4th ed T2K

[Ursus Maior]

I'm sorry for your loss, Cdnwolf, my heartfelt condolences.

[Cdnwolf]

Thank you all for condolences. Life goes on and now I have the time to get back to all my old hobbies.

[swaghauler]

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I feel your pain, sir. Mom died last year. Dad died this January. It just leaves you feeling drained and lost. I hope you enjoy your kickstarter merch.

I have the MUTANT:YEAR ZERO game and for a Twilight2000 style adventure I'd probably do the following...

Set the Hex size for scrounging/foraging to 1Km (down from ten).

Set the ranges in meters. The FL standard of a base 10-meter square is too coarse in my opinion. A person can COMFORTABLY occupy a single meter (or yard), so there is no reason to have such a large base range. I'm not really a fan of range bands anyway.

Set all encumbrances up in kilograms and do away with FL's encumbrance units. Twilight2000 is all about resource management to begin with. So just give me a common weight standard!

I would do away with the "ammo dice" system for rounds expended and use a system my group (and many others) pioneered in SHADOWRUN. Just give each weapon a rate of fire (like my dividing cyclic rate by 100) and allow the shooter to SELECT any number of dice based on that rate of fire. IF an AKM has a ROF of 6, then the shooter could take UP TO 6 additional dice for the success test. EACH ADDITIONAL DIE costs one round of ammo in addition to the initial round for single fire. ANY ROLL OF "1" on an Ammo Die will cost you one additional round of ammo (meaning THAT die costs 2 rounds of ammo).

There are other things I would change, but, in my opinion, these are the most GLARING issues that need fixed.

[Raellus]

So, a few folks, myself included, think that the POTUS ordering a USN aircraft carrier into the Baltic, in a show of force, is not very realistic or plausible (I supposed he might want it done, but any competent JCS Chief of Naval Operations would be able to talk him out of it).

Would it be slightly more plausible that instead of a CVN, the USN might send a task group based around one of the Iowa-class battleships* into the Baltic instead? It stands to reason that at least a couple of said behemoths would still be in service if the Soviet Union never dissolved. A modern battleship might not be considered as vulnerable/valuable as a supercarrier, so the risk wouldn't be quite as great, but the potential reward of sending a strong message to the Soviets would still be there. It probably wouldn't be seen as much of a threat as a CVN by the Soviets. Land based aircraft could provide air-cover for the task group.

*The battleship battle group typically consisted of one modernized battleship, one Ticonderoga-class cruiser, one Kidd-class destroyer or Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, one Spruance-class destroyer, three Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and one auxiliary ship such as a replenishment oiler. (from Wikipedia)

-

[Olefin]

The battleship would be a better choice for sure - for one its built to go in there and mix it up whereas a carrier isnt made for direct combat. The Iowa class was made to go head to head with Yamato or Bismark - thus it would make the perfect ship for a gun battle - and with the missiles it carried it had a credible long range punch as well.

[Ursus Maior]

The battleship would be a better choice for sure - for one its built to go in there and mix it up whereas a carrier isn[']t made for direct combat. The Iowa class was made to go head to head with Yamato or Bismark - thus it would make the perfect ship for a gun battle - and with the missiles it carried it had a credible long range punch as well.

While all of this is true, it would still be like shooting fish in a barrel. A BBBG was also not necessarily meant to go somewhere and complete a mission all on its own. The Balitc Sea is a tiny pond with its 377,000 km², bordering NATO countries Germany and Denmark (plus almost Norway), neutral countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland as well as the Baltic States plus the USSR in this timeline. It's a crowded place with nowhere to hide, absolutely no depth (the average is 55 m, but it actually only gets reliably below 50 m, once you approach the Polish coast. Once you get there, you're in Soviet hunting grounds, Warsaw Pact or not: that's well within Soviet missiles strike distances plus optimal territory for SSKs like the (improved) Kilo and not to speak of mines.

If you go in there, you do it full force, together with your allies Germany and Denmark, who specializes in mine-warfare, small submarines, ASW and AAW. Also, attacking Sweden is dumb, because that's not only a natural ally, but also the only way to go to maneuver. Essentially, attacking Sweden allows the USSR to close its pincers on any NATO force.

If the US wants to respond by sending a sizeable naval force within striking distance of Soviet territory, it should send a Carrier Strike Group and a Expeditionary strike group into Norwegian waters and work together with Denmark and Germany to "secure sea lines of communication in the Baltic Sea" by sending a Ticonderoga class CG plus an Arleigh Burke-class DDG and 3-4 frigates under constant air-cover and supported by allied SSKs. A Tico is a juicy target, but far from the same as a CVN or BB.

My question is again: What's the strategic goal here? Apparently the carrier strike group is only sent into the Baltic Sea to duke it out with the Soviet fleet at Kaliningrad. That's not a strategy, it's a death sentence. In 1996 (actual history) the Russian Baltic Fleet numbered nine submarines, three cruisers, two destroyers, 18 frigates and 56 small vessels. But the defensive power of the fleet lay in the coast and its hinterland with its airfields, missile bases and of course long-range bombers available.

Assaulting Kaliningrad with a single CSG would amount to assaulting a cannon-spiked fortress with a host of light cavalry and a single catapult. The CSG has no amphibious element to deploy, cannot mount enough strikes to destroy all relevant targets and cannot endure the swarms of missiles it would have to face. Even if the CSG manages to level said fortress with a nuclear struke, what good does that do? It escalates the war immediately to its final phase, since the USN would just have attacked Soviet (even: Russian) soil with nukes.

