v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Will they produce something that only appeals to newer players and will that be sufficient to sustain the franchise, or will this be a one and done to capitalize on the license while producing localized content for a mostly Swedish audience?

That's a very interesting question. In a year or three, it'll be illuminating to see relative sales figures for Swedish vs. English printings.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

This sort of thing was raised some months back although using other FL games as a guide.
The feeling then was that FL does not have a long term plan for their games and given that they are a relatively small company in the grand scheme of things, they probably cannot afford to commit long term in the same way that WotC/Hasbro can. Simply because they don't have the finances to weather any downturn that may occur over the years.

This is obviously a business decision rather than a lack of interest in the product but it does appear that even with successful FL games, there just is not much official material available after a few years. For whatever reason, their business model appears to be to develop a particular idea, push it for a few years and then develop a new idea.
What that does infer though, is that there will be no long term support of their reboot of T2k.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

This sort of thing was raised some months back although using other FL games as a guide.
The feeling then was that FL does not have a long term plan for their games and given that they are a relatively small company in the grand scheme of things, they probably cannot afford to commit long term in the same way that WotC/Hasbro can. Simply because they don't have the finances to weather any downturn that may occur over the years.

This is obviously a business decision rather than a lack of interest in the product but it does appear that even with successful FL games, there just is not much official material available after a few years. For whatever reason, their business model appears to be to develop a particular idea, push it for a few years and then develop a new idea.
What that does infer though, is that there will be no long term support of their reboot of T2k.

Agreed. I really like Free League and I own Aliens, Coriolis, and Tales From the Loop. They make gorgeous games but they very much seem to be campaign driven and not setting builders when it comes to source books. I was excited when a new version of T2K was announced but also wary. It does now appear that they bought the rights just for name recognition and just wanted to put out another post-apocalyptic RPG. This is a bit odd since they already have Mutant Year Zero and the sequel to Tales From the Loop, Things From the Flood.

In fact given how dark the setting is I contend that Free League could have easily put out a mini-supplement to accompany Things From the Flood. Call it something like Of Missiles and Machines and have it be a optional set of rules for a post-war Tales From the Loop setting. Three chapters in length it could have had a Cold War gone hot in the eighties scenario, a post-Cold War collapse with regional wars and economic meltdown and then finally extra rules to survive in the post-war/collapse setting. Easy and efficient, tying into a setting they already have established while not messing up T2K.

That’s just my idea, and I wish they had done that instead of mangling T2K.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

That's a very interesting question. In a year or three, it'll be illuminating to see relative sales figures for Swedish vs. English printings.

- C.

I'm guessing it'll depend on three factors:

1. How much Swedish content is produced initially vs. later on in the sales year.

2. Feedback from players (regardless of language) - old school guys will have no problems with crunchy rules, so long as they make sense and can reasonably model the intended real world thing they are trying to model. Newer guys seem to want something that is "fun" - even if the mechanics are a terrible representation of reality.

3. Whether or not the timeline and backstory are sustainable. We all know we're fickle when it comes to this, arguing v1 vs v2 vs v2.2 vs v3 vs alternates. How many of us who aren't from Sweden will look at the timeline and pan it - will it be a "you have to be Swedish to get it" or will it be universally panned by old school guys regardless of our nationality?

[pansarskott]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I'm guessing it'll depend on three factors:

How many of us who aren't from Sweden will look at the timeline and pan it - will it be a "you have to be Swedish to get it"

At least you won't realise the weirdness of some of the things in there. Like fighting between US and Sweden. And towing an 317 meter long aircraft carrier into the center of Stockholm and anchoring it in an area which is about 400x800 meters (after having towed it > 90 kilometers through narrow sea lanes).

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pansarskott

And towing an 317 meter long aircraft carrier into the center of Stockholm and anchoring it in an area which is about 400x800 meters (after having towed it > 90 kilometers through narrow sea lanes).

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it, and it's well within range of shore fire from a very hostile populace.
The stupid burns.
Not to mention the ship they've chosen didn't even get it's crew until a few months earlier - nowhere near enough time for everyone to learn their jobs properly and start acting as an actual team.
Oh, and then there's that little fact that the Baltic Sea is basically the Soviets playground, ringed on the east and south with loads of naval facilities and shore based aircraft that would just LOVE to have a go at sinking a US carrier.
Shall we talk about reinforcements now? How easy would it be to block any NATO ships with a few sea mines and a diesel powered sub or two....
Did I mention how stupid the idea is?
...and then you find out that originally FL were going to have the carrier totally undamaged and in 100% fighting condition, yet still without all it's supporting ships...
How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

[pansarskott]

