4th ed T2K

[Legbreaker]

So, this just happened...

Twilight: 2000, 4th Edition
A new edition of the classic roleplaying game Twilight: 2000 was announced today by Free League Publishing, makers of the ALIEN RPG, in partnership with Game Designers’ Workshop and Amargosa Press. The new edition goes back to the roots of the franchise with a boxed set for sandbox roleplaying in the devastation of World War III. It will come to Kickstarter in August, to be released in early 2021.

The new edition of the apocalyptic RPG Twilight: 2000 will be the fourth in the series, the first being released by Game Designers' Workshop in 1984. Just like the original version, the new edition is set in a year 2000 devastated by war – now in an alternate timeline where the Moscow Coup of 1991 succeeded and the Soviet Union never collapsed.

"The first edition of Twilight: 2000 was an iconic game for me back in the '80s, and we are humbled and honored to work with Marc Miller and Game Designers’ Workshop to bring a new edition to life. The original game was really ahead of its time. Our goal is to build on the amazing sandbox survival gameplay and develop it further, making it more accessible using the tools of modern game design," says lead game designer and Free League founder Tomas Härenstam.

"When I saw this proposal to revisit the Twilight universe, I signed on immediately. As I have seen the work proceed, I have not been disappointed, and I look forward to seeing this project become reality," says Marc Miller of Far Future Enterprises and co-founder of Game Designers' Workshop.

Also part of the project are Amargosa Press (who have recently announced the new Dark Conspiracy 4th Edition RPG), Polish RPG publisher Black Monk Games (who will act as a consultant on the Poland in 2000 AD game setting as well as publish a Polish edition of the game), and Far Future Enterprises (who publishes the fifth edition of the Traveller science-fiction roleplaying game).

The design team is led by Tomas Härenstam (ALIEN RPG, Forbidden Lands, Mutant: Year Zero), with setting and scenario writing by Chris Lites (Conan, Over the Edge), editing by Angus Abranson (Doctor Who, The One Ring), interior art by Niklas Brant (Forbidden Lands), cover art by Martin Grip (ALIEN RPG, Symbaroum), and maps by Tobias Tranell (Forbidden Lands). Several active and retired servicemen from the U.S. military are assigned to the project as consultants.

"Twilight: 2000 was a favorite of ours at school in the '80s, with many a lunch hour spent salvaging what we could as we traveled across the ruins of Europe trying to survive. I’m honored to be involved in a new edition, and being able to work with the Free League is a fantastic bonus!” says Angus Abranson of Amargosa Press.

Just like the original game, the new edition of Twilight: 2000 is set in a Poland devastated by war, but the game also offers an alternative Swedish setting, as well as tools for placing the game anywhere in the world.

In the game, players take roles of survivors in the aftermath of World War III – soldiers or civilians. Their goal, beyond surviving for another day, can be to find a way back home, to carve out their own fiefdom where they are, to find out more about the mysterious Operation Reset, and maybe, just maybe, make the world a little bit better again.

The core gameplay uses a "hexcrawling" system established in the post-apocalyptic Mutant: Year Zero and survival fantasy Forbidden Lands RPGs (both Silver ENnie winners for Best Rules, in 2015 and 2019), developing it further to fit the gritty world of Twilight: 2000. The core rules are built on the Year Zero Engine used in those games (as well as in the ALIEN RPG), but heavily adapted to fit Twilight: 2000 and its focus on gear and gritty realism.

More information about the new edition of Twilight: 2000 will be forthcoming soon.

For further information or interview requests, please contact pr@frialigan.se

So, it's a D6 system, which I believe many, if not the majority of people did NOT want....

[Sprocketteer]

https://frialigan.se/en/games/twilight-2000/

[Raellus]

I've heard good things about some of their other titles- Tales from the Loop and Alien- so I am hopeful.

[Silent Hunter UK]

"Shut up and take my money!"

[sellanraa]

Yep, I've heard great things about the company and am so happy they're keeping the now retro-futuristic WW3 in 2000 setting.

COUNT ME IN.

[mpipes]

OH HELL!!!!

After all that work copying Paul's work and redoing almost all the small arms! Now we got all new stuff coming to play with.

[Raellus]

I really dig the art samples. The Shell gas station with the missing S is clever. Wish I'd thought of that.

[Heffe]

The art feels appropriate - like a modern take on the original.

Game system aside, I'm happy that they're keeping it in 2000. That's a heck of a design choice to make - it allows them to not worry about creating a new timeline, but it risks alienating some younger players.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I like the idea but I'm pretty sure I'm going to loathe the rules system.
From what little I do know of it, the Year Zero rules system has a watered down Archetype/Role/Class style of character generation so we're probably going to lose the lifepath style of PC generation and Year Zero does love the gimmick dice for deciding actions at the table, something I'm not particularly fond of.
I don't know about the Alien RPG, I have a friend who is a mad fan for Alien and bought the original RPG plus this new one. He said it's a beautiful book to look at but it's a hot mess when it comes to the rules.
So with all that in mind, I'm still very interested to see what Fria Ligan does with T2k but I'm holding off on any commitment to buying it until I see it. If I do, I'm pretty sure I will not be using their rules system.

[Olefin]

Well good to see that I can now officially acknowledge it - Marc gave me a heads up on it couple of days ago - cant wait to see it!

[Heffe]

I'm pretty ambivalent toward the rules system at this point. I mean, it's not like the original rule system was known for being outstanding or anything.

