Vote for "Time of Cold War" 1945-1988 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury



Message

Omnius -> Vote for "Time of Cold War" 1945-1988 (1/20/2013 5:53:29 PM)

Since we're bandying about new situations for the Time of Fury game system how about Time of Cold War? Now that doomtrader has broken the ice on the Cold War in Strategic War in Europe with a new 1945 early NATO versus early Warsaw Pact scenario it's time to talk about the possibilities of post WW2. Plus I sure wish doomtrader would make us a 1945 scenario for Time of Fury that is a take off of his SWiE 1945 scenario. I really enjoy playing it.

When I saw the 31/12/1948 ending dates on all the scenarios I thought that this game would include a post WW2 scenario pitting Patton against Zhukov. A definitely missed opportunity.

I'd like to see the ToF system go Cold War, now that doomtrader is making the AI in SWiE use nukes and is making the effects of nuclear attacks more realistic. The research levels could be reset to level 1 for post WW2 tech levels, just as they'll be reset for WW1 for Time of Guns.

I see several scenario possibilities for Time of Cold War:

1945 - Patton's War - Patton doesn't get killed in a traffic accident but does verbally antagonize the Russians into a new war right after the end of WW2. Stalin responds by sending Zhukov after Patton for an apology.

1952 - MacArthur's War - MacArthur does convinvce Truman to use nukes in Korea which leads to a hot war in Europe as the USSR/Warsaw Pact attacks NATO.

1962 - Kennedy's War - John F. Kennedy listens to the military hawks who want to turn the Cuban Missile Crisis into a shooting war. Kruschev responds by invading Western Europe.

1967 - Johnson's War - The 1967 Arab-Israeli War goes global as the USA and USSR both decide to intervene in the Middle East. This leads to the USSR/Warsaw Pact invading Western Europe.

1973 - Nixon's War - the 1973 Yom Kippur War goes global as the USA and USSR both decide to intervene in the Middle East. This leads to the USSR/Warsaw Pact invading Western Europe.

1988 - Reagan's War - the Iraq-Iran War provokes both the USA and USSR to intervene to protect their interests in the Middle East. The USSR also decides that Reagan's military buildup is too provocative so they invade Western Europe.

As you can see The Cold War affords some interesting scenario possibilities. I know that World War 1 is now the new "It" game for war game companies and customers but doing The Cold War can give us a whole new era of warfaring conjecture that was thankfully never settled in real life. After doing Time of Guns it sure would be cool if Time of Cold War would be up next.
Omnius



doomtrader -> RE: Vote for "Time of Cold War" 1945-1988 (1/20/2013 6:44:10 PM)

I wonder would this kind of game could gather like 50k USD on kickstarter.



Tomokatu -> RE: Vote for "Time of Cold War" 1945-1988 (1/20/2013 10:13:24 PM)

Considering that a realistic evaluation of the Cold War period would reveal unremitting US aggression through diplomatic means, clandestine actions and proxy belligerants against a Soviet Union that really only wanted to be left alone, then I doubt that there'd be much funding from the USA.

Maybe the neutral and non-aligned nations who have sufficent gamer citizens could find enough money, but I suspect that the USA and its agencies would do what they could to suppress any game with any pretensions to historical analytical accuracy.



elmerlee -> RE: Vote for "Time of Cold War" 1945-1988 (1/21/2013 11:25:22 PM)

Not to *iss anyone off but it might be a good idea not to feed the monster.
The last thing Wastelands need to do is come up with another moneymaker idea.
We wait and wait for this game to get patched-up and its always the same story.....we are doing so and so to this and that.
I guess TOF is playable if you are expecting a fantasy game but most of us were not.

I wish that they would just say "we are done patching" (if that is the case) so we all can just move on.



elmerlee -> RE: Vote for "Time of Cold War" 1945-1988 (1/21/2013 11:44:21 PM)

Hey TOMOKATU...........................Stick it.



battlevonwar -> RE: Vote for "Time of Cold War" 1945-1988 (1/22/2013 2:29:45 AM)

Personally the Civil War is much more Thrilling than The Cold War.




