Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Mixing Crusader Kings and Victoria = Real life game?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Magyar1988 said:
1. US army didn't fight, true. However US supported the french with assistance from their navy and air force.
2. No further comments as I sort of agree with you here.
3. This was also during cold war and again US used mainly their air force to provide support for the anti communists.
4. US involvement again with mainly their air force.
5. Again mainly involvement with their air force.
6. Ever heard of Operation Restore Hope?
Click to expand...

1,3,4,5 - That's my whole point; providing some air support in a civil war has nothing to do with a real fight between militaries. Few or no troops on the ground

6 was not an attempt to fight a war, it was an attempt to provide humanitarian aid. It was a success. If you are referring to Operation Gothic Serpent and the Battle of Mogadishu, that was not part of Operation Restore Hope. Moreover that was a single fight in which the US Army was specifically not allowed to have armor units, that attempted to capture a specific Somali warlord, Aidid. And even in the "defeat" the US lost 18 soldiers, 2 helicopters. Somali casualties were 1000-3000. That's without armor support and surrounded.
 
Magyar1988 said:
this graph does not represent the true military strength of the nations. Only how much they spend on their respective militaries. Do a graph where you show available manpower, land systems, naval strength, air force strength. The graph may look a little bit different, true that US would still be number 1 in all of these areas but not as dominant as you are trying to portray them in this graph.
Click to expand...

If anything it would be better for the US, because most other countries devote a lot of their "military" to non-combat things like search-and-rescue, especially most European air and sea forces are search and rescue planes and helicopters, and other support aircraft.
 
grisamentum said:
If anything it would be better for the US, because most other countries devote a lot of their "military" to non-combat things like search-and-rescue, especially most European air and sea forces are search and rescue planes and helicopters, and other support aircraft.
Click to expand...
yes and much of the us budget goes to logistics.
 
Magyar1988 said:
yes and much of the us budget goes to logistics.
Click to expand...

That's fine; everything needs support personnel, fuel, maintenance, etc. Everyone does that.

The difference is in ROLES of equipment. US military just has vastly more stuff devoted to fighting than anyone else does. More than everyone else combined, in fact.
 
Let me also provide some statistics with actual military significance:
manpower available: http://www.globalfirepower.com/available-military-manpower.asp 1. China 2. India 3. USA
Active military personnel: http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp 1. China 2. USA 3. India
Tanks: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp 1. USA 2. China 3. North Korea
Armored fighting vehicles: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-apc-total.asp 1. China 2. USA 3. Russia
Self propelled gun: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-self-propelled-guns-total.asp 1. Russia 2. China 3. South Korea 4. USA
Towed artillery: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-towed-artillery-total.asp 1. China 2. India 3. South Korea 11. USA
Multiple launch rocket system: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-mlrs-total.asp 1. China 2. North Korea 3. Egypt 6. USA
Mortar systems: http://www.globalfirepower.com/infantry-mortar-systems-total.asp 1. Egypt 2. China 3. Turkey 5. USA
Anti tank weapons: http://www.globalfirepower.com/infantry-guided-antitank-systems-total.asp 1. India 2. Turkey 3. Jordan 6. USA
Logistical vehicles: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-logistical-vehicles.asp 1. Russia 2. USA 3. China
Total military aircraft: http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp 1. USA 2. China 3. Russia
Total helicopters: http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-helicopters-total.asp 1. USA 2. Russia 3. China
Aircraft carriers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-aircraft-carriers.asp 1. USA 2. Italy 3. Eight other countries with 1 aircraft carrier
Frigates: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-frigates.asp 1. China 2. Japan 3. USA
Destroyers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-destroyers.asp 1. USA 2. Japan 3. China
Corvettes: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-corvettes.asp 1. Russia 2. India 3. Indonesia (USA doesn't have any corvettes)
Submarines: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp 1. USA 2. North Korea 3. China
Coastal patrol: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-patrol-coastal-craft.asp 1. North Korea 2. China 3. Iran 45. USA
Mine warfare crafts: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-mine-warfare-craft.asp 1. Thailand 2. China 3. Russia 12. USA
amphibious assault craft: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-amphibious-craft.asp North Korea 2. China 3. Sweden 7. USA

So to sum this up US has much manpower but not as much as some other big militaries. The land systems are the US weakest part but still strong. The US airforce is the most impressive. The US navy is based on mainly its very impressive carrier fleet supported by destroyers and submarines. This is also impressive but not as impressive as the air force but more impressive than the land systems.
 