I'm more concerned with it capturing the look and feel of the original setting, with added content.

[cawest]

i will be getting a copy or what ever the kickstarter is going to offer. I want play. no one in my local area. but I sooo love to read this type of stuff.

[sellanraa]

It's weird because all the attempted updates are trying to update the setting and keep the rules generally the same. So I'm thrilled that this one seems to want to maintain the setting but update the rules. I don't want as much crunch personally, or at least update and try to streamline the crunch so it isn't clunky.

[Vespers War]

I backed their Bitter Reach kickstarter which has just started shipping, so my impression of that (plus whatever information they provide during product launch) will determine whether I decide to buy it or not.

[Raellus]

It's weird because all the attempted updates are trying to update the setting and keep the rules generally the same. So I'm thrilled that this one seems to want to maintain the setting but update the rules. I don't want as much crunch personally, or at least update and try to streamline the crunch so it isn't clunky.

I agree. My only concern is the the "Cold War Never Ended" alternate history won't appeal to a new audience large enough to make the new version profitable. I hope that I am wrong.

[Heffe]

It's weird because all the attempted updates are trying to update the setting and keep the rules generally the same. So I'm thrilled that this one seems to want to maintain the setting but update the rules. I don't want as much crunch personally, or at least update and try to streamline the crunch so it isn't clunky.

I hear that. I remember the first time reading through the big yellow book, and seeing the demolitions rules. My teenage brain at the time thought "Square roots? Are you kidding me?".

While I wouldn't doubt that those rules give fairly true to life results, it just seems like there always has to have been an easier way.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I agree. My only concern is the the "Cold War Never Ended" alternate history won't appeal to a new audience large enough to make the new version profitable. I hope that I am wrong.
Regardless of my feeling towards the rules they might use, I believe this is the real issue.
Military themed RPGs are a niche product already so obviously the audience will be smaller than that for fantasy RPGs and more importantly any new one has to fight against the well established foothold that fantasy RPGs have. That and I think T2k was released at the right time in history for it to resonant with the audience - ancient history (and ancient alternate histories as well) seem to do well enough but modern history doesn't seem to generate enough interest among the audience (unless it's horror).

[Adm.Lee]

I'm feeling ambivalent today about this. I'd certainly like to hear more about the system, I'm seeing several references to "hexcrawling", and I'd like to know what that means, in terms of this game.

"Cold War goes Hot" is pretty popular among the board-wargamers, so maybe that trend can feed a new T2k. I can say that a significant chunk of the players at my table at Origins each year are not grognards who played it in the 80s.

I remember the first time reading through the big yellow book, and seeing the demolitions rules. My teenage brain at the time thought "Square roots? Are you kidding me?".

Funny, my teenage brain was already neck-deep in physics and pre-calculus classes when v1 came out, so seeing it in a game was water under the bridge. YMMV.

[CDAT]

I am hoping that they will make some of the MOS's stand out better. In the old version so many were just the same thing, then they lumped so many into support. So maybe not so much the MOS's but the skills. I am kind of in a weird place as I want more detail on skills and such but less number crunching for some others. For example, I do not think that tracked vehicles should not let you drive anything with tracks, I spent ten years as a tanker, was an expert tank driver, was one of the go to in my battalion to teach others tricks of driving, but I do not even know if I could start a Soviet tank, let alone drive one (if I could even fit into it, but that is a different issue).

[Southernap]

I'm feeling ambivalent today about this. I'd certainly like to hear more about the system, I'm seeing several references to "hexcrawling", and I'd like to know what that means, in terms of this game.



Hexcrawling is old school RPG terms back when Chainmail and OD&D were new things in the world. Think of the old hex maps used for wargames and chits on those maps. That is what a hex crawler is in a nut shell. The maps would represent a region and each space would be a hex. See here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Iag5hxvcfv8/Uj3ty_TPNsI/AAAAAAAABLs/1HnVOGt1zOc/s1600/HexEurope.png) for an example of Roman era Europa done in hex. Here is some random fantasy map done in hexcrawl format with some simple but easy to understand graphical icons. (https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=T4dBkcTe&id=05F0FA069016E2938ACAC7191FB87FE1260FAE30&thid=OIP.T4dBkcTe9JS9H4OtArXFUwHaG5&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.rpg.net%2Fimages%2F5%2 F52%2FSandbox2.png&exph=837&expw=898&q=hexcrawl+map+rpg&simid=608035436039767946&selectedindex=0&adlt=demote&shtp=GetUrl&shid=f63fee02-958d-4316-a272-468c05ca290b&shtk=SGV4IGJ5IEhleCAtIFJQR25ldA%3D%3D&shdk=Rm91bmQgb24gQmluZyBmcm9tIHdpa2kucnBnLm5ldA%3D %3D&shhk=8hYpHZAY6o%2FMUj3Rlz91fJhSD4t%2F5jAcbzuK0r33K 0I%3D&form=EX0023&shth=OSH.FMeOprnJjVoBpkNB7E34XQ).

There are some advantages to a hexcrawl map.

You can assign numbers to your hexes and keep easy notes if a session has to end before combat is resolved.
If done right you can say each hex is X measurement wide making movement plotting easy verse grid
With 8 sides facing and weapon usage is easy to figure as well as line of sight
Hex grid paper is fairly cheap from most office/school supply centers to make your own maps of things like towns or buildings
It can be easy to scale down with only some minor hassles


However, at the same time there are disadvantages.