JLPOWELL -> Would you like to play a game? (1/22/2013 6:46:06 AM)

Nice scenario list, but I have to vote against trying to make this game. Lacking any 'history' to work from we will just get a particular designers 'take'. Besides all of the scenarios listed have only one likely outcome, and not fun to even think about let alone play out. Just because its a cliche, doesn't mean its not true. MAD has worked since we had the good fortune to have mostly rational leaders on both sides. They knew and still do that once you start a war it would be virtually impossible to prevent escalation. A no win situation. To expect such a conflict to 'stay conventional' contradicts human nature, and assumes the loosing side will not play the last card. The risk is far to great for any 'rational' leader to accept.

This clip is pretty much the AAR for this proposed game...




[image]local://upfiles/38307/CB32016CA9E84A7896ADD047C0134E87.jpg[/image]



doomtrader -> RE: Would you like to play a game? (1/22/2013 4:39:23 PM)

@elmerlee, we are not quit patching the game at least since we decide that everything works as intended.
At the moment we are very close to the point where the game engine will give us the possibility to create any XX century conventional wargame we would like to create, with only some customized changes.
We do really appreciate the feedback given us by the community and we are very thankfull for the understanding.



gwgardner -> RE: Would you like to play a game? (1/22/2013 7:34:49 PM)

Don't want to rain on any parade, just my personal preference - I would have zero interest in a Cold War game and don't think it would sell well.

I also don't thing the ToF game engine lends itself to earlier conflicts, without stacking. WWI perhaps, at a stretch, but even that really needs stacking. Put stacking in, and elaborate on the leader/command structure and you could make the engine and scale work for Napoleonic or American Civil War. Or how about a Franco-Prussian War game, if you want some what-if situations?



Rasputitsa -> RE: Would you like to play a game? (1/22/2013 7:42:18 PM)

I would have thought that it should be possible to mod the game to get these scenarios, but before that, the editor needs to be improved and the main game engine needs to be fully developed. After this has been done, many more things become possible.

In short, I would like to see the main game sorted out first. [:)]



JLPOWELL -> RE: Would you like to play a game? (1/22/2013 9:06:03 PM)

I think the 1945 speculative scenario could be modded or built onto the existing ToF game. It is also the probably 2nd most plausible after the Cuba crisis. And I expect the only 'playable' conventional conflict. While Patton's mouth wouldn't have started it 'something' could have set it off as (or just after) Germany collapsed. It is likely the only one remotely worth playing. Once you get large nuclear arsenals, modern era air power, ICBMs, spy satellites, (and spy planes) the force structure evolves into a whole new 'game' anyway.

Regarding a 1945 conflict: If it started in the April June time frame the existing game engine would handle it pretty well. I expect it would be short however as if the US/UK were winning or even just holding on in July they would likely permit the Soviets to sue for peace, and after Uncle Joe got wind of the Gadget test in New Mexico he would have backed down regardless of any position on the ground in Europe. If not...

After 16 July Truman would likely have believed he could just 'decide' what to do about the USSR and would have been right (large US casualties inflicted by the USSR would likely have given him a political blank check, and he already had a military one). By the end of following year any policy he picked would likely have been implemented. Its hard to speculate how resistant the USSR would be. They took 20 million plus casualties and keep on fighting. I doubt they would have lasted long after taking another 50 million or so facing The US UK France and likely a rearmed Germany (Talk about a nightmare, German troops with American equipment and supplies)



[image]local://upfiles/38307/787B359D93D741F5A7A9DEA3AD9B37FE.jpg[/image]



battlevonwar -> RE: Would you like to play a game? (1/24/2013 1:41:16 AM)

Created a lot of discussion! I like how HOI 2 moved me along right into WW3. Sort of a continuation conflict. I really loved taking Italy, staying neutral long enough(massing up my Factories and Technology) would absorb several neutrals and stack Air Craft Carriers and Massive Tank Columns to steamroll The USSR. That was the most enjoyable game I ever played vs the AI. BattleFront did a "Patton Drives East," I never bought that. Though WW1 and WW2 had an antique history. It's just fun to play with! WW3 with modern long range bombers and nuclear weapons bores me.

