RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-07-2014, 12:27 PM
Brother in Arms's Avatar
Brother in Arms Brother in Arms is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 309
Default Scandinavia during T2K?

What happens in happens to these countries when it comes to Twilight Cannon?

I think Norway, Sweden and especially Finland! are countries I would like to visit. Not so much Iceland or Denmark. But I am curious about them during WW3.

Brother in Arms
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-07-2014, 02:39 PM
boogiedowndonovan's Avatar
boogiedowndonovan boogiedowndonovan is offline
Activist Rules Lawyer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: norcal
Posts: 309
Default

I don't have my books handy but Norway gets invaded by the Soviets. There is a 1s edition module called Boomer that gives a timeline of Norway in T2k. UK, US, Canada and Netherlands commit troops to Norway and help the Norwegians fight the invaders. Norway gets nuked, at least the capital, not sure of anywhere else. Oh and the Norwegian Royal Guard in 2000 includes the oldest surviving Navy SEAL.*spoiler about the SEAL below*

Finland is mentioned in the timeline. It also gets invaded first by NATO as they try to outflank the Soviets. NATO expects the resistance to be light and token, but it isn't and this delays the offensive. The Soviets see this resistance as a signal that Finland is on the Soviet side so they invade as well, but the Finns fight the Soviets as hard as they do NATO.

Sweden is mentioned in a series of sourcebooks published by a Finnish (I think) company. I can't read Finnish so I can't comment on what they say. There are some forum members who are Finnish and read the books.

Hey what do you know, I remember John Farson posted some stuff from them.

Twilight 2000 Nordic Sourcebook: Living conditions in the Nordic countries
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3886

Twilight 2000 Nordic Sourcebook: Organizations
forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3906

Twilight 2000 Nordic Sourcebook: Countries
forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3903

-bdd







*spoiler about the oldest surviving Navy SEAL*

there is a chance in any firefight that he will go catatonic, can't remember the percentages, but he'd stop shooting and go curl up in the fetal position (ok making that last part about curling up in the fetal position, can't remember the exact wording)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-07-2014, 07:34 PM
Schone23666's Avatar
Schone23666 Schone23666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 440
Default

I'll have to look through my PDF files, but if I'm right Scandinavia is talked about, particularly Norway since part of an adventure takes place there in the gaming module "Boomer" in the Last Submarine series.
__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
David Drake
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-08-2014, 07:37 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,824
Default

Norway is one of the places the war is still going on in 2001 as a hot war - the Boomer module shows the Soviets invading again and the Norwegians fighting back with basically what is left of their army plus stranded NATO troops - it implies that the Norwegian counteroffensive will be the last one of the war for them

As to the Finns - never saw if they were hit by nukes but you have to think if they fought as hard as they did that probably Helsinki must have gotten hit
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-09-2014, 01:39 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,172
Default

To my mind Norway is entirely winnable by the Norwegians + NATO in '01, but of course I'm treading on the sacred ground of "NATO must be destroyed/America has to lose".
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-09-2014, 02:43 PM
Tegyrius's Avatar
Tegyrius Tegyrius is offline
That Guy
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: where blood makes the bluegrass grow
Posts: 534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
To my mind Norway is entirely winnable by the Norwegians + NATO in '01, but of course I'm treading on the sacred ground of "NATO must be destroyed/America has to lose".
I have trouble envisioning a T2k in which any nation or coalition "wins."

- C.
__________________
Clayton A. Oliver
Some Dude with a Keyboard
Bits of Unofficial Twilight: 2013 Support Here

The only people who have simple solutions to complex problems are refugees from accountability.
- Gen. Joseph Dunford, USMC
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-09-2014, 07:20 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegyrius View Post
I have trouble envisioning a T2k in which any nation or coalition "wins."
+1

Most of the fun of T2K for me is playing the underdog and trying to beat the odds.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-09-2014, 10:37 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,824
Default

actually it all depends on what you mean by winning - I dont see any issue with the US winning in Korea by fighting to a tie and winning in Iran by making the Soviets eventually retreat -

and there can be a victor in the war - but in this case its the ultimate in losing by winning - you may have beat the Soviets but lost so much that in the end doing so makes it a worthless victory
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-09-2014, 11:05 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
To my mind Norway is entirely winnable by the Norwegians + NATO in '01, but of course I'm treading on the sacred ground of "NATO must be destroyed/America has to lose".
I wouldn't call it "sacred ground" but in the context of the game, the world had to be severely screwed up to allow for what the designer's intended.That intention was basically, allow people to play adventures of the AD&D feel in a modern setting where the PCs had access to modern military/adventuring/outdoors gear but didn't have any higher authority telling them what to do all the time.