Trying to put a square building into a Hex is a PITA. You will have endless arguements at times with players about whether a corner is in a hex or not.
Facing issues and movement is always a pain to figure at times. Some rules make you spend movement points/time just to move the 120 degrees to change facing while in the same hex
movement left->right across a maps is hard to figure since the hexes are off set from each other.
Hexes are really old school. Going back to the earliest days of wargames from folks like SPI, Avalon Hill, or even GDW.
it is hard to fit things into hexes at times. See the map of Roman era Europe linked to earlier, see what England/Scotland looks like. Can for some suspend the moment for gaming.


Hope this helps to understand what hexcrawl is.

[Rainbow Six]

I agree. My only concern is the the "Cold War Never Ended" alternate history won't appeal to a new audience large enough to make the new version profitable. I hope that I am wrong.
I concur. While I'll wait to see what the actual kickstarter entails the likelihood is that I'll almost certainly support it in some way however I personally would have preferred something that took the real World timeline and advanced it forward to around 2030 / 2035.

[Adm.Lee]

Hope this helps to understand what hexcrawl is.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I know what hexcrawls are, what I should have asked was: I hear this company's games are really good at hexcrawls. Why is that?

[Raellus]

Hexcrawls sound more like a style of play (like dungeon-crawling) than a system of play.

On the other hand, certain games use hexes as units of measurement for range movement and whatnot during combat (like D&D 4e and BattleTech).

I'm still not clear on this company's emphasis on hexes.

[pmulcahy11b]

I agree. My only concern is the the "Cold War Never Ended" alternate history won't appeal to a new audience large enough to make the new version profitable. I hope that I am wrong.

Advance the timeline. There's a three-way Cold War going on now.

[puška]

About 2016-17, we played Mutant Year Zero the first time and, that evening, I thought: this'd make a great system for T2k.

About a year later, our group adapted the Year Zero engine to do just that. It was fun for a while, until it wasn't. The d6 gimmick dice—nuke symbol on 6s, biohazard sign on 1s) worked well to quickly discover exposure to radiation and/or biologicals (we still use this method in our 1e-homebrewed campaign).

I own most of Free League's games. And I can say they all look fantastic. The settings are mostly well-drawn and feel alive within their own world. On the other tentacle, there's Alien. I eagerly grabbed it when announced, being a Giger fan and loving the original film, but within a couple hours of playing it, well... as said somewhere above in this thread, the rules are a terrible hot mess some creature left on the sidewalk.

Free League does hexcrawls well (Forbidden Lands & Mutant) because of their random tables and intentionally quick-paced game. But there is a LOT of handwaving. And limited skills that sometimes have to be sussed through because they really don't cover much in the way of skills the way skills-based games do (most of their games have only 12 skills listed). There's a lot of attribute (only 4 attributes) checks in place of a particular skill (is that a Wits skill or an Empathy skill?). Many character/game situations that arise frequently are ignored by the rules, and especially with FL's initial printings, that forego actual proofreading at the expense of initial buyers. The inside cover of Alien has a typo in the name of Weyland-Yutani (the first of at least several dozen) and they character cards feature a Pilot who doesn't have Piloting skill. Fixable errors, for sure, but ones that should have been caught long before the ms. was sent to print. Their proprietary dice—gimmicky and uh, cool—were initially manufactured by Q-Workshop, but for Alien and after, mass produced sticky plastic chunks from Chinese labor. Which would be quite ironical given that the game is going to be published in Poland (Q-Workshop is a Polish company, for those who didn't know).

The other downside (from this perspective) to them as a company, is they tend to cater to the loudest fans (let's make Symbaroum with D&D ruleset, because ... MONEY!), who for T2k, are already shouting for crossovers with Alien or Tales from the Loop. Y'know, cuz aliens and mechanized armor robots are cool in "gritty, realistic" WWIII. (Please, Mr Miller, don't have signed a license deal that allows for crossovers.)

It will have great art. It will probably have great atmosphere.

It probably will not have detailed accurate military orders, despite their PR assurance that military folks have advised them on it. It will probably not have rules that are friendly to detail-oriented/realism-favoring players.

On the fence about it's value with fluff. Highly doubtful the crunch will offer satisfying bites.

[Legbreaker]

Advance the timeline. There's a three-way Cold War going on now.

I see China and much of the west currently in a tussle, surely you don't mean Russia as the third? They're very much in decline and now little more than a regional power.


You've pretty much confirmed my fears there puška. I am currently talking with them though regarding the ANZAC book and HOPE they can give some reassurances that these fears are unfounded.
Olefin, Raellus, they'd like a chat with you two as well and you should receive an email from them I've forwarded shortly. If you're interested, I can loop you in as well Paul? Pretty sure the mechanics side of your site is incompatible, but the descriptions are pure gold for even non-gamers!

[Raellus]

Olefin, Raellus, they'd like a chat with you two as well and you should receive an email from them I've forwarded shortly.

Thanks, Leg! I reached out to them about the possibility of converting my two e-published books the day of the big reveal and haven't heard a thing back. I was starting to lose hope. I appreciate the assist.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Thanks puška, for the information about the way the game rules play out. Two of my gaming friends (I already mentioned the one who's the Alien fan) have had some experience with the Year Zero rules and they were not particularly impressed by them and from your description here I think now I understand why.
And now I'm inclined to agree with them, even without seeing the rules myself.

About 2016-17, we played Mutant Year Zero the first time and, that evening, I thought: this'd make a great system for T2k.

