Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
That's just the way this forum is supposed to work in my opinion. As I wrote once, "you write it, we break it!". 
I'm in agreement. Civilisation as we know it needs to be almost totally destroyed with rebuilding a long and laborious task of a generation or three. Without nukes, or something equally as devastating, you're not going to have much worse than WWII, which while nasty and destructive, was nothing more than a hiccup compared to what we're present in the books. |
Aye, that's the reason my gaming group kept the timeline canon (sort of) after '86. However as a purely academic exercise, the idea of a non-nuclear WW3 is intriguing.