Scandinavia during T2K?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

To my mind Norway is entirely winnable by the Norwegians + NATO in '01, but of course I'm treading on the sacred ground of "NATO must be destroyed/America has to lose".

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

To my mind Norway is entirely winnable by the Norwegians + NATO in '01, but of course I'm treading on the sacred ground of "NATO must be destroyed/America has to lose".

I have trouble envisioning a T2k in which any nation or coalition "wins."

- C.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I have trouble envisioning a T2k in which any nation or coalition "wins."

+1

Most of the fun of T2K for me is playing the underdog and trying to beat the odds.

[Olefin]

actually it all depends on what you mean by winning - I dont see any issue with the US winning in Korea by fighting to a tie and winning in Iran by making the Soviets eventually retreat -

and there can be a victor in the war - but in this case its the ultimate in losing by winning - you may have beat the Soviets but lost so much that in the end doing so makes it a worthless victory

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

To my mind Norway is entirely winnable by the Norwegians + NATO in '01, but of course I'm treading on the sacred ground of "NATO must be destroyed/America has to lose".

I wouldn't call it "sacred ground" but in the context of the game, the world had to be severely screwed up to allow for what the designer's intended.That intention was basically, allow people to play adventures of the AD&D feel in a modern setting where the PCs had access to modern military/adventuring/outdoors gear but didn't have any higher authority telling them what to do all the time.

And as for NATO being destroyed and America losing, same applies to all the other combatants - things are tough all over, they have to be to make the game world playable. For example, the US is ruined so that the players can have scenarios just like they encountered in Europe.

It's all about world design to get the best environment for the players to game in but that doesn't mean you have to slavishly follow every one of the designers ideas. The flip side to that is why change the game setting so much that it no longer resembles the setting that drew your attention in the first place?
Tweaking is good but if a nation like the USSR, China or the USA was relatively intact and didn't need the PCs help or was too powerful for the PCs to prevail against, that removes a lot of the potential adventures the players can have. If Norway survived relatively intact however, it's one little island of stability and safety in the turbulent sea of chaos, torment and decay that is the rest of the world and having Norway intact doesn't remove the amount of adventure options in the world that an intact USA would remove for example.

Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter.

[Raellus]

+1 to everything SSC wrote. He captures, succinctly yet completely, everything that I dig about T2K.

[boogiedowndonovan]

The French "win" because they are least nuked and don't have hostile armies or hordes of marauders marching back and forth across their territory. Because of this, they are the dominant power in 2300AD.

[Olefin]

keep in mind guys that there are pockets of order left in the world - per the Bangkok module Thailand is relatively intact. Iran is recovering and may soon be free of the Soviets. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, Israelis and Jordanians are still nation states though damaged. And the UK is also recovering as well.

And even in the US and Soviet Union there are pockets of order.

However the comparison to the AD&D world is accurate - thing about Greyhawk - there were lots of safe areas - but there were also much larger unsafe and wild areas, some right in the middle of the safe ones, where the only order was that of who happened to have the best armor and weapons.

Civilization hasnt been destroyed utterly - but it has become something that is very spread out and spotty - more like islands of peace in a sea of chaos.

And in places like Korea and Iran the US military is still very intact and operational so there are many options to play a more structured game compared to Poland where its wide open and the only orders you get is to survive for the next day.

An example is Grenada - while it has been damaged by the plague and the effects of the war until late 2000 when the Cubans showed up it was basically a barely functioning nation state - their inadvertent invasion is what put the country into a state of chaos not the Twilight War in Europe. Once the Cubans are gone most likely it will go back to being what it was - a still f functioning but not as good as before island nation.

[Olefin]

if you had to rate it the US marginally wins the war, the Chinese and Soviets definitely lose, the UK wins more than the US as it is recovering more quickly due to its smaller land mass to control and reclaim and the French win just because they dont directly join in the fun as everyone else did

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

The French "win" because they are least nuked and don't have hostile armies or hordes of marauders marching back and forth across their territory. Because of this, they are the dominant power in 2300AD.

Originally Posted by Olefin

The French win just because they dont directly join in the fun as everyone else did

By that logic Australia and New Zealand may also have come out pretty well.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

The French "win" because they are least nuked and don't have hostile armies or hordes of marauders marching back and forth across their territory. Because of this, they are the dominant power in 2300AD.

And their player won "The Game" played to determine the time line.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

And their player won "The Game" played to determine the time line.

I have always wondered what the Swedish player did that Sweden did not become more prominent.

Does anyone know how long (until what year) the Great Game went until?

Reading the material for T2K and T:2300, you seem to read of the horrors of the Twilight War and its end, with France on her knees and everyone else down flat and/or disintegrated, and then....

the other nations pull themselves together over the next 40-50 years,

and then 200+ years pass more or less statically until you get to the late 2200s where they describe the lead up to 2300 (the Manchurian War, the German War, and then the Kafers). The spread through space is some what described but.... its like more or less nothing really changed for 200 years (2050 - 2250).

But we know that the last 200 years of history have been anything but static (in terms of the power relations between nations, without discussing technology).

Uncle Ted

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by unkated

I have always wondered what the Swedish player did that Sweden did not become more prominent.

Does anyone know how long (until what year) the Great Game went until?

I believe it pretty much went to 2300, with game turns of 5-10 years. The Sweden player was Matt Renner, who was also CivGov and Nigeria (every player had either 3 or 4 countries except Frank, who was referee and kibbitzer).