4e What happened to the rest of the world?

[Heffe]

Has anyone managed to put together a possible (and cohesive) world-wide 4e timeline yet?

I've asked twice now on the forums about whether FL plans to detail out the rest of the world (in terms of nuke strike locations, military unit cohesion, nation-state impacts, etc.), and both times FL has been pretty cagey in their responses. Their most recent response was this:

In the upcoming expansions, they will most likely focus (when it comes to setting) on things connected to operation reset like Poland and Sweden.

Which leaves just an entire world with no description of what's going on. The Ref manual talks about a few key countries, but largely the world is left for Refs to create as they see fit. So I'm curious to see if anyone has put together a cohesive timeline of events happening elsewhere around the globe (even if it disrupts FL's official timeline).

Thanks!

[unipus]

No, but it does seem clear that implied background is sort of part of their plan. I don't have an issue with that, exactly. It works better in other genres, but it's still not a terrible move (especially after the reaction their timeline got). It frees up others to answer the questions as they'd like. I had to do so for Poland and it was more satisfying and worked better for me.

[Heffe]

Well, if it's not been done by the community yet, is there any interest amongst users of this forum to build a default timeline for the community? I'd love to help put it together and can PM any efforts (on top of contributing ideas/writing), but this doesn't seem like the kind of project to take on alone, especially not when there's so much valuable insight from the community members here. If anyone is interested in working on something like that (or even leading the endeavor - I'm open to whatever), let me know?

Remember that movie where the first 90 minutes is a recap about everything that happens all over the globe, then the last 30 minutes is about stuff that happens to a group of 4-8 dudes who don't have enough fuel/resources/etc. to get a days drive away from their starting location?

Yeah, me either...

[Raellus]

I've been tinkering a bit since the box set arrived.

China: ally or adversary of the USSR?

-

[unipus]

I'd be inclined to say... neither? China's approach to soft power has worked out pretty well for them and I'd definitely see them trying to stay out of WW3. If they managed to pull that off, then to some extent they are the only superpower on Earth now. Counterargument: they would never develop to that level since they too would face a pretty complete economic collapse, along with possible food production problems, and the odd bit of fallout. I could see them trying to keep the good times rolling and becoming a broken regional empire with a series of unending wars across SE Asia.

[Rainbow Six]

I think for me the challenge is that you’re unlikely to ever get any sort of consensus on what a default timeline would look like - there’s going to be too many differing opinions and in the absence of anything published there’s nothing to settle any disagreements.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've been tinkering a bit since the box set arrived.

China: ally or adversary of the USSR?

-

I have them as a cautious ally of the USSR after the Taiwan Street Crisis of the Mid-Nineties. Basically a "we got a common enemy in the US", after war almost went hot over Taiwan. This might include an actual attack of some sorts on a USN carrier in 1996, putting it out of action for several months, probably USS Independence, but USS Nimitz would hurt more, obviously.

The latter scenario, a near-loss of a carrier, would make the US pivot to Asia at least temporarily and probably end after an attack of retribution by US Navy aircraft and ship/sub launched cruise missiles on major naval installations, e. g. Hudong–Zhonghua Shipbuilding at Shanghai. Zhonghua yards were building amphibious landings ships at the time, so this would set back any build-up in PLAN invasion forces.

After that, cooler heads could prevail, as both sides lick their wounds, but China buys even more hardware from the USSR than it did historically from the Russians. The Chinese, of course, don't want to grow to attached to a resurgent, revisionist USSR, but play along for a year or so. Once the balloon goes up in Europe, China pulls the plug on most forms of cooperation, except economical ties, which remain largely intact despite pressure by Western nations.

It might be an interesting twist that this pressure ultimately could lead to China switching sides. Since it's the USSR that starts the nuclear spiral in 4E, trying to limit NATO breakthroughs in the European, mostly Polish, front, China would immediately step away from any remains of an alliance. Open condemnation would be the only thing to get NATO's bullseye from Beijing, Shanghai and Dalian. A possible economical alliance in 1998 between the West and China might keep parts of the West alive with China delivering food and basic industrial goods.

Of course, this might draw the ire of Moscow, leading to a few nukes flying towards China as well.