Magyar1988 said:
Let me also provide some statistics with actual military significance:
manpower available: http://www.globalfirepower.com/available-military-manpower.asp 1. China 2. India 3. USA
Active military personnel: http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp 1. China 2. USA 3. India
Tanks: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp 1. USA 2. China 3. North Korea
Armored fighting vehicles: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-apc-total.asp 1. China 2. USA 3. Russia
Self propelled gun: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-self-propelled-guns-total.asp 1. Russia 2. China 3. South Korea 4. USA
Towed artillery: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-towed-artillery-total.asp 1. China 2. India 3. South Korea 11. USA
Multiple launch rocket system: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-mlrs-total.asp 1. China 2. North Korea 3. Egypt 6. USA
Mortar systems: http://www.globalfirepower.com/infantry-mortar-systems-total.asp 1. Egypt 2. China 3. Turkey 5. USA
Anti tank weapons: http://www.globalfirepower.com/infantry-guided-antitank-systems-total.asp 1. India 2. Turkey 3. Jordan 6. USA
Logistical vehicles: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-logistical-vehicles.asp 1. Russia 2. USA 3. China
Total military aircraft: http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp 1. USA 2. China 3. Russia
Total helicopters: http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-helicopters-total.asp 1. USA 2. Russia 3. China
Aircraft carriers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-aircraft-carriers.asp 1. USA 2. Italy 3. Eight other countries with 1 aircraft carrier
Frigates: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-frigates.asp 1. China 2. Japan 3. USA
Destroyers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-destroyers.asp 1. USA 2. Japan 3. China
Corvettes: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-corvettes.asp 1. Russia 2. India 3. Indonesia (USA doesn't have any corvettes)
Submarines: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp 1. USA 2. North Korea 3. China
Coastal patrol: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-patrol-coastal-craft.asp 1. North Korea 2. China 3. Iran 45. USA
Mine warfare crafts: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-mine-warfare-craft.asp 1. Thailand 2. China 3. Russia 12. USA
amphibious assault craft: http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-amphibious-craft.asp North Korea 2. China 3. Sweden 7. USA

So to sum this up US has much manpower but not as much as some other big militaries. The land systems are the US weakest part but still strong. The US airforce is the most impressive. The US navy is based on mainly its very impressive carrier fleet supported by destroyers and submarines. This is also impressive but not as impressive as the air force but more impressive than the land systems.
Click to expand...

Most of those links are comparing apples to oranges. For example the entire US submarine fleet is nuclear-powered and carries hundreds of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and can stay submerged for months at a time. For China you are talking at least half the fleet being diesel-powered submarines from the 1950s. Their submarine fleet is not modern. Same thing with tanks. The fact that North Korea is near top of many of those lists should tell you something about comparing sheer numbers. Not only is the US more numerous in almost every category, it is also technologically superior.

Some of the the categories are things American military doesn't even need any more, like infantry anti-tank weapons. Recoilless rifles and RPGs? Are you kidding? Those are 3rd world weapons. Theres a reason the rankings go "1 India 2 Turkey 3 Jordan." Modern militaries don't use them; those are weapons for poor people. Same thing with ground-based MLRS and mortars. USA gets air support from an attack helicopter firing Hellfire missiles; doesn't try to pull out RPG.

Moreover it's not the same thing to say a country is #1 in X but only #2 in Y. Rankings are meaningless; what matters is the actual numbers. For example, the USA is #1 in helicopters and has more than the rest of the world combined. By far. Same thing with aircraft carriers. USA has 10. Italy has 2. A few countries have 1.
 
Magyar1988 said:
The US navy is based on mainly its very impressive carrier fleet supported by destroyers and submarines. This is also impressive but not as impressive as the air force but more impressive than the land systems.
Click to expand...
Well, USA can at least use their frigates. Norway bought 5 frigates for $3,2 billion, and guess what they use them for. Only two of them are in full service. The other 3 are used as spare parts... That is impressive!
 