And as for NATO being destroyed and America losing, same applies to all the other combatants - things are tough all over, they have to be to make the game world playable. For example, the US is ruined so that the players can have scenarios just like they encountered in Europe.

It's all about world design to get the best environment for the players to game in but that doesn't mean you have to slavishly follow every one of the designers ideas. The flip side to that is why change the game setting so much that it no longer resembles the setting that drew your attention in the first place?
Tweaking is good but if a nation like the USSR, China or the USA was relatively intact and didn't need the PCs help or was too powerful for the PCs to prevail against, that removes a lot of the potential adventures the players can have. If Norway survived relatively intact however, it's one little island of stability and safety in the turbulent sea of chaos, torment and decay that is the rest of the world and having Norway intact doesn't remove the amount of adventure options in the world that an intact USA would remove for example.

Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-09-2014, 11:51 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

+1 to everything SSC wrote. He captures, succinctly yet completely, everything that I dig about T2K.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-10-2014, 12:11 AM
boogiedowndonovan's Avatar
boogiedowndonovan boogiedowndonovan is offline
Activist Rules Lawyer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: norcal
Posts: 309
Default Vive La France!

The French "win" because they are least nuked and don't have hostile armies or hordes of marauders marching back and forth across their territory. Because of this, they are the dominant power in 2300AD.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-10-2014, 07:30 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,824
Default

keep in mind guys that there are pockets of order left in the world - per the Bangkok module Thailand is relatively intact. Iran is recovering and may soon be free of the Soviets. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, Israelis and Jordanians are still nation states though damaged. And the UK is also recovering as well.

And even in the US and Soviet Union there are pockets of order.

However the comparison to the AD&D world is accurate - thing about Greyhawk - there were lots of safe areas - but there were also much larger unsafe and wild areas, some right in the middle of the safe ones, where the only order was that of who happened to have the best armor and weapons.

Civilization hasnt been destroyed utterly - but it has become something that is very spread out and spotty - more like islands of peace in a sea of chaos.

And in places like Korea and Iran the US military is still very intact and operational so there are many options to play a more structured game compared to Poland where its wide open and the only orders you get is to survive for the next day.

An example is Grenada - while it has been damaged by the plague and the effects of the war until late 2000 when the Cubans showed up it was basically a barely functioning nation state - their inadvertent invasion is what put the country into a state of chaos not the Twilight War in Europe. Once the Cubans are gone most likely it will go back to being what it was - a still f functioning but not as good as before island nation.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-10-2014, 07:33 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,824
Default

if you had to rate it the US marginally wins the war, the Chinese and Soviets definitely lose, the UK wins more than the US as it is recovering more quickly due to its smaller land mass to control and reclaim and the French win just because they dont directly join in the fun as everyone else did
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-10-2014, 10:36 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 1,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan View Post
The French "win" because they are least nuked and don't have hostile armies or hordes of marauders marching back and forth across their territory. Because of this, they are the dominant power in 2300AD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
The French win just because they dont directly join in the fun as everyone else did
By that logic Australia and New Zealand may also have come out pretty well.
__________________
A collection of articles written for the Twilight 2000 Role Playing Game

http://www.twilight2000files.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-10-2014, 07:18 PM
boogiedowndonovan's Avatar
boogiedowndonovan boogiedowndonovan is offline
Activist Rules Lawyer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: norcal
Posts: 309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
By that logic Australia and New Zealand may also have come out pretty well.
quite possibly, but the RAN and RAAF are decimated in conflict with the Indonesians in T2k v2/2.2. I would assume the same for the RNZN and RNZAF.

I guess that would explain the Aussies and French teaming up for some ops in T2k V2.2. One of the adventure cards has some wisecrack about the Aussie-Frog "non irradiated nations" alliance.

but then in 2300, the Aussies and USA are closely aligned?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-10-2014, 07:32 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,477
Default

Well to be fair, Australia does "win" and not just in a small way.
Keeping in mind that T2k was developed from "The Great Game"** and is part of the history of the 2300AD universe, Australia is a significant power in that game. So yeah, after the Twilight War, Australia does have a win and takes New Zealand (and most of Oceania) along for the ride.