One big mystery I haven't solved in that thread of thinking is Hong Kong, though. Would the British handover the city state on 1 July 1997, if the war broke out just before and China has become an obvious ally of the USSR? We know US and Soviet forces clash for the first time in Western Poland (Poznan) on 6 June 1997, but no date is given for the actual invasion of Poland. Personally, I'd reason that Poland can hardly defend itself against the USSR for more than two weeks. So, if the attack came in late May, China has about two weeks to turn its back on the USSR, before the US and other NATO members start attacking Soviet forces and China gets into the cross-hairs as well.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

One big mystery I haven't solved in that thread of thinking is Hong Kong, though. Would the British handover the city state on 1 July 1997, if the war broke out just before and China has become an obvious ally of the USSR?

I don't really think there would be any alternative. The handover had been agreed and I don't think that the British Government of that time would want to go back on an international agreement it had signed.

However even if that was the case I rather doubt that there would have been much the British Government could have done to stop the Chinese occupying Hong Kong - in the 1980's / 1990's the HK garrison was a reinforced Brigade, and it was gradually reduced in strength prior to handover so trying to hold on to the Colony and oppose a Chinese invasion would have been a fool's errand that would have caused the needless loss of many lives.

So I don't really see the British Government trying / wanting to delay the handover. If it was scheduled for five years down the line then maybe I could see it happening, but not when we're only weeks out.

[Ursus Maior]

I don't see this going off the table either, but their would be diplomatic upheavals visible at least. Imagine a close(-ish) ally of one of two opponents getting surprised by its allied state going to war on a "business partner" it wants something really badly from. China would be in a less than optimal position all the while the UK is gearing up for war. No one wants to escalate, but only 15 years earlier, the UK sailed half across the world and beat the Argentinians on a commodity far less valuable than Hong Kong.

The UK might actually work together with the US to push China into the right direction over this, which is away from the USSR. All sides would want that by then, but China might feel that "just doing the right thing" isn't easy to communicate internally. So, they happily (though grudgingly inward) agree to break the alliance with the USSR over getting back Hong Kong. Of course, that's not what everyone tells the press or the Soviets. Officially, Hong Kong is just resolved as was planned, but below that is the layer of Chinese-Western trust-building over the Hong Kong-Soviet matter. Everyone gets what they want, except the USSR.

[Rainbow Six]

Both countries have signed a legally binding treaty to return HK to Chinese Sovereignty so I don’t really follow why there would be diplomatic upheavals if that happens.

To my mind the upheavals would only occur if that didn’t happen and I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t. In the overall scheme of things I see it as no more than a brief footnote, at least in the v4 timeline ('the former British Crown Colony of Hong Kong was returned to Chinese sovereignty as planned at midnight on the 30th of June 1997').

(V1 where China is two years into war against the Soviets is a different matter altogether - I've previously written at length about why I think the UK would retain control of HK in V1)

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I think for me the challenge is that you’re unlikely to ever get any sort of consensus on what a default timeline would look like - there’s going to be too many differing opinions and in the absence of anything published there’s nothing to settle any disagreements.

Perhaps not, but it may yet be worth a shot. Something to consider is that players and Refs will continue to release modules for 4e as time goes on. Those player-made modules will be created regardless, and each module that comes out will be creating its own miniature version of the timeline. If there's a way to come up with a default universal timeline ahead of a lot of the modules, it could help to ensure that they all (or at least many of them) maintain at least some measure of consistency when it comes to the descriptions of their relative areas. Otherwise, and this is my fear, there will end up just being no consistent timeline at all, and all of the unofficial modules will just be utter chaos in terms of their level of consistency within the larger T2k narrative.

[Tegyrius]

This is the same problem faced by every other game line whose publisher has opened up the option of fan publications for sale. Ultimately, it's on the community (which extends far beyond this forum) to discuss whose work is good and whose work is crap, and to make that known through ratings, reviews, and forum threads. Then it's on the referee and the table to decide what their T2k universe is.

Having seen several vicious urinary Olympiads over the canon status of various fan works, I have little faith that a timeline consensus can or will emerge from any source other than the publisher. And even that will meet harsh criticism, if not outright rejection, from portions of the fan community.

- C.

[Raellus]

Free League didn't seem very receptive to community input regarding its Alpha & Beta Europe timelines, so I'm not sure if they would be open making a community-made global timeline official. As it now stands, it's up to each individual Ref to do their own world-building, beyond NW Europe. Even if FL does release some sort of official global timeline- with or without community input- it's still ultimately up to up to individual Refs.

That said, creating a global timeline is a fun thought exercise, and if some Refs decide to use it, then it's a worthwhile one as well.

