I have always been a fan of the v1 timeline for a few reasons:
- The v1 time line (as projected forward from 1984) was clearly a fantasy, and not a terribly realistic projection (IMHO). Now, as such, it served its purpose of having a clash of arms using the large scale military units available in the mid-80s projected froward to the mid 90s.
- For my money, the V2 and V2.2 times became increasing weak and unlikely. Do recall that amounts of the chaos and destruction in Poland and Germany (and elsewhere) were caused by conventional forces rolling over towns; it was not all casued by tac nukes. The conventional forces (actually) available in V2 and V2.2 from both the east and west lack the density to cause the kind of widespread destruction depicted in T2K. Neither side can put enough boots on the ground - especially not the CIS, and by 1995, the WP was gone. To my mind, the bear in V2 or V2.2 was too defanged to be that much of a threat.
- I have trouble buying the state of the rest of the world in v2 or v2.2. The CIS lacked the resources to deliver widespread nukes to destroy oil or power resources 1995; certainly they had very little in the way of a functioning navy. The rest of the world would have found it easier to go on afterward, even with a tac-nuke walloping of the US.
- I am completely ignorant of the 2013 timeline. However, if it does start later than 1995, there are a raft of issues that crop up that would require a raft of additions - computers, cell phones, telecom networks (national and international, partial or local internets), military vehicles had major upgrades in electronic targeting systems in the last 20 years, a raft of other personal electronic possibilities, military and civilian. Sticking to the original timeline avoids a raft of these issues.
Certainly, I have a few issues with the v1 timeline, and any number of questions about how and when to branch off of real-world history. But on the whole, I'd rather stick with it than go to something else.
Uncle Ted