About a year later, our group adapted the Year Zero engine to do just that. It was fun for a while, until it wasn't. The d6 gimmick dice—nuke symbol on 6s, biohazard sign on 1s) worked well to quickly discover exposure to radiation and/or biologicals (we still use this method in our 1e-homebrewed campaign).

I own most of Free League's games. And I can say they all look fantastic. The settings are mostly well-drawn and feel alive within their own world. On the other tentacle, there's Alien. I eagerly grabbed it when announced, being a Giger fan and loving the original film, but within a couple hours of playing it, well... as said somewhere above in this thread, the rules are a terrible hot mess some creature left on the sidewalk.

Free League does hexcrawls well (Forbidden Lands & Mutant) because of their random tables and intentionally quick-paced game. But there is a LOT of handwaving. And limited skills that sometimes have to be sussed through because they really don't cover much in the way of skills the way skills-based games do (most of their games have only 12 skills listed). There's a lot of attribute (only 4 attributes) checks in place of a particular skill (is that a Wits skill or an Empathy skill?). Many character/game situations that arise frequently are ignored by the rules, and especially with FL's initial printings, that forego actual proofreading at the expense of initial buyers. The inside cover of Alien has a typo in the name of Weyland-Yutani (the first of at least several dozen) and they character cards feature a Pilot who doesn't have Piloting skill. Fixable errors, for sure, but ones that should have been caught long before the ms. was sent to print. Their proprietary dice—gimmicky and uh, cool—were initially manufactured by Q-Workshop, but for Alien and after, mass produced sticky plastic chunks from Chinese labor. Which would be quite ironical given that the game is going to be published in Poland (Q-Workshop is a Polish company, for those who didn't know).

The other downside (from this perspective) to them as a company, is they tend to cater to the loudest fans (let's make Symbaroum with D&D ruleset, because ... MONEY!), who for T2k, are already shouting for crossovers with Alien or Tales from the Loop. Y'know, cuz aliens and mechanized armor robots are cool in "gritty, realistic" WWIII. (Please, Mr Miller, don't have signed a license deal that allows for crossovers.)

It will have great art. It will probably have great atmosphere.

It probably will not have detailed accurate military orders, despite their PR assurance that military folks have advised them on it. It will probably not have rules that are friendly to detail-oriented/realism-favoring players.

On the fence about it's value with fluff. Highly doubtful the crunch will offer satisfying bites.

[Southernap]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I know what hexcrawls are, what I should have asked was: I hear this company's games are really good at hexcrawls. Why is that?

My bad in misunderstanding the question then.

[HoracePeabody]

Longtime lurker, just registered to comment on this.

As to the system, I was willing to keep an open mind, but as for tone and content I'm unmoved.

Unlike the others I was rather disappointed by the art samples. Admittedly, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on art, but it seems far more generic post-apocalypse than military...fine for a reprint of FGU's Aftermath, but the military vibe is kinda lost to me. Secondly, as much as I understand the pandering, the modern "angry grrl" stuff seems equally out of place.

I say all of this as a 1st Edition Twilight 2000 player since 1986, so one can chalk it up to my being a politically incorrect geezer (basically true), but I know I'm not alone...nor is my money.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Now that you point it out, yeah, I see what you mean. I do actually like the artwork but yes, it's quite generic "post-apoc".
There's nothing about it that (so far) makes me specifically think Twilight: 2000 unlike say this: -
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/images/4/87191.jpg

or this: -
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/images/4/87196.jpg

As for pandering, I see a real problem with it as it ends up creating meaningless tropes - oh look we have the hip, smart, young Millennial kid, oh look we have the angry Hispanic woman, oh look we have the disadvantaged young black man, oh look we have the privileged, wealthy, older white male (who is most likely going to be the badguy, particularly if he has an English accent), oh look we have the same shallow, bland, over-used stereotypes as every other game/TV show/movie/novel out there...
Longtime lurker, just registered to comment on this.

As to the system, I was willing to keep an open mind, but as for tone and content I'm unmoved.

Unlike the others I was rather disappointed by the art samples. Admittedly, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on art, but it seems far more generic post-apocalypse than military...fine for a reprint of FGU's Aftermath, but the military vibe is kinda lost to me. Secondly, as much as I understand the pandering, the modern "angry grrl" stuff seems equally out of place.

I say all of this as a 1st Edition Twilight 2000 player since 1986, so one can chalk it up to my being a politically incorrect geezer (basically true), but I know I'm not alone...nor is my money.

[HoracePeabody]

Precisely, on both counts and very well said.Now that you point it out, yeah, I see what you mean. I do actually like the artwork but yes, it's quite generic "post-apoc".
There's nothing about it that (so far) makes me specifically think Twilight: 2000 unlike say this: -
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/images/4/87191.jpg

or this: -
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/images/4/87196.jpg

As for pandering, I see a real problem with it as it ends up creating meaningless tropes - oh look we have the hip, smart, young Millennial kid, oh look we have the angry Hispanic woman, oh look we have the disadvantaged young black man, oh look we have the privileged, wealthy, older white male (who is most likely going to be the badguy, particularly if he has an English accent), oh look we have the same shallow, bland, over-used stereotypes as every other game/TV show/movie/novel out there...

[sellanraa]

Pandering seems to be used as a pejorative to describe attempts to have something that resonates with people beyond the person who is frustrated about the 'pandering'.

