v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[Lurken]

I guess I am a tomato then. As someone wrote.

Painting everyone as people playing this for 30 years is using a very broad brush. I discovered T2k 8 years ago (goodness gracious that long ago?), but got into it for reals only about 3 years ago. I got into it because it was an community and game that had no more drama because everything had been mostly settled. (Except the question of naval ships still floating and Howling Wilderness (and on HW as late as today I got a begrudging lesson on why my earlier take on it may have been wrong)).

However. Please.

Everyone. Please.

Stop. Please.

This is not the time and place. Juhlin is damn peaceful compared to other old fandoms. Let us continue on that path. People have steam they need to vent. Namecalling, direct or implied never helped anyone.

Now. Please.

Let us continue dissecting v.FL, pros and cons. Mechanics, background and other details and how they are similar (remarkably so if you look close enough), what makes them different (good or bad) and what one could do either improve or salvage what can be saved.

[Legbreaker]

It's us older players who's kept the game alive for the better part of three decades since GDW closed their doors - we've kept it going longer than GDW even existed! In my case I've been involved since 1984, the very year 1st ed was published, 37 years ago.
Now given that, shouldn't WE have some say in how the game is written and developed into the future?
Besides FL spending money to buy the name, what right have they to toss out everything that's come before, declare even GDW's materials a "non-canon" and attempt to force feed us a substandard product?
They've had ample opportunity to consult with the wider community, but I can understand why they've tried to keep their pool of advisors relatively small. However, as one of those who was invited to provide input to their draft even before the kickstarter and Alpha release it was abundantly clear they weren't all that interested in anything that didn't fit what THEY wanted. Almost nothing said by those not on their payroll was acknowledged, let alone incorporated.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

So let me get this straight...
When people criticised various parts of T2k and the subsequent reboots, they were labelled as cynics, defeatists, saboteurs, grumpy old farts, die-hard grognards, dinosaurs and any other pejorative that worked at the time.
Then when they got emotional about being slagged off and hurled the same shit back, they get labelled as "toxic"?

Yes, the former seem appropriate labels for those who are determined to destroy any material that doesn't meet their personal standard for what T2k "should be." This is especially apt when they are unable or unwilling to articulate that standard.

As for the latter - the point may have been missed for the context, but the toxicity problem extends far beyond this thread, and has for some years.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's us older players who's kept the game alive for the better part of three decades since GDW closed their doors - we've kept it going longer than GDW even existed! In my case I've been involved since 1984, the very year 1st ed was published, 37 years ago.
Now given that, shouldn't WE have some say in how the game is written and developed into the future?
Besides FL spending money to buy the name, what right have they to toss out everything that's come before, declare even GDW's materials a "non-canon" and attempt to force feed us a substandard product?
They've had ample opportunity to consult with the wider community, but I can understand why they've tried to keep their pool of advisors relatively small. However, as one of those who was invited to provide input to their draft even before the kickstarter and Alpha release it was abundantly clear they weren't all that interested in anything that didn't fit what THEY wanted. Almost nothing said by those not on their payroll was acknowledged, let alone incorporated.

Free League is a company. Companies exist to make money. Catering to any particular fan's vision for the property is a side benefit, not the mission. Don't mistake business relations for friendship, nor fanaticism for ownership, nor passion for professional capability. Free League, as the entity that put forth a substantial amount of money for the license, writing, editing, art, development, layout, production, and distribution, is entirely within its rights to reject any input that does not align with its vision and design goals. In this context, your input is worth precisely what you are paid for it.

- C.

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Y
Free League is a company. Companies exist to make money. Catering to any particular fan's vision for the property is a side benefit, not the mission. Don't mistake business relations for friendship, nor fanaticism for ownership, nor passion for professional capability. Free League, as the entity that put forth a substantial amount of money for the license, writing, editing, art, development, layout, production, and distribution, is entirely within its rights to reject any input that does not align with its vision and design goals. In this context, your input is worth precisely what you are paid for it.
- C.

