[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by U-96

Hmmmmm, An interesting idea, but the problem with the cold war was that it was all exercises and spy missions there was no open hostility.

But that's the greatness of the what-if cold war-gone-hot setting! Historical accuracy in itself is no prerequisite for realism whatsoever. Also, keep in mind that sometimes it can be more rewarding to explore that which never happened but could have compared to that which did and where we already know the outcome.

For all intents and purposes, any game set in a real conflict such as ww2 (with the possible exception of SWOTL) is essentially a canned scenario where you have exactly zero chances to change the eventual outcome. In essence the only way for you to lose is to die and even if you do, your side wins by default anyway.

A WW3 in the atlantic scenario on the other hand, such as the one described in Red Storm Rising, avoids this obvious limitation to gameplay completely by virtue of being very open-ended as to who wins the overall conflict. In fact, one of the really great things about Sid Meier's design was that simply surviving in itself wouldn't result in automatic victory, compelling you to go that extra bit above and beyond to make a real difference. And RSR is only one possible scenario that is plausible.

Also the subs of the time were more complex but also boring. As the combat (If there was any) would be all by computer.

Aircraft of the time were also more complex than their WW2 counterparts as well, but would anyone say the combat was more boring and done all by computer?

Ask any pilot from the Vietnam or Falklands wars about their opinions.

The technology is only there to assist the man; it doesn't make his decisions for him. Therefore it has been, is and always will be the man who has to make the decisions and face the consequences thereof.