You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Twilight War
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
Actually, the Twilight War was a slow griding process with small, carefully targeted nuclear exchanges that were designed to alter the tactical balance or destroy the energy infrastructure of the opponents.
It started with a Sino-Soviet war, that lasted for at least a year before the Soviets simply nuked the Chinese Army off the battlefield. During this conflict, the alliance structure in Europe began to shift. The East and West German armies secretly hatch a plot to kick the Soviets out of East Germany while they are tied up with the war in China. The East German Army rebels and the West German Army crosses into East Germany to support them. With the plan on the brink of collapse due to stronger Soviet resistance than expected and significant Pact support for the Soviets emerging (Poland and Czeckoslovakia are not supportive of a reunited Germany) the US thows in on the side of the Germans, with US troops in West Germany crossing over into East Germany to support. This breaks NATO, and a series of side switches take place (Italy goes over to the Pact for example).
Think of it as World War I with a fast moving front and small scale use of nukes. In the end, the old order is wrecked and all of Europe and North America (exept for France) is trying to pick up the pieces like Eastern Europe did from 1918 til 1921 (only with less organization after the twilight war).
It is actually a very well thought out and non-standard future history. One of the better parts of the game when it first came out because it was much more inovative than most of the other Post WWIII games of the time.
It started with a Sino-Soviet war, that lasted for at least a year before the Soviets simply nuked the Chinese Army off the battlefield. During this conflict, the alliance structure in Europe began to shift. The East and West German armies secretly hatch a plot to kick the Soviets out of East Germany while they are tied up with the war in China. The East German Army rebels and the West German Army crosses into East Germany to support them. With the plan on the brink of collapse due to stronger Soviet resistance than expected and significant Pact support for the Soviets emerging (Poland and Czeckoslovakia are not supportive of a reunited Germany) the US thows in on the side of the Germans, with US troops in West Germany crossing over into East Germany to support. This breaks NATO, and a series of side switches take place (Italy goes over to the Pact for example).
Think of it as World War I with a fast moving front and small scale use of nukes. In the end, the old order is wrecked and all of Europe and North America (exept for France) is trying to pick up the pieces like Eastern Europe did from 1918 til 1921 (only with less organization after the twilight war).
It is actually a very well thought out and non-standard future history. One of the better parts of the game when it first came out because it was much more inovative than most of the other Post WWIII games of the time.
(laugh)small, carefully targeted nuclear exchanges
Then why, Dear Diety preserve us, bring it up at all? Since you know it'll be a flashpoint and you'll end up with the thread over on Random Static, would you even open this can of worms?Originally posted by Jame:
Oh yes, I think we're in a sort of Twilight War anyway, but
Edit: rats, I cut myself off.
But we're in it because of the U.S. and others. This isn't really the place to get into that, though.
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
The list is long and extensive. I dont have it in front of my right now but the list can be found in T2000 Ver 2, and I believe in a Challenge issue. (anyone confirm that?) I will post it if you'd like.Who Got Nuked in the Twilight War?
In short, 90% of all military bases got hit, there were no real exceptions though France installations were hit the least, though there were several which should have been named but were not.
Major industrial centers and areas of large scale oil refining and drilling.
Major high tech centers and computer based production areas.
Central political centers and country seats. I will have to check, but it seems London was mostly spared in the political arena.
Hundreds of nukes fell, but most were small yield, 10 to 25 kilotons. Every nation that had nuclear capability launched something. Small powers used the exchange to settle old blood and border disputes. The exchange was kept, as well as you can when throwing nukes around anyway, as a tactical exchange. Meaning, targets were of military importance. A strategic exchange would have involved cities and civilian areas which would affect a nation’s desire and will to fight but not necessarily their ability to fight.
To this mix of nukes we now add chemical and biological weapons. On the front lines these weapons would have been the preferred choice because they left equipment and land intact. Chemical and biological weapons would have been deployed strategically. (I know this was not part of the original T2K) Where possible, any city with a population of over 1 million would have been targeted.
While global deaths would have been significant from the nuke, chem and bio exchange the majority of the global death count comes from the ensuing rioting and panic, followed by the nuclear winter.
