Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Besides being pre-release, that sounds pretty unofficial.
Like others here, I wonder if at least some of the vagueness evident in official 4e was by design. By not making definitive statements in the published materials regarding the status of non-aligned/neutral nations' oil production facilities, nuclear strike targets, and the status of major combatants' naval forces (to name just the topics that have come up in this thread), FL is giving Refs a lot of freedom to shape their respective campaign worlds as they see fit. In other words...
Want a T2kU with more fossil fuel availability? Nothing in 4e canon says you can't. Want a T2kU with almost none? Nothing in 4e canon says you can't.
-
|
FYI Raellus keep in mind that you can have an active Navy but not the right kind of ships to be able to support and reinforce an army in the field - destroyers can transport troops and supplies but not enough for an army - dropping off a couple hundred men with supplies and ammo for a couple of days is one thing, bringing over enough supplies to keep a division in the field is another
the Japanese managed to keep a small force on Guadalcanal barely supplied with reinforcements and supplies with just destroyers - but you are talking about several Army Corps here
the other factor is the situation in the United States - i.e. you could have the entire navy and transport structure intact (which they dont) but that doesnt mean anything if you dont have anything to transport - i.e. it hard to send more tanks over if no one is making tanks anymore or the ones you have are too busy fighting each other (the mention of US states that declared independence and most likely grabbed anything of military value in their borders when they did it)