WesWorld

With all the discussions about the possible end of WW in 1950, I figured an alternative option, if it was decided to not continue past that date, would be a massive world war encompassing all WW countries. WW was started to try out new ship ideas, so might be a good idea to end by testing all those ships.

While it probably wont happen it wont hurt to discuss this possibility.

From my side I see several possible scenarios for starting such a war. Mexico (+China?) vs Iberia, Australia vs India or France. A suitable event can be created so neither side is the clear aggressor, and then everyone joins in ala WWI. Altough in WW, I can see the possibility of not having a clear 2 side war, but more probable a 3/4 sided war equivalent to the Allies in WWII declaring war on the USSR over Finland.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
With all the discussions about the possible end of WW in 1950, I figured an alternative option, if it was decided to not continue past that date, would be a massive world war encompassing all WW countries. WW was started to try out new ship ideas, so might be a good idea to end by testing all those ships.

While it probably wont happen it wont hurt to discuss this possibility.

From my side I see several possible scenarios for starting such a war. Mexico (+China?) vs Iberia, Australia vs India or France. A suitable event can be created so neither side is the clear aggressor, and then everyone joins in ala WWI. Altough in WW, I can see the possibility of not having a clear 2 side war, but more probable a 3/4 sided war equivalent to the Allies in WWII declaring war on the USSR over Finland.

Somehow I see limited interest in such a scenario, particularly among the major powers. I for one have no interest in scripting a major conflict for the amusement of a few.

Japan would probably launch a strike against Mexico and blast everything Mexican to bits except the canal so the US can move in, populate the lands, rebuild it the way they want it, carve it into new states and have the opportunity to properly guard the America Canal! *runs away*

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Japan would probably launch a strike against Mexico and blast everything Mexican to bits except the canal so the US can move in, populate the lands, rebuild it the way they want it, carve it into new states and have the opportunity to properly guard the America Canal! *runs away*

Sounds like a plan to me.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Australia vs India or France.

France doesn't see any reason why the friendly and sociable relations with their Australian neighbors would be disrupted.

Maybe because the Wesworld Australians aren't as friendly and sociable as they appear to be? Maybe because in reality they won't hesitate to stab you in the back?

That plans sounds good with me as well Walter.

On a more serious tone, I have my doubts on the wisdom of such a plan. Scripting requires agreement and consensus, and given some of the discussions with so many people involved I believe such a war would quickly disintegrate leaving little positive benefit.

The US and other powers I imagine will have the Bomb by 1950, so that brings a whole new element to the game as well.

I for one am not in favour of the US or Romania being involved in a WW2, but if the rest of you want to blow up each other it only benefits the US

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
The US and other powers I imagine will have the Bomb by 1950, so that brings a whole new element to the game as well.

I will take this opportunity to remind people that France, Atlantis, and Russia had a collaborative nuclear bomb program before we morphed into the GA. I will also remind people that, while we won't be the first people to test or field one, we shall do so within the first two days of any other power doing so. (At this point, France has probably gotten their equivalent of the Chicago Pile and the X-10 going. But unless someone else makes the first Bomb, then we're not going to create nuclear weapons unless a suitable IC situation makes it necessary. To be honest, would just prefer not to deal with it, but I know we're going have to before the game is over, whenever that is.)

And technically, I would kinda be interested in scripting a war, but the pitch would need to catch my fancy.

Interesting idea.
One meta-game reason for leaving AEGIS & SEAR is previous discussions had fingered the Dutch (oddly) as a problem for having conflicts as our official the Dutch were more prepared for a war in 1941, than 1950.

TIME is always an issue with these things, they'd have to go to a Mod Panel rather than one Mod or scripting. Probably per theater with some sort of back and forth per month. Generic goals and orders would be the fall back if a player couldn't respond fast enough.

Might be interesting, be hard to set up and run though.


Oh on nukes. The fissable material for the Hiroshima device came from...the Belgian Congo. I believe I made reference to yellowcake ages ago in conjunction with the opening of a hydroelectic plant.
However the Dutch *aren't* working on this. Too expensive for a pipe dream.

Final 1950 clash is a good idea but,
be hard to set up and run though => no land operations.

I think that this clash w"ll be only at sea, to be more simple & to finish gloriously our WW1 warships.

Jef

War at sea only? How boring.

Quoted

War at sea only? How boring.

That's to finish gloriously WW1
& start quickly WW2 .

Jef

Scripting any sort of war is tough.
Me and Hoo found it time consuming and a change of Brazilian players half way through didn't help things run smoothly. I guess Parador and Daidalos have found scripting their war equally as slow and time consuming. Even multi-player exercises take months to write, the NATO exercises stop and start as planning and writing takes ages.
There aren't that many active players and even fewer that regularly post news items for example. Imagine any war involving the GA; Wes, Bruce, Brock and AdmK would need to submit and agree items.