If the ultimate goal is supporting the air strikes in Poland by attacking Soviet forces in or around Kaliningrad, that's a job for stealth bombers, which could be based in Norway or even Denmark. The B-2 went operational on January 1st 1997, the historical combat debut was 1999 during the Kosovo War. For T2K, June 1997 would be an ideal date, the USSR wouldn't know what hit it, especially if you mask the attack with a second deep-strike by B-52 launching cruise missiles and the better known stealth attack craft F-117. The latter were likely already known to Soviet SIGINT since 1991, so "seeing" their signatures pop up in a diversionary raid on targets in central Poland at the same time as B-52 launch AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles from afar, would draw all the attention away from B-2s. Tip off the Swedish that the B-52s would fly close to their airspace and you could even get away with B-2s overflying their mainland, while all radars are trimmed to watch the main show to the South.

Once that triple-strike is over, you assess the situation in order to figure out, if the Soviet threat has diminished enough for a CSG to enter the bathtub. But again, that needs a plan to follow. The Baltic Sea is not only carrier-unfriendly, it also has no need for a carrier, since every target is so close by anybody's airfields, you can just get up in the morning, drive to work, board your bomber and be home by noon. That's far better than sleeping in rancid cots and having to jump from a burning wreck into the water before breakfast, because hundreds of dancing vampires proved to outmatch your defense.

[3catcircus]

While all of this is true, it would still be like shooting fish in a barrel. A BBBG was also not necessarily meant to go somewhere and complete a mission all on its own. The Balitc Sea is a tiny pond with its 377,000 km², bordering NATO countries Germany and Denmark (plus almost Norway), neutral countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland as well as the Baltic States plus the USSR in this timeline. It's a crowded place with nowhere to hide, absolutely no depth (the average is 55 m, but it actually only gets reliably below 50 m, once you approach the Polish coast. Once you get there, you're in Soviet hunting grounds, Warsaw Pact or not: that's well within Soviet missiles strike distances plus optimal territory for SSKs like the (improved) Kilo and not to speak of mines.

If you go in there, you do it full force, together with your allies Germany and Denmark, who specializes in mine-warfare, small submarines, ASW and AAW. Also, attacking Sweden is dumb, because that's not only a natural ally, but also the only way to go to maneuver. Essentially, attacking Sweden allows the USSR to close its pincers on any NATO force.

If the US wants to respond by sending a sizeable naval force within striking distance of Soviet territory, it should send a Carrier Strike Group and a Expeditionary strike group into Norwegian waters and work together with Denmark and Germany to "secure sea lines of communication in the Baltic Sea" by sending a Ticonderoga class CG plus an Arleigh Burke-class DDG and 3-4 frigates under constant air-cover and supported by allied SSKs. A Tico is a juicy target, but far from the same as a CVN or BB.

My question is again: What's the strategic goal here? Apparently the carrier strike group is only sent into the Baltic Sea to duke it out with the Soviet fleet at Kaliningrad. That's not a strategy, it's a death sentence. In 1996 (actual history) the Russian Baltic Fleet numbered nine submarines, three cruisers, two destroyers, 18 frigates and 56 small vessels. But the defensive power of the fleet lay in the coast and its hinterland with its airfields, missile bases and of course long-range bombers available.

Assaulting Kaliningrad with a single CSG would amount to assaulting a cannon-spiked fortress with a host of light cavalry and a single catapult. The CSG has no amphibious element to deploy, cannot mount enough strikes to destroy all relevant targets and cannot endure the swarms of missiles it would have to face. Even if the CSG manages to level said fortress with a nuclear struke, what good does that do? It escalates the war immediately to its final phase, since the USN would just have attacked Soviet (even: Russian) soil with nukes.

If the ultimate goal is supporting the air strikes in Poland by attacking Soviet forces in or around Kaliningrad, that's a job for stealth bombers, which could be based in Norway or even Denmark. The B-2 went operational on January 1st 1997, the historical combat debut was 1999 during the Kosovo War. For T2K, June 1997 would be an ideal date, the USSR wouldn't know what hit it, especially if you mask the attack with a second deep-strike by B-52 launching cruise missiles and the better known stealth attack craft F-117. The latter were likely already known to Soviet SIGINT since 1991, so "seeing" their signatures pop up in a diversionary raid on targets in central Poland at the same time as B-52 launch AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles from afar, would draw all the attention away from B-2s. Tip off the Swedish that the B-52s would fly close to their airspace and you could even get away with B-2s overflying their mainland, while all radars are trimmed to watch the main show to the South.

Once that triple-strike is over, you assess the situation in order to figure out, if the Soviet threat has diminished enough for a CSG to enter the bathtub. But again, that needs a plan to follow. The Baltic Sea is not only carrier-unfriendly, it also has no need for a carrier, since every target is so close by anybody's airfields, you can just get up in the morning, drive to work, board your bomber and be home by noon. That's far better than sleeping in rancid cots and having to jump from a burning wreck into the water before breakfast, because hundreds of dancing vampires proved to outmatch your defense.

If your plan is to fight it out in the Baltic with the Soviets, there is no need to send a CVBG into the Baltic. The area is small enough that you can sit out in the Atlantic or the North Sea and have strike aircraft get close enough to lob Harpoons before your Tico's hit Kaliningrad with TLAMs or a TLAM-N (or several). You can refuel over Norway or Germany while they provide CAP/BARCAP.