I agree, there's absolutely no reason to bring it in there in the first place.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it

That's actually one thing they got right. The ship has 'only' 12,5 m draft (wikipedia) which should be enough (although I didn't check depth for the whole route. And FL probably didn't either). sea chart over where it's anchored. Zoom out and try to figure out how to get there

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it, and it's well within range of shore fire from a very hostile populace.
The stupid burns.
Not to mention the ship they've chosen didn't even get it's crew until a few months earlier - nowhere near enough time for everyone to learn their jobs properly and start acting as an actual team.
Oh, and then there's that little fact that the Baltic Sea is basically the Soviets playground, ringed on the east and south with loads of naval facilities and shore based aircraft that would just LOVE to have a go at sinking a US carrier.
Shall we talk about reinforcements now? How easy would it be to block any NATO ships with a few sea mines and a diesel powered sub or two....
Did I mention how stupid the idea is?
...and then you find out that originally FL were going to have the carrier totally undamaged and in 100% fighting condition, yet still without all it's supporting ships...
How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

It is just silly. Which makes one wonder exactly what "military consultants" did they use? No one, and I mean NO ONE, that has any real expertise in military capabilities of the military forces at issue would dream of a US supercarrier in the Baltic Sea. Now, it is OK to go against military orthodoxy to make a good story, but that needs to be set up in a realistic manner, such as supporting a MEU performing amphibious ops. However, as written a US nuclear carrier in the Baltic is ridiculous. The fact that there are other things that are just as ridiculous tells you just how amateurish FL's efforts truly are in coming up with a believable background. As much as I cringe over elements of T2K's GDW written background, overall it makes enough sense to be believable. FL's effort wildly misses that mark on both the background and the mechanics. While the mechanics have sorta simplistic, "beer and pretzel" feel to them, I find them horribly unintuitive and clunky. V1 and V2.2 frankly look like elegant genius in comparison to me. The best I can say about FL's Alpha is that it gives me a far better appreciation at just how good GDW's game mechanics were.

Which brings me back to the burning question I still have. Exactly what "military consultant" did they use? Whoever they used must be a fake, because what they present as background wildly fails to match up with any scenario for a NATO conflict envisioned by either NATO or PACT military theorists - it just does not. I just cannot see anyone familiar with NATO, PACT, or Soviet doctrine and plans (or even a somewhat knowledgeable wargamer for crying out loud) signing off on what was presented. Even the weapon ratings seem horribly whacked out to me. You'ld think that FL's weapon ratings at least looked realistic, but I don't see those as even being accurate at this point.

[pansarskott]

And with all that US airpower (and anti-aircraft missiles from ships!) in the Baltic Sea, the Soviets still manage to do airborne landings north of Stockholm.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by mpipes

Which brings me back to the burning question I still have. Exactly what "military consultant" did they use? Whoever they used must be a fake, because what they present as background wildly fails to match up with any scenario for a NATO conflict envisioned by either NATO or PACT military theorists - it just does not. I just cannot see anyone familiar with NATO, PACT, or Soviet doctrine and plans (or even a somewhat knowledgeable wargamer for crying out loud) signing off on what was presented. Even the weapon ratings seem horribly whacked out to me. You'ld think that FL's weapon ratings at least looked realistic, but I don't see those as even being accurate at this point.

It seems they didn't have many. There is one American who was listed as a military consultant and he apparently spent time in the US Army (I seem to recall something about being Airborne or something) however he was low rank and it seems very obvious that he has no understanding of military logistics.
Couple that with the fact that the lead designer from Free League did actually serve in the Swedish military as a conscript but it seems he was in intelligence or another support service rather than a combat arm. And again, he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding when it comes to military logistics.

[Legbreaker]

It's only rumour the lead was even a conscript. I can't find any indication they had ANY military experience beyond working as a journalist in the west bank area.
Guess how all their articles (that I could find) are written....

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

Just think of the glee of all those Tu-22M Backfire crews!!! A US supercarrier in the Baltic all by its lonesome!! FL might as well have put a Typhoon boomer into the Great Lakes!!! SHUDDER!!!

[pansarskott]

Panorama pic of where USS Harry S. Truman is supposed to be anchored. The sailing ship to the left is 70 m long (water line) 500 meters away and the cruise ship to the right is probably about 200 m long.


But it would be cool in Mutant. A bit like the Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes, or the crashed Star Destroyers in the recent Star Wars movies. But in a game that's supposed to be based in reality? Not so cool.

[Legbreaker]

...and as mentioned, EASILY within range of all sorts of man portable weapons.
Only place I can think of that would be worse, is a Pact harbour.