingly, Pakistan didn't nuke us and their only defense after fighting the U.S. for so many years was their air force. We also lost no treaties and our economy is on a steady increase. After a while we can continue this invasion, or consolidate and annex. The countries we took in the invasion are Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Gambia, Benin, Niger, Central African Republic, the Congo, Croatia, and Pakistan.
Geminex
01-11-2010, 09:37 PM
Niiiiice. Seems like the Blitzkrieg worked, ja?
I'm loving this. Particularly the taking of Pakistan and Croatia. One's gonna be an excellent staging area for our eventual Middle-East takeover and the other'll be real good for any conflict with the NATO.
What resources did we get access to as a result of our recent activity? I know that region is resource-rich, but I'm not sure who's got what... How's our budget been affected? Any sudden jumps in our surplus?
You said casualties were minimal, and that's good obviously... what mystifies me is that our international standing didn't seem to suffer too much. Is it just that people don't care about Africa, or did you do something covertly?
One thing I'm slightly annoyed at is that we didn't take Nigeria. That was sorta my primary goal in this campaign. Perhaps, once our relationships have improved we complete our conquest of the western coast, taking Nigeria, Mali, Cameroon, maybe Congo, and then perhaps just launching sporadic attacks against the other most resource-rich regions in central Africa and against the countries with the biggest military. That way we'll have the wealth of Africa on our side and won't need to worry too much about our new neighbors conquering it back...
Once we have a firm hold on Africa, I'd suggest we start amassing forces in Pakistan and prepare to sweep through the middle east.
Wait a minute, if we took Pakistan, does that mean we have their nukes?
Wigmund
01-11-2010, 09:44 PM
I imagine Nigeria's the big boy in West Africa and could stalemate us into a prolonged war. Though Niger was initially my target because it has extensive uranium deposits, hopefully helping any nuclear program we've got going.
Bob The Mercenary
01-11-2010, 09:49 PM
What resources did we get access to as a result of our recent activity? I know that region is resource-rich, but I'm not sure who's got what... How's our budget been affected? Any sudden jumps in our surplus?
Surprisingly, nothing noticeable. Except our surplus has jumped by $5 billion, bringing us to $50 billion. We can easily afford a nuke program once things cool down.
You said casualties were minimal, and that's good obviously... what mystifies me is that our international standing didn't seem to suffer too much. Is it just that people don't care about Africa, or did you do something covertly?
I guess people just don't care. =/ I mean, most of Africa hates us, but the rest of the world let out a collective "meh." Though I'm sure that will change with a move on Morocco, Nigeria, or someone bigger like that. We should be cautious and swallow up the small ones first, then do some strikes on the big ones one at a time.
Wait a minute, if we took Pakistan, does that mean we have their nukes?
Unfortunately, no. But, like I said, we can research our own if you'd like.
[Edit] Also, the U.S. actually had troops standing by in case the war forced my back against the wall, which I thought was awesome. It shows they're at least serious about the alliance.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.