[Olefin]

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

She could probably take hits that would put a CVN on the bottom or completely combat ineffective and still fight

And I agree - sending a CVN into the Baltic is flat out suicide - the only way that carrier would be in the Baltic is if every Soviet airfield, missile base and long range bomber group was already destroyed -heck where she the Soviets would basically be able to hit her with long range missiles from the airspace directly above their airfields

All reference to that nuclear carrier being in the Baltic needs to be removed - and T2K is about a possible believable WWIII where, at least at the beginning, militaries are making strategic and tactical decisions that arent the equivalent of the Japanese throwing away their carriers at Leyte as decoys

if you really have to have a USN nuclear carrier in a port with massive damage then make it in the UK or possibly Norway

[3catcircus]

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

She could probably take hits that would put a CVN on the bottom or completely combat ineffective and still fight

And I agree - sending a CVN into the Baltic is flat out suicide - the only way that carrier would be in the Baltic is if every Soviet airfield, missile base and long range bomber group was already destroyed -heck where she the Soviets would basically be able to hit her with long range missiles from the airspace directly above their airfields

All reference to that nuclear carrier being in the Baltic needs to be removed - and T2K is about a possible believable WWIII where, at least at the beginning, militaries are making strategic and tactical decisions that arent the equivalent of the Japanese throwing away their carriers at Leyte as decoys

if you really have to have a USN nuclear carrier in a port with massive damage then make it in the UK or possibly Norway

Normally, the US would stick to blue water ops for a CVBG add let NATO allies deal with green/brown-water ops. I could see Germany, Denmark, and Norway operating in the Baltic while a US CVBG provides A-6/A-7/F-18 strike aircraft.

You really shouldn't be running a SAG in the Baltic as a USN operation. Especially concerning would be Soviet SS or SSKs and the Norwegians are going to be much better at ASW in the littorals, supported by P-3s out of Italy or the UK.

[Olefin]

Really the SAG wouldnt go into the Baltic until the Soviets had been pounded and their bases either destroyed or rendered combat ineffective - at that point you would see them there most likely escorting and providing fire power for a Marine unit to make a landing in Poland or Kaliningrad or the Baltics

Especially since if all you are using the SAG for is as a Tomahawk platform then you dont need to bring it into a slaughterhouse like the Baltic to do that

If you want a great book describing why going into the Baltic before the enemy air and navy is totally suppressed read Cauldron by Larry Bond where you see what happens to USN ships trying to convoy supplies to Poland and getting ambushed by the French and Germans

and that antiship weapons they faced were nothing like what the Soviets would have brought to the table

[Raellus]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

[Olefin]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that aggression vs. NATO will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

they are using the wrong ship and sending her in harms way where she doesnt need to be - deploying her to the Norwegian Sea sends the exact same message - her planes have more than enough range to hit any target from there - and if you want to saber rattle that is what battleships are for - i.e. dont mess with us - and 32 Tomahawks and Harpoons and 16 inch shells send a pretty potent message

Or look at it this way - sending in an asset to where she literally doesnt have enough time to turn around planes if she needs to use them before the enemy is all over her like white on rice - its like sending in one cop to take down a gang of 20 armed guys and have him face them down basically at point blank range

If he gets his gun out in time he might take a bunch down - but there is no way he gets to reload and that bullet proof vest can only take so many hits

[Raellus]

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

[Olefin]

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

and a beached battleship using her guns can take a lot of pounding before she is totally knocked out - FYI that is exactly what the Japanese had planned for Yamato

and carriers make for crappy "beach her and use the crew for infantry" ideas - besides a small USMC contingent (in the 90's) about the only other armed crew are the pilots who have sidearms

the battleship crew doesnt have a lot of small arms either but they are a self contained artillery battalion until all the guns get knocked out

[Ursus Maior]

If your plan is to fight it out in the Baltic with the Soviets, there is no need to send a CVBG into the Baltic.

My point exactly.

[Ursus Maior]

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier
The problem is: All of the resilience of an Iowa is doing the mission no good, once the vampires from Kaliningrad have sent the Tico and all other ships in the task force to the - admittedly shallow - bottom of the Baltic Sea. Whatever the USN feared the Soviets could muster against it in a battle for the Atlantic would have been available to the Baltic Fleet as well; just more of it and in fewer time. There is no hiding and no evading radars in the Baltic, so a Soviet commander just needs to spam the task force and overwhelm the AA defense. None of the ships, except the BB, can take more than two hits to sink. Most will only take one hit and be a mission kill at least.

The Iowa then is completely unprotected against all threats an has nothing except it's armor to survive. It won't even see the torpedoes coming.

And as was pointed out: For its TLAMs to attack, an Iowa would not need to get into the Baltic Sea. You can do that from Norway and that's only because INF took out the BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile that previously sat in Germany, the UK, Netherlands and Belgium.

[Ursus Maior]

Really the SAG wouldnt go into the Baltic until the Soviets had been pounded and their bases either destroyed or rendered combat ineffective - at that point you would see them there most likely escorting and providing fire power for a Marine unit to make a landing in Poland or Kaliningrad or the Baltics

We're talking the neutralization of mainland Soviet combat effectiveness. What ever would have happened at that point is complete speculation. My bet: Either the Soviets would have asked for peace or hit the big red button, since at that point a NATO main offensive would come rolling across land towards them.

Either way, USN was planning to dominate the Barents Sea at that point, since it resembled a deepwater approach against the Soviet heartland, allowed to take out their boomer bastion(s) and would have opened up a third front to the North against Moscow.

Let the German, Danish, Dutch etc. navies handle the Baltics.

[Ursus Maior]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-
That sounds like Alpha edition. The paragraph in the actual published edition goes like this:

"On June 6, US and Soviet ground forces engage in combat for the first time, west of Poznań in western Poland. Shortly after this clash, Soviet forces cross the borders of Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, and fighting erupts all along the new frontline through Eastern Europe.

The USS Harry S. Truman and its supporting squadrons spar with the Soviet Baltic Fleet out of Kaliningrad. The US asks Sweden to allow US troops and air defenses on the strategically located island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic."

So it's 1) full invasion and land-warfare along borders of the USSR with its former Warsaw Pact allies with US forces already in place to defend these nations (paragraph immediately prior to the first quoted here), then 2) CSG sails into the Baltic Sea and dukes it out with the Baltic Fleet, then 3) the US ask Sweden to join their war against the USSR.

[Raellus]

That sounds like Alpha edition.

