Unrealistic/impossible/hard-to-believe aspects in the Twilight 2000 backstory

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

I fully accept multiple regional droughts and their devastating effects on crops. HW however makes very bold statements about the entire nation.

That is probably a statement too far!

[kato13]

A quick review of HW has the drought effecting

New England (local farmland burnt dry by the summer sun)
Middle Atlantic States (particularly hard hit)
Southeast (over the dry winter and spring)
Great Lakes States (rainfall is at 50%)
South Central States (re watertables. the drought has not helped matters much)
Great Plains (The drought has rendered the grass on the plains tinder-dry)

The Western states
Southwest (Rainfall Unaffected loss of northern rivers make agriculture impossible) The state details contradict this.
Pacific Northwest (Increased Rainfall)
At the detail levels most states mention the drought.
California (rainfall down 10 inches. severely limit agriculture)
New Mexico (drought made conditions worse)
Arizona (Identical to new Mexico)
Nevada (Without water)
Montana (Drought made more dry)
Colorado (no direct mention)
Wyoming (the drought will cut short the development of shale resources)
Utah (effected by limited snow fall due to drought)

Ok two regions seem to have greater than 50% loss in precipitation (Great Lakes and Middle Atlantic states)

As you noted in the description of prior droughts this is unprecedented (The Texas drought gets a mention at 40%). California is also down 45%. Almost all other regions seem to suffer different but similar fates.

When you look at my national charts showing that the driest year ever had only a 17% reduction in the total. The HW drought is off the charts compared to 120 years of history.

I can accept that the war could cause weird weather, but IMO the HW drought is all encompassing to a degree that staggers the imagination when compared to historical data.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

A quick review of HW has the drought effecting

New England (local farmland burnt dry by the summer sun)
Middle Atlantic States (particularly hard hit)
Southeast (over the dry winter and spring)
Great Lakes States (rainfall is at 50%)
South Central States (re watertables. the drought has not helped matters much)
Great Plains (The drought has rendered the grass on the plains tinder-dry)

The Western states
Southwest (Rainfall Unaffected loss of northern rivers make agriculture impossible) The state details contradict this.
Pacific Northwest (Increased Rainfall)
At the detail levels most states mention the drought.
California (rainfall down 10 inches. severely limit agriculture)
New Mexico (drought made conditions worse)
Arizona (Identical to new Mexico)
Nevada (Without water)
Montana (Drought made more dry)
Colorado (no direct mention)
Wyoming (the drought will cut short the development of shale resources)
Utah (effected by limited snow fall due to drought)

Ok two regions seem to have greater than 50% loss in precipitation (Great Lakes and Middle Atlantic states)

As you noted in the description of prior droughts this is unprecedented (The Texas drought gets a mention at 40%). California is also down 45%. Almost all other regions seem to suffer different but similar fates.

When you look at my national charts showing that the driest year ever had only a 17% reduction in the total. The HW drought is off the charts compared to 120 years of history.

I can accept that the war could cause weird weather, but IMO the HW drought is all encompassing to a degree that staggers the imagination when compared to historical data.

Kato I meant HW made a statement too far. But thanks for the info, good research.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by RN7

Kato I meant HW made a statement too far. But thanks for the info, good research.

I kinda thought that was what you meant but I had already started documenting. I was hoping for more solid numbers which I could match up with the geographical areas of the states (which I had already gathered for a Morrow Project project).

Thanks for the kudos.

[Olefin]

And for those who say you have to have the drought to play in NA keep in mind that every one of these adventures take place before the drought either occurs or is ever mentioned:

0507 - Red Star: Lone Star [1986]
0509 - Armies of the Night [1986]
0510 - Allegheny Uprising [1987]
0511 - Airlords of the Ozarks [1987]
0512 - Gateway to the Spanish Main [1987]
0515 - Urban Guerilla [1987]
0517 - The Last Submarine (Last Sub 1) [1988]
0520 - Mediterranean Cruise (Last Sub 2) [1988]
0521 - Boomer (Last Sub 3) [1989]
0522 - Satellite Down [1988]


and Kidnapped can be played with no mention of the Drought at all and be completely playable

thats a heck of a lot of campaigning - literally enough to keep a party busy for years of real time playing - so can you have an entirely satisfactory campaign with no mention of the drought that is totally playable - obviously you can -ten modules is a lot of play time, let alone the fact that you can expand several of them into months of game time easily (Armies of the Night, Red Star Lone Star, The Last Submarine (if you went back to NE after its all over), and Allegheny Uprising)