I_AM_King_Midas said:
Now that I think about it. This game would be incredibly hard to make without people getting very offended. That could be arguably the largest reason to not make this game.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it would be like making a game about the life of a religious figure and on top of that making it rpg and being able to change the decisions of what ppl consider as gods.

Really not a smart game design decision, when you can be materializing one of you 100 other ideas that aren't ambiguous and can create better games!
 
grisamentum said:
This isn't CK2 where you can levy a bunch of light infantry. You have spend years building equipment, researching new equipment, training the military. Rest of the world just isn't doing it at the same scale of the US. Sorry, US could fight rest of entire world combined and it would be relatively even.
Click to expand...

In the real world there are also nuclear weapons, that means that between more than half the world nations, if we had total war it would be mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons, thus any 'non imperialistic' nation wouldn't need more military since it would have no practical application.

I am pretty sure that if we had USA versus the world with <<super weapons off>> USA would win, because every other 'serious' military power inst trying to have an actual operational military at the moment.

But that is a meaningless discussion, since nuclear weapons exist, however i assume that if some nation created and broadcasting a defense system that would counter any and all nuclear use against it we would have a huge mobilization world wide and conventional 're-arming'.
 
I believe this conversation has proved that a modern-day game would be way to controversial.
 
Knightfall52 said:
In the real world there are also nuclear weapons, that means that between more than half the world nations, if we had total war it would be mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons, thus any 'non imperialistic' nation wouldn't need more military since it would have no practical application.

I am pretty sure that if we had USA versus the world with <<super weapons off>> USA would win, because every other 'serious' military power inst trying to have an actual operational military at the moment.

But that is a meaningless discussion, since nuclear weapons exist, however i assume that if some nation created and broadcasting a defense system that would counter any and all nuclear use against it we would have a huge mobilization world wide and conventional 're-arming'.
Click to expand...

Obviously nuclear weapons changes the whole dynamic. To be frank I dont think its even worth discussing because there is a decent chance that nobody would really risk using them because it would automatically mean getting nuked back. Second the overall effects on a nation of getting massively nuked are completely unknown. At most we have seen a country get nuked after a protracted conventional war that they were losing, without their own nuclear weapons to hit back. Nobody knows what would happen if every major city in a country got nuked. Total chaos? Banding together to survive? Is any of us an expert in things that have never ever happened? No. Just speculation.
 
grisamentum said:
Obviously nuclear weapons changes the whole dynamic. To be frank I dont think its even worth discussing because there is a decent chance that nobody would really risk using them because it would automatically mean getting nuked back. Second the overall effects on a nation of getting massively nuked are completely unknown. At most we have seen a country get nuked after a protracted conventional war that they were losing, without their own nuclear weapons to hit back. Nobody knows what would happen if every major city in a country got nuked. Total chaos? Banding together to survive? Is any of us an expert in things that have never ever happened? No. Just speculation.
Click to expand...
and remember that those nukes were really small compared to the nukes of the cold war and today.
 
This thread is scaring me!
I hope everyone who thinks he has the bigger guns won't have tha chance of prove it IRL :)

A modern strategic game based on military might makes little sense, and anyway it would be way too controversial as we can see.
 
Military might is not only dependent upon who has the most and best equipment, but how that equipment will be used and where, e.g. it would be suicide to use tanks in jungles. Also the strategy and experience of your commanders/officers are at least as important as the quality and quantity of your equipment. Plus in a modern setting there is a big risk of someone just pushing that red button resulting in a global nuclear war.
 
Yeah, this thread did go to neverland...

Perhaps a mix between Diplomacy and Capitalism... but again, it's kind of a contemporary "The Guild", not sure if it would be interesting...
 
Tiaexz said:
Plus the fact economists are constantly inventing new schemes and rules in order to scam more money from the populace makes modelling very difficult as how are you going to recreate the events of the latest depression with corporations 'breaking the rules' as providing the from figures for LIBOR, 'mislabeled subprime packages', currency trading. and what not. The imaginary economy market (where everything is just numbers on a computer screen) is worth six times more than the real market (where there are actual products).
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you're retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back