We could start as early as this Saturday if everyone is ready. While we're at it, I'll lay down the basic framework I'd like the game to take.
I want the game to be realistic. That is, sensible diplomacy that reflects how things in the real word as it would have been. No France declaring War on fellow NATO member Germany. No Canada attacking the US. I'd like to avoid player v. player wars....at least for a while The preference will be that players put themselves in the shoes of the leaders of the countries real world counterparts. If the USSR attacks the US (or NATO member) in real life, it will likely go nuclear. The same mindset should be kept here. Also, I'd like random DoW's to be kept to a minimum. A real justification should be present, to make the game more realistic. I.e, its one thing for the China to get involved in Korea or Vietnam. Or for America to fight back if attacked by Cuba. But the USSR shouldn't randomly invade say....West Germany for no reason, or Australia. And if you do attack a country, I'd like to see the colony function taken advantage of; if your the US and you take over Iraq, it makes no sense to annex it. Also, it would be good if the players could build up their blocs of influence with a bit of realism. I don't want it to be a pure historical simulation (that's no fun, because we know how it ends,) but I don't want it to be a PVP nuclear bloodbath after 1 year of game time.
A soldier fights for his comrades. I fought for my family. You and our troop were my only family. The workers and peasants may not understand, but your men will. Why do you think we loved you?