I agree 100% with a bit of a caveat. When I company purchases a license and solicits funds based on representation that it is producing a new edition - as was done here - said fans of the GDW games are ENTITLED to have expectations that the company in fact plans to produce a new edition. NOT A WHOLE NEW THING WITH NO RELATION TO THE PREVIOUS EDITIONS. All FL has done is produce a WWIII role playing game with their Year Zero system, add in a wholly new background, and slapped a "Twilight:2000" title onto it.

Why get a license you may ask, well, typically in this sort of situation, it is to sucker in fans of the previous edition to buy the product. I won't go so far as to call it fraud, but this definitely looks like a bait and switch marketing gambit, which while not illegal is not wholly ethical either.

One final thing, there are people on the board that tried to help FL in their endeavor that feel betrayed by what FL produced initially. As I have said, the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion. Worse, when problems were noted and explained, the developer/authors sagely nodded their heads and ignored the input. Put bluntly, and in my opinion, it was filled with blatantly anti-NATO biases and pro-Soviet sentiment. The setup for the nuclear exchange was absolute drivel. The only side that would initiate a nuclear exchange in a stalemate as described would be the Soviets! It was simply an awful setup and seemed more concerned with making some sort of a political statement rather than presenting a plausible, military doctrinal-based background.

I hope FL makes money and it is a success, I really do, but I doubt they will get much, if any, from me.

And I still wonder, why even bother getting a license!!!!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by mpipes

One final thing, there are people on the board that tried to help FL in their endeavor that feel betrayed by what FL produced initially.

If said "help" reads like the critique below, then how can one be surprised- let alone offended- that it was ignored/rejected?

Originally Posted by mpipes

As I have said, the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion. Worse, when problems were noted and explained, the developer/authors sagely nodded their heads and ignored the input. Put bluntly, and in my opinion, it was filled with blatantly anti-NATO biases and pro-Soviet sentiment. The setup for the nuclear exchange was absolute drivel. The only side that would initiate a nuclear exchange in a stalemate as described would be the Soviets! It was simply an awful setup and seemed more concerned with making some sort of a political statement rather than presenting a plausible, military doctrinal-based background.

Setting aside the issues of tone and presentation for a moment, does the above assessment of the v4 content still/equally apply to the Beta?

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by mpipes

...the Alpha background reads like it was drafted by a left of center European's quasi-Socialist take on a NATO-Soviet war with zero knowledge of military matters, doctrine, or forces. Any 8th grade wargamer could likely have done better in my opinion.

One day the original Draft might be leaked (there's certainly enough copies of it floating around for playtesting amongst people who never directly signed an NDA like Lurken and I had to). On that day you'll see just how close to the truth that statement is.

You think the Beta is bad? Strap yourselves in boys and girls!

[Olefin]

Well I got to read the Beta and the whole reinforcement in 1998 remains problematical to me. The US moves 500,000 men and their equipment at the end of the year in 1998.

Oh so first off you need a crap load of oil, planes and ships to move 500,000 men even if they are all light infantry and smaller vehicles. Then it states that the US after the big air and sea battle with the Soviets doesn’t have the wherewithal to reinforce or even supply their forces in Europe.

I see several issues with this

One if even only 20 percent of the ships and planes survived that still leaves a lot of shipping left for supplies to be sent to Europe. And the Players Manual says the USN still has lots of ships still operational. If they have operational ships they can support the Army and Marines in Europe with supplies even if they had to use destroyers, frigates and anything else still afloat as cargo ships.

Two - where did the Soviets after almost two years of war with the US and its allies have enough ships and long range fighters to seriously be able to still battle the USN and the USAF.

Three - if the big reinforcement got to Europe in late 1998 why didnt the US attack in 1999 - the whole year goes by with no big attack?


Four - if even only 200,000 men got over that is enough to rebuild almost every US division back to full strength (alberit with light infantry and mortars and the like) - 500,000 would actually be enough to form new units let alone bring the old ones back to strength

So is FL trying to say that the Soviets somehow destroyed most of the reinforcements on their war to Europe? With a minimal fleet and almost no Air Force left? Keep in mind you need long range fighters to go after those air transports if they are in mid-Ocean. But this isnt Red Storm Rising where they took Iceland. Are they trying to say that somehow most of the US reinforcements died in the battle against the Soviet Navy and Air Force - if so that is farcical - its literally a huge deux ex Machina to somehow explain the US not winning the war.

