Jump to content
fracas

Thoughts regarding dystopian Age and fluff

Recommended Posts

Hate the proposed regional powers consolidation; it runs counter to history.  Instead each regions should have 2-3 warring factions with possible allies outside the region.  For instance:


I. Dystopian Age: an excellent term to describe the setting. All corners of the globe should be under tension and conflicts rather than being under regional hegemony (PLC+ Russia, China+Japan).  Think global (domination) by acting locally (conquering your neighbors).



II. Release rules for DA: Fleet Battles. Have pdf available (for free?)


III. Release campaign books with fluff along with naval and air list ( at least until DA: Armor Clash is released). Would charge for pdf if Force list pdf are released. Each has three factions vying for power and dominance.

• Book 1: Western Europe: France, Prussia, and UK.

• Book 2: America: FSA (USA+Canada+northern Mexico), CoA (Covenant of America using existing CoA models; relocate the Vault to be Inca or Mayan; geographic southern Mexico, Central America, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile), and CSA (Confederated South America using current eclipse company air models but will need new naval models; geographic Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina).

• Book 3: East Asia: China, Japan, and Korea+Manchuria (will need new models) or Russia ( instead of Korea)

• Book 4: Northern Europe: Scandinavia (use danish naval and air models), polish-Lithuania, and Russia 

• Book 5. Southern Europe: Italy+Greece, Balkan Kingdoms/Hapsburg Empire (use black wolf models), and Ottoman Empire (needs air models).

• Book 6. South Asia: India Raj, Greater Australia (needs air models; use Canadian land models), and the Caliphate (using Egyptian models)


IV.  Release rules for DA: Armor Clash. Unless the lack of success of spartan’s version is confirmed to be the lack of infantry models, I would not embark on an entirely new range of 10 mm models. The current models with better rules and empowering small tank token with infantry powers may suffice.  I think it just needs better rules.


V.  Update campaign books with army lists along with necessary land models for all the factions. I would definitely sell these as either v1.5 and would sell the pdf army lists as well. Free rules, every thing else charge.



Best wishes and success on your spartan IP acquisition!


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Asuo said:

As RuleBritannia had stated you text is black against a dark grey background, i edited it to change it to white so that it could been seen. 

On my phone (from which I post) it is black text on white background.

the edited text is light grey on a white background!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RuleBritannia said:

The problem seems to be the formatting when you copy and paste your comments from the Man Battle station forum.  When you post typed out comments it seems fine.  I don't understand enough computers to know why it isn't working properly.

I think you are correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I kind of like the idea of lost vaults of ancient alien tech being dotted around the globe. I start imagining all sorts of Indiana Jones style quests to find them. 

Also now with WWE being in the dystopian age, there are definite in universe aliens that could be:

looking for the vaults to get the secrets for themselves; looking for the vaults to destroy the secrets before the humans find them; trying to stop the humans finding the vaults but keeping the vaults protected; or maybe just living in the vaults. 

It leaves a lot of scope for storylines.

----

One thing I realised about the the old Spartan games dystopian universe is that with the three super blocks, and linear timeline, there were limits to the scope of the game. ( like which factions would fight each other, and the way that the big campaigns could only change very little and seem quite linear) 

One thing I like about the 40k setting and one of the things that has made it so successful, is that it is such an open setting.

Now I know the dystopian age is on a planetary scale rather than a galactic one, but I would like to see the setting evolve into one that is more open. ( i.e. Where any faction could be fighting any other, and maybe even some conflicts/civil wars  within factions). (The original DW timeline did a bit of this with the Bering incident allowing for battles between the Russians and Americans, and the break up of LoIS and OE)

One thing I'm toying with in my head canon is the possibility of sturginium/alien tech induced rifts in space-time that allow for alternative timelines. Maybe even timelines that interact. That might get a bit too much for some people, but it would open out the scope of the settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spartan fluff was more based on a more realistic way wars on this planet would be fought. I mean, how many wars have been fought in the modern era (1600 - present) in real life where all of the combatants fought everyone at the same time? 

