Fria Ligans forum

Why do you want to constrain gamers to an official timeline? How does this make the game better?

I expect consistency. Just as I expect a series of books, films, tv shows to be consistent within the world they have created. A well thought out world building is also nice.

I think this generally makes the product better.

I expect consistency. Just as I expect a series of books, films, tv shows to be consistent within the world they have created.

I have no doubt your game-world will be very consistent. So will mine.

Why do they need to be consistent with each other's?

A well thought out world building is also nice.

Agreed. So let's give gamers tools to help them build their worlds, instead of building it for them.

Put the game in gamers' hands and let them figure out what happens next. Give them tools, not 'series.' Give them mysteries, not 'canon.' Give inspiration. Help gamers create.

The idea certainly has a certain attractiveness.

However, as we all know it's not going to happen; that there will be a "canon" timeline ... I'd certainly prefer that timeline to be the best it can be straight out of the box.

Bearing in mind that tastes of course will differ — some are okay with the current timeline or a modified one, some would prefer amendments for plausibility, some would like to see zombies in it, and some even feel the current one is preferable to any conceivable alternative. And among those who would prefer to see the timeline re-written for plausibility, there will of course be differences in preferences. What would constitute an optimal timeline for one will not necessarily be the same same for another.

So, bearing that in mind ... what would constitute a timeline that would "be the best that it can be"?


IMHO, the best answer would be the one that is the least divisive. And right now, the Alpha draft seems to fall somewhat short of that mark.


But having actively participated in and attentively watched this process since the Alpha was released (and for months previous), I am no longer convinced that any of this really matters.

From comments posted here by Ligan, I get the impression that while there was what was called an Alpha release, and while backers were invited to comment and submit feedback, there appears to be certain parts of the books to which such feedback seems somewhat less welcome than to others. At least on the threads I've perused, the number of "good point, we'll have to fix that!" or even "we already knew that and might consider it" responses seem rather fewer than the "that's not likely to be changed" or downright "we don't consider that a relevant feature" responses, as well as some more overtly defensive comments.
And considering that the positive responses have pretty exclusively concerned mechanics, I am beginning to conclude that actual feedback on the timeline is really not solicited.

This may be because that part hasn't been written in-house, but commissioned from an external author. Meaning, it's most likely already been contractually delivered and paid for. To make extensive changes in it now — never mind a full re-write! — would therefore probably incur substantial additional production cost, likely throwing Ligan's budget calculations for the project severely off-kilter.

If I am right, this will mean that it won't — can't — matter what feedback we submit on the timeline.
Literally whatever we could possibly say about it — perhaps short of pointing out that some part breaks the law or would get Ligan into deep waters with Twitter storms, as has happened with certain other companies — the timeline will not be touched.

And for my own part, I find that perspective rather disheartening.

Rule questions are easier to answer for FL than others here (on their own forum) because they are the ones writing them and also are easier to talk about since they mostly are about balancing. The setting material is as you say, for the most part not written by FL and almost none of the writers are here (one that I know of, but he hardly post here) and to be honest I have hardly ever seen the setting writers comment much anywhere (I have seen a couple of fb comments and some posts on rpg.net by Chris but that's it.

Regarding setting, that can also be harder to talk about since there are no right or wrong, only opinions (even though some of you here think otherwise) because it is a changed, alternative timeline. Some people have also been extremely hostile when discussing this, so it is understandable that neither the setting writers or FL take part of such discussions (anymore) and I can't really blame them for it. It doesn't matter in what direction you turn, you upset someone. That doesn't mean that they aren't aware of the discussions and they won't adjust the alternative history line.

Rule questions are easier to answer for FL than others here (on their own forum) because they are the ones writing them and also are easier to talk about since they mostly are about balancing. The setting material is as you say, for the most part not written by FL and almost none of the writers are here (one that I know of, but he hardly post here) and to be honest I have hardly ever seen the setting writers comment much anywhere (I have seen a couple of fb comments and some posts on rpg.net by Chris but that's it.

Regarding setting, that can also be harder to talk about since there are no right or wrong, only opinions (even though some of you here think otherwise) because it is a changed, alternative timeline. Some people have also been extremely hostile when discussing this, so it is understandable that neither the setting writers or FL take part of such discussions (anymore) and I can't really blame them for it. It doesn't matter in what direction you turn, you upset someone. That doesn't mean that they aren't aware of the discussions and they won't adjust the alternative history line.

Good answer!

Makes me feel hopeful again.

Module A3 building on A2 and A1 isn't a problem. But B1 assuming anything in A2 having already happened is. 1e didn't do that. The "Homefront" modules could be played by survivors of the "Poland" modules who got home, but that isn't a locked-in assumption. That is good design. And any supplements should ignore the modules and be set before they occur.

Basically, the campaign start is D-Day. D-X is the canon for the Legion to write. D+X is for the players, and this includes module series. Supplements are part of the canon; they are as of D-Day. This keeps everything playable regardless of campaign.

This article is particularly illuminating, and lends some support to a the idea that the Soviet Union could have had success against NATO in a "conventional war with limited aims." Thanks to StainlessSteelCynic for the find.

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Soviet-Un ... &srid=zKfs

A particularly germane quote from the author's strategic analysis:

"Launching a conventional war with limited aims in Northern Europe (Seven Days to the Rhine) with an openly declared promise not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, would produce such a shock to our system it would have been economically catastrophic.

Recovery from that would have put Russia and the USA on more equal financial terms as much of the Dollar economy is based on confidence and communication, while the Russian economy was captive. It may not be a plan to take over the world, but quite possibly enough coercion to get the world to pay them off - give them Germany, Denmark, Holland and back off from China to stop them slapping us about.

It was unlikely, but many historical pivots only needed a gentle push off the cliff. In August 1991 I sat in a tank shed in Hohne listing to the BBC news tell us about the Soviet coup in Moscow . Gorbachev was rumoured to have been killed, the Tamanskya Guards Division were rolling around the Kremlin, shady generals were in charge and unhappy with the imminent end of Soviet power. There were still millions of WarPac soldiers and tons of equipment within a day’s drive from our position.

It was genuinely the scariest couple of days of my career."

So, perhaps the Soviet attack on Eastern Europe in the v4 timeline was a result of two pieces of Soviet strategic thinking: One, to brink some of its errant former republics and WTO members back into the Soviet fold, recreating the territorial buffer v. NATO (a top Soviet priority since its national inception). Two, to take control of some NATO territory to hold hostage, as it were, to be ransomed for massive financial compensation in hard currency (or gold, or energy), thereby resuscitating the moribund Soviet economy.

Regarding gentle pushes off a pivotal cliff, and carrying on what I've been mentioning elsewhere as I expand my scope of historical Polish knowledge... seems like there's lots of low-hanging fruit there that could provoke a serious crisis in actual Poland.

A few small flicks of the wrist, historically, in the late '80s and perhaps you have Lech Walesa assassinated, Solidarity under intense attack again, widespread Catholic outrage and resistance across Poland, Soviets refusing to leave... a powder keg that not only clearly leads to war, but also does it in the actual setting of the game. That's a win-win to me.