Nope. I pulled it from the T2K4_Referees_Manual PDF released/downloaded just the other day. It's the watermarked version with my name and order number imprinted on it. Look at the top of p. 7.

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a strong statement to the Kremlin."

The quote you posted is 4-5 paragraphs down the page. The USS Truman is sent before the Soviets invade Poland, but it's still there when the shooting war with the US starts not long after.

-

[Spartan-117]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-

This is an important point. Google 'tons of diplomacy' and what you get are lots of pictures of U.S. Aircraft Carriers (and the occasional Imperial Star Destroyer :rolleyes: ).

We benefit from knowing that the timeline will result in a shooting war. So obviously we can look back and can easily criticize every non-optimal choice. But... in the real world, the calculations are not so easy.

Had the Soviets backed down after a carrier strike group entered the Baltic, it would be hailed as a brilliant diplomatic move. Of course we'd probably be playing a very different RPG from such a timeline... Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past age 2000.

[Ursus Maior]

Nope. I pulled it from the T2K4_Referees_Manual PDF released/downloaded just the other day.
My apologies, I overlooked that passage last evening; found it now.

[Ursus Maior]

This is an important point. Google 'tons of diplomacy' and what you get are lots of pictures of U.S. Aircraft Carriers [...].

We benefit from knowing that the timeline will result in a shooting war. So obviously we can look back and can easily criticize every non-optimal choice. But... in the real world, the calculations are not so easy.

That is, of course, true. There are, however, reasons the USN never sent a carrier into the Baltic, not during the Cold War, not during the 2014 Crimean invasion of Russia, not for diplomatic visits or tourist attractions such as Kiel Week (German: Kieler Woche) and not even for BATLOPS exercises. As far as I know, that pond never saw a carrier from afar.

Yes, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) participated in BALTOPS in June 2018 (https://www.wtkr.com/2018/06/11/uss-harry-s-truman-aircraft-make-history-take-part-in-baltops-exercise), but only a part of its wing supported the exercise, the ship proper remained in the Mediterranean, where it took a break from bombing ISIS. Naval warfare in the Baltic Sea is the equivalent to a knifefight in a phonebox.

[unipus]

I think we can all agree that probably the only reason for this inclusion is that FL had or has some notion of releasing an adventure where you probably go crawling around the ruins of an aircraft carrier that is beached in the Baltic.

On its surface that's a fun idea, but definitely one place where the "rule of cool" just doesn't hold water (pardon the pun). I don't think it's inherently any more silly than any number of old v1 adventures, but the fact that it ends up in the core timeline certainly elevates it.

The good news is that you can completely ignore this aspect, if you don't plan to run an adventure set on an aircraft carrier!

[Ursus Maior]

I'm not sure we should expect such an adventure, I have the feeling there will be not a lot coming for this productline. Other than that, I have no better explanation, why the carrier plot-element exists. Getting Sweden into a Cold War gone hot storyline isn't that difficult. Sweden was counting on being attacked by the Soviets, had extensive preparations and direct communications with the USA, UK and NATO for combined operations in that case. Also, the USSR probably had plans for attacks on all three major Scandinavian nations, depending on what general warplan to enact, we can be sure about that.

So, I don't see the need for any rational reason to include the carrier. If the T2K USSR is powerful enough to alone wage war against all of Central and Eastern Europe, attacking Sweden in, e. g. by rushing through it's northern half, in order to take out NATO bases in Northern Norway, endanger Atlantic sealines of communication and occupying the Kiruna mine and its railroads, is hardly out of the question.

[Raellus]

I think we can all agree that probably the only reason for this inclusion is that FL had or has some notion of releasing an adventure where you probably go crawling around the ruins of an aircraft carrier that is beached in the Baltic.

Could be. Kind of reminds me of Rivet City in Fallout 3. Or this recent web article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40196/the-sad-story-of-how-this-soviet-aircraft-carrier-ended-up-rotting-in-a-landlocked-chinese-lagoon

Or maybe they want to introduce a new Swedish hotel/theme park like the Chinese did:

https://www.uniqhotels.com/binhai-aircraft-hotel

;)

The good news is that you can completely ignore this aspect, if you don't plan to run an adventure set on an aircraft carrier!

+1 (or convert it to an Iowa-class battleship... :cool:)

-

[Olefin]

That is, of course, true. There are, however, reasons the USN never sent a carrier into the Baltic, not during the Cold War, not during the 2014 Crimean invasion of Russia, not for diplomatic visits or tourist attractions such as Kiel Week (German: Kieler Woche) and not even for BATLOPS exercises. As far as I know, that pond never saw a carrier from afar.

Yes, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) participated in BALTOPS in June 2018 (https://www.wtkr.com/2018/06/11/uss-harry-s-truman-aircraft-make-history-take-part-in-baltops-exercise), but only a part of its wing supported the exercise, the ship proper remained in the Mediterranean, where it took a break from bombing ISIS. Naval warfare in the Baltic Sea is the equivalent to a knifefight in a phonebox.

100 percent correct - and I wonder if Tomas missed the part about the Harry S. Truman never entering the Baltic - anyone want to take a guess he saw that it participatedin BALTOPS and never read the part about the ship remaining in the Med?

[Olefin]

I think we can all agree that probably the only reason for this inclusion is that FL had or has some notion of releasing an adventure where you probably go crawling around the ruins of an aircraft carrier that is beached in the Baltic.

On its surface that's a fun idea, but definitely one place where the "rule of cool" just doesn't hold water (pardon the pun). I don't think it's inherently any more silly than any number of old v1 adventures, but the fact that it ends up in the core timeline certainly elevates it.