Never. It was always one alliance vs another alliance.

 

What Warcradle are doing is creating a open setting where anyone can fight anyone as the backstory essentially has everyone at war with each other at the same time...which is not realistic at all. Thus, it allows more freedom to make up whatever nonsense they want to progress any story they want. 

 

40k can do this easily as being a space empire beset on all sides by all manner of xeno threats writers can make up whatever they want, or set it at any point of the 10,000 year history of the Imperium because what does it matter?

 

As to temporal rifts. I think it is best to just keep time travel, and other alternate realities out of an alternate reality game. It's not needed, And it's likely to put a lot of players off, as it does allow Warcradle the ability to completely Age of Sigmar the games lore if they run out of more ideas down the line.

No one wants that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a mix of unexpected peace and unexpected war that is unrealistic Merlin, but we need to remember its just a game, and while WC obviously don't have Spartan's passion for alt history, they will make things more mature and dark, and everyone fighting everyone, so they assure us it must make a better game, which is better for a game surely, than fluff that makes sense.  Not like 40k makes too much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dystopian Age takes place within a generation of the American Civil War.   In the Dystopian Age there aren't every nation fighting every nation. In fact, there are no official declarations of war between the various nations at all. Diplomacy is a fine art with a network of ambassadors, diplomats, bannermen, marshals and emissaries crisscrossing the globe smoothing over the various 'misunderstandings', sabre rattling, land grabs and declarations of independence that are a daily occurrence. The various nations have slowly become affiliated with one of eight power blocks (our factions). While there are times of uneasy alliance or peace between them, at other times there are clashes and conflicts over resources, territory and the actions of individual commanders in the field making the right (or wrong decision).  Our own history shows that actual declarations of war are few and far between and yet clashes, conflicts and other violent acts between countries and groups is commonplace. 

The narrative should encourage games, not discourage them. If you take the 40k example, narratively the Ultramarines fighting the Cadians is difficult to explain if it repeatedly happens. About half of the armies in 40k are all part of the same faction. Even in a 'narrative' campaign weekend you would likely either artificially restrict the number of Imperial tickets or create some bizarre 'everyone else' alliance where the Orks, Chaos, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids assemble against them. 

What we want to do with the narrative in the Dystopian Age is build it so that while you may occasionally still get 'blue on blue' games where you both have Prussians etc, it is more likely that Prussians vs Union or Crown vs Alliance (or Union vs Alliance, Crown vs Prussians, Prussians vs Alliance, Crown vs Union) can play out. 

We love alternate history, but that does not mean that because it is different to second edition the third edition is less concerned about narrative. If anything, it is far more concerned with narrative. Narrative gameplay with scenarios should be the default setting of the game. No temporal rifts (on a large scale anyway!) but no narrative handcuffs that mean players joining in a couple of years’ time feel that they missed out on 'Season One' of the game and now must play catch up.  So, while there are plenty of narrative campaigns planned that will feature a timeline within them, and the history of the world bringing us up to the 1880s is broadly mapped out, there are no plans to do 1881 X happens, now we are in 1882 and X happens, so this faction no longer can take Y units or be allied with Z faction. Players should be free to make their own regional conflicts using the rich narrative created to bring us to the present of the game. If you want to have it that in your campaign, there is a restriction or alliance between two of the factions (albeit briefly) then go for it. On the other hand, if you prefer a tournament that still retains some semblance of a narrative, that can be done too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/20/2017 at 9:31 PM, Kapitan Montag said:

I agree with you fracas, that each corner of the globe should have  conflict. 

I hope the setting will allow for battles between China and Japan, and Russia and Polish for example. 

