Unrealistic/impossible/hard-to-believe aspects in the Twilight 2000 backstory

[John Farson]

The discussion on the "Your thoughts on the (canon) Presidential line of succession?" has once again made me think about this.

Before I start I'd like to reiterate that I'm a fan of T2k (as if my posting here didn't make it obvious ) and am not looking for a flame-war. I just feel that much as I like the world as described, I should also be honest and point out aspects that, to be charitable, likely wouldn't occur in such a scenario. Of course, I fully accept that what I might consider unrealistic would not be considered so by someone else. So, with that out of the way:

1) The collapse of the US presidential line of succession, the Joint Chiefs of Staff taking over and the US government and military divided between Milgov and Civgov.

As was pretty much said in the aforementioned canon line of succession thread, such a scenario would have been nigh impossible, as there were (and are) something to the effect of 60 people on the line of succession and all sorts of precautionary measures in place, many of which are likely still classified. Also, with the world on the brink of war, no way in hell would the Speaker of the House (or anyone else on the chain for that matter) be allowed to go on holiday in some remote and inaccessible location. Likewise, there would have always been at least one member of the line of succession being kept in a secure location, with rotations, just to prevent such a scenario from occurring.

From a game perspective, I understand why GDW wrote the scenario: in order for the United States to fall into anarchy, become divided between two rival governments, and make it more vulnerable to foreign invasion. However, it still doesn't make it any less of a contrivance for me.

Which brings me to my next point:

2) The Soviet/Russian invasion of Alaska and the Mexican-Soviet/Russian invasion of the southern United States.

Again, from a game-playing perspective I get it why GDW added this in. When T2k first came out in 1984 movies like Red Dawn were in vogue, and GDW was trying to cash in on the "America under siege" craze. Likewise I'm sure players wanted to re-enact the events of Red Dawn for themselves. That still doesn't make it any less difficult for me to comprehend. Why, with nuclear war imminent, would the Russians waste resources into some pie-in-sky invasion of Alaska and the Canadian west coast? Even with the war, wouldn't the Americans - and Canadians -still have enough naval assets to prevent such landings?

For that matter, why would the Mexican government - any government, whether run by the PRI or some other party - agree to let in the Soviet Division Cuba, knowing that any location where the division was placed might as well paint a giant bull's eye on themselves? And once the bombs had fallen, why on earth would the Mexican government risk America's wrath in a hare-brained invasion of Texas and other states on the border, when you consider that the US might - and definitely would - still have nukes in reserve, especially in the limited nuclear war scenario posited by T2k? In a situation where the nukes had already flown, where millions of Americans were dead, I would imagine that no US government would have any qualms whatsoever in using nukes to stop the Mexican invasion. Of course, the same goes for the Russians in Alaska.

The only situation where I could see the Mexicans deploy forces on the US side of the border would be if there was an uncontrollable flood of American refugees heading south towards Mexico. Even then, the Mexicans would only want to secure the border in the form of establishing some sort of buffer zone rather than advancing all the way to San Antonio or L.A. Of course, there would likely also be Mexican refugees fleeing north, so you might very well have a situation where both the US and Mexican armies would seek to establish a buffer zone for themselves and come to cross-purposes...

3. The limited nuclear war scenario.

Again, I understand why GDW wrote the Twilight War as having been a limited nuclear war. First of all, because it had originally been written as backstory for 2300, in which WWIII had been a limited nuclear war. Also, in the 1980s, before the fall of the USSR, there was all sorts of talk about how nuclear war didn't necessarily have to be a total exchange, that there could be a limited version as well. Finally, a full exchange scenario would just be another Gamma World.

However, with the fall of the Soviet Union and (some) opening of Soviet archives, as well as a more and more better understanding of Soviet (and Russian) nuclear doctrine over the past 20+ years, it's become more and more certain that any resorting to nuclear weapons in an East-West conflict would have rapidly escalated into a full exchange scenario. No one in Russia would wait to see what the other nuclear powers were planning to do, nuclear war doesn't work that way. It's all based on a strike plan that is pre-written, you simply don't have time to do much else. Probably 80-90% of the weapons would be used or lost in the first hour. Nowadays the relative reduction of land based weapons as part of the nuclear triad means that more weapons are likely to survive the first strike/counter-strike.

