On 28Feb2022 1414, Kurt Feltenberger - kurt at thepaw.org (via tml list)
wrote:
> I found the whole extrapolation of the 300 years to be rather,
> well...farcical and less than intelligent as it jumped off from some
> very, very flawed thinking that went into the 1996-2000 history for
> T2k.  One of my history professors in college (was MacArthur's
> G2/Japanese OOB among other things) said that both the T2k and 2300AD
> "history" was one of the funniest things he'd ever read and that
> whoever developed it either had an agenda or wasn't really
> knowledgeable about how things would develop during WW3. My other
> history prof who was also a gamer thought it was a very detailed Mary
> Sue.
>
> Their words, not mine, though I agree with them.
>
My experience reading 'future histories' is that *everyone's* future
histories read like that to many, even most, other readers who have any
sense of, or who have done any study of, history.

GDW's did okay to my mind, in that it 1) didn't go with the 'great man'
model so popular in the past, and 2) didn't assume that the great powers
of today would be the great powers of 2300, while at the same time not
simply selecting some country or region and saying "and xxxx became
ascendant".

As for TW:2000, they chose a course of events that made for an
interesting mess in Eastern Europe and a reason for US soldiers to be
there as it all fell apart. In retrospect there were other scenarios
that now seem more likely, but when it was written the Soviet Union was
not expected to simply fall apart.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>