[quote=@Unfortunately] Looks like you're underestimating nukes a bit. Yes, many would still survive, yes the Earth won't remain uninhabitable forever, but no, environmental effects would still have a major impact on humanity and no, people will still have a hard time after such a war. Considering the setting where, global conventional warfare is adversely killing much of the population, the arms race has revived consequently, nuclear stockpiles are on the rise again (and I'm aware reaching Chicxulub-levels is still near-impossible), and much of the climate and environment is heavily wrecked by human exploitation, a nuclear war would be like both pouring lemon juice and rubbing salt on a wound at the same time. The conditions after, resulting from population and economic loss as well as hostilities between sociopolitical groups and environmental effects, would be a big struggle to recover from. Also, indeed there would be countermeasures, but then again there'll also be counter-countermeasures. tl;dr It is true that it doesn't end the world as we know it, but it can still fragment human civilization to a big extent and reduce it down if it occurs at the current setting. Excuse me as well for the rant.[/quote] No problem albeit I disagree in some points. Sure, a nuclear war would easily lead to the collapse of even the largest nations, destroy the industrial, research or economic centers and overall it'd be a tragedy. But the civilization itself would remain still. Most people would be alive and well while living in smaller cities posessing nearly all the infrastructure of what large cities have so things won't change into Mad Max like techno barbarism or Fallout-like bleak wastelands. The biggest issue would be the lack of leadership, be it in terms of politics, economy or anything. Countries would be spread to smaller nations and anarchic decades will be ahead. As for radiation, yes, it's a problem. After settling their immediate concerns humanity would need to deal with the hidden threat of radiation poisoning. I can imagine weather reports telling people about "radioactive winds" and to stay indoors while using their air filters during these times. Although it's also quite likely I'd be exaggerating here. Fact is we already detonated thousands of nukes in the name of testing. Former residents of Hiroshima also returned to their city and while it isn't completely without dangers they didn't just die in doves. Unless you live close to a nuked city chances are high you may never need to worry about radiation in general. scientific studies following this WW3 scenario may show that radioactivity caused some animals to die out or at least become endangered but it'd be far less serious than bulldozing the rain forests, for example. So yeah, life after a nuclear war would suck. It kills untold amount of people, cuts off the head of nations and adds radioactive winds as a potential new environmental hazard. But so would suck a conventional WW3 without the nukes, provided nations go as far as they did during WW2. Oh well, hopefully this discussion wouldn't have anything to do with the game. So again i was just ranting about this topic. [quote]Alright. Oil would be nearly obsolete by the current setting, however, so people would likely fight for both supremacy and resources. But hey, if that's what people want, we'll set back the time to where fusion reactors aren't the norm yet. And we're garnering more interest, so maybe it's time I've started writing an OOC. [/quote]I am a little confused. I suggested the above because your OP said nations fight for the black gold. But if oil is increasingly less relevant in the setting then you can just ignore what I said. If you adopt the "alternate universe" idea of mine then you can set any date you want for the game. The only thing it would determine is perhaps the technology we get. So because I am confused I ask a few questions: 1.) What are the state of the natural resources (fossil fuels, raw materials, etc)? Nearing depletion or still exploitable as nowadays? 2.) Was there an large scale war within the century or all fights were regional conflicts? (thinking of WW3 or anything close) 3.) Eugenics, human cloning and transhumanism. Did any of these became plausible and if yes what is the public opinion on them? 4.) Does this world have something like the UN, NATO and other large international groups? What are these? 5.) How much space travel developed in this game? Are people capable of "casual" interplanetary travel? Colonies on other planets? Exploitation of resources in space? Depending on what are your thoughts on these it can determine the game's style. For some reason my first impression was a future scenario with space extensive space travel and exploration. Dunno why I thought this, maybe the implication that we may develop FTL if the game advances that far. My second impression was that a more contemporary setting where resources are depleting but the world has yet to adopt alternate methods. But you seem to had a bit different thing in mind. By answering my 5 questions it'd help me to gasp what's your game will be really about. Thank you in advance!