Even if the Russians used only against NATO, "direct allies" and the U.S. (and the PRC, there is ZERO chance that the PRC is left alone here, by either side), that leaves pretty much all of the Northern Hemisphere a smoking hole, along with the Persian Gulf Region. India would be likely, almost certain in fact, to be hit by the PRC and in return would strike back, usage against Pakistan is likely as well, with Pakistani response. If Russia goes after direct U.S. allies that would include Israel, putting the Israelis into the "use 'em or lose 'em" category.

This doesn't even go into the possibility of other WMDs being used, such as chemical and biological weapons...

A person in another forum that I frequent actually put all this very well. He explained that what is generally forgotten is that Nuclear War isn't really war at all. It is a matter of ensuring that you defeat the enemy more permanently than he defeats you. That means you go after as much potential supporting infrastructure as you can, even if the enemy doesn't own it. If the enemy could use it, you hit it if you can. That is where you get the irony of BOTH SIDES hitting some targets, simply to be sure the other side is denied them.

Nuclear War is not logical, it is impossible to limit, escalation is inevitable . There are far more than enough open source studies that demonstrate this. The birds fly, they all fly.

...

Again, I'm not looking for a fight. I'm just stating my opinions here, and explaining them as well as I can.

[Raellus]

I agree with the topics that you argued were handled more or less unrealistically. That said, I think that the creators of T2K did the best they could with what they had. The ends, in this case, largely justified the means.

Their primary objective was to create a gritty, relatively low-tech, somewhat chaotic game world where the PCs could face multiple foes and make some kind of difference, at least on a local level. As you acknowledge in your piece, each of the "unrealistic" bits were necessary measures to create the game world they desired. For almost any near-future fiction to survive close scrutiny, some degree of suspension of disbelief must take place on the part of audience. As an entity, the sum of T2K's parts is of such quality that most fans are willing to overlook certain "unrealistic" aspects of the game world in order to enjoy the whole. I certainly fall into that camp. Frankly, having given all of the issues you mentioned a lot of informed thought, I'm not sure how the creators could have done any better without significantly altering the finished game world. If the U.S. isn't a divided, devastated mess, there aren't as many opportunities for adventure or for the PCs to make a real difference there. If there's no limited exchange, the global post-apocalyptic conditions that are a cornerstone of the game (low tech, low fuel, etc.) can't exist.

[Olefin]

I think that the limited exchange makes sense in many ways up to a point - but it breaks down big time at The Thanksgiving Day Massacre

that is hardly a limited exchange - basically the Soviets killed off a lot of the US population in that one series of attacks- more than enough for surviving generals with no civilian control to order an all out strike - especially after what the Soviets had already done to China

that many warheads hitting that many cities, with no US President in place and the military free to retaliate as much as they wished? Most likely the retaliatory strike would have been emptying the silos and subs - especially the subs if they went out of contact. Many would have had orders if they were out of contact for a specific time in wartime to fire the missiles on their own authority.

Especially since the EMP effects on the US were limited to those caused by nukes themselves going off - there was no large scale EMP attack on the US as there was in Warday that basically took out ever electronic device in the entire US

But even a limited strike can have a heck of an effect - read WarDay sometime if you want to see what they postulated that would have done to the US - basically the country broke up into individual states with almost no central government left - and that was with a lot of British and Japanese help - in the Twilight 2000 scenario, without that help, you could see it being a lot lot worse

[Olefin]

Oh and I see nothing wrong with either the Soviet invasion of Alaska (but there alone, the rest was pushing it, especially considering when it happened) or the Mexican invasion - but I agree with you - Mexico would have been nuked till she glowed - which can be used in the game - basically you can say the Mexicans are still here because the US turned their nation into radioactive debris - i.e. they arent going home because there is no Mexico left to go home to

so holding on in CA, AZ, NM and TX isnt a territory grab in 2001 - they are there because they dont have anywhere else to go

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Ultimately, a lot of what happened in the T2k backstory is unrealistic - very much so, to the point of Red Dawn/Invasion USA/Commando/any other 80s action war film cheesy badness unrealistic - but as has been mentioned a number of times before, GDW was not striving for realism, they were striving for exciting, interesting & fun gameplay.
A lot of what happens to the USA during the Twilight War comes down to GDW wanting to recreate the chaos of Europe so that the Players can have the same sort of adventures when their characters arrive back in the US.