The good news is that you can completely ignore this aspect, if you don't plan to run an adventure set on an aircraft carrier!

it actually in many people's minds called into question the whole timeline and background - it really needs to be removed from the game - it is non-sensical - and considering all releases to dates have been pdf's it can be done easily - i.e. I have done updates to pdf releases - but once those books get published then its a lot harder

[Raellus]

100 percent correct - and I wonder if Tomas missed the part about the Harry S. Truman never entering the Baltic - anyone want to take a guess he saw that it participatedin BALTOPS and never read the part about the ship remaining in the Med?

Could be. I wonder if anyone has pointed this out to him. IIRC, quite a few people who commented on the Alpha complained about the Truman in the Baltic. If FL decided not to change that bit then, they're probably not going change it now. Either the FL team doesn't think it's that implausible or, as Unipus posited, they've got future plans for it.

it actually in many people's minds called into question the whole timeline and background - it really needs to be removed from the game - it is non-sensical - and considering all releases to dates have been pdf's it can be done easily - i.e. I have done updates to pdf releases - but once those books get published then its a lot harder

Have you suggested this to Free League? Posting about it here isn't likely to do any good. It's essentially crying over spilled milk, and that's not particularly constructive.

-

[Olefin]

Could be. I wonder if anyone has pointed this out to him. IIRC, quite a few people who commented on the Alpha complained about the Truman in the Baltic. If FL decided not to change that bit then, they're probably not going change it now. Either the FL team doesn't think it's that implausible or, as Unipus posited, they've got future plans for it.



Have you suggested this to Free League? Posting about it here isn't likely to do any good. It's essentially crying over spilled milk, and that's not particularly constructive.

-
Or used bad information - i.e. its in a BALTOPS so they must have sent it into the Baltic - but never did the research to find out that the only thing that was part of it was its planes flown from the Med - or are embarrassed they might have made that kind of mistake - its easy to do - heck I had to change my East Africa Sourcebook to remove a unit I originally had in it that later on I found out was not possible to have been there - it happens

[Ursus Maior]

[...] anyone want to take a guess he saw that it participatedin BALTOPS and never read the part about the ship remaining in the Med?
That is exactly what I was thinking, when doing light research for my posting. Google -> "Oh, BALTOPS saw Truman participating?" -> Click -> "Nope, just the airwing..."

The best about USS Harry S. Truman I only realized right now: It was only commissioned on 25 July 1998, so about a year after her ride into the Baltic Sea in the T2K timeline. This begins to look more and more like a copy-and-paste-thing.

[Raellus]

That is exactly what I was thinking, when doing light research for my posting. Google -> "Oh, BALTOPS saw Truman participating?" -> Click -> "Nope, just the airwing..."

The best about USS Harry S. Truman I only realized right now: It was only commissioned on 25 July 1998, so about a year after her ride into the Baltic Sea in the T2K timeline. This begins to look more and more like a copy-and-paste-thing.

Those are both good catches. I don't recall seeing the first point made in the Alpha comments (although I really didn't follow them that closely), so AFAIK, you were the first person to discover this.

The second point is easily reconciled, though. If the Cold War had continued, the construction of the USS Truman likely would have occurred earlier/faster than it did IRL.

-

[Ursus Maior]

That would be possible. Skimming off one year from a five year building period or a two year outfitting period is a major change though. It could influence her capabilities, making her shakedown cruise in the Baltic Sea even more off a reckless idea by the president.

[Raellus]

That would be possible. Skimming off one year from a five year building period or a two year outfitting period is a major change though. It could influence her capabilities, making her shakedown cruise in the Baltic Sea even more off a reckless idea by the president.

Valid points. But I was thinking more along the lines that she was laid down earlier- so building began a year or two before it did IRL- as opposed to cutting corners to put it out to sea faster.

@All: The USS Truman thing is kind of a dead horse at this point. As GMs, we have options.

1. Keep it as-is.
2. Modify or change it (to an amphib Harrier carrier, a battleship, or something else).
3. Ignore it completely.

And if it really, really bothers you, contact FL directly and let them know.

It's probably best to let the topic die and move on to discuss other aspects of v4.

-

[unipus]

I'm not sure we should expect such an adventure, I have the feeling there will be not a lot coming for this productline.


FL doesn't have a track record of releasing a lot of adventure materials and supplements, but Twilight has been a pretty big success for them so far. The KS did well over half a million in USD, which is double or more what most of their projects have done (although absolutely dwarfed by the success of The One Ring of course, which might draw a lot of their attention and resources).

Personally, and especially given the variety of adventure material already available within the T2K catalog, it would make bad sense not to release at least a few modules. It's already pretty directly stated several times within the core book itself that there will be future materials related to urban operations, boats, and Operation Reset at the very least.

[3catcircus]

FL doesn't have a track record of releasing a lot of adventure materials and supplements, but Twilight has been a pretty big success for them so far. The KS did well over half a million in USD, which is double or more what most of their projects have done (although absolutely dwarfed by the success of The One Ring of course, which might draw a lot of their attention and resources).

Personally, and especially given the variety of adventure material already available within the T2K catalog, it would make bad sense not to release at least a few modules. It's already pretty directly stated several times within the core book itself that there will be future materials related to urban operations, boats, and Operation Reset at the very least.

I think that there should be some consideration given for the fact that the first 2 editions effectively started it out with the 5th ID going kaput. 3rd edition was different, but the timeline was open ended enough that you could still reuse 1e/2e adventures with minimal handwaving. 4e seems to be trying to ignore this aspect to some extent by purposely including "cool" things at the expense of believability. If you want a carrier stranded in the Baltic, you'd be better off having it be a smaller non-US carrier like HMS Ark Royal or a French or Italian carrier, or an amphibious assault ship. Is the goal a stranded ship, or a stranded ship-turned-power station?

[unipus]

Not sure what "consideration" you're talking about here or how it applies to what I was saying, really.

[Ursus Maior]

It's already pretty directly stated several times within the core book itself that there will be future materials related to urban operations, boats, and Operation Reset at the very least.