** The history of the creation of Twilight:2000 - apologies for the repetition to all those who already know all this...

The Great Game was a political-economic-military simulation done to create the history for the 2300AD game and it involved a third World War at the beginning of a 300 year period that ends with the year (surprise, surprise), 2300.
This war was known in-house as the Twilight War because it wrecked the world enough to allow certain changes to the political/national entities on Earth thus the original entities declined and then new ones grew to take their place. It was the "twilight" of the old world.

The lead people behind T2k were returning from a convention when during the trip back home, they came up with the notion of a modern military RPG but it needed to be free of the command structures of real world militaries so that it would be fun to game. As they developed the idea, it was decided that the best setting was a devastating world war which coincidentally was exactly what they had happen in the game history of 2300AD. So although chronologically, T2k occurs before 2300AD, the games were created in the reverse order.

In this way, they developed the background for Twilight: 2000 1st Edition - later editions have their backgrounds altered to fit more with the real world of the late 1980s-early 1990s. A lot of the background to the Twilight War is the result of the GDW members playing out the war as part of The Great Game. Some people have claimed that various aspects such as Italy leaving NATO and later attacking Germany are stupid and unrealistic - these things happened in the The Great Game and in some cases were a result of the various personalities (who controlled the different nations) competing amongst each other.
Other things were changed to make them more "gamey", e.g. the wholesale ruin of North America was implemented not just because of what happened in The Great Game, but also to allow the AD&D style adventures found in the European scenarios to continue when the PCs got back to the USA.

Being a bit of an arse about it, I find it amusing that some people who dabbled in T2k claim that various parts of it's background are unrealistic when I know that the background was imported wholesale from the end result of the Twilight War played out in The Great Game. These same people don't seem to have a problem if they play a WW2 wargame and have Germany win (or some smaller nation like Lithuania carves a new empire for itself free of the USSR etc. etc.) That's what the Twilight War was, a wargame played out amongst the GDW staff and the end result was used as the history for Twilight: 2000 (1st edition).

The wiki entry for 2300AD gives some clearer details (compared to my rambling monologue!) to its creation http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/2300_AD
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-10-2014, 07:48 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,454
Default

In Traveller: 2300, access to the element tantalum is primarilly what determines whether a nation is a space power (and therefore a major terrestrial power) or not. Australia (well, Oceania really) punches well above its weight in the T2300 universe because as well as recovering well from the Twilight War and maintaining its close relationship with the US for the next 300 years, it has its own accessable tantalum reserves. Tantalum is what allows faster-than-light Stutterwarp drives to operate.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-11-2014, 05:59 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,824
Default

Keep in mind also that it was made pretty clear later on that Twilight 2300 may or may not be the future of the Twilight 2000 world. And as has been stated here many times before not only do GM's have considerable freedom to change their gaming world, the players may also have a huge effect as well on the possible future of the game

as for AD&D - remember that the AD&D world is not one that is a destroyed world with almost no functioning goverments - the Greyhawk setting clearly showed a continent that had both wild and ungoverned areas where anything could happen as well as very civilized and settled areas where the rule of law was in effect (whether evil, good or neutral laws)

so you dont need a destroyed US to have an AD&D type game

as the UK guide showed a country can take one hell of a beating and still have both functioning safe zones and wide open areas the goverment hasnt been restored in and be very playable for Twilight 2000 - heck the UK has a functioning civilian government with elections, taxes and currency again by 2001 (in some areas but definitely not all) and yet there are huge opportunities for playing the game there

you dont need a destroyed US with almost no functioning government - thats not AD&D thats Aftermath

so when we argue about the game not making sense its more that the designers went a little too far in their destruction of the US to be able to foster an AD&D like situation in the US - you dont need to turn the whole US into the Pomarj or the Wild Coast or the Bandit Kingdoms or the Barrens just to make it AD&D - we had a lot of fun playing in Greyhawk in the civilized areas like Furyondy, the Great Kingdom and Urnst as well
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-11-2014, 06:59 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
so when we argue about the game not making sense its more that the designers went a little too far in their destruction of the US to be able to foster an AD&D like situation in the US - you dont need to turn the whole US into the Pomarj or the Wild Coast or the Bandit Kingdoms or the Barrens just to make it AD&D - we had a lot of fun playing in Greyhawk in the civilized areas like Furyondy, the Great Kingdom and Urnst as well
That's your opinion, and it's valid. For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you (for the most part). I think the issue for some here is the tone that some who share your opinion take when sharing their thoughts on the matter. Just because someone doesn't share your opinion- for example, the folks who wrote Howling Wilderness- doesn't mean that they are wrong and you are right. Some people prefer a more chaotic CONUS in their T2KU. That's cool too.

