UN Game [Realistic]

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 14:21

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 13:55

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 13:30

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 13:06

I just came here to LOL.
LOLOLOLOLOL.
Okay, have a nice day.

Thanks, but no thanks. No room for idiots here.

Shh, I'm trying to piss Unleashed off hahahahahaha xD
It's REALLY hilarious and funny to see him making an UN.

He's made one without all of that UN sp farming, realism and balancing. And he claims that this UN helps a bit with skill. So he's making the best of the UN players.

As long as it's ally-based or diplomacy-based, and there are extra units/op income (I haven't seen it, but probably it's like that) it will always be noobish. Any UN based scenario or WW is just unskilled.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 15:02

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 14:21

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 13:55

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 13:30

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 13:06

I just came here to LOL.
LOLOLOLOLOL.
Okay, have a nice day.

Thanks, but no thanks. No room for idiots here.

Shh, I'm trying to piss Unleashed off hahahahahaha xD
It's REALLY hilarious and funny to see him making an UN.

He's made one without all of that UN sp farming, realism and balancing. And he claims that this UN helps a bit with skill. So he's making the best of the UN players.

As long as it's ally-based or diplomacy-based, and there are extra units/op income (I haven't seen it, but probably it's like that) it will always be noobish. Any UN based scenario or WW is just unskilled.

You didn't see it. So play it first. Before being a dumbass.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 15:02

As long as it's ally-based or diplomacy-based, and there are extra units/op income (I haven't seen it, but probably it's like that) it will always be noobish. Any UN based scenario or WW is just unskilled.

Lol, glad you're having fun. That never pissed me off. Initially it was called WW3 but it didn't attract attention so I renamed it into UN.
But as usual, it will attract mostly noobs. That's what UN does.

However, to claim that any WW game doesn't require skill, you have to be an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Which you are. Speaking of skill, if WW2 scenario, world games etc, are so shitty, what are you good at? 3v3?

Let me refresh your memory, in the 3v3 games that you worship so much, I demolished you in less than 5 turns. And it was also a CW.

लिखा द्वारा Unleashed, 15.03.2014 at 10:36

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 14.03.2014 at 15:02

As long as it's ally-based or diplomacy-based, and there are extra units/op income (I haven't seen it, but probably it's like that) it will always be noobish. Any UN based scenario or WW is just unskilled.

Lol, glad you're having fun. That never pissed me off. Initially it was called WW3 but it didn't attract attention so I renamed it into UN.
But as usual, it will attract mostly noobs. That's what UN does.

However, to claim that any WW game doesn't require skill, you have to be an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Which you are. Speaking of skill, if WW2 scenario, world games etc, are so shitty, what are you good at? 3v3?

Let me refresh your memory, in the 3v3 games that you worship so much, I demolished you in less than 5 turns. And it was also a CW.

Everything you said above is not valid.
I didn't say I did piss you off, I said I was trying to, keep that in mind.
WW is the most shitty scenario ever, any WW. I am not good at "3v3s". I am good at everything, I would rape you if we play. You did beat me in CW after I came back after 3 weeks, I played bad, rangefailed a lot.
UN, WW3..Lol, it's the same. I don't know what would ww3 be about, but probably the same as un, because yours is an UN. It is an UN GAME, no excuses. It is diplomacy based, too. It is not just attractive to noobs, but you boosted income everywhere.
I feel sorry for you, Unleashed.
I saw your skill lacks a lot of times. We should 1v1 some time

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 11:34

Everything you said above is not valid.
I didn't say I did piss you off, I said I was trying to, keep that in mind.
WW is the most shitty scenario ever, any WW.

Hahahah, someone takes things a little too seriously it seems

Which makes it even funnier LOLOL

"Unleashed, ur post is invalid"

Hahaha . butthurt child lol

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 11:34

I am good at everything

No you're not, come on.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 11:34

I would rape you if we play

Please. Let's be realistic.

Apparently the fact that I crushed you in 4 turns in 3v3 really affected you. Sorry, I won't do it again LOLOL

लिखा द्वारा Unleashed, 15.03.2014 at 12:27

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 11:34

Everything you said above is not valid.
I didn't say I did piss you off, I said I was trying to, keep that in mind.
WW is the most shitty scenario ever, any WW.

Hahahah, someone takes things a little too seriously it seems

Which makes it even funnier LOLOL

"Unleashed, ur post is invalid"

Hahaha . butthurt child lol

Your posts made me laugh again xDDDDD
Thanks.

The previous one made you cry. So I had to make you laugh. I take care of children.

