damoj wrote:Mike wrote:Aus Askar wrote:I think it's just evidence that Cold War Gone Hot and World War 2 are two separate audiences. I wonder if we'd see a similar split if Wargame decided to eschew the Cold War in favor of a Modern setting.
Going from the Cold War to now isn't the jump from WW2 to the Cold War is, so I'd suspect not really.
Technological disparity between nation-states would encourage an AoA/C&CG style of asymmetry, unless the focus was on advisers and special operators with proxies (NATO-Ukraine v RF-Donbass, GCC-Yemen v IRI-Houthi, RF/IRI-Syria v NATO/Israel-FSA, etc etc).
Well, there are a lot of mostly symmetric wars that could break out in the near future (Eugen wouldn't have hard time scripting the story of the buildup), and be similar to the campaigns in RD.
Eg. USA - China, Poland - Russia, Finland - Russia, Sweden - Russia, Ukraine - Russia, Japan - China, ROK - PRK, Saudi-Arabia - Iran, Israel - Iran, India - China, Pakistan - India, Greece - Turkey, Turkey - Russia etc.
While most of these wouldn't have a completely equal power balance, there's more than enough symmetry in equipment and tactics in all of the countries (especially if prototypes and would-be acquisitions are again included) to be able to build comparable decks. The campaigns would once again be mostly large alliance based like Korean War II, but that'd be no problem.
Even Ukraine could put up a serious conventional defence against Russia in an all-out war if they had what it takes for a large-scale mobilisation - while they would inevitably lose the real deal war in the long run without outside help, they have enough equipment to allow competitive decks in terms of gameplay. Only tiny nations and/or militarily weak factions like the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) or war-torn countries and their rebels of any kind would be problematic to include for a conventional setup, but the game would do just fine without them.