If the USA was left in the kind of "almost untouched/more realistic" state that some people in past forums have wanted, the characters would return to the US, get reintegrated into the military and "realistically" end up doing garrison duty or worse, they'd be discharged from the military and have to find a civilian job - boring! Who the hell wants to play that for a game?

The authors stated that they wanted to make a game where the characters could go on adventures like the characters in AD&D do but instead of a fantasy medieval world, this game would be set in the 1980s/1990s of our world. In the "realistic" view, once the characters have finished in Europe and are returning to the USA, the game is over, time for the Players to put away their characters and look for another game... unless of course, the USA is in the same sort of mess as Europe, then you can continue the adventure anew.

[rcaf_777]

to quote a great man “I reject your reality and substitute it for my own.”

Here I spin I was thinking about

1. The Twilight War starts and happens as per Red Storm Rising including the truce at the end with Poland is split into east and west half

2. The war also sees the Soviet make a drive into Iran as per Sword Point.

3. A group of Soviet Hardlinng manage to seal a small nuclear device and lunch at the USSR from Turkey, Thinking this is a attck the Soviet begin lanching weapon aimed NATO and the US

4. Moments after the Soviet attack is launched, the president of the United States receives a teleprinter message from the Soviet leader, informing him of the response as well as discovery that the first missile was launched by renegades. He says the USSR is willing to absorb a proportionate U.S. counterstrike that would kill between six and nine million people though the Soviets will retaliate for any larger counterattack, making all-out nuclear exchange likely. To further add to the turmoil, China launches its own strike against the Soviets in accordance with a treaty with the United States.

5. The national Command Authoirty then tells the president the Soviets have launched a second attack, seemingly confirming that the Soviet Union was being untruthful. As Marine One prepares to evacuate the President from the White House, the Emergency War Orders officer receives a teleprinter message informing him that the second nuclear strike was directed at the Chinese, not the U.S. However, while Marine One is en route to Dover Air Force Base, another nuclear burst downs the helicopter.

6. With the president, vice president and senior constitutional successors assumed dead, the Secretary of the Interior, found near Baton Rouge, is installed as president in accordance with the order of succession.

7. The oringal US President then broadcast a stand message form a FEMA shelter in Maryland (I think this sets a MIL and CIV Gov very nicely)

This section is as per Dawn's Early Light

8. The condtion of the US is a long the lines of War Day

9. Canada has taken Alaska, and Mexcio Controls part of Texas Arzonia and NM, with two weak Federal Governments many State Goverments are in total control ( Still have EMP Strikes, Nuclear fall out and a huge amount of people trying to survie)

10. US Forces in Europe primary in Polnad along a DMZ but the Eight Ball adventure would still be in play (See Eastern European Source book)

Thoughs?

[Bullet Magnet]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

they'd be discharged from the military and have to find a civilian job - boring! Who the hell wants to play that for a game?

GM: "OK, the dink in the suit asks you, 'So...WHY do you want to work here?'"
Player: "I tell him, "When I was dodging mortar fire over in the war, I realized, what I really wanted to do with my life is sell fishing tackle.'"

Hey, with a job market in the toilet, Player Characters trying to find work could drag out into almost a campaign unto itself.