I'm guessing that the people who see all this as pandering are older white males who feel threatened when something isn't completely customized to their needs and myopic worldview. I mean, is it so upsetting that artwork or story possibilities might include minorities or a woman that might be angry about an apocalypse? Should that not be a part of the depiction of the world of T2K?

I'm hoping this re-boot will be successful and bring new people to a cool setting and expand their understanding of Cold War fears - and maybe even bring in some non 'old white dudes'. As many have pointed out, v1 and v2 still exist and will continue to function to the dwindling audience.

I'm only a 40 year old white male, but I'll be honest, I don't even understand what of the art is 'angry grrl' - or even what that means exactly. I'm assuming it's a reference to the riot grrrl movement, so it's cool that some of you are in touch with the feminist punk movements of the 90s and beyond. But, as for the art, some of it was cool, some of it wasn't, but none of it seemed outlandish or out of place within the context of the setting. It just didn't exclusively represent what you apparently want it to I guess. Going through the art again just now, I still count more white men being represented than any other group, but it's just not enough for some of you apparently.

[Raellus]

I quite like the art samples for v4. Yeah, they're a bit generic, but so was v1 and v2 art.

I'll always be nostalgic about v1 art since it was my first exposure to the world of T2K but, really, most of it is not good (no offense to the artists- I'm sure they were doing the best they could). And I don't see much in the original black-and-white interior art that was "specific" to the setting. Most of it could have worked for any contemporary war or post-apoc scenario short of full-on Mad Max or zombies. A lot of it was recognizable as adapted from photos of American troops in Vietnam, which, by the mid-to-late 1980s was already anachronistic. So, if we're comparing v4 with the original art, I don't think the criticism directed at the former is fair.

That said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and everyone is entitled to their own tastes and opinions. I just wanted to share mine.

As for inclusivity... I'm afraid this thread is about to become politicized to toxic levels. Let's make sure we keep any disagreements civil and avoid ad hominem comments.

Personally, I'm all for inclusivity. I can't really understand the mindset of folks who are upset or offended by it. :confused:

I guess if you prefer 90% white dudes in your post-apoc art, there's always the v1 artwork.

[sellanraa]

I absolutely adore the v1 supplement covers and much of the pencil work in both editions. It was so fantastic for summoning the spirit of what the game could be.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Pandering seems to be used as a pejorative to describe attempts to have something that resonates with people beyond the person who is frustrated about the 'pandering'.

I'm guessing that the people who see all this as pandering are older white males who feel threatened when something isn't completely customized to their needs and myopic worldview. I mean, is it so upsetting that artwork or story possibilities might include minorities or a woman that might be angry about an apocalypse? Should that not be a part of the depiction of the world of T2K?

I'm hoping this re-boot will be successful and bring new people to a cool setting and expand their understanding of Cold War fears - and maybe even bring in some non 'old white dudes'. As many have pointed out, v1 and v2 still exist and will continue to function to the dwindling audience.

I'm only a 40 year old white male, but I'll be honest, I don't even understand what of the art is 'angry grrl' - or even what that means exactly. I'm assuming it's a reference to the riot grrrl movement, so it's cool that some of you are in touch with the feminist punk movements of the 90s and beyond. But, as for the art, some of it was cool, some of it wasn't, but none of it seemed outlandish or out of place within the context of the setting. It just didn't exclusively represent what you apparently want it to I guess. Going through the art again just now, I still count more white men being represented than any other group, but it's just not enough for some of you apparently.

For me personally, I didn't feel as though there was any particular pandering in the images for this new version. I wasn't even aware of any angry grrl theme within it.
My comment about pandering was berating pandering for producing shallow, ultimately meaningless themes withing the greater whole. Something can be recognised and represented without it giving off the feel of sucking up to a particular demographic. Again, I'll say that I did not get a feeling of pandering within this new edition with one exception - the rules, they appear to cater to a crowd that wants instant gratification instead of achieving a reward by working towards it.

[Legbreaker]

....the rules, they appear to cater to a crowd that wants instant gratification instead of achieving a reward by working towards it.

And that right there is why I tend to stick with older game systems. Had to play 5e D&D for the last year or so in the hope the other players would eventually want a change to something less....munchkin. Gave up a few weeks ago and just walked away from the group I've been involved with for a decade as I just couldn't handle the continuing brain damage.
When you're zooming up levels faster than an express elevator, and don't have time to try your new abilities and skills more than once before you get yet another power increase, you know something is gravely broken.

In my nearly 40 years of RPGing experience, systems like that promote cookie cutter characters and roll playing rather than roleplay. It's all about min-maxing JUST to keep up with the weakest of the other characters and give yours a chance to survive the next tavern brawl.

[Raellus]

When you're zooming up levels faster than an express elevator, and don't have time to try your new abilities and skills more than once before you get yet another power increase, you know something is gravely broken.

That sounds like it could me more of a DM'ing issue than a system issue. I'm familiar with 5e, but not with your ex-gaming group. Ultimately, the DM controls character progression- I can speak to this personally as I've done a bit of 5e DM'ing myself. However, if the other players in your group tended towards power gaming, and your DM was pandering to them, it would explain the super-fast level advancement. Whatever the case, I'm sorry that your D&D group stopped being fun. That sucks. I've walked away from a long-running group before, and it was with mixed emotions for sure.

I see your overarching point, though, and I tend to agree. RPG'ing should be more about the journey than the destination.