That is about what I expect, too. I think it's great we reached the stretch goal to include rules for conversion. Then groups can go back and play the old modules, which need a lot of work, but GMs are used to that. Plus, from what I read, T2K is known for homebrewn campaigns anyway. This will not draw in a lot of new players, but it will keep the IP alive.

[3catcircus]

Not sure what "consideration" you're talking about here or how it applies to what I was saying, really.

The consideration being that you ought to be able to take any prior edition scenarios and drop them in to the 4e mechanics with very little effort involved. TW:2013's timeline was ambiguous enough to just ignore it if and keep using the 1e/2e timelines.

Do the 4e rules support loss of the 5ID in Poland? 8ID pushing to Latvia? 2MarDiv going through the Baltic Coast? Especially that last one - why would a CVN be in the Baltic rather than an LHA, LHD, or LPH?

[Raellus]

Do the 4e rules support loss of the 5ID in Poland? 8ID pushing to Latvia? 2MarDiv going through the Baltic Coast? Especially that last one - why would a CVN be in the Baltic rather than an LHA, LHD, or LPH?

Please don't read this as glib or sarcastic, but why wouldn't they? Isn't "Death of a Division" the starting point for the base v4 campaign?

If anything, spotlighting the Baltic rim countries early on in the v4 history creates more of a reason for 8th ID and 2MarDiv to conduct major ops in the region later in the war, not less.

Would you mind clarifying your point?

-

[unipus]

Yeah, I'm afraid I really don't follow. I don't see how they would support it any less than prior editions. The end of the 5th ID is still the main setup in the 4th edition rules.

[3catcircus]

Please don't read this as glib or sarcastic, but why wouldn't they? Isn't "Death of a Division" the starting point for the base v4 campaign?

If anything, spotlighting the Baltic rim countries early on in the v4 history creates more of a reason for 8th ID and 2MarDiv to conduct major ops in the region later in the war, not less.

Would you mind clarifying your point?

-

Yeah, I'm afraid I really don't follow. I don't see how they would support it any less than prior editions. The end of the 5th ID is still the main setup in the 4th edition rules.

What I'm getting at is whether the rules support the scenario and genre rather than just paying lip service. I've only seen the alpha and the rules seemed to really only support one-shot type play rather than long-term sandboxy play. The hexcrawl aspect seemed to be at top large a scale (10km, IIRC) and there didn't seem to be to much beyond Poland and Sweden.

Did the beta improve upon these?

[unipus]

I guess? I mean I found most of the changes in the beta to be improvements, both in rules and especially backstory -- but none of the rules change were earth-shattering, they were evolutionary of what was already there.

But I guess I fundamentally don't understand the question. What would make it feel more or less appropriate to campaign play to you, versus one-shot? I *never* saw anything about it as very one-shot oriented, and I've been running a campaign in it since not too long after the alpha came out. I'd say we've done... 12 to 15 sessions so far?

Some additional materials have come out that better support setting up a campaign. Orders of battle, more material on the factions and some NPCs/mini-adventure sites, a little more nuance to the background, etc. That stuff can certainly all be useful, if you need it. I've retroactively applied most of it to my campaign, but not with any major effect. Most of it is way above the PCs' pay grade.

[3catcircus]

I guess? I mean I found most of the changes in the beta to be improvements, both in rules and especially backstory -- but none of the rules change were earth-shattering, they were evolutionary of what was already there.

But I guess I fundamentally don't understand the question. What would make it feel more or less appropriate to campaign play to you, versus one-shot? I *never* saw anything about it as very one-shot oriented, and I've been running a campaign in it since not too long after the alpha came out. I'd say we've done... 12 to 15 sessions so far?

Some additional materials have come out that better support setting up a campaign. Orders of battle, more material on the factions and some NPCs/mini-adventure sites, a little more nuance to the background, etc. That stuff can certainly all be useful, if you need it. I've retroactively applied most of it to my campaign, but not with any major effect. Most of it is way above the PCs' pay grade.

It's been my experience that FL's various RPGs, to date, mostly lend themselves to one-shots or small adventure path style haves rather than long term campaigns. If 4e is more conducive than they're previous offerings, then I'm more interested...

[unipus]

Well, without knowing what aspect of your experience leads to that observation, I really couldn't tell you. It seems about as suited to a campaign as most RPGs to me. There's no levels, so not a lot of power creep to deal with. Combat can be quite deadly, so PCs can certainly disappear in a flash. Characters can hoard gear and supplies but it's quite easy for that to all disappear as well.

So the main factor is "how long can you keep a captivating story going in this setting" and, well... the setting is Twilight: 2000. So that's on the GM pretty much.


Some of their games (notably ALIENS) are definitely more oriented towards one-shots, as the survival rate is very low by design. I haven't played it but that's a pretty universal comment on it. Others (like Forbidden Lands) are certainly more campaign-friendly.

[Adm.Lee]

[Caveat: I've read the alpha and skimmed the beta and final PDFs]

To me, this edition seems to only support a "one-time" rather than a "one-shot" campaign.

Relative to the Polish start point:
- you start with the 5th MD getting overrun, but it's only a few dozen kilometers back to friendly lines (although the impression is given that the Soviets are still advancing, so the number of km in question might be increasing by an indeterminate amount). Scant detail* is given on where the hostiles and friendlies are, and less on where they are going.
- The random encounter table uses a a deck of cards, with little reusability. ("Eight marauders with an RPG on a sunny day. Ho hum, GM drew the 8 of Spades again")**
- There are no alternate locations for PCs run to, no Free City of Krakow, no Markgraf of Silesia, no guerrilla legions of the Polish Free Congress, no pocket of the US XI Corps. The only direction for the PCs to go is west.