Those half million men make it to Europe the war is over. Period. Not unless the Soviets went totally nuclear in 1999. And that isnt in the timeline.

Its another example of how badly written the timeline still is compared to V1 and V2.2.

Frankly they should have just added Sweden to the older timelines - which they could have done easily - and then concentrated on game mechanics. The current timeline is completely shot thru with holes. And it still doesnt explain where the Greeks, Turks, Italians, Spanish and Portuguese are - i.e. about half the NATO members.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Frankly they should have just added Sweden to the older timelines - which they could have done easily...

And that I believe is exactly what Lurken is working on for his own publication (with some divergences from canon, but nothing TOO significant all in all, and certainly nothing that renders previous products unusable).

[mpipes]

Does Beta even mention Asia or the Persian Gulf?

Its supposed to be WORLD WAR 3; not the Napoleonic Wars round 2 in 2000 with those upstart Americans meddling after all.

As for the Soviet Navy, and please correct me if I am wrong, their doctrinal take was sea denial for 60 days. Their goal was to battle NATO for 60 days stimming the sea bridge. Once 60 days were up, they were strictly defensive with whatever tidbits of a navy the had left used purely as a defensive force for the SLBMs. No chasing after convoys or US battlegroups; strictly defense for the SLBMs with whatever was left.

If I am right about that, then I am with Olefin and the Soviets really knew that if they did not win within 30 days, it was not going to be pretty.

As I have said in other post, the Soviets knew their logistic and force limitations. They knew that a slugfest going on for a year or more against a united NATO was a disaster for them. I think GDW designers knew it as well, hence a timeline where war rages on multiple fronts and each side could survive the best "punches" of the other because NATO was splintered, the Soviets had ally issues, and the forces were so stretched.

Thus, the nukes start flying when NATO breaches "Mother Russia," as most military thinking believes the Russian's would. They have no intentions of the carnage of WWII repeating itself, and frankly, I have to agree with their beliefs and doctrine on that central, guiding principle that affects every level of their governmental and military doctrines.

A straight up united NATO v. USSR all alone war would end within 30 to 60 days or go nuclear, which - drum role please - probably ain't happening over an upstart Poland and a scrappy Sweden. Everyone is going to call game over, and go back to their original lines.

So again, how can Russia stop the reinforcements? Again, I sincerely think Russia knew they could only reliably disrupt reinforcements for 60 days. After that, the North Atlantic is a NATO lake, just as we knew the Baltic and the Black Sea were Russian lakes (ok, maybe not the Baltic, there it would be a near equal contest).

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

One day the original Draft might be leaked (there's certainly enough copies of it floating around for playtesting amongst people who never directly signed an NDA like Lurken and I had to). On that day you'll see just how close to the truth that statement is.

You think the Beta is bad? Strap yourselves in boys and girls!

Understatement of the Year. The Timeline makes V2.2 look like Shakespeare and Non-Political.

I mean they seem to have gone out of their way to make the US president look like a warmongering idiot. Then they completely changed the reason that Milgov does not take orders from Civgov. Just so much garbage.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Shakespeare wasn't exactly non-political, mind.

As for the idea of the US being led by warmongering idiots, that is the way you've often come across to non-Americans, particularly three of the last four Republican Presidents. Not that the Democrat ones have been much better.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Lurken

...and on HW as late as today I got a begrudging lesson on why my earlier take on it may have been wrong.

Begrudging?
I thought it was just a pleasant conversation between friends with slightly differing interpretations!

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Begrudging?
I thought it was just a pleasant conversation between friends with slightly differing interpretations!

Begrudging because I had to retreat from my position from a barrage of good references to other canon sources and sound deductive reasoning =p

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Lurken

Begrudging because I had to retreat from my position from a barrage of good references to other canon sources and sound deductive reasoning =p

Well I do like to back my arguments with evidence and logic.

