View Single Post
  #38  
Old 07-23-2009, 11:08 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

One of my pet hates is people who can't see that technology of today (2009), or even of ten years ago, simply can't apply to the world of T2K in 2000.
Technology may have developed relatively swiftly for some military applications, however, on the whole, technology in T2K can't be much more advanced that what was available IRL late in 1997.
This applies regardless of 1.0 or 2.0/2.2 timelines as the nukes brought virtually all development to a grinding halt.

There may be some exceptions (those with significant military applications and which took only 6 months or so from development to implementation). However those technical advances with no, or limited military applications are likely to have first slowed, then stalled as the war ground on - resources were diverted more and more from consumer goods, etc to war production.

Unit composition, tactics, etc are another similar issue. As 1.0/2.0/2.2 do not include such events as Iraq and Afganistan, where many lessons have been learnt, not to mention political changes and decisions (military budgets being just one small part), real world unit strengths, equipment, etc simply can't apply (certainly not in the first stages of the war, and with the speed the military makes changes, probably not ever - the nukes falling before anything could really be implemented, totally changing the playing field).

While these problems aren't really an issue if we're talking future technology or what may be available in a future setting, it's increasingly an issue for games such as T2K or anything set further back in history.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote