Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 884
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by Kristijonas »

Why are there two nuclear power stations in Chernobyl in 2020? :-)
georgios
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 600
Joined: Aug 13 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by georgios »

I want to give South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Russia but I can't mod this.

I have made them playable, I edited the CVP and the REGIONINCL files, what other should I do?
samuel_1991
Lieutenant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mar 04 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by samuel_1991 »

I found that there are several diplomatic issues in World 2020 (All in Default Settings):

Myanmar:

1: Improved ties with Asian countries

Why is almost every country in Asia are hostile towards Myanmar?

No doubt there is some hostility between Bangladesh and Myanmar over the Rohingya refugees, but that does not mean all ASEAN countries are hostile towards it (Except Malaysia which is a "Cold" and Brunei which is "Cordial" where both countries are Muslim countries who ought to be unhappy about their treatment towards Rohingya).


1b: Better relations with all ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia)

Myanmar - Brunei relations can be "Neutral" and Myanmar - Malaysia relations in the game is good.

ASEAN is an organisation that works somewhat similar to EU, or African Union in South East Asia region.


2: Myanmmar government should be "Democracy"

As Aung San Suu Kyi won landslide victory in 2015 general election, it should be a democracy government instead. But Dictatorship is still acceptable because there is still very possibility of another military coup for any with or without valid reason. But still, that itself will not change the diplomatic relations especially in ASEAN countries.

Pakistan:

1: Pakistan - Iran relations should not be any hostility. Pakistan strives a balanced relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia while there is mutually good public opinion on each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%8 ... _relations


2: Pakistan - North Korean & China relations should be Cordial and Friendly respectively.

North Korean had traded their missile technologies for Pakistan's Uranium Enrichment Technologies and Facilities.

While China have always be a primary military supporter for Pakistan due to India - Pakistan rivalry and China - India rivalry.

In fact the Chinese (civilians) have been calling Pakistan as "巴铁", which means "Pa-Iron" which signifies Pakistan - China relations is as solid as Iron (Steel).


Not to mentioned that there are joint investment in developing a Fighter Jet between Pakistan and China, something that even North Korea cannot enjoy since Day 1.


3: Pakistan - USA relations should be "Cold" or "Neutral". This is because of US suspecting of Pakistan harboring Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan that is close to a military facility. Neither is Pakistan public have good impression of US either despite of the financial aids due to Palestinian issue.

Obviously, the public opinion of Muslim countries will not be good (Best relation should be at Indifferent such as Turkey) at the height of terrorist attacks which gives the rise of right wings in the West including US. The US - Pakistan relation is no where good as US - Turkey relation.


North Korea:

1: North Korea - Iran & Pakistan relations should be "Friendly". Both are known to have many areas of cooperation, including military. Even though Iran have inked nuclear deal, it just prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Kor ... _relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%8 ... _relations


2: North Korea - Cuba & Venezuela relations should be "Friendly". Both countries did not react to North Korean 2016's nuclear test and both countries are hostile towards US. (Even as Cuba is trying to improve relations with US which may or may not materialize).

They are the cloest de-facto Formal Alliance compared to Russia or China.

3: North Korea - Russia relations should be "Cordial" instead of "Friendly". Or at least, the ability to make Formal Alliance should not be possible in Day 1 of the game due to 2016 Nuclear Test.

4: North Korea - China relations should be "Cold" or even "Hostile" due to China have strongly condemned North Korea as China have been steadily improving relations with South Korea. Even the public have called Kim Jong Un "Fatty", "Kim the 3rd" etc and the Chinese public have been labeling North Korea as "白眼狼" (Wolf), similar to Vietnam and Albania (Who the Chinese feels that Vietnam and Albania have turned against their backs).

5: North Korea - India relations should be "Cold" or even "Hostile". I have no idea why India is being friendly to North Korea in the first place even as India has given the nuclear concession by the US?

There are reports on how North Korean's SLBM can be exported to Pakistan (As India is building their nuclear submarines) or Iran as both countries have the sea area suitable for SLBM launches while North Korean itself is too close to advanced South Korean's military assets that would kill their submarines before they launch one.