I even have doubts whether we shouldn't scrap the quarterly system and move to half years or full years since many nations are falling behind.

Anyhow I still think WW could run beyond 1950, perhaps until the 60s when ships would be almost impossible to sim.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I even have doubts whether we shouldn't scrap the quarterly system and move to half years or full years since many nations are falling behind.

Hmm, a novel idea, and one that may have some merit for those wishing to take advantage of it. I myself probably wouldn't use it, though, since I inevitably change my plans from quarter to quarter as inspiration and whim takes me; so it'd lack flexibility for my purposes. But if someone wished to use that method to catch up a country already far behind (Iberia, for instance), I'd have no objections.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Anyhow I still think WW could run beyond 1950, perhaps until the 60s when ships would be almost impossible to sim.

I'd be willing to give it a try beyond 1950. I've always thought the Irish Naval Service would look good with some Leander-class frigates...

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I even have doubts whether we shouldn't scrap the quarterly system and move to half years or full years since many nations are falling behind.

Hmm, a novel idea, and one that may have some merit for those wishing to take advantage of it. I myself probably wouldn't use it, though, since I inevitably change my plans from quarter to quarter as inspiration and whim takes me; so it'd lack flexibility for my purposes. But if someone wished to use that method to catch up a country already far behind (Iberia, for instance), I'd have no objections.

I'm not a huge fan of the concept, as it'll lead to more instances of some of us being in 1944, with a major event happening 12 months behind us....which means wholesale reworking of news to account for said major events...or wars

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I'm not a huge fan of the concept, as it'll lead to more instances of some of us being in 1944, with a major event happening 12 months behind us....which means wholesale reworking of news to account for said major events...or wars

Which is why I stated it'd be best for someone looking to catch up a country that's already behind.

Personally I would love to see wesworld going beyond 1950 or even 1960.
Don't know what's planned for wesworld 2 but I would dislike any scenario before 1935.

Hehe I for one am in favor of extending WW beyond 1950 and have some ideas as to how to do it. I've even planned out in some detail both Mexico and Australia to the present day.

That said, I feel a broad scale world war with a significant number of participants, would be an interesting experiment and a good exercise in my opinion. We have done a pretty good job of simulating peace, but simulating war is altogether a different beast.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I even have doubts whether we shouldn't scrap the quarterly system and move to half years or full years since many nations are falling behind.

Frankly, I do not see any real value in scrapping the quarterly system; those who are behind will still be behind. I find myself in agreement with ShinRa - when events are deliberately scheduled in the past it creates all manner of confusion and frustration. Whether such things are four quarters or two half-years behind still puts them out of synch with other players, with all the attendant problems that creates.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I'm not a huge fan of the concept, as it'll lead to more instances of some of us being in 1944, with a major event happening 12 months behind us....which means wholesale reworking of news to account for said major events...or wars

Which is why I stated it'd be best for someone looking to catch up a country that's already behind.

Whenever I've seen anyone catch up a country, they tend to do huge news dumps to do so. I did almost 10 years worth of news when I first took over Canada. And many of us are just using one post per year for news already. So, that's not even an issue, in my opinion.

As for quarterly reports, that's the meat of our gaming system, and I don't endorse any gimmicking of that end; dumping a year's worth of reports into one thread is fine, so long it has all 4 reports (I've been doing so with Canada), but attempting to condense a year or two or whatever's worth of reports into a single post/report is not.

I've only participated in scripted warfare on a very limited basis- providing Hoo with timelines for Kongo/Dutch actions. In Navalism I did a little more, stepping in for the final turn when Korpen bailed on the Netherlands after starting a war. I also tried to collaborate as Bavaria with the ESC and Russia on dismembering the Ukraine...which effort had all sorts of behind the scene issues with folks time and vision.

1 ) So my view of larger wars came round to the idea that players should be requested to submit Strategic and Tactical guidelines for their war effort. Turns would be monthly, with 2-3 day turn arounds required. Players would have to know- miss a deadline, the guidelines come into play. Probably more than one mod so the "looser" doesn't feel like so-n-so has it in for them....
Probably a format of day 1- player posts on private forum of goals. Day 2 Mods post questions. Day 3 player posts responses. Day 4 mods post results, start new cycle.

Me, I know I'd wind up missing a ton, but most wars drag a bit.

2 ) Quarterly to halves : I don't think it would make a great deal of difference, but would make it less flexible.

3) News...yeah I'm still in 1942 with the next unposted bit being about plans for a UKN conference and then Luxembourg requesting observer status...which led to my stopping and posting about the grand concept.