For an example I will use Colorado. The Cheyenne Mountain Complex (CMC), home of Space Command; Peterson AFB, home of US Space Command; Falcon AFB, a central sight for satellite control and other very high tech toys; The Air Force Academy and Fort Carson, Home of several infantry and armor divisions; are all located in Colorado Springs. Denver houses several National Guard and reserve bases, including a major army hospital. Denver also is a central location for industry and has a high technical base. Colorado Springs catches a nuke to take out CMC but the blast effectively takes out Ft Carson, Peterson and the USAFA. Falcon is just outside the blast area and remains largely intact, however, the electro magnetic pulse from the nuke destroys its computers and shuts it down. Radiation also plays a part. Colorado Springs is toast, though CMC survives. Denver catches a small nuke in the industrial and refining center, but the city itself gets hit with biological and chemical weapons leaving the major portion of the city intact. Through out Colorado a half dozen or so oil refining sites get nuked. The rest of the state fairs fairly well. Until winter. Riots destroy many smaller industries, food and fuel supply is stopped cold. Statewide Communication, not to mention interstate, is non existent and the transportation grid is gone. No heat, no food, no medicinal or EMS services. The population of Colorado drops 80 to 90% with in about an 8 month period. As spring finally rolls in there is a new order in Colorado. Survivors have banned together and communities have been formed throughout the state. With no state government each settlement is on its own and provides its own government and security. Perhaps a few settlements start to trade, but real trade between villages doesn’t take off for another year or two.
Whew….thats more than you asked for. But applying the example to a county will help you visualize the devastation around the globe. I hope all this helped a little, if you still want the complete list I will post the info.
Ok, I dug out the original 'Hit List' for the US from Challenge 27. It lists about 80 targets, primarally military bases, oil facilities, and national command authority sites. Total casualties are given as 135.2 mil, from both direct and subsequent effects from 1997 to 2000(52% of the population).
Taking Illinois as an example, 4 targets, Scott AFB and three oil refining and storage facilities. Niether Chicago or St. Louis are directly targeted, but both would have been effected by the strikes just outside the cities.
As to France, as I recall in version 1, France sat the war out completely and took no damage. That was my one real problem with the timeline. By 1999, the French could have tipped the ballance very easily by joining either side. I would argue that one of the two blocks would have taken France out with a pre-emptive strike before it could have entered the war against them (the Median dialog situation).
Taking Illinois as an example, 4 targets, Scott AFB and three oil refining and storage facilities. Niether Chicago or St. Louis are directly targeted, but both would have been effected by the strikes just outside the cities.
As to France, as I recall in version 1, France sat the war out completely and took no damage. That was my one real problem with the timeline. By 1999, the French could have tipped the ballance very easily by joining either side. I would argue that one of the two blocks would have taken France out with a pre-emptive strike before it could have entered the war against them (the Median dialog situation).
Two points:
One to the last poster: Taking out France might have been problematic for a weakened power, given that they might A) win France over to their side later and B) might get a thumping from France's assets. As long as France didn't show signs of going to the other side, there'd be no incentive.
Challenge also did an issue which showed the strikes in Canada, where Canadian units were, and described the fate of Canada. I have it somewhere downstairs.
One to the last poster: Taking out France might have been problematic for a weakened power, given that they might A) win France over to their side later and B) might get a thumping from France's assets. As long as France didn't show signs of going to the other side, there'd be no incentive.
Challenge also did an issue which showed the strikes in Canada, where Canadian units were, and described the fate of Canada. I have it somewhere downstairs.
I have been reading some more information about nuclear weapons that cleared up some of my own misconceptions about multiple warhead missiles.
I used to think that an 8 warhead MIRVed missile would mean you could hit 8 different targets. The thinking behind MIRVed was this, a single large warhead could seriously damage a city but 8 smaller warheads would cause greater damage over a wider area.
It is similar to the concept behind dropping one large HE bomb on an ground target or creating greater damage with a cluster bomb.
So if an MIRVed ICBM was aimed at a city it would great damage to the city but not destroy the army base 30 miles away. At least not though the direct effects of blast and heat.
So ICBMs and SLBMs are probably city busters with any other target incidental to the stragery of mutural assured destruction.
I used to think that an 8 warhead MIRVed missile would mean you could hit 8 different targets. The thinking behind MIRVed was this, a single large warhead could seriously damage a city but 8 smaller warheads would cause greater damage over a wider area.
It is similar to the concept behind dropping one large HE bomb on an ground target or creating greater damage with a cluster bomb.