Media analyze why would North Korea wants SLBM (Chinese article):

http://news.qq.com/a/20160118/023637.htm


6: North Korea - Laos relations should be "Cordial" or "Friendly" as Laos is also another Communist nation similar to Cuba (Where Laos and Cuba are the ones in between of North Korean extreme Communism and Centrally Planned Economy and China / Vietnam's Communism that exists in the name only with Capitalist economy)


7: North Korea - Malaysia relations should be "Cordial" and there is even Visa free travel (Even though North Koreans public are generally not allowed to travel / own passport)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia% ... _relations

8: North Korea - Indonesia relations should be "Neutral" or "Cordial" that have long history traced back to 1960s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia ... _relations

9: North Korea - Singapore should have "Cold" or "Neutral" relations instead of "Hostile"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Kor ... _relations

10: North Korea - Syria should have "Friendly" relations as both viewed each others as brothers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_r ... orea#Syria

Syrian Assad replies to congratulatory message of his birthday by Kim Jong Un (Chinese article):
http://www.chinanews.com/gj/2014/09-14/6588696.shtml

China:

1: China - all the Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan) should be Cordial due to being part of Shanghai Cooperative Organization (Along with Russia).

They aren't de-facto military alliance, but the hostility / rivalry is not even as strong as India - China rivalry in Year 2020.

Even small amount of land disputes between China and Tajikstan were solved years ago:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567

Exceptions:

Perhaps only in High Volatility settings, China would want to declare war with either or all of them as they ally with ISIS or send a spy to Sabotage in Urumuqi or any other hex in China.


2: China - South Korea relations should be "Neutral" or "Cordial", depending on how China's Xi Jin Ping would take action against North Korea 2016 nuclear test. But the relation will never be hostile when Xi is the first China president to visit South Korea and never visited (As of 2016 Jan) Pyongyang instead.


3: China - ASEAN countries should not be viewed as a hostile except Vietnam and Philippines due to South China Sea disputes.

Both Vietnam and Philippines are actively demanding for lobby on their side in Spratly Island disputes but not Malaysia, Brunei or Indonesia.

3A: As Malaysia, Brunei are highly dependent of China's investment (Infrastructure, especially in Tele-Communications field), the relations should be "Cold" or "Neutral".

3B: China - Singapore relations should be "Neutral" or even "Cordial" due to large number of ethnic Chinese (> 75%) in Singapore and > 1 million of PRC citizens in Singapore study & work combined. In fact due to the fact that there are high % of Singaporeans marrying China brides (As well as Vietnam and Philippines in the case of inter-country marriages), the public opinion on China should not be that bad.

In the past 5 years, Singapore is also buying MRT trains (equivalent to Subway / Metro / London Tube / Hong Kong MTR) from China train makers (With Japanese design as joint ventures) as well. This can be considered as Infrastructural investment and therefore further supports my point that China - Singapore relations should not be that hostile.


However, China - Singapore relations should not be "Friendly" because there are still fears of China's over-influence in the ASEAN region as a whole.

3C: China - Laos relations should be "Neutral" or "Cordial" because Laos is dependent on China's funds and technologies to build dams for Lao's power needs. However the public view can be "Indifferent" towards China as the locals also don't like the dam plan.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/laos-dam ... h-vietnam/



4: China - Pakistan, North Korea relations have been mentioned previously.



Iran:

1: Iran - Pakistan / North Korea relations have been mentioned previously.


Laos:

1: There can be "Cold" or "Neutral" relations between Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia so that the game is much more playable in ASEAN nations.

This is explained earlier about the dam projects in Mekong River that encompass Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia.

Thailand:

1: Thailand - Cambodia relations should be "Neutral" or even "Cold" in High Volatility due to periodic land disputes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian ... er_dispute

Sent in Singapore....
Terran1969
Warrant Officer
Posts: 35
Joined: May 27 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by Terran1969 »

I would like to see a limit to the number of military bases a nation can build and a max number of units per Barracks, Port and air base i know air bases hold 16 squadrons but if say you had 10 air bases you could not have an air force bigger than 160 squadrons this will help with the late game slow down also maybe if the cost of units was more expensive and there upkeep cost was higher it would be more realistic for example a new Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth carrier cost £5 billion each to build and thats before you add F 35'S to go on it. At the moment what tends to happen is the game builds units untill it crashes because the CPU can't take it and my PC ent bad in my 1936 game as UK even after i had taken Europe and the USA had China by 1958 The russians still had close to 25000 units UK and USA combined had no more than 15000 my forces were around 7000 my main point is the game over builds so maybe if there was a base limit with limits that each facility could hold that may help with the slow down late on.