* Relative to the v1/v2 "Death of a Division" and "Escape from Kalisz" set-ups.
** Yes, any good GM can alter these, but a good setup wouldn't make them have to. Using cards could be a good idea, but having exactly 52 choices and no inherent flexibility for location or terrain is not.

I haven't read in detail the Swedish start-point, but it didn't seem any broader to me.

All of this made it seem like this T2k is a "one time" deal. You start HERE, and the Obvious Goal is to go THERE. Full stop, end of story. You've played all of Twilight:2000. Go buy another game, this one is wrung out and done.

[Ursus Maior]

Since the PRC is a topic in a thread here already, I was thinking, if some of the successes of the USSR could be explained by a sudden weakness of the US armed forces after the so called Third Taiwan Strait Crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis) went hot, which in known history it of course has not?

In our version of history, the PRC backed down from possible conflict, when the US sent in two carrier strike groups (CSG 5 and CSG 7 respectively). If the PRC had not backed down from confrontation, but instead begun an invasion of Taiwan, the PLAN (the navy of the PRC) probably would have still lost the fight back in 1996, but might have mauled two USN carrier strike groups.

Further escalation could have come from North Korea acting up. Kim Jong-il succeeded his father in 1994. Historically North Korea then was at its worst, since the dissolution of the USSR robbed North Korea of large funds of Soviet aid. Had the USSR not imploded, e. g. as it avoided in T2K 4th edition, North Korea might have been in much better shape during the mid-1990s, when Kim Jong-il took over. He would still have to prove his value to the USSR and the PRC, of course, likely making him a illing ally in upcoming conflicts.

With border hostilities along the Korean DMZ and 7th Fleet badly mauled, a mid-1990s "Asian Pivot" might have weakened deterrence possible by NATO during peace time or at least prohibited REFORGER-like large scale troop movements in swift time. This might have been enough for the USSR to gain initial ground against NATO frontline forces in late 1997 and early 1998. As per FL's timeline, once the US fully implements its levée en masse and fields dozens of new light infantry brigades: 500,000 draftees easily makes 25 divisions (actually 28.9) modeled after late Cold War mechanized divisions, which had 17,300 personnel. This would leave plenty room for filling up other services.

[Raellus]

Since the PRC is a topic in a thread here already, I was thinking, if some of the successes of the USSR could be explained by a sudden weakness of the US armed forces after the so called Third Taiwan Strait Crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis) went hot, which in known history it of course has not?

I'd forgotten about this. Thanks for bringing it up.

With border hostilities along the Korean DMZ and 7th Fleet badly mauled, a mid-1990s "Asian Pivot" might have weakened deterrence possible by NATO during peace time or at least prohibited REFORGER-like large scale troop movements in swift time. This might have been enough for the USSR to gain initial ground against NATO frontline forces in late 1997 and early 1998. As per FL's timeline, once the US fully implements its levée en masse and fields dozens of new light infantry brigades: 500,000 draftees easily makes 25 divisions (actually 28.9) modeled after late Cold War mechanized divisions, which had 17,300 personnel. This would leave plenty room for filling up other services.

Well put. I'd posited as much re DPRK and PRC aggression helping to explain early Soviet success in the v4 timeline, but in less detail, in post #241 of this thread.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=87937&postcount=241

One thing that I really don't get about v4 is how it currently includes no mention of WW3 taking place anywhere else but in NW/Central Europe and the Middle East. FL's Twilight War doesn't seem like much of a world war, as currently written.

-

[unipus]

[Caveat: I've read the alpha and skimmed the beta and final PDFs]

To me, this edition seems to only support a "one-time" rather than a "one-shot" campaign.

Relative to the Polish start point:
- you start with the 5th MD getting overrun, but it's only a few dozen kilometers back to friendly lines (although the impression is given that the Soviets are still advancing, so the number of km in question might be increasing by an indeterminate amount). Scant detail* is given on where the hostiles and friendlies are, and less on where they are going.


Same as it ever was? I'll give you that older editions included a little more info on what the various divisions are up to, but it wasn't much.


- The random encounter table uses a a deck of cards, with little reusability. ("Eight marauders with an RPG on a sunny day. Ho hum, GM drew the 8 of Spades again")**


I agree, I don't love this setup. It's straightforward but inflexible. It IS terrain-based, actually, but not in a way that's particularly efficient at the table. I find it more useful for skimming through and stealing elements from occasionally.

However, what they did add at the very end is a Solo section, which I feel is terribly misnamed -- so maybe you skipped it. In there are all kinds of nice easy tools to help GMs drum up encounters and scenarios that are useful for all sorts of games, not just solo ones. I use these things all the time.


- There are no alternate locations for PCs run to, no Free City of Krakow, no Markgraf of Silesia, no guerrilla legions of the Polish Free Congress, no pocket of the US XI Corps. The only direction for the PCs to go is west.


How ever did anyone manage to play 1st edition before years worth of supplemental adventures came out??? /s

The PCs can obviously go anywhere they want. There are NATO troops to the East and North as well as West, if you want to do a rescue mission or something. This is very clearly spelled out in the book, and clearly indicated on a map, don't know what to tell you there.


All of this made it seem like this T2k is a "one time" deal. You start HERE, and the Obvious Goal is to go THERE. Full stop, end of story. You've played all of Twilight:2000. Go buy another game, this one is wrung out and done.

If that's as far as your imagination or interest takes you, then sure. This complaint would apply to every other edition of T2K to pretty much the same degree (not to mention a huge number of other RPGs on the market in every genre). Yet they have all succeeded to some degree or another because they provide a sandbox for you to bring your own ideas to.

And of course, since you clearly have much more experience and knowledge of the OLD T2K setups and encounters and adventure hooks -- well, there's sure nothing to stop you from bring all of that knowledge to the table. That's what I've been doing.

[Ursus Maior]

I'd forgotten about this. Thanks for bringing it up.