So if an MIRVed ICBM was aimed at a city it would great damage to the city but not destroy the army base 30 miles away. At least not though the direct effects of blast and heat.
So ICBMs and SLBMs are probably city busters with any other target incidental to the stragery of mutural assured destruction.
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
vegascat reading your location, would you be out of Nellis?
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
Been there once or twice. Interesting. never stationed at Nellis though.
Sorry, back on topic now. The D20 ver of Twilight will have an updated target list, but not comprehensive. Comman areas where a referee might run a campaigne. Included will be some guesstimations of chemical and biological targets.
At the beginning of the thread the question was asked of Washington was nuked. Yes it was.
Sorry, back on topic now. The D20 ver of Twilight will have an updated target list, but not comprehensive. Comman areas where a referee might run a campaigne. Included will be some guesstimations of chemical and biological targets.
At the beginning of the thread the question was asked of Washington was nuked. Yes it was.
When you discuss target lists, you have to remember that there are 5 nuclear powers at this time. Each with a different stragety and weapons designed to accomplished that stragetic plan.
China: Not much is know about their weapons or plans. But more then likley aimed at the Soviet Union, the Siberian half at least. About 300 IRBMs,what survived the Soviet pre-emptive attack probably was used to destroy cities in Siberia. All their missiles would be gone by the time the war started in the west.
France: A pathetic nuclear arsernal designed to prevent a convential invasion of France. The land based Pluton and the bombers did not have the range to go past West Germany. The SLBM could barely go past the border of Poland. France was going to save Paris by destroying the rest of Europe. The US was a nuclear power so France was going to be a nuclear power.
United Kingdom: Based on the US Polaris missile they had a credible nuclear deterance policy. But with the small number of missiles the UK probably would fire one or two at Moscow if they were attacked. A majority would be reserved to prevent a convential invasion of the UK or Norway. Used mostly to destroy the Warsaw Pact naval bases in the Baltic or North seas. Leaving a handful as a stragetic reserve.
United States: The land based ICBMs would probably be fired as soon as a Soviet launch was detected. Faced with the possibility of losing them everything that could launch would. All aimed at the entire Soviet Union more than likely cities. You could talk about taking out missile silos but the truth is they would probably be empty. The Soviets would also realize; use them or lose them and fire everything. Given that these weapons have neven been used in a war two or three missiles would be fired at each target just to be sure.
The surviving bombers would be on their way but there is no reason to suppose all would reach their targets and without updated recon most would attack targets the missiles took out.
The SLBMs would be the best to insure the complete destruction of the Soviet Union. Except for those near the end of their patrol time most could wait for proper recon of the Soviet targets before launching their missiles. Again mostly cities.
Soviet Union: The Soviets would follow the US pattern. Use them or lose them. City Busters. SLBMs would be used as a first strike weapons considering no Soviet subs are going to survive the first day. They are the ones who might try to take out the US missiles or bombers plus command structures. Since the Soviets are going to fire first they are the only ones with the luxury of a plan. So if they decide to go for oil targets in their follow on strikes they going have to destroy all oil facilities in the world. Since the US is a maritime power anywhere in the world the US could get oil. So any oil facility not under control of the Warsaw Pact would have to be a target. Plus with targets in Europe that have to be attack there would be less missiles assigned to attack the US.
Conclusion: The only realistic attack plan is to destroy the cities. You do not have to worry about oil production if the oil workers are dead. Multiply that by all the other jobs you need to run a modern industy needed to support a WW3.
China: Not much is know about their weapons or plans. But more then likley aimed at the Soviet Union, the Siberian half at least. About 300 IRBMs,what survived the Soviet pre-emptive attack probably was used to destroy cities in Siberia. All their missiles would be gone by the time the war started in the west.
France: A pathetic nuclear arsernal designed to prevent a convential invasion of France. The land based Pluton and the bombers did not have the range to go past West Germany. The SLBM could barely go past the border of Poland. France was going to save Paris by destroying the rest of Europe. The US was a nuclear power so France was going to be a nuclear power.
United Kingdom: Based on the US Polaris missile they had a credible nuclear deterance policy. But with the small number of missiles the UK probably would fire one or two at Moscow if they were attacked. A majority would be reserved to prevent a convential invasion of the UK or Norway. Used mostly to destroy the Warsaw Pact naval bases in the Baltic or North seas. Leaving a handful as a stragetic reserve.
