New Product Release: Tara Romaneasca (Romania)
 

From the creators of Rook's Gambit, The Korean Peninsula, and The Pacific Northwest:

-----

"'Good luck, you're on your own?'" the sergeant from the 173rd repeated incredulously.

"Yeah, that's the last order we got," I told him.

"Huh. Must be nice to actually get the order.” He shook his head. "What you got to understand is around here, we've been 'on our own' for four years. We may not have won, but we sure ain't lost yet. And the war's about to heat up again. So are you in?"

Like we had a choice?

Tara Romaneasca is a campaign setting sandbox for use with Twilight: 2000, GDW's role-playing game of survival in a devastated world. It explores the former Warsaw Pact nation of Romania, which aligned itself with NATO in December 1996 and has since endured Soviet invasion and years of occupation. This sourcebook includes:

• A primer on Romanian history and culture.

• A region-by-region breakdown of the country's geography, including major cities, castles, fortified churches, and other points of interest.

• An in-depth examination of the Twilight War in Romania through spring 2001 and cues on what may come next.

• Detailed information on the Free Romanian military, NATO's American, British, and Italian units that fought alongside it, and the Soviet Danube Front invasion and occupation force.

• An inside look at the US State Department and resources for embassy-centered campaigns.

• Over 50 new weapons and vehicles deployed in the Twilight War’s Balkan theatre.

• Tools for the referee to introduce Romania's most iconic supernatural denizens as adversaries – or, perhaps worse, as allies.

• A complete setting suitable for starting a new campaign – or continuing one from the classic Bear's Den and Mediterranean Cruise adventure modules.

Tara Romaneasca's story material aligns with the war history published in the first edition of Twilight: 2000. All new rules are fully compatible with the second edition (versions 2.0 and 2.2) game engine.

-----

$9.99, 170 pages. Now available on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook

- C.

Got it!

Thank you for your support, Paul!

I think we managed to add a couple of vehicles that you don’t have (even if we had to make them up). ;)

- C.

Bought it.

Payday is tomorrow, can't wait!

Raellus and I appreciate your patronage, gentlemen!

Happy to answer any questions about the book, though I’ll need to be somewhat succinct until I’m home.

- C.

Marc forgot to put up a preview as per standard practice of the new release - i.e. no quick or full size preview available

Will have to check this out! My game is nowhere near Romania but I know a few Romanians and it's definitely an interesting place!

Picked it up and had a chance to flip through it. Just like the PNW book and Rook's Gambit, it's really high quality work.

Good you're reminding me: I wanted to ask what's with the missing preview. Could we get a table of contents? Just some text will do, so I can estimate how big each section is.

It is and especially in 1E. I just reread the "Last Submarine" campaign and the twist on Romania is well thought out. I think, I'll put a lot of that into my 4E timeline, too.

Does it have a table of contents since you have looked thru it - see Unipus comment above

Just bought a copy. Awesome work as always fellas - like Heffe said, it's top quality.

Yes, I can confirm that it has a thorough table of contents. And weighing in at 168 pages, it's much appreciated.

thats good to hear - thats one thing that is missing from a lot of the V4 products out there - not having a table of contents really makes it a pain in the butt when you are looking for certain items - yes you can use control F but to me a table of contents is the difference between an amateur production and a professional one

Ok you got me there - but when you are talking 168 pages you have to have a table of contents or its A LOT of back and forth paging

And thats why pdf releases are good - you can always update it with a table of contents and no harm no foul

Question - at 168 pages is this the biggest release since the V1 and V2 guide books?

Lol! In all seriousness, I completely agree. A Table of Contents makes all the difference.

Ok Raellus - have a question since I havent read it yet - still at work - but I did see this in the blurb posted on DriveThru

"NATO's American, British, and Italian units that fought alongside them"

Are we talking other Italian units that went over to NATO that used to be on occupation duty in Yugoslavia perhaps? Or is it an Italian unit that was assigned to help Romania prior to the split between Italy and NATO in V1?

The only Italian unit that in canon went over to NATO was the Folgore Mech Division in Going Home and they are acting as anti-Soviet partisans in Austria and only went over due to their commander opposing the socialist coalition for quite a while and despised Italy joining in the war on the side of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviets

Gentlemen, thank you for the interest. Rather than mass-quote several of you, I'll address today's questions in general.

The total word count on this book is around 85,000. Those of you who've previously bought The Pacific Northwest will have a basis for comparison: that one was about 65,000 words. As a professional writer, I find word count to be a more accurate measure of content than page count, as it's easy to inflate page count with large fonts (looking at you, first edition 7th Sea) or lots of art. Those who were happy with PNW's look and feel should be comfortable with Tara Romaneasca, as we reused my layout settings from PNW. I have a fondness for the classic 1e trade dress and I like to think I got pretty close. :)

There is no preview because Marc didn't ask me for one. He didn't ask me for one for PNW, either. In the interest of transparency, though, here are the major chapters and their respective word counts, rounded to the nearest thousand:

• Romanian History, Geography, and Culture - 9,000 words
• Romania's Twilight War History - 7,000 words
• Major Faction - Romania (military and government) - 9,000 words
• Major Faction - NATO - 7,000 words
• Major Faction - Warsaw Pact - 11,000
• Minor Factions - 8,000
• US State Department - 7,000
• Running Campaigns in Romania - 7,000
• Supernatural Options - 6,000

(I'm not listing word counts for the rules material because careers, weapons, and vehicles get screwy when assessed by word count.)