I think this point could be applied to pretty much any and all issues of contention here. It's not so much what people say, it's how it's said.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-11-2014, 07:18 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,292
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
I think the issue for some here is the tone that some who share your opinion take when sharing their thoughts on the matter.
Bad tone has come from both sides of this argument. I felt that needed to be said.

As to the rest of your post I agree completely.

In truth "Twilight" has two meanings

The end of darkness immediately before the dawn.

OR

The last light before things go completely black.

Either view for a T2k world is IMO valid. I have interest in both viewpoints and feel both should be nurtured here.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-11-2014, 07:30 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
Bad tone has come from both sides of this argument. I felt that needed to be said.
Absolutely. I was remiss in not explicitly stating this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
In truth "Twilight" has two meanings

The end of darkness immediately before the dawn.

OR

The last light before things go completely black.
That's a really cool way of looking at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
Either view for a T2k world is IMO valid. I have interest in both viewpoints and feel both should be nurtured here.
Agreed, 100%. I just want all parties to be cognizant of tone, especially when presenting a contrary opinion. Things only get ugly here when folks get snarky. When we all play nice, we can productively debate almost any T2K-related topic without creating a toxic atmosphere.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-11-2014, 08:19 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,454
Default

Most strong statements on this forum against Howling Wilderness have come from US members (although given that the vast majority of members are from the US, that may be an invalid observation). Still, when we've had discussions in which members have posited more post-Twilight War damage to Australia than what I'm comfortable with, I've had a pretty strong emotive reaction too. I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's a normal bias for someone living in the US to want a post-Twilight War US to be less beaten up and more powerful than described in Howling Wilderness. I get that. I argued most strongly against suggestions that things like the climate effects described in Howling Wilderness weren't possible. I think they absolutely are possible (and my understanding of climate science is part of that belief).

As a non-US resident, I have no great negative emotional response to a post-Twilight War USA being a total mess. However I also consider T2300 to be canon for my T2K universe, so I know that the US can and will build itself back to a place of penultimate power in the post-Twilight War universe. MilGov and CivGov reunite within the PCs' lifetimes and the long road to recovery begins.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-11-2014, 11:09 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 1,824
Default

Let me say a few things

One

In truth "Twilight" has two meanings

The end of darkness immediately before the dawn.

OR

The last light before things go completely black.


Kato that has to be one of the most profound things I have heard here on the board - and a great way of looking at both sides of the argument and how both sides have validity.

Two

If anyone thought I was posting in a disrespectful tone let me please offer my most abject apologies. That was not my intent in any way. I was just trying to show, from an AD&D perspective, using Greyhawk as my basis, that a fantastic AD&D game could be had in both the totally civilized areas of Greyhawk and the totally wild areas - and that if the intent was to recreate the feel of AD&D for the players that you dont necessarily have to be the wilds of the Pomarj to still have one hell of a great game.

Three

If the idea of HW and Kidnapped was to turn the US into an area where you could play AD&D then I have to wonder if the designers ever really knew what AD&D was. While that world had vast areas of wild country overrun by monsters it also had large and vital cities and kingdoms that were very civilized as well. The previous US modules had that feel - yes there were areas that were wild and needed taming but there was also a base of civilization as well. But HW and Kidnapped took that base of civilization and threw it to the four winds. Very few AD&D campaigns exist in a ruined world where civilization is a thing of the past - players interested in that tended to go for Gamma World or Aftermath or other similar games.

To me the modules that felt the most like AD&D were the NYC module, the Madonna and Krakow - there you had that base of civilization still left but also wild areas to be tamed and conquered - and all had places where players could rest and re-equip and then sally forth again to fight the monsters. HW and Kidnapped made a world where there really wasnt anything left but a constant fight for survival. Again much more like Aftermath (which I played and had a very good time with by the way) than AD&D.