 

Every part of the world has regional clashes between the factions. The Empire fighting the Commonwealth is far more likely in the seas around Korea, Japan and in the Yellow Sea. Of course it could happen elsewhere if you and your opponent have a great idea for a clash between these two great powers of the coast of Alaska or blockading Chile etc. 

Though each nation is part of one of a number of alliances and pacts across the globe, tensions and infighting does happen. For example, while the Emperor of China and Empress of Japan usually settle their differences politically (after all they have been allies for almost a thousand years), their generals and admirals might show less finesse and respond to the rivalry with bloodshed on occasion. Such conflict between allies is regrettable but, unfortunately in the Dystopian Age, unavoidable. 

 

Edited by Warcradle Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Warcradle Stuart said:

 Our own history shows that actual declarations of war are few and far between and yet clashes, conflicts and other violent acts between countries and groups is commonplace. 

True, but most of those conflicts are almost always great power vs practical nobody (on the global stage). 

Great power vs great power usually escalates into full wars with formal declarations. And border skirmishes between major nations were almost nonexistant as that usually gave a justification for war. 

 

So if we take the armoured clash example you've given, where all of the factions are scrambling for a piece of africa and fighting each other over it, they are essentially at war with each other. 

 

I mean, say for example a Prussian expeditionary force was sent to Africa and was completely destroyed by the British, and word got back to Prussia and they have evidence of Britain's wrongdoings, are you suggesting they would just sit on their hands and go "you win some you lose some"? No. They would rile up the public and declare war in retaliation because a matter like that has to be settled. 

 

Same thing happened with the Anglo-Zulu war. The British lost a column of men to a technologically inferior nation and they needed to save face and get their honour back so they made sure they won.

 

The backstory you are describing sounds far more unrealistic where all of the factions don't really want to fight at all for any reason, but are strangely happy to send their armies to Africa to fight amongst each other. Why are their armies fighting if they are not at war? Why are their navies sinking each other if they are not formally or informally at war? 

40k isn't as unrealistic as that even though it's based in space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Merlin said:

I  mean, say for example a Prussian expeditionary force was sent to Africa and was completely destroyed by the British, and word got back to Prussia and they have evidence of Britain's wrongdoings, are you suggesting they would just sit on their hands and go "you win some you lose some"? No. They would rile up the public and declare war in retaliation because a matter like that has to be settled. 

Same thing happened with the Anglo-Zulu war. The British lost a column of men to a technologically inferior nation and they needed to save face and get their honour back so they made sure they won.

If a Prussian expeditionary force was destroyed by the Crown (and it could be proven) the Kaiser and his government would need to decide on an apropriate  response. Send in the Teutonic Knights for a retaliatory strike? Sponsor unrest in another of the Crown's territories? Position the brother of the expeditionary force to lead a deniable counter assault in the name of revenge? Anything except a full blown declaration of war and certainly the general public would not be told about it (or if they were at least it would be spun in a way that acieved the required response but did not incite rioting).  

Annexations and invasions only are categorised as such when the parties involved believe they can get away with it. Are there sanctions and punative strikes or proxy conflicts? Of course! Are their short wars or battles fought between the powers? Of course there are. Are they formally recognised as such which would then force other powers to carry out treaty obligations etc? Absolutely not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Merlin said:

The backstory you are describing sounds far more unrealistic where all of the factions don't really want to fight at all for any reason, but are strangely happy to send their armies to Africa to fight amongst each other. Why are their armies fighting if they are not at war? Why are their navies sinking each other if they are not formally or informally at war? 

The factions are in a state of constant tension with each other and this boils over into military conflict.

The campaign in Africa (which can feature every power but to a greater or lesser degree depending on your own gaming group) is a setting for Armoured Clash. Perhaps it does indeed escalate the global tensions into all out war, or perhaps diplomacy can prevail.

The campaign in South America with the Latin Alliance alligned SUSA hemed in by Union, Enlightened and Empire forces is a fantastic oppertunity for  players of those four factions to fight it out. But there's scope for the Imperium, Commonwealth, Sultanate and Crown to get in on the story too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But do you not see that for a wargame your making a background that is basically anti war? Where the factions would rather use subterfuge and diplomacy rather than all out war?