[HoracePeabody]

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Twilight 2000 is a Cold War product of it's age, one could assume that those who were directly touched by or involved in that Cold War might be the target market. Apparently, the dreaded "old white man" has little place in modern marketing, particularly if the emphasis is on bringing in anyone *other* than "old white dudes". In this regard sellanraa kinda proves the very point and he's not wrong in doing so, the world has changed.

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

[Legbreaker]

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.
Stick around here long enough and SOMEBODY'S going to get upset and butthurt eventually. I think it's rule 1 of the internet, or at least very close to the top of the list!

4386

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.

Honesty is always the best policy. Some will get upset, but facts will always Trump feelings.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Firstly, it wasn't my intention to create a disruption, but the response has been enlightening.

Twilight 2000 is a Cold War product of it's age, one could assume that those who were directly touched by or involved in that Cold War might be the target market. Apparently, the dreaded "old white man" has little place in modern marketing, particularly if the emphasis is on bringing in anyone *other* than "old white dudes". In this regard sellanraa kinda proves the very point and he's not wrong in doing so, the world has changed.

The fault is mine, I shouldn't have de-lurked, nor should I have tossed in a grenade, by being honest. Here's to hoping Twilight 2000 Woketard Edition fails catastrophically and is quickly forgotten.
Well, I'm going to disagree with you on a few points and agree with you on others.
First, this will hopefully be the last commentary I make on these particular subjects.

I don't believe that you shouldn't have de-lurked, everyone and that is to say, every single person is allowed to voice their opinion (anyone inclined to read between my lines will understand this already but I'll spell it out, if Person A finds something disagreeable but Person B finds it agreeable, that does not automatically make Person A right and it does not automatically make Person B wrong - the motivation behind the belief needs to be examined so that everything can be evaluated in context - context, something the modern media and others seem determined to wipe out. Person B may actually be wrong but rarely in life are things completely black or white, there's a hell of a lot of room for shades of grey so the reality is both people may be wrong and equally, they may also be right to a degree. Which is why context is infinitely more important than the emotion behind the beliefs either party espouses).

So, having made my rant, you believe there is a problem with this newest edition, then you definitely should be allowed to say so. You might very well be called upon to justify those beliefs but you should not be made to feel unwelcome in voicing any relevant concerns you may see. We might disagree but we might also actually agree, I'd never know if you don't tell me your opinion.

Second. In regards to pandering, the reason I am completely against pandering is something you touched on - marketing.
Modern companies/organizations pander to a particular demographic, not because they care about that particular demographic - they don't give a damn whether they live or die - they only care about the opportunity to exploit them as a new source of revenue.
My argument against pandering is that it does nothing to help the group being pandered to, it's entire purpose is to con them into buying product from the panderer. Did I say exploitation already?
It's not about the welfare of the group being pandered to, it's only ever about the money they can be convinced to part with.
Snakeoil by any other name.

[sellanraa]

The world has changed very little, there's just been a slight uptick in representation for other groups of people in the world, which has clearly revealed how fragile white males can be. Some have pointed out the grays, and that's what this is, a slight shift on the continuum and that is apparently a big enough shift for others to look at it in simple binary terms of it being now bad or not worth considering the new edition. Grand conclusions based on a few depictions of non-white/non-male people in pieces of art to promote a role-playing game.

It's funny because, to zoom back out to the larger topic of new game editions, this isn't really anything new though, this is such a natural cycle of gaming. It must go back to the first time a new updated edition of a game came out, there was a group that stuck with the earlier edition. It became more glaring with the internet's expansion when fragmented groups of aggravated gamers could band together and talk shit about any changes and rally one another to whatever conclusion they drew about the changes. People the reviled any (and perhaps irrationally all) changes. A group that wished the new edition will fail. I vividly remember the controversy that followed 3rd edition D&D when that was announced at GenCon. I was in the room for the announcement and the buzz from then on for quite awhile seemed to be about how different people were responding to that news after what, 10 or 11 years of 2nd edition. "Gnome rangers!?!?! Criminal!!!" Commence pearl clutching. Heck, even I've given up on the newer editions of some games like D&D. It wasn't so much that I hated rules changes, though 4th seemed goofy from a cursory glance. I was just tired of spending money and I was gaming less anyway. Now with the explosion of 5th edition, I feel left behind almost. I run a game club for middle schoolers and it seems to be a bit of a return though, so that's cool I guess. I'll stick to Torchbearer though, which is easily my favorite game in a good long while (8 hours left on the 2e Kickstarter by the way, for anyone still reading this post! :) )

Back to the main point: this new edition can bring new people into the folds, but I guess I'm a bit pessimistic when users stumble on this site and see that the community isn't particularly welcoming.

There are so many great resources here put together by a small but committed group of die-hards who have committed so much to keeping the game they love alive. It seems it will likely remain that way. Further, it's ironic that the some of the most devoted fans are actively rooting against the potential growth of the game they claim to love.

Anyway, maybe the new edition will stink (I certainly wasn't impressed with 2013), maybe it will be a great restart that will invigorate and grow the community. I will continue to be optimistic that it will bring new people to the fold. Maybe some of those people will even investigate the older editions or this forum for inspiration. It's a shame some will feel like they aren't welcome.

[sellanraa]

Modern companies/organizations pander to a particular demographic, not because they care about that particular demographic - they don't give a damn whether they live or die - they only care about the opportunity to exploit them as a new source of revenue.