And again all of this is my opinion - really the game is what you and your GM make of it. It is up to him to shape it for the fun of all concerned. My GM ignored HW and the climate aspect of Kidnapped and kept the US on the path of rebirth - "The end of darkness immediately before the dawn." - but that path was going to be a very long one even with those two modules in play.

But I bet Mad Max America would have been a fun game to play as well. Just dont say it would be like AD&D - say its like Aftermath - now thats more accurate

Last edited by Olefin; 04-11-2014 at 11:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-12-2014, 04:13 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 1,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
As a non-US resident, I have no great negative emotional response to a post-Twilight War USA being a total mess.
I agree with Targan. I bought Howling Wilderness when it first came out, read it once or twice and that was that. It made absolutely no impression on me one way or the other, and I doubt if I've even looked at it in over twenty years other than perhaps as a point of reference to check something in the timeline. On the other hand, when I first read the Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom I had what seems like the same reaction that some of the US members had to Howling Wilderness - I didn't like it for a number of reasons and found parts of it to be unrealistic and / or extremely cliched, which is ultimately why I ended up spending something in the region of six years writing an alternative version. For me, it isn't a case of levels of damage inflicted or whether my country "wins" or "loses", it's about what is, in my opinion, realistic. Obviously - and thankfully - it is impossible to ascertain what would or would not be realistic in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, so ultimately we all set our own standards as to what we think is realistic or not and play our campaigns accordingly - as Olefin says, the game is what you make it and what you want it to be.
__________________
A collection of articles written for the Twilight 2000 Role Playing Game

http://www.twilight2000files.com
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-12-2014, 10:08 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,477
Default

Don't take the AD&D concept too literally or place too much importance on it.
The T2k designers weren't trying to make AD&D type worlds, what they were trying to do was make a modern world where the players could experience the same freedoms as every player could in the typical AD&D world.
They wanted to have a world were the player characters had the same prospects for adventure as the PCs in any AD&D game rather than be part of a hierarchical organization that would control everything they do, i.e. the military.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-12-2014, 11:34 PM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 111
Default

You also have to keep in mind that T2K has a GM, and, as in AD&D, the GM could modify things as they wished to their (of the players) liking. The players want a M1A2 "Giraffe" and you do too, then let them get all the fuel they need and even ammo from the local lord who happens to have those things.

For example, for my purposes, Italians in general were pro-NATO in 1990, so I went with the idea that the Soviet politicians wanted to avoid the war, and then were sucked in by their alliance with Greece, and thus, were now allied with the Soviets - something the populace was not happy about. When TDM occurred, and even neutrals were hit, the Italians revolted, supported by the army, and the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister executed. Spring '98 found the Italian Army smashing into the flanks of the Pact forces in Austria and Czechoslovakia, and basically forcing Pact forces back to the Danube. For France, pro-NATO riots are so bad, that martial law exist with overtones of a military dictatorship by 2000. Things are bad enough for the French, that a good chunk of the still floating navy, including the Foch and the Jeanne d'Arc, mutiny and join NATO. I also have the Brits for the most part dumping the dreadful L-85 in favor of L1A1s and 5.56mm converted MPiAK-74Ns (German AK-74s in 5.56mm NATO).

If you want to change things around, feel free to do so. No doubt things would be bad in the US, but does anyone think CIVGOV or MILGOV is going to just abandon nuclear reactors? These can be islands of organization, and that is what I made them. I also had the Soviets invading Finland (I don't think NATO would have) and Sweden declaring war on the side of NATO in December 1996 because of repeated territory violations by Pact subs and aircraft (which I strongly believe would have happened). The Swiss Army enters Austria and Germany in December 1997 officially for "disaster relief" but freely engages Pact forces whenever possible.

In short, do your own thing and don't get hung up on following cannon.

Last edited by mpipes; 04-13-2014 at 01:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-13-2014, 02:12 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,089
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
Well to be fair, Australia does "win" and not just in a small way. Keeping in mind that T2k was developed from "The Great Game"** and is part of the history of the 2300AD universe, Australia is a significant power in that game. So yeah, after the Twilight War, Australia does have a win and takes New Zealand (and most of Oceania) along for the ride.
From 2300AD Earth/Cybertech Sourcebook

Following the nuclear exchanges of late 1997, Australia all but ceased to exist as a nation. Thirty percent of the population perished in the first strike, which also accounted for the destruction of Australia's industrial base and oil refining capacity. With its government left powerless and its economy destroyed, Australia slipped into chaos. For the next 40 years, the only cohesive force on the entire Australian continent was the Australian military. Australian troops established cantonments in New South Wales, Victoria, and the cities of Darwin in the north and Fremantle on Australia's west coast. These forces regulated food production and distribution inside their cantonments but abandoned the regions outside. The year 2183 marked the independence of Tasmania and Queensland from Australia.