[...] I'd posited as much re DPRK and PRC aggression helping to explain early Soviet success in the v4 timeline, but in less detail, in post #241 of this thread.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.php?p=87937&postcount=241

One thing that I really don't get about v4 is how it currently includes no mention of WW3 taking place anywhere else but in NW/Central Europe and the Middle East. FL's Twilight War doesn't seem like much of a world war, as currently written.

-

In consentaneity with all you said, I must confess I had almost forgotten about the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis myself, too. Therefor, I could not see a conflict between the US and the PRC as likely, when you first described its possible effects in the previous post.

To be fair, I still think it's a bit far-fetched and would either need premeditation on behalf of the PRC and possibly the DPRK, which should be explained in any narrative that wants to build a credible background. However, there would be the slight chance that during such a crisis stuff just goes plain wrong and someone trigger-happy overreacts: a faulty sensor indicating missile launch, a pilot going off-course etc. This too would need explanation, of course.

In the end, the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis probably is the only incident in the Pacific theater, with high enough volatility and chronological proximity to become a flashpoint for conflict. In my opinion, a sudden, but short flare-up of hostilities, which gets contained by massive diplomatic endeavors of all parties, including, but not limited to, a US pivot to Asia, would allow the USSR a time-window of 18-24 months between 1995 and 1997, where they could fly under the radar of US intelligence services with a little more than usual.

This would be especially true, if the USSR seems to be occupied more with Chechnya and other conflicts along its periphery than it actually is and the USA plus some of its key allies are overestimating their own capabilities as a consequence of Desert Storm. This would not be a sentiment shared by the armed forces, who might actually warn against it, but probably would not be listened to. In the end, if the political elite grows complacent towards the USSR or turns its attention away (or both), all it needs is an intelligence bungle and a (strategic) surprise attack could be conducted. One only needs to look at 9/11 for that; even in a state of heightened awareness did the Japanese achieve operational surprise at Pearl Harbor.

A possible course of things then could be that China and the USA clash over Taiwan, with some assets on both sides being lost and taken out of action for quite some time. Maybe 2-3 older cruisers and destroyers get sunk, a carrier needs to be repaired and a couple of aircraft get lost. The DPRK then tries to move across the Korean DMZ, but ultimately the Chinese call them back, because that's what the - still dominant - USA demand for not bombing Fujian province and all of North Korea into submission. Still, major damage is done to South Korean units along the primary angle of the North Korean attack and Seoul was shelled badly enough to need billions of USD in repairs. This leads to a 1996 stock market crash, which hurts Western economies more than that of the USSR. It also hamstrings the New Economy and especially Dot-com bubble, taking off some of the edge Western economies historically saw. It further stops the brain-drain the USSR experiences, since Silicon Valley, Wall Street and London are not as lucrative as they historically were. Of course, the brain-drain already fell short of the historical one, since the USSR never imploded.

Consequently, the USSR uses its time well and moves full force into some of the provinces and break-away nations it (nearly) lost between 1989-1991: Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Moldavia (Moldova) all rejected reforming the USSR in 1991 and achieved independence. In 1997 the empire strikes back and brutally occupies all six nations, annexing them shortly afterwards by means of faked elections.

All former Warsaw Pact nations, cry out for help, Poland most vocally, but the US looks towards Asia, the UK is in a recession, and continental Europe is busy with itself, most notably Germany, where Aufbau Ost - the reconstruction of Eastern Germany - is still consuming time and money. Since the Peace Dividend never came through as much as it did historically and economies perform worse than historically, money is considerably tighter in Europe and America than it was for ourselves. This leaves many Americans and Europeans frustrated, destabilizing democracies and putting politicians under pressure to act "decisively", "strong", "swift" and "for the people". These populist tendencies do not make for good counsel in the upcoming crisis of international security, which the USSR can use for its own plans better than Western democracies.

From there, it pretty much goes south on its own in the second half of 1997. All the USSR and its leaders need is some time and a spoon full of overestimation of Soviet power. An invasion like the Russian of 2014 into Ukraine, but into Poland in 1997 would have good chances to flare up all of Europe and most of the Pacific from Vladivostok to Vietnam: For, if the US is then fully occupied in Europe, as well as containing Soviet forces in the Far East, who guards the Korean DMZ against Kim Jong-il? Who stands against renewed Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait or the Vietnamese border?

There should be enough room for a thousand campaigns across the world in that setting.

[Hybris]

A Russian warship collided with a 145-meter long cargo ship on the Danish side of the Öresund Bridge on Wednesday. The collision was probably caused by fog, according to the Danish Armed Forces' operations center - and the Russian ship is said to have got a hole in the hull.23 Sep. 2020

I would assume that the possibility to enter the Baltic sea would be severely limited during wartime for larger vessels. ships would have been sunk, sea mines deployed, and maybe even defend by land-based or ship-based weapon systems from Sweden and Denmark. The bridges that enable traffic between the danish isles and between Sweden and Denmark would probably not be finished or damaged/destroyed during the wars and makes the baltic sea an even more pond than it currently is.

[unipus]

If it's related to the ongoing CVN discussion, the lore there is that it entered prior to hostilities.

Otherwise, what you said is no doubt true, but most war plans weren't about entering the Baltic -- they were about keeping the Soviets from getting out.

[Hybris]

If it's related to the ongoing CVN discussion, the lore there is that it entered prior to hostilities.

Otherwise, what you said is no doubt true, but most war plans weren't about entering the Baltic -- they were about keeping the Soviets from getting out.
Sorry missed out on some information there:)

[Raellus]

Free League has released a v4 soundtrack for Kickstarter backers. Check your email!

-

[Ursus Maior]

So far, I'm listening to good ambience music that's not to narrowly "modern combat" only. It could also be used for scifi, I guess.