[Olefin]

Hey all depends on the job - and by the way even if you leave out Howling Wilderness the US is still more than messed up enough for a lot of adventures - keep in mind except for Kidnapped and Howling Wildnerness all the US modules take place pre-unrealistic country killing drought - so obviously there are lots of opportunities to play in the US where you can skip HW and Kidnapped's drought and still have a very very long campaign

I am surprised actually more campaigns arent based in Western Canada and Alaska - between cutoff Russian forces, Russians gone marauder, Canadian seperatists, and trying to survive itself in such terrain it would make for one heck of a campaign - you dont need HW to make it rough there

[SionEwig]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Hey all depends on the job - and by the way even if you leave out Howling Wilderness the US is still more than messed up enough for a lot of adventures - keep in mind except for Kidnapped and Howling Wildnerness all the US modules take place pre-unrealistic country killing drought - so obviously there are lots of opportunities to play in the US where you can skip HW and Kidnapped's drought and still have a very very long campaign

The Great Drought as shown was a bit over the top, but not completely out of the question. Just look at the actual droughts in the US during the 2000s.
Where GDW made their major errors was in the exact effects of such a drought. But as has been said upthread, GDW was doing this for the narrative of the game and to fill in the backstory of 2300.

I am surprised actually more campaigns arent based in Western Canada and Alaska - between cutoff Russian forces, Russians gone marauder, Canadian seperatists, and trying to survive itself in such terrain it would make for one heck of a campaign - you dont need HW to make it rough there

I've seen a few PBPs set there, but I think that most people want some familiarity with the area, that is if you are not using some exotic foreign locale.

[Targan]

Of all the things in HW to find unrealistic, why the drought? Climate science is an incredibly complicated field. A post-nuclear war drought in North America that lasts 3 to 5 years is entirely plausible IMO.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

Of all the things in HW to find unrealistic, why the drought? Climate science is an incredibly complicated field. A post-nuclear war drought in North America that lasts 3 to 5 years is entirely plausible IMO.

A few things that bothered me.

• HW presents the higherups KNOWING that the drought is going to be long and cover nearly the entire continent. As you have stated climate science is incredibly complicated, yet without accurate data this fact is known before it happens.
  
• The prevailing patterns of west to east that dominates the US weather pattern is driven by the earths rotation and air flow between the poles and the tropics and is not likely to change unless the earth changes direction or the poles become warmer than the tropics.
  
• Even when parts of the nation are suffering from a drought, the moisture from the Pacific Ocean needs to go somewhere. Currently you are seeing the driest conditions ever in California yet the Midwest is having near record record rain.

This is borne out in the chart below. Which graphs average precipitation across the lower 48 states over the last 120 years.




Notice that the low is 25.01 inches and the high is 34.96 inches. This is not a huge variation (it is under 17% from the average) when you look at the nation as an entirety and consider that this is over 120 years of history.

It would have been much more likely for a surprise drought to have effected the Midwest for 3-6 months during the peak growing season. That probably would have had the most devastating effect without saying the entire country is having one. The months of May-July in 1934 would probably have been the best example of this. Which were some of the driest months ever nationally. But even being the driest the US as a whole has ever seen they still had nearly 65% of its average rain for those months.

[RN7]

A drought lasting years in North America is entirely feasible, and not just because of a nuclear war. The Dust Bowl of the 1930's is the most well known one, but the drought of the 1950's might be a better example as its causes were entirely natural.

From 1950 to 1956 drought plagued the Great Plains and Southwestern United States. Temperatures were hot and rain was scarce, and in In Texas rainfall decreased by 40% between 1949 and 1951 according to the National Climatic Data Center and in some places crop yields fell by half. Widespread period of drought between 1962 and 1966 also hit much of the Northeastern United States. This Northeastern drought occurred in a period when temperatures were lower than average, but the rain disappeared. With precipitation at abnormal lows, water conservation kicked into gear in New York City.

More to the time period the drought of 1987 to 1989 affected 36% of the United States, but it managed to become the costliest drought in US history with estimates for the cost were pegged at $39 billion. The impact was worst in the northern Great Plains, though the West Coast and Northwest were also hit. Most memorably, perhaps, were the forest fires that accompanied the drought with almost 800,000 acres of Yellowstone National Park burned prompting the first complete closure of the park in history.

[kato13]

I fully accept multiple regional droughts and their devastating effects on crops. HW however makes very bold statements about the entire nation.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

I fully accept multiple regional droughts and their devastating effects on crops. HW however makes very bold statements about the entire nation.