This also happend in the Global Crisis game game i played as well its frustrating.
Lossidian
Sergeant
Posts: 19
Joined: May 20 2014
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by Lossidian »

There's an extremely large number of reasons why the majority of Asian countries hate Burma (Myanmar). Including, but definitely not limited to, imperialism, military dictatorship (Which only recently ended last year), coup attempts in the indo-china region, and relationship with China.

It's fair to say that relations are overall extremely cold towards Burma.
merlinx_at
Captain
Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 07 2016
Human: Yes
Location: Austria

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by merlinx_at »

Kristijonas wrote:Why are there two nuclear power stations in Chernobyl in 2020? :-)
right ... they are all offline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl ... ower_Plant :)
SRU 9.0.73.1 (Steam) / W7Pro-64 eng
merlinx_at
Captain
Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 07 2016
Human: Yes
Location: Austria

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by merlinx_at »

xeeks wrote:[...
Germany
-Neutral to US Aligned (One of the Most Important US Allies in Europe, How can they be Neutral?)
-Ramstein Air Base to US (European Command)
think they are not the best friends. US have the right for bases because of WWII (also in other country's) :)
SRU 9.0.73.1 (Steam) / W7Pro-64 eng
georgios
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 600
Joined: Aug 13 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by georgios »

game is set in the future assuming that alliances would be challenged by internal antagonisms.

every possibility for war is extremely amplified. otherwise the game would be only a trade simulator.
samuel_1991
Lieutenant
Posts: 65
Joined: Mar 04 2015
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by samuel_1991 »

drsidious wrote:India shouldn't have major (blue/red) alliances but should be Russia/China aligned.
India should be aligned with Russia and then USA but definitely not China due to Dalai Lama / Southern Tibet (Presently in India) and definitely Pakistan issue.


Changes requested:

North Korea:

Formal Alliance (Friendly): Syria, Iran, Cuba.
Cordial Relations: Pakistan, Venezulea, Belarus, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmmar, Indonesia, Cambodia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, Angola
Neutral: UAE, Kuwait, ASEAN (Singapore, Brunei, Thailand, Vietnam), Libya, Uganda, Ethopia, Central Asian nations, Sweden (Only Western presence in DPRK as embassy), Mexico
Cold: Malaysia (Assasination incident), Phillippines, China (Many ppl in China actually disliked North Korea and Xi did not visit the North at all.), Timor Leste, South Africa, All of EU Nations except France and Sweden, Taiwan, Brazil, Peru. Even UK and Brazil has a North Korean embassy.
Hostile: ISIS, Argentina (Relations terminated in 1980), Yemen (North Korea supported the rebels)


The game should not portray North Korea (DPRK) only with enemies but no friends beyond China / Russia when under Xi, DPRK - China relations is at best cold and the fact that DPRK has maintained diplomatic relations with 160+ nations.

Source:
http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/north-ko ... an-allies/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-ra ... 95688.html
http://sinonk.com/2013/03/18/north-kore ... two-deals/

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/mid ... ulf-99077/
http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/the-long ... rea-nexus/
https://www.nknews.org/2015/01/north-ko ... artillery/
http://thediplomat.com/2017/05/asean-an ... edfellows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatoria ... _relations
http://www.calvertjournal.com/features/ ... ues-africa
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/hea ... ct%20sheet
http://www.angop.ao/angola/en_us/notici ... e4330.html
Rosalis
Colonel
Posts: 417
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Proposed Changes to World 2020 (Alliances, Bases,....)

Post by Rosalis »

lots good info here, besides removing chernobyl (which could be touristic attraction imho) i dont notice any changes. The excuse future has past. Well i got more, devs should check some youtube videos on middle east, like Qatar influencing the middle east and beyond instead of all excellent relations with Saudi Arabia against an isolated Iran.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”