Again, those of you familiar with PNW will find the organization of many of these sections to be broadly familiar. It seemed to be a successful template, so we scraped a lot from it when we assembled the project outline for Tara Romaneasca.

- C.

Is the PDF bookmarked? I'd sooner that than just a table of contents in the front of the book.

The ToC is hyperlinked, as are all of the internal cross-references.

- C.

We might be able to add that feature to a product update- one of the benefits of the PDF format (DriveThru automatically provides customers free updates if the product is modified).

-

I’ll take a look at that. This project admittedly stretched my InDesign skills already, but it won’t hurt me to learn something new there.

- C.

173rd Airborne in Romania - nope. Lets point out why

Frank Frey's unreleased Kenya module which has been discussed here ad infinitum had the 173rd in Kenya - for V1. The RDF and Kings Ransom referred specifically to US troops in Kenya as a prelude to that module. They were there specifically to guard the port and refinery at Mombasa which CENTCOM needed.

Second - Raellus own entry in the first fanzine - based on the discussion of Frank's notes - shows the 173rd in Kenya - not Romania

Third - the East Africa Sourcebook which is V2.2 canon - not a fan release but official canon per Marc - shows the 173rd in Kenya since 1997 to guard that refinery and port initially - the only reason its not V1 is that, per Marc, he was not interested in canon releases for V1. Thus the 2019 re-release of the EAS specifically scrubbed all references to V1 and added a lot of V2.2 elements to it.

So you have multiple pre-existing references to the 173rd being in Kenya not Romania

Now I can see Tegyrius not knowing that the East Africa Source Book is canon and that the 173rd is in it because he has studiously ignored everything I have ever released, let alone my comments on here.

However Rae - you knew what I am talking about - and the 173rd shouldnt be in Romania.

What you produced by putting it in a V1 only book is apocrypha - i.e. its on a par with Soviet tanks equipping Mexican units in City of Angels.

Basically you set up a complete disconnect between V1 and V2.2 - and yes there are a few examples of that - i.e. you can mention the 2nd Infantry starting in Vietnam in the V2.2. But the difference is that it is a start location only - it ended up exactly where it was in V1 by June 2000- right down to the same numbers of men and armor.

Pro-NATO Italian forces in Romania - ok I can make that argument too. But the 173rd - nope. There is only one reason to put them there and I wont be obvious and state why. Dont want to give anyone fodder for another ban.

So no - I dont plan to waste 9.99 on a book that basically sets up yet another endless argument on canon and differences in timeline and does so on purpose.

David, are you sure you really want to escalate to actively attacking other creators’ products?

- C.

Already a Copper Best Seller. Congrats Teg & Rae!

Clayton

I pointed out that having the 173rd in Romania is ignoring multiple references that it was in Kenya in V1 - Frank Frey's notes that have been published here on his unpublished V1 module, Raellus's own post in the first fanzine, etc.

In V2.2 its canonically there in Kenya since late 1997 - which has been referred to here in multiple posts as well in the East Africa Sourcebook itself - but which since you have me on ignore you wouldn't know - which I referred to (i.e. how would you know if you are ignoring those posts - that isn't criticism that is just a statement of fact that you yourself have made repeatedly here on the forum about that status as to my posts and my published work).

Thus your release currently shows a unit there that shouldn't be there for either version of the timeline. I faced a similar situation when I did my initial release of the East Africa Sourcebook. It was pointed out to me by more than one person and I said "thank you very much". I looked and they were correct so when the sourcebook was updated to make it V2.2 specifically per the agreement with Marc to make it canon, I corrected that error and did it with no issue at all.

I did it freely and accepted it for what it was - constructive criticism - and acknowledged the error by making the correction.

Is this an active attack - no it isn't. Per the rules of the forum its constructive criticism and thus is legal per the rules of the forum - unless those rules have been changed.

Its not attacking the work at all. It is constructive criticism pointing out that having them there sets up a dysfunction between the two versions of the canon for the original version of the game. Constructive criticism is legal per the guidelines of this forum.

Personally I hope the book is a great success as was the Pacific Northwest which I consider an excellent book. I have repeatedly stated that here, on the discord, and on Facebook as well (both groups that I am a member of), recommending it highly as a great work for the game and one that I wish Marc would make officially canon.

Thus if constructive criticism now merits a warning and removal of a post then it seems that the forum is yet again changing its rules. I hope that isn't the case as the forum has been a source of joy and information to me for a long time.

Olefin,

You’ve referenced Frank Frey’s unpublished notes and an article in an unofficial fanzine to support your claim that the 173rd shouldn't be in Romania.

Can you supply a quote from any v1 material published by GDW that explicitly gives a location for the 173rd Airborne Brigade? (Other than the Romania sourcebook obviously).

"Constructive"
 

Your post has been undeleted so that everyone can see how constructive you were being.

-