Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

WW1/2

16 (44.4%)

Modern day

2 (5.6%)

20 mins into the future/Bleeding Edge

18 (50%)

Something else... (Suggest it)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 36

[Doomblade187]

I change my vote on the poll from modern to WW1/2 era- I changed my mind.

[Kashyyk]

I intend to go with tactical over strategic, unless there's a huge demand otherwise. And I don't mind bookkeeping, I'll be writing some programs to help me run this thing.

I change my vote on the poll from modern to WW1/2 era- I changed my mind.

Gotcha. Very close call between WW1/2 and bleeding edge now.

So a few differences to help you decide. World War will be more fatal for characters, as the technology to allow them to survive wounds isn't there. On the flip side improved technology will have a greater effect on the battlefield. Bleeding Edge will have implants, automated medics and also cloning won't be too far off, but each individual development will have a smaller relative affect.

[Donuts]

If it is a tie, i would go with Other, and say Cold War. With war.

[Kashyyk]

What did you originally vote for?

[Donuts]

WW1/2, as Future just feels overused, most people barely know about WW1

[Tack]

I like the idea of bleeding edge. Seems more in touch with 'PMC' game type.

[Haspen]

PTW, because I have no idea what this is about

[Sheb]

Yeah, WWI seems great. Just change "The UN telling people around" by "The world decide to disarm after the horror of the Great War".

And armies of faceless mook of course. This is WWI.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, WWI seems great. Just change "The UN telling people around" by "The world decide to disarm after the horror of the Great War".

And armies of faceless mook of course. This is WWI.

There was some kind of pre-UN thingy after the first world war to prevent such a war. It didn't exactly work, because they didn't have any power, and they forgot to invite Germany, Italy and some other important players.

Seems like we'll be going with 20 minutes into the future though.

[Haspen]

Yeah, WWI seems great. Just change "The UN telling people around" by "The world decide to disarm after the horror of the Great War".

And armies of faceless mook of course. This is WWI.

There was some kind of pre-UN thingy after the first world war to prevent such a war. It didn't exactly work, because they didn't have any power, and they forgot to invite Germany, Italy and some other important players.

League of Nations, iirc.

[Sheb]

Yup, but it was useless, having countries voluntarily disarm seems more realistic.

[Felius]

WW1 because honestly it's a fun time period plus the materiel is cheap enough that mercenaries can be seen having them without the full backing of a sovereign state.

Also, I'd like to propose that we follow the course of action that disarming nations cause: We should conquer a country or two for ourselves. Good for recruitment (need to get more faceless mooks to march into machine gun fire) and general resources.

[Sheb]

I don't think we should start that way. It could happen later on, but would cause rearming of other nations.

[10ebbor10]

I don't think we should start that way. It could happen later on, but would cause rearming of other nations.

Also, we ain't the only mercenaries around. Every nation has their own.

Also, WOI- WOII was a mess of different treaties, NAP's and such. This was the cause for the first world war, and why it had cleared up a bit after that, attacking a country is about the best way to trigger another complete war.


With all nations disarming, material is going to be very cheap anyway.

[Sheb]

Also, taking over a nation would turn this into a "Country at War" rather than a tactical merc game.