That's been the point basically with the vast majority of companies forever, so the claim that this is somehow a modern problem is a little dubious. It's just a question of what market is being targeted.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

That's been the point basically with the vast majority of companies forever, so the claim that this is somehow a modern problem is a little dubious. It's just a question of what market is being targeted.
This statement seems to be taking the discussion down a path that isn't related to the point I was making.
The intent of my statement was not to claim that this is a modern phenomena. My claim is that, in my opinion, pandering is bad because of the reasons I gave. When they started doing it isn't the basis for my dislike for pandering, my dislike is based on the fact that they are doing it. So in that view, your statement comes across as being, what? Point scoring? :confused:

[sellanraa]

Sorry, that wasn't my intent. I debated responding to that because I was worried it could be taken in the way you ended up taking it. I think the reason I decided to go ahead and post was because you chose to use the word 'modern' and you're talking about the change of how you perceive the game being marketed. Those two things coupled together made me think it was worth offering that this isn't anything new. I've never been one of those people who is interested in scoring points, only to share my perspective.

Anyway, I'll bow out now because I've offered that perspective adequately and obviously don't expect anyone in this community to actually give a shit. Part of the reason I even bothered at all was that I want curious new gamers who stumble on these forums to know that some of us are open to change and that they are welcome.

[Raellus]

There are a lot of open-minded folks here and elsewhere that are looking forward to giving v4 a chance.

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of close-minded people who are OK with prejudging others' work and slagging it sight unseen (or based on a few art samples).

The majority, I believe, fall somewhere in the middle- excited about a new version of T2K but nervous that it will disappoint.

I am cautiously optimistic but as a devotee to T2K since age 12, I have my reservations (especially since I don't like the v2.2 timeline which v4 seems to be leaning towards).

In any case, let's try to get this thread back on track- constructive discussion rather than sarcasm and name calling ("woketard", really?). I'd really rather not have to lock this thread or request the admin to ban users. Thanks.

[puška]

More than debate using political buzzwords about the intent of art or writing my concern from FL (other than having a system that feeds the setting and vice versa), is their flirtation with the recent trend to have a low-prep or non-prep game session.

Maybe we're just old grumps who enjoy research, but having a gm and/or players prepare for a game they wish to be meaningful (if no other meaning than the often used excuse of "fun"), isn't a lot to ask. I really hope FL doesn't step towards this for their new edition.

That which we obtain too easily and all that...

~*~

P.S. a 1e aside here: c'mon, Raellus—Tim Bradstreet's art generic? :)

[Hybris]

Howdy long time no read.

Like so many other swedes i have been following the Free League since their beginning and this game is gonna do great on Kickstarter, mainly because all of their games does. And it appears many other swedish rpg games are doing as well Will it be a good gaming system?. I dint think so. Its a bit disturbing that despite i have almost all FL rpgs i haven't played anything with the Zero engine open license system because it looks ...bad. friends that have used the system says its a good system for beginners but for oldies like me who has played with Gurps for 30 years it doesn't cut it. i think it would be a fabulous system for a board game or similar but not for a rpg. But the books ,art and everything related are good. It was a long time since i bought their products just to support them . what you see in the pictures is what you gonna get. And maybe,just maybe they can found moore "younger" rpg gamers to experienced a ravaged poland and the war that didn't happen.

[Raellus]

More than debate using political buzzwords about the intent of art or writing my concern from FL (other than having a system that feeds the setting and vice versa), is their flirtation with the recent trend to have a low-prep or non-prep game session.

Maybe we're just old grumps who enjoy research, but having a gm and/or players prepare for a game they wish to be meaningful (if no other meaning than the often used excuse of "fun"), isn't a lot to ask. I really hope FL doesn't step towards this for their new edition.

That which we obtain too easily and all that...

~*~

P.S. a 1e aside here: c'mon, Raellus—Tim Bradstreet's art generic? :)

I understand the concern regarding the potential lack of crunch, but I really don't think a system can remove research or prep from a GM's tool-bag. I see no reason why a GM can't make the setting or encounters as complex as they like, or include house-rules to up the crunch factor. In fact, I think it's easier for a GM to add complexity to an existing system than it is to simplify a complex one.

To run my T2K campaigns, I taught myself Polish history and geography. I don't see how Free League's system can stop GM's from doing that sort of thing.

Keep in mind that people from Gen X and later have grown up with a lot of other gaming options. Too much crunchiness can make learning/using a system a chore. Why bother learning how to read multiple cross-referenced tables and roll six kinds of die for every interaction when you can just turn on your XBox and it does it all for you? It's a generalization, I know, and there are plenty of youngins out there who aren't afraid of tables and dice, but I'm confident the majority aren't looking for too much of that in gaming nowadays. Tabletop game developers have to consider this as they develop new products. I think going the simple-to-complex route is a better idea than complex-to-simple.

Regarding art, I didn't mean "generic" in style- Bradstreet's art is iconic in its own way. I just meant that 90% of all interior art from v1 & 2 could be from just about any RL conflict from 1945-1991. The only reason we consider it more T2K that Free League's samples is that we've been associating the two for 30 years! The covers, on the other hand, some of them are beautiful (Pirates of the Vistula is my favorite).

[puška]

To run my T2K campaigns, I taught myself Polish history and geography. I don't see how Free League's system can stop GM's from doing that sort of thing.


No one and nothing can reasonably prevent a GM or player from research.

My point was that numerous games in recent years actively discourage it. You taught yourself because the game encouraged—if not required—you to do so. Saying that kids today have so much more offered them so its a chore to do something for themselves is a disservice to the hobby, to education, and ultimately, to those people who look to be spoon-fed rather than to learn something for themselves.