[sellanraa]

For better and worse, no, the old guard is owed absolutely nothing in this new edition. Painful as that may be. Thankfully the older editions are still perfectly playable.

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by sellanraa

For better and worse, no, the old guard is owed absolutely nothing in this new edition. Painful as that may be. Thankfully the older editions are still perfectly playable.

If the Old Guard is own nothing, then by Jove! Let the Old Cuard vent in peace. Painful as that may seem to new comers and fans of v.FL and FL. They have steam they need to vent and process. It may not be pretty, but somehow it will come out.

In due time, after they have vented their steam, they will pick apart v.FL and use what ever nuggets may be there. Just like they did with the Third Edition. It had plenty of good rules and concepts, which it has gotten praise for in the years after. After the steam have been vented out.

[sellanraa]

Ha, fair enough. I'm not opposed to you all venting and know that anything I say won't stop it anyway. I just feel it's a shame that folks who may stumble on the forum out of curiosity will have the impression that the venting creates.

All aboard the rage train!

[Southernap]

Okay, so looking at the rules and the mechanics of the Beta.

I am still feeling like the "life path" option isn't fully working like V2.0 that I was used to playing.

• First hiccup is the 2D3 roll to determine how many increases one can get. No one I know makes a D3 die, so why not just say roll a 1D6.
• Also, the letter designations for the main attributes are throwing me off. As well as the dice attributed to those letters. From D12, D10, D8, D6 for the A-D. Also considering that most games still have a point buy system, why isn't that included?
• The starting gear selection seems cheapened. In the sense that in either V1 or V2 you could end up with at least a five figure base money to spend on stuff. The agonizing part was trying to decide to spend on some medicine or an extra battery for a radio; if not spending on that M3 Bradley vs having some extra food. In V4 its pick a gun, get a d6 roll for grenades and reloads, then get basic soldiering kit. That seems like a bit of railroading to me.
• The specialties seems very interesting and akin to what I have seen in other RPGs about prestige classing or advantages. I will have to dig out my old rules for Top Secret, but I think they did something similar and it when used well it works to round out some rolls. Just needs players to think long term of their characters growth path in relation to the rest of the group..
• However, to go with those specialties, there maybe should have been something akin to a resulting decrease or negative modifier for something else. Say for example Brawler gets you a plus one with close combat unarmed, but a negative one with any weapon in your hand in close combat rolls. Again to make the players think long and hard about how they want to build their character
• The Moral Code, Big Dream, and Buddy choices seem like things to force cohesion and team play amongst the players. Let alone seem like things that are force feeding the GM with adventuring hooks. I think the Moral Code seems too similar to the classic alignment trope of other RPGs. The V1 and V2 didn't have that since it was assumed in a post apocalyptic world moral codes would have to be flexible. Similarly the rule for the Big Dream seems really ambiguous with what could represent that "concrete action" for the GM to award extra XP during a session. This can be a judgement call that can lead to heated discussions at the table.
• I sort of like they truncated the skills down to about 12 basic and core skill sets. because trying to fill out all the different skills could be complicated in both V1 and V2. At the same time, there is part of me that is missing the building of a typist company clerk who was shanghaied to be with a small fire team just before the last big push.
• The rules for post session changing buddies, new moral code, and unit morale seem overly cumbersome and can cause confusion if there is a need for long term campaign with the same folks.

The mechanic of where you are in either Sweden or Poland and the "Intel" briefs leave some things lacking. If I source both V1 and V2, they provided both units that existed in certain locations and a map showing where folks were placed. As well as major points of interest where the players could go, avoid, or even be started in. It would be great to know those things as the starting adventure. Heck maybe even given some major NPCs in the region that the PCs could run across.

I think that the settlement tables should have been included into the encounters chapter. If not had lead the chapter on scenarios before going to those starter scenarios. They do an interesting bit of setup for the GM, and really seem like stuff that the GM should be using prior to the gaming session. Since its about 6-9 rolls at the table to help define a settlement.

I haven't fully looked at the combat, injury rules yet. I have still been trying to digest it all after sending an email to get the download link since FL never sent me an email about either the Alpha or the Beta being released even as I was a backer.