Let's Play: SuperPower - Page 9

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!!!

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:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wigmund

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.

12-28-2009, 12:49 AM	#81
Wigmund Lakitu Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Northwest Arkansas Posts: 2,139	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! __________________ Slightly off-kilter

12-28-2009, 01:13 AM	#83
Wigmund Lakitu Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Northwest Arkansas Posts: 2,139	Bring Iran and Saudi Arabia into the Israel-Syria War? __________________ Slightly off-kilter

12-28-2009, 01:40 AM	#85
Gregness Never give up. Never give in. Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 1,034	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)? Last edited by Gregness; 12-28-2009 at 01:51 AM.

12-28-2009, 06:28 AM	#87
Bob The Mercenary Bob Dole Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bob Dole Posts: 5,606	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!!! 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: 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? __________________ Bob Dole

12-28-2009, 01:06 AM	#82
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	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.

12-28-2009, 01:30 AM	#84
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	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.

12-28-2009, 02:10 AM	#86
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	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.

12-28-2009, 06:44 AM	#88
Sifright Fact sphere is the most handsome Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,108	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.