That is probably a statement too far!

[kato13]

A quick review of HW has the drought effecting

New England (local farmland burnt dry by the summer sun)
Middle Atlantic States (particularly hard hit)
Southeast (over the dry winter and spring)
Great Lakes States (rainfall is at 50%)
South Central States (re watertables. the drought has not helped matters much)
Great Plains (The drought has rendered the grass on the plains tinder-dry)

The Western states
Southwest (Rainfall Unaffected loss of northern rivers make agriculture impossible) The state details contradict this.
Pacific Northwest (Increased Rainfall)
At the detail levels most states mention the drought.
California (rainfall down 10 inches. severely limit agriculture)
New Mexico (drought made conditions worse)
Arizona (Identical to new Mexico)
Nevada (Without water)
Montana (Drought made more dry)
Colorado (no direct mention)
Wyoming (the drought will cut short the development of shale resources)
Utah (effected by limited snow fall due to drought)

Ok two regions seem to have greater than 50% loss in precipitation (Great Lakes and Middle Atlantic states)

As you noted in the description of prior droughts this is unprecedented (The Texas drought gets a mention at 40%). California is also down 45%. Almost all other regions seem to suffer different but similar fates.

When you look at my national charts showing that the driest year ever had only a 17% reduction in the total. The HW drought is off the charts compared to 120 years of history.

I can accept that the war could cause weird weather, but IMO the HW drought is all encompassing to a degree that staggers the imagination when compared to historical data.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

A quick review of HW has the drought effecting

New England (local farmland burnt dry by the summer sun)
Middle Atlantic States (particularly hard hit)
Southeast (over the dry winter and spring)
Great Lakes States (rainfall is at 50%)
South Central States (re watertables. the drought has not helped matters much)
Great Plains (The drought has rendered the grass on the plains tinder-dry)

The Western states
Southwest (Rainfall Unaffected loss of northern rivers make agriculture impossible) The state details contradict this.
Pacific Northwest (Increased Rainfall)
At the detail levels most states mention the drought.
California (rainfall down 10 inches. severely limit agriculture)
New Mexico (drought made conditions worse)
Arizona (Identical to new Mexico)
Nevada (Without water)
Montana (Drought made more dry)
Colorado (no direct mention)
Wyoming (the drought will cut short the development of shale resources)
Utah (effected by limited snow fall due to drought)

Ok two regions seem to have greater than 50% loss in precipitation (Great Lakes and Middle Atlantic states)

As you noted in the description of prior droughts this is unprecedented (The Texas drought gets a mention at 40%). California is also down 45%. Almost all other regions seem to suffer different but similar fates.

When you look at my national charts showing that the driest year ever had only a 17% reduction in the total. The HW drought is off the charts compared to 120 years of history.

I can accept that the war could cause weird weather, but IMO the HW drought is all encompassing to a degree that staggers the imagination when compared to historical data.

Kato I meant HW made a statement too far. But thanks for the info, good research.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by RN7

Kato I meant HW made a statement too far. But thanks for the info, good research.

I kinda thought that was what you meant but I had already started documenting. I was hoping for more solid numbers which I could match up with the geographical areas of the states (which I had already gathered for a Morrow Project project).

Thanks for the kudos.

[Olefin]

And for those who say you have to have the drought to play in NA keep in mind that every one of these adventures take place before the drought either occurs or is ever mentioned:

0507 - Red Star: Lone Star [1986]
0509 - Armies of the Night [1986]
0510 - Allegheny Uprising [1987]
0511 - Airlords of the Ozarks [1987]
0512 - Gateway to the Spanish Main [1987]
0515 - Urban Guerilla [1987]
0517 - The Last Submarine (Last Sub 1) [1988]
0520 - Mediterranean Cruise (Last Sub 2) [1988]
0521 - Boomer (Last Sub 3) [1989]
0522 - Satellite Down [1988]


and Kidnapped can be played with no mention of the Drought at all and be completely playable

thats a heck of a lot of campaigning - literally enough to keep a party busy for years of real time playing - so can you have an entirely satisfactory campaign with no mention of the drought that is totally playable - obviously you can -ten modules is a lot of play time, let alone the fact that you can expand several of them into months of game time easily (Armies of the Night, Red Star Lone Star, The Last Submarine (if you went back to NE after its all over), and Allegheny Uprising)

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

A lot of what happens to the USA during the Twilight War comes down to GDW wanting to recreate the chaos of Europe so that the Players can have the same sort of adventures when their characters arrive back in the US.