United States: The land based ICBMs would probably be fired as soon as a Soviet launch was detected. Faced with the possibility of losing them everything that could launch would. All aimed at the entire Soviet Union more than likely cities. You could talk about taking out missile silos but the truth is they would probably be empty. The Soviets would also realize; use them or lose them and fire everything. Given that these weapons have neven been used in a war two or three missiles would be fired at each target just to be sure.
The surviving bombers would be on their way but there is no reason to suppose all would reach their targets and without updated recon most would attack targets the missiles took out.
The SLBMs would be the best to insure the complete destruction of the Soviet Union. Except for those near the end of their patrol time most could wait for proper recon of the Soviet targets before launching their missiles. Again mostly cities.
Soviet Union: The Soviets would follow the US pattern. Use them or lose them. City Busters. SLBMs would be used as a first strike weapons considering no Soviet subs are going to survive the first day. They are the ones who might try to take out the US missiles or bombers plus command structures. Since the Soviets are going to fire first they are the only ones with the luxury of a plan. So if they decide to go for oil targets in their follow on strikes they going have to destroy all oil facilities in the world. Since the US is a maritime power anywhere in the world the US could get oil. So any oil facility not under control of the Warsaw Pact would have to be a target. Plus with targets in Europe that have to be attack there would be less missiles assigned to attack the US.
Conclusion: The only realistic attack plan is to destroy the cities. You do not have to worry about oil production if the oil workers are dead. Multiply that by all the other jobs you need to run a modern industy needed to support a WW3.
It was a limited tactical nuclear exchange. Russia hits a few bases, we hit a few bases, they hit some we hit some... We're talking bombers and subs launches not full scale assault.
The war needed to be attrition. The only way to accomplish that is not to wipe out everything...
Savage
The war needed to be attrition. The only way to accomplish that is not to wipe out everything...
Savage
Eamon,
You have covered what people expected to happen, and why, but that is not what the game designers were modeling. No major war in history has gone as the popular theorists have predicted. WWI was supposed to be short, fast moving and decisive. WWII was supposed to be slow and static. T2K tried to take that pattern and apply it to WWIII. Rather than short and catostrophic, it was long and debilitating. Tactical nukes at first, then limited theater, then small scale stratiegic.
No one wants to commit suicide. If they only fire one or two, are you going to respond with everything you have, or just in kind? That was part of the T2K hook. It was not what we had been led to imagine, but if you knew history, it was believable.
You have covered what people expected to happen, and why, but that is not what the game designers were modeling. No major war in history has gone as the popular theorists have predicted. WWI was supposed to be short, fast moving and decisive. WWII was supposed to be slow and static. T2K tried to take that pattern and apply it to WWIII. Rather than short and catostrophic, it was long and debilitating. Tactical nukes at first, then limited theater, then small scale stratiegic.
No one wants to commit suicide. If they only fire one or two, are you going to respond with everything you have, or just in kind? That was part of the T2K hook. It was not what we had been led to imagine, but if you knew history, it was believable.
Ranger,
You are correct about what the designers wanted to accomplished and that was their scenario. But an unrealistic model of nuclear war is not acceptable to me. This a lot about the background of the Twilight War I don't like, so I change it. I don't feel you have to be a purist to play any game. I am happy playing my game and I hope others enjoy playing theirs.
There were a lot of theories about nuclear war since no war was ever fought, yet. Yours and the designers were one of them, maybe you are right. But my theory was also present and based on human behavior and preception of what the other side might do.
There was a recent report that the Russian President almost launched a nuclear stike because of a single missile launch from Norway. This was after decades of detante and even talk of being Russia into the NATO alliance.
The US President has only 15 minutes from a Soviet launch to reach a decision about launching a counter-strike. In reality by the time they confirm,contact,and explain 5 minutes is more likely and that with the Secret Service running his ass down to the bunker. Do you think he has time to make an informed and reasonable decision.
Do you think he has time to pour though war plans and say " They are using the Trosty maneuver , We will counter with the Siberian Gold plan. ". All the President can do is send the authority to launch to the military commanders.
At that point there is only one realistic military response destroy the enemy cities to destroy their capacities to wage war. Hit their big target you are sure of destroying as opposed to their missle silos (after all the silos are probably empty or we cannot destroy them).
Wars don't go they the way they are supposed to.
That is why all militaries choose war plans that are not complicated in execution. Bring all force to bear on the enemy and destroy them.