In the timeline that I've been tinkering with, the USSR's survival/revival is predicated, in part, on close economic ties with the PRC. The Soviets sell energy to the Chinese, to fuel the latter's rapid economic growth; they also sell weapons to the Chinese, who have been essentially cut off from western sources after the Tiananmen Square massacre. This infusion of hard currency from China keeps the Soviet economy afloat, and helps keep the Soviet military in fighting shape until WW3 begins.

With the USA engaged in a full-scale conventional war in Europe, and a fresh infusion of current gen Soviet-made weaponry, China decides that the time is right to retake Taiwan. They gamble that the US won't intervene militarily. The PRC also encourages the DPRK to attempt a reunification-by-force with the ROK, giving the US something else to worry about/deal with.

So the T2k 4e relationship between the USSR and PRC is kind of like the Axis "alliance" of WW2- the Germans and Japanese were nominal allies, with the same enemies, but did not really coordinate strategic operations.

I can also see the relationship souring when the Soviets stop shipping oil and gas to the PRC (because they need it for total war).

-

[Heffe]

To be clear, I wouldn't expect FL to ever accept a fan-made timeline as canon - I was only thinking about it from the standpoint of someone interested in making modules, but being hesitant to jump in with an ill-defined strategic picture of what's happening elsewhere on the planet.

With our current knowledge of Mexico's military capabilities, and the earlier timelines' approach to a Mexican invasion being wholly unrealistic, I think the PRC joining with Russia makes a lot of sense to help keep things balanced. Were that to happen, keeping with the Axis/Allies model I would see the following alliances form up and fall apart as the war continued.

Allies:
Europe and the Americas:
Existing NATO countries

Australia + New Zealand

Asia:
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
Philippines
The Kingdom (?)
UAE (?)
Israel
Egypt (?)

Axis:
Europe and the Americas:
PACT countries
Cuba
Venezuela

Asia:
PRC
North Korea
Iran
Syria

Mostly I'd expect India and Pakistan to be having their own little war between them. Israel would no doubt be a flash point that could break allied alliances in the middle east.

Otherwise, I'm at a bit of a loss wrt to the rest of southeast Asia, Africa, and South America.

I do think it would be neat to continue the tradition of the US splitting into a MilGov and a CivGov, and the concept of New America was great (awful faction, but interesting storytelling. I also like the idea of an invasion into the US, albeit I just don't think Mexico would have what it takes. Perhaps a new alliance of nations in Central/South America? Or alternatively, China and Russia team up to invade across Alaska and down through the PNW?

edit: This is all super high-level of course. The devil is always in the details. Also, please humor me if I've made any glaring errors in judgment. While I feel like I have a good understanding of foreign policy these days, I was a teenager in the 90s, so I'm likely to make some mistakes.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Originally Posted by unipus

No, but it does seem clear that implied background is sort of part of their plan. I don't have an issue with that, exactly. It works better in other genres, but it's still not a terrible move (especially after the reaction their timeline got). It frees up others to answer the questions as they'd like. I had to do so for Poland and it was more satisfying and worked better for me.

PCs wouldn't know anyway. It's not like they could go on Facebook and find out.

[Raellus]

Of course, PCs wouldn't know everything that happened leading up to their respective then-and-now, and they probably don't need to. That said, they'd certainly be privy to at least some background information.

To draw a historical example, a grunt on Okinawa in early 1945 wouldn't know what went on during the Tehran Conference, or in the Wolf's Lair on the eve of the Kursk offensive, or the results of a US daytime strategic bombing raid on city x date y, but he would know the broad strokes of the war- Nazi invasion of Poland, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and probably something of Guadalcanal, Midway, the invasion of Sicily and Italy, and D-Day in the ETO. At the very least, I think most players want to know how their PC got into the game world- when and why did they volunteer, for example, and did they fight elsewhere prior to the campaign start date.

Also, "historical" background info can help players come up with PC concepts that they might not otherwise. For example, I've had Australian players want to play Australian PCs. They were able to find a bit in the v1 timeline that would justify Aussie military personnel being in Poland, c.2000. It also helps with justifying a PC having certain skills, like picking up a language not spoken in the AO or home country.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Both countries have signed a legally binding treaty to return HK to Chinese Sovereignty so I don’t really follow why there would be diplomatic upheavals if that happens.

As usual, legally binding means little in case of war. Many nations have had treaties questioned due to dire political shifts.