If the USA was left in the kind of "almost untouched/more realistic" state that some people in past forums have wanted, the characters would return to the US, get reintegrated into the military and "realistically" end up doing garrison duty or worse, they'd be discharged from the military and have to find a civilian job - boring! Who the hell wants to play that for a game?

To be sure, even a US where someone in the line of succession became president after the nuclear strike and the government and military remained united would not be "almost untouched".

There's an excellent timeline at the alternatehistory.com site called "The Cuban Missile War Timeline" where, as the name implies, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 goes nuclear. To make a long story short, the US utterly curb-stomps the Soviets due to the vast disparity in the number of nuclear weapons between the two. Even so, the US also suffers heavy losses, as well as disruption in communications and transportation, with mass rioting and unrest that is only quelled with martial law and thousands being summarily shot.

And all this was the result of the far paltrier Soviet armament of 1962. One can only imagine how America would look like after a total exchange in 1997. Even a limited exchange would be more destructive than the one in 1962. I imagine that in the aftermath the government would be forced to concentrate troops and resources in key strategic areas and routes, leaving more remote places to more or less fend for themselves for an undetermined amount of time. Such areas would come to resemble the Wild West, I think. Therefore I think that any soldiers returning from Europe would still have plenty to do before they'd be discharged: the government will need every able-bodied person they can find. And a small group could definitely move out into the more remote, lawless areas and become like the Seven Samurai or Magnificent Seven.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Oh my God...the "Cuban War Missile Timeline" was one of the best put together pieces of military/political fiction I've read in a dog's age. WOW.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by John Farson

To be sure, even a US where someone in the line of succession became president after the nuclear strike and the government and military remained united would not be "almost untouched".

There's an excellent timeline at the alternatehistory.com site called "The Cuban Missile War Timeline" where, as the name implies, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 goes nuclear. To make a long story short, the US utterly curb-stomps the Soviets due to the vast disparity in the number of nuclear weapons between the two. Even so, the US also suffers heavy losses, as well as disruption in communications and transportation, with mass rioting and unrest that is only quelled with martial law and thousands being summarily shot.

Given that the Civil Rights Movement was really starting to gear up to take on the South at that time, I can only imagine. If ever the states were able to stand up to the federal government (since the first Civil War), I suppose the wake of a nuclear attack would be a golden opportunity.

I shudder to think what the country would look like now, socially, politically, and economically, if that had actually happened. The level of social unrest and repression would likely be shocking.

[unkated]

So many choices.....

As I have said, T2K in any version is an improbable series of events designed to provide an adventuring environment rather than to be a logical extension fo any min-80s reality.

But I have never understood why if CivGov had concerns for standing up to Milgov it would send IVth Corps to Yugoslavia post-TGM - (3 full divisions of troops) from the Northeast with vehicles, arms and ammo. 'Let's send a noticeable chunk of our military strength off to a corner of the globe where we cannot possible get anything back for doing so.'

Also, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, I cannot see the complete destruction of the surface navy of the United States - too big, too spread out globally, and too good at defending themselves to be taken from the board. And it's not like they have to fight every Navy in the world - just the Soviets, who even at the height of the 80s could not manage a decent surface match in any given single theatre of operations, much less globally.

Uncle Ted

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by unkated

So many choices.....

As I have said, T2K in any version is an improbable series of events designed to provide an adventuring environment rather than to be a logical extension fo any min-80s reality.

But I have never understood why if CivGov had concerns for standing up to Milgov it would send IVth Corps to Yugoslavia post-TGM - (3 full divisions of troops) from the Northeast with vehicles, arms and ammo. 'Let's send a noticeable chunk of our military strength off to a corner of the globe where we cannot possible get anything back for doing so.'

