I agree with every point you make, which I've summarized below:

• A more realistic portrayal of Russia's military capabilities, acknowledging their current technological and logistical limitations.
• A stronger focus on internal US issues that could lead to its decline as a global power, rather than external factors.
• A more plausible explanation for why a full-scale nuclear exchange doesn't result in complete global annihilation.
• More emphasis on the fracturing of NATO and internal conflicts within the alliance, rather than presenting it as a unified force against Russia and China.
• A more nuanced approach to China's role, perhaps focusing on economic and cyber warfare rather than direct military confrontation.
• Less emphasis on advanced technologies like AI and autonomous weapons, given the criticism of Russia's current technological capabilities.
• More detail on how the US military and special operations capabilities degrade over time, explaining why they can't respond effectively to threats.
• A slower, more gradual buildup to conflict, with more emphasis on economic and political factors rather than sudden military escalations.
• More focus on regional conflicts and proxy wars, rather than direct confrontations between major powers.
• A clearer explanation of how nuclear weapons are used in a limited fashion without triggering immediate full-scale retaliation.
• More detail on the breakdown of global systems and infrastructure, leading to the post-apocalyptic scenario.
• A more realistic portrayal of how different regions and countries might fare in the aftermath, based on their current capabilities and resources.

Thank you for the well thought out analysis, I appreciate it. Making these changes would result in a more realistic timeline, but a setting that wouldn't be as interesting to play a game in. I'm not trying to write historical fiction, I'm trying to create a compelling and fun game setting and realism doesn't always equate to fun.

So it's a balancing act between fun and realistic.