Let's Play: SuperPower - Page 8

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....

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?

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 · 12-28-2009, 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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

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:

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:

And after the American reinforcements showed up it turned into this:

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.

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

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.

12-27-2009, 11:37 PM	#1
Bob The Mercenary Bob Dole Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bob Dole Posts: 5,606	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.... 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? 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. __________________ Bob Dole Last edited by Bob The Mercenary; 12-27-2009 at 11:42 PM.

12-28-2009, 12:10 AM	#2
Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope Definitely NOT a samurai Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Location: Wherever the wind leads me Posts: 5,347	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. __________________ Lost in the Music ~ On Hiatus Tales of a Torn World ~ World Building

12-28-2009, 12:30 AM	#3
Wigmund Lakitu Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Northwest Arkansas Posts: 2,139	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. 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. __________________ Slightly off-kilter

12-27-2009, 11:58 PM	#6
Bob The Mercenary Bob Dole Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bob Dole Posts: 5,606	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: 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: And after the American reinforcements showed up it turned into this: 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? __________________ Bob Dole

12-28-2009, 12:16 AM	#8
Bob The Mercenary Bob Dole Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bob Dole Posts: 5,606	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. __________________ Bob Dole

12-27-2009, 11:44 PM	#4
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	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?

12-28-2009, 12:02 AM	#7
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	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.

12-28-2009, 12:23 AM	#9
Eltargrim Fifty-Talents Haversham Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: FABULOUS Posts: 1,904	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 __________________ <Insert witticism here; get credit; ???; profit!>

12-28-2009, 12:37 AM	#10
Flarecobra Burn. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Classified Posts: 11,017	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. __________________ "Only the fool wishes to go into battle to beat someone for the satisfaction of beating someone." -A Thousand Sons Rules. Read them, know them, love them.