Also, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, I cannot see the complete destruction of the surface navy of the United States - too big, too spread out globally, and too good at defending themselves to be taken from the board. And it's not like they have to fight every Navy in the world - just the Soviets, who even at the height of the 80s could not manage a decent surface match in any given single theatre of operations, much less globally.

Uncle Ted

They've also got the US 7th Fleet being completely wiped out by the Italian Navy when CivGov tries to run a supply convoy to the noted Yugoslavian front.

[Olefin]

Completely agree with you Ted on both points

CivGov sending those three divisions always made me scratch my head - especially how did they get them there? To get to Yugoslavia means you have to sail thru the Med and past Italy and Greece into very restricted waters - and somehow do this after the USN has been basically destroyed? Especially considering the collection of ships they probably were able to gather by then would have been easy prey for both nations.


Plus you send three divisions to Europe when you have the Mexican Army invading Texas, California and the Southwest? So your own country is under atack by a foreign nation and you send a tank heavy unit like the 42nd to Yugoslavia instead of Texas? Let alone later help torpedo the 5th Army's attack into Texas by having turncoat units join you to avoid having to head to Texas?

Frankly thats the act of a treasonous govt in the pay of the Mexicans not the act of any US Govt.

As for the destruction of the USN - no way that could happen - ok sure maybe if the Russians and Chinese and just about every other navy in the world attacked us. But we have the UK, German, Danish, Norwegian, Canadian, Israeli, Egyptian (US Ally back then remember), Turkish, Romanian, East German and Chinese fleets on our side against a combo of Russia, Greece, Italy and Poland and lose the whole fleet?

Short on fuel and spare parts is one thing - but sunk is totally different.

Have said this before - there is a big difference in how the canon is perceived versus reality. Sure the US took huge casualties when they attacked in the north - but having your fleet shattered versus having it sunk are two totally different things.

The Japanese had their last major fleet in being shattered at Leyte - and they still had over a hundred ships and submarines afloat afterward including major fleet units like battleships, heavy cruisers and carriers - what they didnt have was the ability to control huge areas of the ocean anymore

So having the last major NATO fleet in being shattered doesnt mean that just about every ship got sunk - it means that what they have left cant control the oceans like it used to

And just as a point of reference - the US Pacific Fleet and Chinese fleet put together would have been easily able to handle what the Soviets had in the Pacific and IO

What could really be the reason the USN isnt the force it used to be, besides fuel and spare parts, could be munitions. Take your typical destroyer or cruiser and remove all the missiles (factories arent running so they have shot out their supply) and what do you have left - usually a single gun. Not exactly a ship I want to take into harms way.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

They've also got the US 7th Fleet being completely wiped out by the Italian Navy when CivGov tries to run a supply convoy to the noted Yugoslavian front.

Actually wasnt that the attempted supply run to the Turks?

Thats another reason - why send troops to Yugoslavia when you dont have a hope in heck of supplying them? Not when every ship you send has to run thru narrow waters off both Italy and Greece (both of whom are shooting at you). Only way it makes any sense is if both nations are still in NATO and still assisting you.

I cant see the commanders of those three divisions willingly getting on those ships knowing they were basically being thrown away to die with no hope of support - its one thing if they got sent off in July 1997 not expecting the US to get nuked. "Oh crap where are we going to get out supplies!"

They got sent over eight months later after it was pretty darn obvious that resupply was going to be nothing but fantasy.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Actually wasnt that the attempted supply run to the Turks?



Thats another reason - why send troops to Yugoslavia when you dont have a hope in heck of supplying them? Not when every ship you send has to run thru narrow waters off both Italy and Greece (both of whom are shooting at you). Only way it makes any sense is if both nations are still in NATO and still assisting you.

I cant see the commanders of those three divisions willingly getting on those ships knowing they were basically being thrown away to die with no hope of support - its one thing if they got sent off in July 1997 not expecting the US to get nuked. "Oh crap where are we going to get out supplies!"

They got sent over eight months later after it was pretty darn obvious that resupply was going to be nothing but fantasy.