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 02:14

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

The realism factor shouldn't be considered in AW because the game itself is unrealistic.
The rules aren't important for balancing. If there are two teams, then they fight.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 07:56

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 02:14

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

The realism factor shouldn't be considered in AW because the game itself is unrealistic.
The rules aren't important for balancing. If there are two teams, then they fight.

oh, so the game isn't very realistic. So that means we shouldn't make it anymore realistic! GENIUS

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 10:58

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 07:56

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 02:14

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

The realism factor shouldn't be considered in AW because the game itself is unrealistic.
The rules aren't important for balancing. If there are two teams, then they fight.

oh, so the game isn't very realistic. So that means we shouldn't make it anymore realistic! GENIUS

Yes, it does mean that.
AW will always be unrealistic.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 11:08

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 10:58

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 07:56

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 02:14

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

The realism factor shouldn't be considered in AW because the game itself is unrealistic.
The rules aren't important for balancing. If there are two teams, then they fight.

oh, so the game isn't very realistic. So that means we shouldn't make it anymore realistic! GENIUS

Yes, it does mean that.
AW will always be unrealistic.

It does not hurt to make it more unrealistic.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 13:55

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 11:08

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 10:58

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 07:56

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 02:14

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

The realism factor shouldn't be considered in AW because the game itself is unrealistic.
The rules aren't important for balancing. If there are two teams, then they fight.

oh, so the game isn't very realistic. So that means we shouldn't make it anymore realistic! GENIUS

Yes, it does mean that.
AW will always be unrealistic.

It does not hurt to make it more unrealistic.

Yes. So? :S
Still stupid to make it "realistic".

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 15:16

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 13:55

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 11:08

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 10:58

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 07:56

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 02:14

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

The realism factor shouldn't be considered in AW because the game itself is unrealistic.
The rules aren't important for balancing. If there are two teams, then they fight.

oh, so the game isn't very realistic. So that means we shouldn't make it anymore realistic! GENIUS

Yes, it does mean that.
AW will always be unrealistic.

It does not hurt to make it more unrealistic.

Yes. So? :S
Still stupid to make it "realistic".

Why? people would have fun.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 16:27

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 15:16

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 13:55

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 11:08

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 10:58

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 07:56

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 16.03.2014 at 02:14

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 17:54

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 15.03.2014 at 13:15

Alexmeza, how is a team game based on diplomacy?

We took this into pr chat. :l
By diplomacy I do not mean allies. I mean rules and UN bases.

All the rules do is add realism and balancing. And the UN base also balances the fights.

The realism factor shouldn't be considered in AW because the game itself is unrealistic.
The rules aren't important for balancing. If there are two teams, then they fight.

oh, so the game isn't very realistic. So that means we shouldn't make it anymore realistic! GENIUS

Yes, it does mean that.
AW will always be unrealistic.

It does not hurt to make it more unrealistic.

Yes. So? :S
Still stupid to make it "realistic".

Why? people would have fun.

Aight, this convo has ended here I guess.

लिखा द्वारा Unleashed, 12.04.2014 at 09:06

I'm thinking of turning this into Ukraine crisis scenario where china gets involved

Would be cool, like in this UN map with 2 Ukraine's. pro UK and Kiev.

There could be a rule on how countries can involve in a civil war. Like if Russia wants to fight kiev, they ''give'' weapons and soldiers to Pro Ukr, by placing their stacks in Ukraine for a turn, and then they could fight. You may want to adjust it though.

Ok so A: I really like the idea and thought that went into this, hopefully it is successful!
B: What happens if the UN refuses to surrender? Ban? if so, who would be enforcing it?

लिखा द्वारा Camel, 13.12.2014 at 11:29

Ok so A: I really like the idea and thought that went into this, hopefully it is successful!
B: What happens if the UN refuses to surrender? Ban? if so, who would be enforcing it?

Ban lists. Also UN is weaker. A quote from Unleashed:

''It's like a very young elephant tied to a stick. It cannot break free. But it grows larger and larger, and can break free but is accustomed to having the stick bound it. It doesn't know''

Not very accurate but close enough

The United Nations can do stuff independently on this map.
Therefore, not realistic.
Stop trying to do false advertising!!!

(actually, I love this concept. Is it finished? if not, when will it be?)

लिखा द्वारा International, 19.12.2014 at 01:55

The United Nations can do stuff independently on this map.
Therefore, not realistic.
Stop trying to do false advertising!!!

(actually, I love this concept. Is it finished? if not, when will it be?)

Explain

also the map is finished

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 19.12.2014 at 04:49

The United Nations in real life has 110,000 troops under its control.

