Forum

WW3 made easy:
The first Gulf War happens, but he US with British forces fully invade and occupy Iraq, which goes as bad as the second Gulf War... turning into a quagmire. Meanwhile, the US also gets heavily involved in the Pacific because China attempts a Taiwan invasion, and North Korea detonates a nuke. All of this pulls forces out of Europe to support the wars in Asia. Then, India and Pakistan go to war again, but this time with short range tactical nukes.
The USSR takes advantage of the situation and starts WW3 in Europe.

That's pretty elegant. I don't think you even need the whole China/NK angle which is a little farfetched.

Desert Storm but we're going all the way to Baghdad? Very feasible.
Oh oops, we aren't greeted as liberators? Also very feasible.
The USSR is still around and invests even more heavily in supporting the Iraqi insurgents, the rise of Iran as a regional power, and so on? This sounds good.
Much like real life, NATO governments start to have infighting about troop commitments, etc, but on an even larger level? Ah good good.

Now just throw in a flashpoint crisis pretty much anywhere. Inexperienced Soviet leaders make a bad gamble thinking NATO has less resolve than it does and semi-accidentally kick off a war no one is prepared for? But at least temporarily have the advantage because a decent number of NATO troops are stuck in the Middle East?

Pretty good setup really. I like it for a whole bunch of reasons: it seems reasonable to play out in the span of less than a decade, it doesn't seem far-fetched because we've all lived through these events in a slightly different form, it tells us a little bit about what's happening anywhere in the world but Europe, and it heavily involves oil security (which would help explain the rapid recovery of Soviet economy).

It is true that Fria Ligan are very unlikely to want scrap a large chunk of the work they're now clearly so invested in just to satisfy a few complainers — and rightly so!

But what if it turns out to be more than "just a few"?

If the worldbuilding already — after only a few days! — is getting 4e compared to 3e; if it turns out that those who actually like the current worldbuilding are the ones in minority ... wouldn't it be wise to actually acknowledge a value to the feedback and consider it at face value?

It is true that Fria Ligan are very unlikely to want scrap a large chunk of the work they're now clearly so invested in just to satisfy a few complainers — and rightly so!

But what if it turns out to be more than "just a few"?

If the worldbuilding already — after only a few days! — is getting 4e compared to 3e; if it turns out that those who actually like the current worldbuilding are the ones in minority ... wouldn't it be wise to actually acknowledge a value to the feedback and consider it at face value?

So far I have only seen a handfull of people that is talking about this and they do it on more than one social platform (the same people here and there) and then you have the tail. They are not so many either. They mostly agree to what the first bunch say, not that they have read anything themselves. If it is a majority, then we would have seen more than a handfull of people.

No it is unlikely that FL will scrap everything they have done because some people don't like it. They may change a thing here and a thing there. People underestimate how much small changes here and there can do to the whole picture.

edit: I should also mention (I saw this among the kickstarter comments) that the world needs to be playable, it needs to be interesting to play in.

That's pretty elegant. I don't think you even need the whole China/NK angle which is a little farfetched.

Except that it is opening another can of worms... and, of course, it is just taking our post 9/11 situation and retrofit it several years before, but conveniently ignoring the troubles in the Caucasus, trans Caucasus, and central Asia. Because what happened in Iraq post 2003 was in large part tied to the rising 'militant Islam' trend, something that is not even touched (rightly so, I must add) in the current timeline.

What is happening inside the URSS in this case? They would surely have their own problems, and probably fighting their own internal quagmires. Why going to fight the great satan in Iraq, when you can fight the little satan at home? Funnily enough it would probably creates some common ground between NATO and Moscow, and possibly even Beijing (they have their own problems there too).

Plus China invading Taiwan as long Soviet Union is still a threat is again silly.

What I found incredibly funny of the whole situation... several people pointed out flaws... then people started to propose quick fixes... that just increased the flaws. It starting to looks like an... LCS... and we are also told, like some geniuses in the USN does... that no worries with little fixes it will work. Yet the LCSs are being phased out in favor of an Italian designed real frigate...

Trash the timeline, trash the background, trash the war and start over and write one for Twilight 2000 and not for Soviet Victory in WW3.

Brutal, uncompromising, a certainly harsh... but not without truth.

What I see is a 1st Edition Timeline that made sense at start, but ended up in silliness with the European free for all. A 2nd Edition that tried to flip backward to incorporate changes in the real world but without being persuading. A 3rd Edition so bad that everyone stayed away from it... and a 4th Edition that to fix real and perceived problems in the timeline creates plenty of new ones...