It seems Australia didn't do that well after all.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-13-2014, 03:38 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,477
Default

From what I said earlier,
Keeping in mind that T2k was developed from "The Great Game" and is part of the history of the 2300AD universe, Australia is a significant power in that game. So yeah, after the Twilight War, Australia does have a win and takes New Zealand (and most of Oceania) along for the ride.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-13-2014, 03:43 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
It seems Australia didn't do that well after all.
Erm, it might seem that way looking at just the sections of the history that you provided, but a more extensive reading of the Australia section of the Earth/Cyberpunk Sourcebook suggests completely the opposite.

For starters, by 2040 Australia was well on the road to recovery. Then when the Melbourne Accords were signed (putting Australia front and center in probably the most important treaty negotiations in the Earth's history), the UK's refusal to sign paved the way for the very close and incredibly mutually beneficial alliance that Australia shared with the USA thereafter.

An entire arm of human interstellar colonisation was developed by the US-Australia alliance from the late 2160s. Jointly with the US, Australia is effectively a second-tier super-power by 2300.

The independence of Tasmania and a small proportion of Queensland are pretty hilarious. If you have a look at the map of Australia in the Earth/Cyberpunk Sourcebook, the nation of Queensland is just Cape York Peninsula from Cairns northward. How they manage to be a viable nation-state before they annexed Papua New Guinea from the 2260s onwards is beyond me, but that's what canon says so so be it.

Tasmania isn't even viable as a state in real life without massive economic assistance from the rest of Australia, so them becoming an independent nation in T2300 is hilarious. I guess it's some kind of neo-hippy eco-haven or something. Most Australians wouldn't give two stuffs if Tasmania declared independence (no doubt Legbreaker will have something to say about that ).

In any case, Oceania in 2300 seems to have something like an EU arrangement going on, so Australia, New Zealand, "Papua", "Tasmania" and the South Pacific island states would be closely economically interconnected and interdependent anyway. To do otherwise would be pretty stupid for the non-Australian nations of Oceania.

So all in all, I'd say that "It seems Australia didn't do that well after all" is a reasonable statement regarding Australia during and immediately after the Twilight War, but is completely refutable in the longer term.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-13-2014, 04:19 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,089
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Erm, it might seem that way looking at just the sections of the history that you provided, but a more extensive reading of the Australia section of the Earth/Cyberpunk Sourcebook suggests completely the opposite.

For starters, by 2040 Australia was well on the road to recovery. Then when the Melbourne Accords were signed (putting Australia front and center in probably the most important treaty negotiations in the Earth's history), the UK's refusal to sign paved the way for the very close and incredibly mutually beneficial alliance that Australia shared with the USA thereafter.

An entire arm of human interstellar colonisation was developed by the US-Australia alliance from the late 2160s. Jointly with the US, Australia is effectively a second-tier super-power by 2300.

The independence of Tasmania and a small proportion of Queensland are pretty hilarious. If you have a look at the map of Australia in the Earth/Cyberpunk Sourcebook, the nation of Queensland is just Cape York Peninsula from Cairns northward. How they manage to be a viable nation-state before they annexed Papua New Guinea from the 2260s onwards is beyond me, but that's what canon says so so be it.

Tasmania isn't even viable as a state in real life without massive economic assistance from the rest of Australia, so them becoming an independent nation in T2300 is hilarious. I guess it's some kind of neo-hippy eco-haven or something. Most Australians wouldn't give two stuffs if Tasmania declared independence (no doubt Legbreaker will have something to say about that ).

In any case, Oceania in 2300 seems to have something like an EU arrangement going on, so Australia, New Zealand, "Papua", "Tasmania" and the South Pacific island states would be closely economically interconnected and interdependent anyway. To do otherwise would be pretty stupid for the non-Australian nations of Oceania.

So all in all, I'd say that "It seems Australia didn't do that well after all" is a reasonable statement regarding Australia during and immediately after the Twilight War, but is completely refutable in the longer term.

But 40 years as a Howling Wilderness?!?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.