Even medium-to-weak secondary powers like Poland (120,000 troops), Ukraine (230,000 troops), Thailand (305,000 troops) and of course, North Korea (1,190,000 troops) can afford to keep more troops on their payroll than the United Nations can.

Heck, if you count reserve troops as well, even tiny irrelevancies like Armenia (210,000 reserves) or pacifist Sweden (200,000 reserves) has more troops than the United Nations.

The United Nations intervening in a war between major powers with strong economies, without backup, and actually managing to make a difference is a totally unrealistic prospect, at least for the time being.

The Soviet Union in the Second World War, which wasn't a rich country by anyone's standards, managed to mobilize something close to one-tenth of their population into battle, after all. Who's to say a desperate modern-day country can't do the same?

लिखा द्वारा International, 19.12.2014 at 05:05

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 19.12.2014 at 04:49

The United Nations in real life has 110,000 troops under its control.

Even medium-to-weak secondary powers like Poland (120,000 troops), Ukraine (230,000 troops), Thailand (305,000 troops) and of course, North Korea (1,190,000 troops) can afford to keep more troops on their payroll than the United Nations can.

Heck, if you count reserve troops as well, even tiny irrelevancies like Armenia (210,000 reserves) or pacifist Sweden (200,000 reserves) has more troops than the United Nations.

The United Nations intervening in a war between major powers with strong economies, without backup, and actually managing to make a difference is a totally unrealistic prospect, at least for the time being.

The Soviet Union in the Second World War, which wasn't a rich country by anyone's standards, managed to mobilize something close to one-tenth of their population into battle, after all. Who's to say a desperate modern-day country can't do the same?

And how do you propose to make the UN more realistic? I am genuinely want to know

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 19.12.2014 at 05:18

And how do you propose to make the UN more realistic? I am genuinely want to know

I believe I already told you my idea? Ah well. I'll write it again.

My idea goes as follows:
The normal UN cities that are spread out across the world has very little income. Almost all UN income will be derived from "income cities" (similar to how people made Swiss Vaults in Antarctica).

But each UN income city will be paired with one city from a major power, that can produce a unique "revoke funding" unit that has 100 collateral, specially for destroying the income of UN income cities. But between each pair, there are non-passable zones, so that each country can only take out one UN funding city.

Say, for example,

US Presence (1 income, can produce revoke funding units)
US UN Funding (250 income, 1 reinforcement, can only produce militia)
-Impassable Zone-
UK Presence (1 income, can produce revoke funding units)
UK UN Funding (250 income, 1 reinforcement, can only produce militia)
-Impassable Zone=
France Presence (...)

...and so on, so forth. You get the idea. So, UN can only do stuff if other countries are willing to let them.

The same mechanic can be used for EU, NATO, and any other international organizations you feel like adding.

लिखा द्वारा International, 19.12.2014 at 05:30

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 19.12.2014 at 05:18

And how do you propose to make the UN more realistic? I am genuinely want to know

I believe I already told you my idea? Ah well. I'll write it again.

My idea goes as follows:
The normal UN cities that are spread out across the world has very little income. Almost all UN income will be derived from "income cities" (similar to how people made Swiss Vaults in Antarctica).

But each UN income city will be paired with one city from a major power, that can produce a unique "revoke funding" unit that has 100 collateral, specially for destroying the income of UN income cities. But between each pair, there are non-passable zones, so that each country can only take out one UN funding city.

Say, for example,

US Presence (1 income, can produce revoke funding units)
US UN Funding (250 income, 1 reinforcement, can only produce militia)
-Impassable Zone-
UK Presence (1 income, can produce revoke funding units)
UK UN Funding (250 income, 1 reinforcement, can only produce militia)
-Impassable Zone=
France Presence (...)

...and so on, so forth. You get the idea. So, UN can only do stuff if other countries are willing to let them.

The same mechanic can be used for EU, NATO, and any other international organizations you feel like adding.

So killing UN is easier?

HELL YES

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 19.12.2014 at 05:31

So killing UN is easier?
HELL YES

If you cooperate, yes.
The UN will only be able to field a meaningful army as long as most players support, or at least tolerate, the UN. But when most players band against the UN...

Let's see how much of an army the UN can have on 20 income.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 19.12.2014 at 00:51

लिखा द्वारा Camel, 13.12.2014 at 11:29

Ok so A: I really like the idea and thought that went into this, hopefully it is successful!
B: What happens if the UN refuses to surrender? Ban? if so, who would be enforcing it?

Ban lists. Also UN is weaker. A quote from Unleashed:

''It's like a very young elephant tied to a stick. It cannot break free. But it grows larger and larger, and can break free but is accustomed to having the stick bound it. It doesn't know''

Not very accurate but close enough