I played a Hexagon Game from the early 90s that tried to simulate a non-nuclear Russian steamroll of the Allied Speed bump of the 1980s. Was boring! There were victory conditions by a time frame. This isn't an new concept.

I much prefer Command HQ, Multi-player where you, turn off Nukes..With Nukes on strategy sort of goes out the window as you vaporize whole armies in one Bomb Drop. Leave Nukes and WW3 to RTS, it's a prettier image to watch it then simulate it on Hexes. Unless you have a new innovative concept to add. It's been done...



Omnius -> RE: Would you like to play a game? (1/27/2013 5:16:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Nice scenario list, but I have to vote against trying to make this game. Lacking any 'history' to work from we will just get a particular designers 'take'. Besides all of the scenarios listed have only one likely outcome, and not fun to even think about let alone play out. Just because its a cliche, doesn't mean its not true. MAD has worked since we had the good fortune to have mostly rational leaders on both sides. They knew and still do that once you start a war it would be virtually impossible to prevent escalation. A no win situation. To expect such a conflict to 'stay conventional' contradicts human nature, and assumes the loosing side will not play the last card. The risk is far to great for any 'rational' leader to accept.


JLPOWELL,
The whole idea is the lack of "history" to work from. There are Cold War games out there, unfortunately very old. Don't you get tired playing the same old wars over and over again? I thought that since Wastelands already has a European map going fpor WW2, with plans to do WW1, then why not the Cold War. I like the new 1945 scenario in Strategic War in Europe because there is no preconceived history to bias what we should or shouldn't do.

I think you place too much worry on the escalation aspect or the horrific what if that thankfully never happened. Obviously strategic nukes would make it game over for all participants, and wouldn't be worth gaming. This is about avoiding severe escalation and seeing how events might have played out in Europe had the balloon gone up.

As I demonstrated there are many interesting match ups at various times in history for several decades where we could have seen a limited war. There's plenty of history as to what each side had and where it was likely deployed that we do have something historical to reproduce. I just get tired of playing the same old wars over and over again, it's refreshing to play a situation like SWiE's 1945 poses of early NATO versus early USSR & Warsaw pact.

Kudos to doomtrader for thinking outside the box!
Omnius - also from the Pacific Time Zone



Omnius -> Tempting (1/27/2013 5:24:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I wonder would this kind of game could gather like 50k USD on kickstarter.


doomtrader,
So what kind of rate of return would a game make for a $50k USD investment? It's almost tempting to make such an investment but thankfully I have a conservative investment strategy. Just wanted to see the feedback after seeing the World War 1 thread. I thought that this might be interesting as a new alternative for use of a European map. Plus this gives you some feedback without having to pose the question.

Plus I really like your 1945 scenario for Strategic War in Europe, as if you haven't figured that out yet. When I saw Time of Fury extend to 31/12/1948 I thought a 1945 NATO versus Warsaw Pact scenario would be a done deal. I like how the SWiE 1945 scenario plays out and gives us tech level 5 to enjoy plus seeing how early nukes might have impacted the war.
Omnius



Omnius -> What Planet Are You From? (1/27/2013 5:26:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomokatu

Considering that a realistic evaluation of the Cold War period would reveal unremitting US aggression through diplomatic means, clandestine actions and proxy belligerants against a Soviet Union that really only wanted to be left alone, then I doubt that there'd be much funding from the USA.

Maybe the neutral and non-aligned nations who have sufficent gamer citizens could find enough money, but I suspect that the USA and its agencies would do what they could to suppress any game with any pretensions to historical analytical accuracy.


Tomokatu,
What planet are you from?
Omnius



borsook79 -> RE: What Planet Are You From? (1/28/2013 2:17:13 PM)

Personally I have no interest in Cold War game, I would buy a WWI game though...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.25