v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[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).

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't they have specified anything elsewhere other than the Israeli-Arab war and the PRC-USSR alliance? Don't it in front of me.

[sellanraa]

Here's a question regarding my biggest disappointment in 4e: character creation - specifically the lack of lifepaths and skills.

Is anyone who is thinking about jumping to 4e going to mod those rules anymore to add a bit more depth? The little I've pondered, it seems like to adjust the skill list a bit going from say, 12 to 20 or something would just break everything else down.

As far as the backstory, I agree it's lacking and ignores most of the rest of the world, but I think that's easy to ignore and adapt and they even include a note indicating such to empower anyone who is hesitant to make those kinds of modifications.

[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.