Hello all. Just wanted to comment on the way that the Suez Crisis is currently handled in-game in the 1949 Cold War start.
The way it is currently handled in the game (assuming the player is not playing as England, France, Isreal, or Egypt) :
0. Scripted, Isreal declares war on Egypt.
1. If Egypt wins, the state of Palestine is created. This new state includes West Bank territory as well as all of former Isreal territory.
2. If Isreal wins, Isreal takes over all of Egypt.
I think 2. is a bad way to handle this. If isreal takes over all of Egyptian territory, assuming there's no player intervention they will become overly strong when they go to (scripted) war with Jordan/Syria later and inevitably win due to their now increased land/economic power. Either way , this doesnt reflect what actually happened. I propose a solution similar to how the USSR withdrawl from WW1 is handled.
What I would suggest:
If Egypt wins - change nothing. The way it's handled currently is satisfactory.
If Isreal wins - territory is returned to Egypt, Nasser is returned to power.
Sea transit treaty is established between Egypt and Isreal. This is a sort of approximation to show that the Straits of Tiran were re-opened.
The purpose of the war was not Isreali occupation of Egypt, but rather to take control of Suez shipping from Egypt. This is not reflected well in-game.
I've found that 9/10 times if I don't (as the player) interact in the war, Isreal wins. Which means that just a couple years into the game Egypt is out of the game. And I've found that if Isreal takes over all of Egypt (as previously stated), they blob all of Isreal/Egypt/Jordan/Syria and more into one massive nation. It also means that if Isreal wins the war - all the future scripted wars (yom kipper, six days, etc) already have a predetermined outcome assuming the player doesnt intervene - Isreali victory. This doesn't seem believable or fun for gameplay purposes to me. One of the defining things about the Middle East in the Cold War period was instability, and having nations like Egypt/Syria/Jordan all blobbed up into Isreal by the 70s through scripted wars...even on 0 volatility... not fun, engaging, or beleiveable. Hence my suggested change.
Suez Crisis - post war
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Feb 12 2013
- Human: Yes
-
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Feb 12 2013
- Human: Yes
Re: Suez Crisis - post war
Incidentally, similar logic could be applied for a Six Days war trigger. If Isreal wins, Egypt is reestablished, but Sinai remains occupied by Isreal. This would work extra well since Sinai is Egypt, so egyptian partisans would spawn, similar to how there was egyptresistance to the occupation of Sinai
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22083
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: Suez Crisis - post war
All future wars could test for "Does Israel own Cairo" before declaring war. If true, no war.
The question of "should Israel keep Egypt" would likely IRL depend a lot on what else is happening in the world. If we set conditions as you propose, it will likely create another odd situation somewhere else. The advantage of a true sandbox is "anything can happen". We could spend years adding scripted events and condition checks to the game but that's a lot of resources.
Certainly before we put a lot of resource into something like this I'd want more community feedback and a clear list of condition checks and actions.
The question of "should Israel keep Egypt" would likely IRL depend a lot on what else is happening in the world. If we set conditions as you propose, it will likely create another odd situation somewhere else. The advantage of a true sandbox is "anything can happen". We could spend years adding scripted events and condition checks to the game but that's a lot of resources.
Certainly before we put a lot of resource into something like this I'd want more community feedback and a clear list of condition checks and actions.
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Jun 27 2015
- Human: Yes
- Contact:
Re: Suez Crisis - post war
I rather see all sandboxes improving by improving engine and AI. If you dont like the events, well change them to your own political opinion or delete them. I think starting with "no events" should fix this too.
I dont get why BG using battle zones instead of provinces tho. Would make fixing issues and events much easier as there is no overlap between regions.
Anyway your suggestion is not enough. You cant say straits is reopened by sea transit between Egypt and Israel, if none else can use the Straits.. Or you want whole Egypt returned and old leader back? Why would there be a war then?
I dont get why BG using battle zones instead of provinces tho. Would make fixing issues and events much easier as there is no overlap between regions.
Anyway your suggestion is not enough. You cant say straits is reopened by sea transit between Egypt and Israel, if none else can use the Straits.. Or you want whole Egypt returned and old leader back? Why would there be a war then?
Gameplay 1st
-
- Captain
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Jun 19 2015
- Human: Yes
Re: Suez Crisis - post war
I don`t agree with the request either.
BG could rather put resources into creating a scenario for the 6 Day War or other Middle East Wars if they had it available. I was most impressed with the roll out of some new scenarios in the last month, and would happily see more IMHO.
MB
BG could rather put resources into creating a scenario for the 6 Day War or other Middle East Wars if they had it available. I was most impressed with the roll out of some new scenarios in the last month, and would happily see more IMHO.
MB
-
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Nov 29 2010
- Human: Yes
Re: Suez Crisis - post war
I do agree with the point he's making, but don't agree that it should be any kind of priority. It's definitely a minor issue, and indicative of an underlying problem IMO, but workarounds can be modded in so I would just personally rather see dev resources in other areas atm. lol.