I think what the 7th Fleet (um, isn't the 6th fleet the one in the Med, and the 7th is in the Pacific?) was doing depends entirely on which version of history you use.

I prefer the v1 history, written before Yugoslavia went to pieces; in that case, Yugo comes into the war on the side of NATO. Yugoslavia's resistance heartens Romania, and given them a non-invasive border.

V2 history includes Yugoslavia's (historic) break-up, so its not there as a single entity for the US to try to supply, I think. I'd have to check...

OTOH, how much does it matter?

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

It only matters if you look at the logic of the game - and frankly a lot of US military and government officials had very little logic

if you want to design a game at least make it one where the US doesnt behave stupidly in order to have the scenario occur

i.e. throwing away three divisions uselesly to Yugoslavia when at the time they left the Mexicans were rampaging north thru the Southwest and then allowing a division that is supposed to go to Texas to stop said Mexicans not join the offensive thus dooming it tofailure

actually surprised that after seeing both those events that MilGov didnt do what probably would have been done in real life - declaring CivGov to be sabotaging the US war effort and allowing US citizens to be put under foreign rule by an enemy invader and taking out CivGov right there and then

and for the record I dont mind the US getting their butts kicked - hey it happens no matter how good you are - the guys on Wake were all professionals - and they lost - the USS Houston was a great ship and they went down anyway

what I do mind is acting stupidly in order to have the game work

having those divisions stop the Mexicans cold in order to show CivGov actually can protect the American people makes a hell of a lot more sense than sending them to Yugoslavia to somehow build up US morale while Texas and Los Angeles are falling to the Mexicans

[Adm.Lee]

I've always ignored the US divisions that went to Yugoslavia, myself.

The whole Italians-and-Greeks switching sides seemed farfetched to me, at least as much as the Mexican invasion of the USA. Maybe one of these events happening, but all three? Italy or Greece trying to sit the war out and joining France in a 3rd bloc seemed more like it to me. Actually attacking the NATO Med. Fleets seemed pretty dumb, but not as dumb as invading Austria and Southern Germany.

I was a college freshman in 1986-87, and there was a Greek kid in my dorm. He told me the Greeks were occasionally working up for a war with the Turks, with Constantinople as the objective. I played that with both Gulf Strike (VG) and Third World War: Southern Front (GDW), it was a fair match without NATO getting involved on either side.

(sidebar: Someday, in a WWII alternate game, I'd like to try a Greek-Italian alliance vs. Turkey someday. Say, in 1938 or '39 or even '40, instead of Italy attacking Greece. I have all of GDW's Europa series, so the OBs are available.)

[Olefin]

Italy would have been much better off saying she was invoking her treaty with Greece but instead doing it by pulling out of NATO and supply Greece with weapons - then they and France both end up coming out relatively intact (they still get nuked but not as bad like France)

Getting those three divisions to Yugoslavia wouldnt have made any sense by 1998 for another reason - by then that country had ceased to exist - frankly the only military reason you could see them being sent to the Med would have been either an operation to grab Sicily from Italy or to possibly land in Turkey to support the Turks against the Russians and Bulgarians - if Italy had even a small fleet and air force left they would have made those convoys pay so badly I doubt there would have been a viable force left to make the landing

Like that alternate WWII scenario with Italy and Greece teaming up against Turkey - or alternatively against Yugoslavia - especially since Italy could offer the Greeks a free hand to annex Macedonia in exchange for Italy taking over the Croatian and Slovenian areas of the country that were part of the old Roman Empire - and the Greeks werent exactly buddy buddy with the Brits prior to the Italian invasion of Greece

[Matt Wiser]

The Mexican invasion of the Southwest and the invasion of Alaska were too far, even for me. In one of the numerous threads discussing the former, I mentioned that General Cummings would have unleashed some SAC elements on Mexico's supply and transportation hubs in Mexico, with instant sunshine.

If you dig up the Naval stuff I did, that should tell you how much I thought of GDW's treatment of the USN. And those were the ships I listed as active. I didn't list ships that were in port somewhere, either needing fuel or repairs to get home, unless it was something like one of the battleships. I did list the fate of the carriers, though.