Quote:
Originally Posted by Questerr
(Multi-year lurker, first time poster)
I think one of the biggest changes to keep in mind with 4e is that the backstory no longer explicitly states the Soviets deliberately targeted global oil infrastructure.
It seems like the strategic nuclear strikes were mostly counter-force strikes against critical military and nuclear facilities as well as targeting leadership and continuity of government sites.
That means, it’s quite possible aircraft could still be in use, but are becoming less common as spare parts dry up.
|
Hi there and welcome from my neck of the woods.
I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, but I think the approach as to how to narrate World War III differs greatly between FL and GDW. A lot of this might have to do with personal experience. FL are hobby enthusiasts and Tomas Härenstam apparently was a Middle East correspondent for some time. Most GDW founders and full time staffers were war veterans and wargame designers. There is a difference in life experiences and the kind of stories one wants or even is able to tell.
And from how I read FL's edition, which I mechanically quite like, ideas like "counter-force strikes", "continuity of government sites" or strategic supply chains are not something they're focusing on or even consider in the back of their head to be of narrative value. The FL team seems to be about the first-hand experience of the scarcity of the barest things that make civilization in an ongoing warzone. Hence the "survival" aspect of 4E and the more "Jane's Division Remnants Catalogue" approach of 1E and 2E, if I might say so.
All in all, I think any referee would be best advised to bespoke tailor a timeline for their respective campaigns. I found this forum (and the Discord) to be excellent troves of ideas for that. Although, I might come off as very critical sometimes (I fear, I hope not!), ideas from both places will probably make it into my campaign at some point.