This is way I don't play my game the T2K way.
You are correct about what the designers wanted to accomplished and that was their scenario. But an unrealistic model of nuclear war is not acceptable to me. This a lot about the background of the Twilight War I don't like, so I change it. I don't feel you have to be a purist to play any game. I am happy playing my game and I hope others enjoy playing theirs.
There were a lot of theories about nuclear war since no war was ever fought, yet. Yours and the designers were one of them, maybe you are right. But my theory was also present and based on human behavior and preception of what the other side might do.
There was a recent report that the Russian President almost launched a nuclear stike because of a single missile launch from Norway. This was after decades of detante and even talk of being Russia into the NATO alliance.
The US President has only 15 minutes from a Soviet launch to reach a decision about launching a counter-strike. In reality by the time they confirm,contact,and explain 5 minutes is more likely and that with the Secret Service running his ass down to the bunker. Do you think he has time to make an informed and reasonable decision.
Do you think he has time to pour though war plans and say " They are using the Trosty maneuver , We will counter with the Siberian Gold plan. ". All the President can do is send the authority to launch to the military commanders.
At that point there is only one realistic military response destroy the enemy cities to destroy their capacities to wage war. Hit their big target you are sure of destroying as opposed to their missle silos (after all the silos are probably empty or we cannot destroy them).
Wars don't go they the way they are supposed to.
That is why all militaries choose war plans that are not complicated in execution. Bring all force to bear on the enemy and destroy them.
This is way I don't play my game the T2K way.
What is 'unrealistic'? We don't really know what realistic is and few of us are informed enough to have a reasonable supposition. I once thought I was, but I was wrong I now believe.Originally posted by Eamon:
Ranger,
You are correct about what the designers wanted to accomplished and that was their scenario. But an unrealistic model of nuclear war is not acceptable to me.
Now, if a given model doesn't suit you, then you are of course free to change it. But I think bandying about the world 'realistic' or its antithesis is a bit dodgy.
The US President has only 15 minutes from a Soviet launch to reach a decision about launching a counter-strike. In reality by the time they confirm,contact,and explain 5 minutes is more likely and that with the Secret Service running his ass down to the bunker. Do you think he has time to make an informed and reasonable decision.
The fact that it hasn't happened yet suggest that few people are actually in a rush to stage the end of the world.
MAD has worked surprisingly better than anyone could reasonably have predicted, all nay saying and hand wringing to the contrary.
And a more realistic assessment, given SLBMs, is about 2-4 minutes from launch to impact. 15 minutes is very unlikely, except if you mean detecting the launches across the pole. But the SLBMs will arrive first, at a guess.
There have been *plenty* of incidents over the years, some fairly scary I give you. OTOH, a lot of the critics have failed to acknowledge that basically if no one stands to gain from a nuclear exchange, and no one wants to be 'the guy' to start one if he's wrong, the odds of it actually happening are less than they appear. Evidence seems to indicate that the odds of these situations being worked out are actually 100%, but we're both wise enough to realize this is not necessarily a sample representative of all possible situations.Do you think he has time to pour though war plans and say " They are using the Trosty maneuver , We will counter with the Siberian Gold plan. ". All the President can do is send the authority to launch to the military commanders.
No, but quite often they fall within the general parameters of the plan. Or the plan is a pretty crappy one.Wars don't go they the way they are supposed to.
Actually, many war plans are quite complicated.That is why all militaries choose war plans that are not complicated in execution. Bring all force to bear on the enemy and destroy them.
This is way I don't play my game the T2K way. [/QB]
What you don't want is to have an inflexible and unadaptable war plan or one in which too many things hinge upon too many preceeding things.
But that doesn't necessarily mean things are simple.
I refer you to the last two bouts of violence in the Persian Gulf region. I don't think any planning their could have been called 'simple'.
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
There are a couple thoughts I'd like to throw in. The US has plans for several styles of nuclear strikes. They cover everything from a single tiny warhead popped out of a submarine, to limited strikes on specific preplanned targets, to the full shebang. A full launch has always been a last resort. US policy is simply to provide a strong force of strategic weapons in order to deter an enemy from attempting a first strike.
