YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Before people get much hotter under the collar and hopefully to curtail further claims that the GDW writers missed the mark/didn't know what they were talking about/screwed up/etc. etc. about certain aspects, it's well worth remembering that the entire Twilight history was a backstory to the history they created for 2300AD. Specifically the "Great Game" that they played out to decide how the 2300AD world came about. The Twilight:2000 game grew from that backstory.

If it appears that they missed the mark on something it's more likely to be because they were writing in the details that they created from the Great Game and less likely that they were trying to create a real world flow of events for WW3.
I'm not saying that their events list is "right" and I'm not even saying it's "good" but it is a product of it being retroactively created to make a second game from an existing game.

There have been similar questions/criticism's of the backstory history made on the 2300AD forums.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

There have been similar questions/criticism's of the backstory history made on the 2300AD forums.

Yeah, I've seen some of the critiques and for what it's worth, I do not disagree. I just find it a little irritating that the game designers get slagged off for getting something "wrong" when it's entirely likely they were not actually intending to get it "right" in any real world sense, in the first place. That seems to get forgotten in the rush to "correct" their "mistakes".

[kato13]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Yeah, I've seen some of the critiques and for what it's worth, I do not disagree. I just find it a little irritating that the game designers get slagged off for getting something "wrong" when it's entirely likely they were not actually intending to get it "right" in any real world sense, in the first place. That seems to get forgotten in the rush to "correct" their "mistakes".

Wrong is a VERY loaded term that I don't think I have ever used in this context and I would discourage others from using it as well.

For me objections to the T2k canon can be based on real world facts far more than other games as it is actually based on the real world. If the Greyhawk backstory had a reference to a river's flow being reversed by an actual God it is hard to say it is wrong. If T2k said a nuclear strike made the Mississippi River flow north we can ask with much more vigor , "How?". And attempt to look deeper.

I have been thinking about this game for 33 years. I try really hard to make canon work. The equipment for the 8th Mech from the Eastern Europe sourcebook is REALLY stretching logic for 1000 people to handle (Given they now have to cover every element of logistics). So i make the back story they had 4000 but lost over 2500 to both combat and the flu (possibly bioweapon). This paralyzes them with more equipment than they could possibly move. This is nowhere in canon but it works for me. Others could strip equipment or add more men or simply ignore the logical problems with such a small group having so much. There is no "right" answer.

Even with the original design team and our group's followup thought and effort, I am sure everyone of us comes across some facts from the backstory where we go. "Hold on a second, what happened???" For some it is 1% for others it is maybe 25% plus.

Most often the biggest objections come from our own personal areas of knowledge and expertise (One of the reasons i replace RESET in Krakow). That is why I encourage discussion here, I know a lot about many things, but no one person knows everything and some people have details or opinion I would have never thought of or been able to research.

Of my tweaks to my timeline and my adjustments to canon probably over 75% came from others sharing. Often an idea I had for 20 years gets replaced with something I read here (or other T2k sources) that simply makes more sense to me. Doesn't make canon wrong, or my prior thoughts wrong, just shows things can evolve. Especially as more information and opinions come to light.

As always I am worried about canon wars here so I feel the need to drop in once in a while and try to keep things cool.

I personally still like the idea of canon 1.5 for all new stuff based on updating V 1.0 with new information. It was suggested for the DC group stuff but things got so bitter then it never really took of.

People seem to respect "oh you are V2? I do V1 as my players like the cold war aspect, but hey the game is still 85% the same and maybe 5000 people still play so lets be bros". I really hoped that 1.5 could have been the same but Arch Duke Ferdinand was already long dead and the trenches were already dug.

Perhaps in any movement forward words like "not canon", "wrong", "incorrect" and "replace" would be lessened and "different version", "alternate", "updated" and "enhanced" used. This small change might make any Us vs. Them mentality a little less strong.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And I pretty much agree with all you've said here Kato, I am complete agreement that canon material suffers from problems, misunderstandings, lack of knowledge and contradictions, some minor, some glaringly bad.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in having your own opinion on how the game history could, would or should have gone down and there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to change it to make it more suited to your game group or to your own tastes or to your own beliefs.
As mentioned, I just get a little irked when the efforts of the original designers are belittled by people who have their own opinions about how it would really have happened when it seems they never stop to consider what the original design goals were.

The original designers were not striving for a perfect simulation of WW3, they were retroactively creating the history from the basis of another game. They did this so that they could create a military style game without constraining the PCs to total military control, they were trying to make a game where the PC group could go off on adventures like other RPGs and were also trying to make a game world that would still have the opportunities for adventure once the PCs left Europe for North America.
They weren't trying to create a game where the players play out the Cold War of NATO versus WTO in a fight to the death. They already had boardgames for that.
Given those three known concepts, I find criticizing the lack of realism misses the point of what they were creating.

I do not particularly advocate for changing people's use of words to convey their beliefs however. If someone feels that a particular aspect is bad or even wrong, there is nothing wrong or incorrect in that, I just find the statements that the GDW designers dropped the ball misses the point of what they were trying to achieve and by inference even feels like a bit of an insult towards them.