I know I am not known for my diplomatic skills... but I reiterate my question, had anyone of the writers tried to wargame the War or even tabulated order of battles at start?

I see a problem in the method used...

There are about a dozen people that have posted in this thread regarding the background, and if you include the thread on the UK and a few other comments, there are maybe 2 dozen people commentating. Out of the ~8000 KS backers, so agreed, that is a tiny number.

But how does that compare to the number of people that have commented in total? (Have a few hundred backers made comments or a few thousand?)
And how does it compare to the number of comments on any other single aspect of the game?

Also, how many comments on the background are positive (there is at least one in the KS comments)?

Lack of commentary doesn't necessary mean we agree with something, It might indicate that we don't have knowledge of it (I'm not going to comment on the Swedish element of the setting - I don't have the knowledge), or prioritisation (limited time, so comment on the bits that most matter to that individual).
.
FL released the alpha and asked us to make comments. We're commenting. If FL want to ignore the comments they can and will - they are the writer/publisher.

It seems to me that the arguments presented at least on this forum (I don't use social media) are based on reasoned logic: if something is fundamentally true, it shouldn't matter how many or how few people are saying it.

However, I'm no longer specifically discussing T2K or the Alpha, which is putting me dangerous close to abusing the hospitality of our forum hosts (which is not my intent), so I'll shut up now.

I’ll add my voice to those that think the timeline as it stands goes too far into the realms of implausibility. In my opinion, the Soviet Union has been made far too powerful, particularly given the game’s own timeline states that it’s ‘on its knees’ in 1993 but by 1996/97 it’s strong enough to take on and apparently beat the combined Armies of NATO, Sweden, and various former Warsaw Pact members without any allies of its own and launch an invasion of the United Kingdom.

Possible options to try and redress this without a major rewrite

Drop the idea of a Soviet invasion of the United Kingdom. It’s not necessary for game play reasons and it’s utterly implausible

Downsize considerably the scale of the final battles in 2000 that apparently result in multiple NATO Divisions being overrun. Reduce that to only one or two Divisions being overrun (as was done in the 1e timeline)

Respectfully disagree, Arrigo -- the rise of militant Islam within the USSR is not a foregone conclusion, given different circumstances. For instance: what if a sizable number of jihadis/key leadership decide to leave Chechnya and head over to where the jihad is happening, in Iraq -- in part because the KGB covertly encourages and permits this! We know this is not infeasible because it has happened elsewhere. So, rather than a similar crisis arising in the USSR, you have them exporting their troubles easily, and rather than building common ground with Washington, they are inflaming tensions. Why fight the big Satan over there when you could fight the small one here? I don't know, I'm not a jihadist -- but it is extremely common, and there are lots of good answers to the question depending on the bent of the persons/groups in question.

Perhaps the collapse of Operation Reset, and multiple NATO divisions, could be soothed over with the mention of a handful of present-day tactical nuke strikes? Weapons that intelligence thought the Soviets no longer had -- but clearly they did?

People seem to be posting here in a panic about the Soviets "handily winning" WW3, but they must be reading something different than I did. They do have the upper hand, in a way that is a bit Red Dawn implausible... but it's not like these divisions overrunning Poland at the onset of play are going to reach the Rhine. They're going to run out of fuel and parts and men (and C3) again well before that and everything will go back to stasis, ruin, and desertion. That picture is made very clear in the rest of the text.

Here is the true part though that social media and avid debaters are not talking about, what the vast ammount of player groups mostly likely feel.

1) most of us care little for ultra realism, especially in a backstory
2) most of us care little or none for this appealing to the notion of keeping some odd "but hurhur my country was soOoo good at this, so we could never had x happend" frankly put, If there was aliens, zombies, plantmonsters or soviet vampire cabals its also fine. Plausible is not a word needed here because it is based on hindesight parameters pertaining our timeline.
3) it is a game of an alternative setting, the word is alternative which includes simply changing parameters that does not suit the design goal, this inclused strenght of various factions, ammount of soldiers, political outlook, prepardeness etc.

and lastly

4) the goal of this version is survival, down and gritty technical hexacrawl survival, not military conflict, not armies waging war. It is not a war strategy simulartor, it takes narrative shortcuts everywhere to get a narrative gameplay and this game already borders on to crunchy to be fun.

There is always just using the old setting and the new rules if you like it, i mean the ammount of space it has in the books is minor compare to the rules.