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Of course, PCs wouldn't know everything that happened leading up to their respective then-and-now, and they probably don't need to. That said, they'd certainly be privy to at least some background information.
[snip]
At the very least, I think most players want to know how their PC got into the game world- when and why did they volunteer, for example, and did they fight elsewhere prior to the campaign start date.

Also, "historical" background info can help players come up with PC concepts that they might not otherwise. For example, I've had Australian players want to play Australian PCs. They were able to find a bit in the v1 timeline that would justify Aussie military personnel being in Poland, c.2000. It also helps with justifying a PC having certain skills, like picking up a language not spoken in the AO or home country.
-

This, exactly. I'm not looking to determine every bit of minutia about every nation on the planet. Even just a high level understanding of what's going on in various regions would be hugely helpful. i.e. How do things look in the Middle East? The Far East? What does South America look like? How about Africa? Having those, as Rae calls them, broad strokes, would potentially make the lives of every Ref a lot easier when they're put in a position to answer player questions. It would allow for faster off-the-cuff responses and less planning/legwork for Refs that are just looking to run an adventure.

[Raellus]

I can't remember why the Soviets invade Iran in v1. I don't think either superpower needs to start the war in the Middle East, but I can see both getting drawn into regional conflict eventually.

In 4e, the Gulf War happens. So, one could posit that Iraq is so destabilized by sanctions and periodic punitive air strikes that Saddam loses his grip on power. Sectarian and ethnic insurgencies flare up. Perhaps he cracks down on the local Shia. Iran steps in to protect their co-religionists. Saudi Arabia isn't about to let Iran take effective control of neighboring Iraq. The "Great Powers" of the region, Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, both want their respective preferred sect to take power in Iraq to tip the balance of power in the region in their favor, so they launch into a proxy war there. It's spirals out of control, until both nations send large conventional forces to duke it out in Iraq. Turkey teams up with Saudi Arabia and Syria sides with Iran.

At that point, things start to get messier. Oil shipments to the West are disrupted by the fighting in the region. The US decides to intervene militarily. The Soviets aren't about to let the US win the upper hand in the Middle East, so they send forces to the Middle East.

So, for a while at least, it's:
Saudi Arabia, Turkey & the USA v. Iran, Syria, and the USSR

OR, before the superpowers intervene in the Middle East, things get really nuts when Israel, fearing Iranian victory in Iraq, decides to nuke strategic military targets in Iran...

As we saw in '91, Israel getting involved can potentially rally Muslim nations, regardless of sect, to join forces against the common foe.

Thoughts?

-

[Olefin]

So far the new edition publisher has shown a distinct lack of caring about the rest of the world - they basically even ignored places that obviously should have been detailed like the Czech Republic and Denmark and Norway - its like the war has been confined to just a few countries. And while communication breakdown would eventually keep GI's from all sides knowing what is going on the USN is still working and still viable - meaning that mail and newspapers and things like that would be coming over ever so often.

Thus the events in the rest of the world would be known to those in Europe - especially given the huge shipment of US draftees that occurred - they would have brought news of what was happening at home for sure.

Its a monstrous hole that really needs to be filled and could be easily with a relatively small official supplement. Keep in mind how few pages the original edition Sourcebooks devoted to the events happening elsewhere - yet those few pages built up a picture of what was happening elsewhere that you could build on. The later releases added more but at least you had some idea of what was going on in China, Korea, the US, Mexico, etc.

And the official status of "fan canon" has been debated a lot and I brought that up with Marc - but the only new release since 1997 he ever recognized as canon was mine - and I told him that frankly he was making a mistake there - that what Tegyrius and Raellus did was every bit as good as anything GDW ever did and deserved to be recognized as official canon once and for all.

Free League's current fan canon approach leaves you with no baseline to build on - thus you can easily get ten different "official" versions of what is going on outside of Poland and Sweden. Yes that leaves you free to choose your world - but it also makes it hard to write as well - i.e. what version of Great Britain will you choose if there is no official FL release. The fan canon stuff is great but they have no basis in "reality" because they have not been declared canon - and that opens the door to chaos and a lot of work by GM's that shouldnt have to be done if they want to use the 4th edition timeline and setting outside of a limited area in Europe.

And there is a market for material on the rest of the world - Raellus and I proved that with East Africa and Korea.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I can't remember why the Soviets invade Iran in v1. I don't think either superpower needs to start the war in the Middle East, but I can see both getting drawn into regional conflict eventually.