Command and Control of our strategic arsenal is not so simple as waiting for the president to say go and buttons get pushed. Models have been developed and tested and automated to the point of; if A and B happen, then D and E, launch authority will be automatic if C happens. By the same token, if we have solid intel predicting a nuclear attack we can make a preemptive strike, eliminating the potential threat. There are ‘agreements’ in place between the various super powers which allow a preemptive strike against a third party. These agreements are designed so that a third party launch will not trigger a full exchange. The third parties know this and, hopefully, are deterred.
In the scenario of the Twilight war, the 1st nukes were the so called battlefield nukes. No full scale retaliation was called for. Planners and strategists from both sides went into action to see just how far events could proceed before a full scale attack occurred. Boundaries were made and then broken, but no one wanted to waste the world so new boundaries were set, and broken. This cycle repeated itself until wide scale tactical use of strategic weapons happened. There was a short step to a few strategic launches, since it was getting easier to lay waste to other places, and then a limited exchange occurred. The planners and strategists, particularly those in contested Europe, Asia and Russia, looked at each other and said, “oh oh”. Reality (and I use the term loosely) said that if the strategic strikes continued no one in Europe was going be alive. Even if some survived there would be no habitable land. And after all is said a done, it is land that wars are fought over. The number of strategic weapons was not reduced very much with what was luanched.
The idea of ‘they launch, we launch everything’ is really not a viable plan. The American continent has the advantage over the European simply because we are more friendly towards our neighbors and would be more likely to work together to survive. Where as, like in the Twilight war, Europe becomes a whole new war over survival.
Today, even a limited tactical nuclear exchange is almost impossible. Land, buildings and resources are much too valuable. Of course chemical and biological agents are a great second choice. Kill people, leave everything else, sounds pretty good to most strategic planners.
What is nice about a near future Sci-fi game is nothing is reality. The game describes an event, and a world to adventure in and enough information to suspend disbelief for a few hours. If you don’t like, change it. The referee is always right. Right? If everybody has fun, then the game is a success. We know we cant please everybody, but we can make them think. Eamon likes the concept of Twilight but not the way the pre-history was written so he has to think and design and plan to create a fun setting for his players, if it works, great. If it doesn’t, then he thinks and designs and plans again until it does. (Or he goes out and finds new players, hehe)
Command and Control of our strategic arsenal is not so simple as waiting for the president to say go and buttons get pushed. Models have been developed and tested and automated to the point of; if A and B happen, then D and E, launch authority will be automatic if C happens. By the same token, if we have solid intel predicting a nuclear attack we can make a preemptive strike, eliminating the potential threat. There are ‘agreements’ in place between the various super powers which allow a preemptive strike against a third party. These agreements are designed so that a third party launch will not trigger a full exchange. The third parties know this and, hopefully, are deterred.
In the scenario of the Twilight war, the 1st nukes were the so called battlefield nukes. No full scale retaliation was called for. Planners and strategists from both sides went into action to see just how far events could proceed before a full scale attack occurred. Boundaries were made and then broken, but no one wanted to waste the world so new boundaries were set, and broken. This cycle repeated itself until wide scale tactical use of strategic weapons happened. There was a short step to a few strategic launches, since it was getting easier to lay waste to other places, and then a limited exchange occurred. The planners and strategists, particularly those in contested Europe, Asia and Russia, looked at each other and said, “oh oh”. Reality (and I use the term loosely) said that if the strategic strikes continued no one in Europe was going be alive. Even if some survived there would be no habitable land. And after all is said a done, it is land that wars are fought over. The number of strategic weapons was not reduced very much with what was luanched.
The idea of ‘they launch, we launch everything’ is really not a viable plan. The American continent has the advantage over the European simply because we are more friendly towards our neighbors and would be more likely to work together to survive. Where as, like in the Twilight war, Europe becomes a whole new war over survival.
Today, even a limited tactical nuclear exchange is almost impossible. Land, buildings and resources are much too valuable. Of course chemical and biological agents are a great second choice. Kill people, leave everything else, sounds pretty good to most strategic planners.
What is nice about a near future Sci-fi game is nothing is reality. The game describes an event, and a world to adventure in and enough information to suspend disbelief for a few hours. If you don’t like, change it. The referee is always right. Right? If everybody has fun, then the game is a success. We know we cant please everybody, but we can make them think. Eamon likes the concept of Twilight but not the way the pre-history was written so he has to think and design and plan to create a fun setting for his players, if it works, great. If it doesn’t, then he thinks and designs and plans again until it does. (Or he goes out and finds new players, hehe)
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 67
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 468