[Olefin]

And now we have a chance to finally correct that canon with the ability to issue new modules and sourcebooks. And we can correct many of the mistakes that were made not by wholesale changes but by making tweaks here and there.

And frankly correcting the 2300AD timeline as it pertains to the US and Mexico isnt going to disrupt that timeline in any huge way. Mexico is a VERY MINOR player in that timeline - and I suspect that moving the border between then two back to a more realistic location would in no way suddenly disrupt the game to the point that players throw their hands up and never play it again.

GDW's original authors made a lot of mistakes - that's pretty obvious (i.e having the Corpus Christi sink the freighter bringing the Cubans home in Gateway to the Spanish Main when other modules clearly have that sub in the hands of the UBF by that time jumps right up in my mind). And one of the biggest is the US leaving the Southwest , half of CA and Texas in Mexican hands - with dates saying that they annexed those areas long after the T2K war dates - and then saying that they would not have supported the rebels in CA when they rose against the Mexicans?

Sorry but no way in heck - and that needs to be fixed. Not explained away as "well no one expects a perfect game". No but a game needs to be believable as well - and there is no way the US goes out to conquer the stars and leaves a huge amount of its country under Mexican rule for THREE CENTURIES

that is one thing I will be working on with my new modules by the way - to enhance and in some ways correct canon - just as I did in the East African Sourcebook with the 2nd Armored Division - and I am thinking of looking at what happened to the units that came home after Omega as well

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

Perhaps in any movement forward words like "not canon", "wrong", "incorrect" and "replace" would be lessened and "different version", "alternate", "updated" and "enhanced" used. This small change might make any Us vs. Them mentality a little less strong.

SSC, I share many of your sentiments. Kato, I agree with you on all counts. We're really quite spoiled, compared to the original T2K writers, with our easy access to information on the interwebs. We also have the luxury of time. Many of use have had 30+ to parse the published materials- plenty of time to find "mistakes" and mull over potential "fixes". The original authors had neither the web, nor a tiny fraction of that time (in fact, they were under deadline pressures), while they were creating their modules and sourcebooks.

Anyway, I really do think we should cut the creators some more slack. They did the best they could with the resources they had and they still managed to create something great (if they didn't, we wouldn't still be talking about it).

Olefin, has Marc Miller explicitly assented to "corrections" of material published in T2K canon? Is your approach a RETCON of HW or creating events by which HW can be reversed? In my mind, the former would create a dangerous precedent, whereas the latter gives ref's/players a powerful way to influence events in the game world.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

We're really quite spoiled, compared to the original T2K writers, with our easy access to information on the interwebs.

At least once a month I try to do something the old ways. With paper and books and legwork.

Like yesterday my sister wanted to know how far away her sister in law's family was from the California Wild fires. I listened to the nightly news for reports on where the fires were and mapped them out on a road atlas and figured she was about 60 miles from the nearest fire. Had to wait for information and draw on acetate sheets and use a ruler, but I got it done.

Post North Korean EMP attack I will still be able to function for odd research projects

I probably Could have done the same on the internet in about 45 seconds, but once in a while it is good to see just how far we have come.

[Olefin]

"Olefin, has Marc Miller explicitly assented to "corrections" of material published in T2K canon? Is your approach a RETCON of HW or creating events by which HW can be reversed? In my mind, the former would create a dangerous precedent, whereas the latter gives ref's/players a powerful way to influence events in the game world."

To answer you Raellus the answer is yes - but those corrections have to be run past him and approved. Can you or I or any other potential author just rewrite things whole hog - no. He made that clear to me when I proposed a rewrite of City of Angels and the UK Survival Guide to make them more realistic (i.e. actual gangs that were in LA instead of the cartoon figures that are in City of Angels for instance)

So for instance moving the 2nd Armored Division to Kenya as I did in the East Africa Sourcebook was run past him and is now canon - i.e. that is where they went after Omega in the canon- which he approved. Same with the nuclear attacks that happened in Africa as I depicted.

As he told me the canon was is open to interpretation and in some ways correction - but again as he said "in some ways". Thus HW as it stands to late April of 2001 is pretty much set in stone. However he is open to re-interpretation of events after that date.

And he has stated elsewhere that changes to the 2300AD timeline, as long as they dont change it too much, are possible as well. And if I remember right with the various changes to the 2300AD timeline I am not sure if it is still linked to the Twilight 2000 game per se - i.e. V1 was directly linked to 2300AD - but now I am not so sure

[.45cultist]

An ill-advised Mexican invasion, a U.S. counter offensive pushing into north Mexico and a broad swath of the SW in chaos, City of Angels Mexican army forces are a multinational brigand force. Division Cuba are actually Cubans from Africa or Middle East with Venezuelan and Chinese mixed in. The Oakland Flu stops most military action like the Spanish Flu of WWI. A mish-mash of V1/2 and T2013 items shoe horned together. Any incorrect things or imperfections add to the impression of fevered rumors and lack of fact
s, news.

[Olefin]

I am actually coming up with a very logical explanation that details how the Mexicans got Russian equipment in City of Angels and also explains what the heck a Russian task force was doing in the Gulf of California for the the USS Virginia task force to run into. Hopefully you guys will like it