 

Sure, you've said there will be minor skirmishes but at the same time your telling us that most of those are swept under the carpet in favour of more secretive ways of dealing with them. 

 

I mean, what's the point of a wargame if none of the factions in the background are actually at war?

 

Its beginning to sound like your creating a secret society within the higher echelons of society that play "wargames" with the armies of their respective empires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlin, I would say think of the way the world in the 20th century (or 19th century) worked, and still works today. Large powers (e.g. The British Empire, the US, the USSR etc) prefer to fight away from home, and demonstrate their power through proxy states or power conflicts. Think Vietnam, Afghanistan (in 3 successive centuries), the Congo, the Middle East etc - the examples are (sadly) almost endless. WWI & WWII were called such because of the scale of the fighting and because now the war was present up close and personal in Europe's back door, and everyone was horrified - no-one wants that, so the current direction of the fluff makes perfect sense with that piece of the human psyche in mind.

The thought of a full-scale ground war in Europe with today's weapons is pretty horrific - the devastation that can be wrought in a short time compared to the infrastructure and population is disproportionate.

So too in the Dystopian Age. Conflict in the open sea, or proxy wars in Africa (where the big powers don't care about the destruction wrought) makes perfect sense.

 

P.S. Think I managed to edit the text colour in the OP so it appears black text on white background - let me know if it doesn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Merlin said:

But do you not see that for a wargame your making a background that is basically anti war? Where the factions would rather use subterfuge and diplomacy rather than all out war?

 

Sure, you've said there will be minor skirmishes but at the same time your telling us that most of those are swept under the carpet in favour of more secretive ways of dealing with them. 

 

I mean, what's the point of a wargame if none of the factions in the background are actually at war?

 

Its beginning to sound like your creating a secret society within the higher echelons of society that play "wargames" with the armies of their respective empires. 

Of course it is not anti-war. Essentially the world is at war in all but name. Being led by better men and women than you or I, the factions would far rather achieve their goals with a mix of subterfuge, diplomacy and military. 

Don't confuse the background of the Dystopian Age (which encompasses roleplay, card games, wargames, novels etc) and naval battles of Dystopian wars. In Dystopian Wars you are playing out where diplomacy has failed.  Where the subterfuge has being counselled against (unless of course the military action is in fact a distraction or screen for the true mission being carried out by agents behind the lines).  

In a given wargame, you are playing part of a battle or assault. In Armoured Clash it would be a meeting of two armoured forces to secure resources, breakthrough positions and more. In Dystopian Wars it is a naval engagement securing coastal positions, disrupting enemy convoys and so on. In Wild West Exodus it is over more regional concerns such as protecting a town or hunting down your enemies. 

The Dystopian Age is a tragic place for the average fighting man and woman as their actions and sacrifices can all too often be conveniently ignored or mischaracterised by their nation for the good of a greater objective. 

As for a secret society playing wargames against each other, the rulers of the various nations to some extent are doing just that. Though of course it is to achieve a very real objective and secure greater glory for their people, the governments will use every tool at their disposal and while military is by far the most satisfying (as the vast armies around the globe in the Dystopian Age attest to), the factions can be pragmatic (and some would say downright cynical) at times.  For the soldiers and citizens of the Dystopian Age there are very real and very motivating reasons to fight (fabricated or not by their governments if necessary). A loss in battle represents to the governments and monarchs a loss of face and prestige, which is far more troubling than any loss of material or manpower. 

There are institutions and societies that put themselves above national identity and encourage the maintenance  of the status quo, but how long the sabre rattling and armed diplomacy can last until the world is engulfed in a terrible all-consuming war is a question that haunts all the halls of power (and more than a few mess halls). 

Edited by Warcradle Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.