World War 3 Simulation Nato vs Bricks


Born : America , every country in Europe , Canada , Australia , Japan , South Korea . Bricks : Russia , China , North Korea , India , Brazil and South America .


3 Responses

  1. I agree with this. But I don't think that many people will die.

  2. Ummm… a little off there on your superpowers. South America has little to no military power and has very loose formation of government, in all likeliness they would not participate in WW3 due to poor economic stances and government issues. Also, Mexico would never wage war on the US. There are specific pacts binding NA together through military and economic struggle. I can see for the purpose of making an interesting simulation you would throw in random countries but if anything Canada and Mexico would assist the US with manufacturing power and money. As for the US running out of troops, lets be realistic. The US has around 3 mil troops including reserves, that is almost the largest amount in the world. The US also spends more money on military than the next 9 countries combined, almost all of which are allies. As for the EU nations, Germany and France would not be so easy to invade with support of all of your defined NATO countries. It's comical to include any African states in this war just as it would be comical to include South American states. If I were you I would redo this simulation with similar strategies but have more realistic data (by 2032 statistics will not have changed drastically so its safe to assume you could use the same stats per country just in larger amounts). As for the BRICS alliance you made, it was a cool acronym but more than likely there would only be an strong alliance between Russia/China/India. Russia barely tolerates North Korea as it is, but you could, for simulation purposes, throw NK into the alliance for military strategy. You could call it the Asian Compact or something, you are clever enough to come up with a fitting name. As for the overall simulation I believe it was done very well, however some things were indeed off. I'd check current statistics so you could be more accurate. Also, if you are going to have specific Theatres going on across the world you should have defined fronts. Example: North Korea and Russian Navy have a Pacific Theatre attacking southeastern Asian states, moving onward to (designated location). China and India have a West Asia Theatre on the Eurasia front trying to take (designated location) while Russia launches a European Theatre on NATO states starting at (designated location) etc. Also, don't just pick states and throw them into "sides", do a realistic viewpoint of which nations are likely to participate. Occupying a region or state however could be something similar to what you've already done (thrown in states that are unlikely to fight) but provide strategic military advantages all the same as if that country were on a said alliance. The detail you put in was very well done and a very thought out process. On one last note, assassination of political leaders is highly unlikely in current military standards once a war has been declared, so its very unlikely that Putin would be knocked off so easily by basic infantrymen such as Royal Marines. And to comment on who assassinated Putin, Royal Marines are basic soldiers as are US Marines or Army Rangers, if you were going to throw assassination into the mix you would want to use spec op forces such as the SAS, KSK, SEALs etc. that are on joint operations. Everything else was good but you could make it so great if you refined and tweaked it, either way, magnificent job!

  3. Haha why would America follow China and Russia. If you take the homeland, the military looses too. this was like a chase.

Leave a Reply

© 2015 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.