-

I agree with your post generally, but I think that the Sovs would invade Iran to use as a gateway to Iraq and its oils, then that they would attempt to invade (or more, roll over in their thoughts) Kuwait Saudi Arabia, the and the UAE and Gulf States. Meanwhile, Iran does have decent reserves of oil and gas (IRL, sanctions are preventing most of that oil and gas from getting out into the world), and it could serve as a base for their operations in the Gulf.

So they thought. Sounds simple, right? (After all, we're the Soviet Union, and we have troops and equipment up the wazoo!) The Iranians were not simply going to roll over, and it took a lot more effort to pin down Iran. They are still suffering both small and large partisan attacks from Iranian freedom fighters and Iranian Army members gone native. And in pinning down the Iranians as best they could, Iran turned out to be more of a meat grinder than they expected.

In my T2KU, the Gulf War happened. And ever since then, the US and several of the Coalition countries maintained a decent troop presence in Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE, and the Gulf States. And while the coalition has their own problems with insurgents, they were able to being enough troops and equipment to bear to stop the Sovs cold just north of Basra. That effort cost the Sovs and the Coalition a lot of vehicles; the armor battle north of of Kuwait was larger than the Gulf War's 73 Easting.

So now, both sides are nursing their wounds after other Sov-Coalition battles, and each has their own problems with insurgents and groups who would qualify as terrorists. They largely use their remaining vehicles for special missions, their aircraft for very special missions, and their fuel. The Coalition is doing decently, but the Sov commander has nightmares every time he closes his eyes. And both sides are stuck in the Middle East; both sides know it will be a long time before they go home, and there is precious little communications to the US, Europe, or the Soviet Union.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I think for me the challenge is that you’re unlikely to ever get any sort of consensus on what a default timeline would look like - there’s going to be too many differing opinions and in the absence of anything published there’s nothing to settle any disagreements.

I 100% agree with you on this - and it wouldnt take a huge effort to correct it by the Free League team

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Free League's current fan canon approach leaves you with no baseline to build on - thus you can easily get ten different "official" versions of what is going on outside of Poland and Sweden. Yes that leaves you free to choose your world - but it also makes it hard to write as well - i.e. what version of Great Britain will you choose if there is no official FL release. The fan canon stuff is great but they have no basis in "reality" because they have not been declared canon - and that opens the door to chaos and a lot of work by GM's that shouldnt have to be done if they want to use the 4th edition timeline and setting outside of a limited area in Europe.

As someone who just wrote an entire book about Poland (because there was insufficient official material IMO to run a game set in Poland, the game's default actual setting)... is this really anything new? Doesn't every GM end up having to make calls like this to make the game work for them anyway? It's not like you really need canon beyond what happens are your table, and I can't think of a single game I've ever just blanket accepted the setting of without making a few significant changes to suit my own interpretation.

Basically you've got to draw the line somewhere, but even then I doubt you'll find any two people who agree on exactly where that line should be drawn.

[mpipes]

For now, after looking at what has become available on Drive Thru RPG, there really is no direction from FL. I am afraid that FL is only interested in Sweden and Poland and the rest of the world is pretty much whatever others choose to make it.

Unless FL steps up to the plate with some overall guidance on the other war fronts, I am afraid the product line it is going to turn into a chaotic mishmash.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by mpipes

For now, after looking at what has become available on Drive Thru RPG, there really is no direction from FL. I am afraid that FL is only interested in Sweden and Poland and the rest of the world is pretty much whatever others choose to make it.

Unless FL steps up to the plate with some overall guidance on the other war fronts, I am afraid the product line it is going to turn into a chaotic mishmash.

you are 100 percent correct in your analysis - and it doesnt have to be that way - like I said they need to step up to the plate and put out, at most, a dozen page supplement that would give just enough details on the rest of the world to be able to fill that hole - at the very least the situation in the rest of Europe - i.e. you cant have WWIII in Europe and give basically no details on France, Italy, the Balkans - heck even the V1 Sourcebook at least gave you something about them that was enough that you could have done something with it

and Unipus - you are right about what happens at the table - if the group is content with just Sweden or Poland then you will be fine - the problem will be if they want to really start exploring or say something like "is Poland all there is?" and you have nothing to go on.

Worst case you could always use the old sourcebooks and what was recently put out and just try to run them with 4e rules if people want to go beyond Poland or Sweden - but some of the changes in the timeline already make a lot of the old material moot

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by mpipes

Unless FL steps up to the plate with some overall guidance on the other war fronts, I am afraid the product line it is going to turn into a chaotic mishmash.

Don't confuse the product line with the fan-produced offerings. The product line is whatever FL publishes under the terms of its license with FFE, and I guarantee you that they have a multi-year strategy for that. They're just metering the information they share with us on it.

(Whether or not they can follow through on that strategy is another issue entirely. There is no RPG industry... there is only a subsidized hobby.)

- C.

[unipus]

Again, a few sentences here and there in the old core books were certainly not enough to actually run the game in any other part of the world, so how much does it matter? As a GM you were still pretty much (wait for it) on your own. Unless you waited patiently for modules and got lucky and you had been hoping to run a game in Iran or Appalachia or on a submarine or something.

Put this in the context of pretty much any other game and it starts to seem like a pretty silly demand.


But yeah it's pretty clear that FL has a plan, but they also have a lot of pots on the stove and not enough bandwidth to get it done in a very expedient manner.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by mpipes

I am afraid that FL is only interested in Sweden and Poland and the rest of the world is pretty much whatever others choose to make it.

Unless FL steps up to the plate with some overall guidance on the other war fronts, I am afraid the product line it is going to turn into a chaotic mishmash.

I wouldn't look at it that way. The product is still very new, it has its first expansion box coming out this winter and an adventure probably later this year (Black Madonna). It's just one of many products by FL and certainly niche. They're a small company, developing other stuff needs time. Plus, not a lot people played T2K with a completely vanilla timeline back in the days, weren't they? Mixing timelines and elements is really a great opportunity rather than a drawback for me.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Olefin

you are 100 percent correct in your analysis - and it doesnt have to be that way - like I said they need to step up to the plate and put out, at most, a dozen page supplement that would give just enough details on the rest of the world to be able to fill that hole - at the very least the situation in the rest of Europe - i.e. you cant have WWIII in Europe and give basically no details on France, Italy, the Balkans - heck even the V1 Sourcebook at least gave you something about them that was enough that you could have done something with it

From a company's point of view, putting out a small document that just gives facts and dates is probably the worst decision one could make. There is literally zero chance that anyone would like the content 100 % and recommend it. It's just fluff with no stats and game stuff and it is something no referee will use as is. The timeline given was already met with so much vitriol, it just shows this would be a colossal waste of time and money for FL.

Plus, most groups will use Poland and Sweden as their setting. Other countries in far off places hardly influence what happens there. And for Europe you get the basic facts: WW3, nukes, Soviets fighting NATO and former WP countries. Stalemate. Operation Reset. NATO fails liberating Eastern Europe. Post-collapse. Go!

Look at it this way: If you'd picked up the game in '84, what did you get?

1995: China fights USSR. The USSR gets supported by WP states, because everyone's a good commie.
1996: West Germany starts WW3 while annexing East Germany while the NVA just watches. WP declares war on Germany, except for Romania, who find an ally in Yugoslavia. NATO comes to Germany's rescue, since NATO is now in business of wars of aggression; except France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece, because people speaking non-Germanic languages are apparently the only ones with a clear head.
1997: Greek and Turkey finally go to war. Italy violates Austrian neutrality, because backstabbing lunatics is now everyone's game. Meanwhile, Germany actually wins against the USSR, so they Commies go nuclear. Everyone joins into that game.
1998: France and Belgium start shooting refugees. Since everybody has been at it for 2 1/2 years already, divisions are now down to 50 %. Apparently, Germany could levy new combat effective divisions still by 1945, after 5 years of war, but by 2000 suddenly they forgot that every male above the age of 18 has had either training as a soldier or in civil defense, police, firefighting or healthcare. Italy is really successful as is Greece. The US break de facto apart over a refugee crisis. Mexico invades the US. Yugoslavia invades Hungary, despite Italy having occupied Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia, while Greece annexed Macedonia. Unclear what's left of Yugoslavia by that point except Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegowina.
1999: The US break apart even further. Europe stabilizes, because everyone's dead.
2000: Thinking that stability is bullshit, NATO wants to go for another round, fails miserably over getting its hands on a "turn back time" MacGuffin and now is worse off than ever before.

Meanwhile, I'm adopting stuff from 1E and 2E for my campaign, but boy am I glad FL isn't putting out anything like these 6 pages from 1984.