Simple does not equal bad, but neither does asking for a little investment.

[Raellus]

My point was that numerous games in recent years actively discourage it. You taught yourself because the game encouraged—if not required—you to do so. Saying that kids today have so much more offered them so its a chore to do something for themselves is a disservice to the hobby, to education, and ultimately, to those people who look to be spoon-fed rather than to learn something for themselves.

Simple does not equal bad, but neither does asking for a little investment.

I guess I haven't seen a game that's actively discouraged research and preparation. I admit that my experience is limited, though. My only practical experience with tabletop RPG's is T2K v1 & 2.2, Conan, and most iterations of D&D. The only one that fits that description from that list was D&D 4e. Of those listed- and to your point- that one was my least favorite of the bunch, by far.

I'm a high school history teacher. Education is my calling. I've been working with 13-17 year-olds for the past 20 years, so I have a pretty good read on the generations coming up. I'm just saying that it's pretty much a fool's errand to try and force someone to research and prepare. If a game requires too much of that sort of thing, it's probably not going to do well these days. I do believe that you can and should encourage it, though. That's my job.

Technically, I didn't need to do extra research to run Pirates of the Vistula. I could have run it straight from the module. But I'm curious, and I quickly learned that there were lots of cool places and encounters just waiting for someone who cared to dive in a little deeper to discover. I hope my players would agree but I think it was really worth it.

In that regard, the internet has been a huge boon to gaming. It would have been a lot harder to have learned so much about Poland pre-WWW.

So I don't disagree with your point about research and prep being a good thing in gaming, but I think trying to shoehorn players and GM's into that style of play is a death sentence for anything aspiring to something greater than niche-gaming.

[puška]

I guess I haven't seen a game that's actively discouraged research and preparation.
...
I'm a high school history teacher. Education is my calling.
...
I hope my players would agree but I think it was really worth it.
...
In that regard, the internet has been a huge boon to gaming. It would have been a lot harder to have learned so much about Poland pre-WWW.


Games that self-advertise as ready to play in a handful of minutes or literally "Can be played with no GM prep" are what I consider such. especially if you compare them with early rpg jewels like LBB Traveller or 1st-2nd ed CoC. The husband likes to tell folks with 90% sincerity and 10% sarcasm that being introduced to CoC at age 12 led to his going to university in his 30s and a PhD less than a decade later. Overshadowed by the fact the guy who introduced him to it had six PhDs and cites rpgs as what started him on his research path.

I've taught AP English and History for high school; husband used to teach at a snooty almost-Ivy university. We're both in a similar boat as you for education as a calling. We've both used rpgs and rpg-metaphors in the classroom. Like our players (and your comment), we'd like to think things like that can make the difference between just learning something to answer a test question and creating curiosity. The husband wrote on on his ¿syllabuses/syllabi? under "requirements for class" as being an active curiosity.

Which is what I wish—and my original point was—that when rpgs present themselves as being low-prep, the vast majority of evidence I've encountered is the equivalent to "mindless entertainment" movie compared to a prepped and invested game that may not be a Kubrick production, but is certainly more than an explosion laden SFX feature. Nothing worse in and of itself with mindless entertainment, but no entertainment has to be mindless, just as learning history doesn't have to be a monotonous chore of names and dates.


So I don't disagree with your point about research and prep being a good thing in gaming, but I think trying to shoehorn players and GM's into that style of play is a death sentence for anything aspiring to something greater than niche-gaming.

Doesn't have to be shoehorning. Just a game that encourages a bit of planning and checking of this and that that can lead to curiosity being piqued and everyone involved having a richer experience and maybe... just maybe, want to learn something above and beyond themselves.

And, not that I think you have, but I often say this in online forums since we aren't talking over coffee :argue: I'm debating the idea, not you personally... If I didn't think your points had validity, I'd ignore you. :)

[Southernap]

Okay, I got to ask about the timelines.

I only had owned V2.0 and its timeline seemed reasonable to me as a kid of the 80s. That is wall falls, communism is on the wan through out Europe, Germany is reunited. PRC and Soviets go to war. Poland and the Russians restart the Warsaw Pact. Germany accidentally invades Poland due to a helicopter crew misunderstanding where they were during an exchange of gunfire by border guards of Germany and Poland. The Pact goes west to teach the Germans a lesson based on a bad radio call. The Germans plead for help and NATO crumbles as the US/UK/CDN forces go east to help defend Germany, nukes fly and at least in the box set of 2.0 that I had, the only thing about how your players were in Germany was a one blurb on the summer offensive in the year 2000 at the bottom of a page right after the chapter on how to referee, basically this page was how to create a campaign. It wasn't even near the "World of 2000AD" chapter and a major fault in my mind in how V2.0 was setup. This blurb was that German 3rd Army with US 11th Corps and specifically 5th ID Mechanized ran across the last big bits of the Soviet armies in Europe. Now the Germans are in full retreat. The players are on their own if they want to play in Poland. It was maybe half a page of additional background about why the players should be for the European Campaign.

I have gotten V1.0 rules and V2.2 rules in PDF via DTRPG and love the fuller "Escape from Kalisz" module and background in V1.0 of the rules. I read the timeline there and there are major differences between V1 and V2. With of course talk about how East and West Germany conducted operations against the Soviet forces in Germany and then conduct a coup. The details here make better sense as to why NATO crumbles. As well as the interesting details as to how the PACT crumbles under politics. All of this filled in details that didn't jive for me with some of the V1 supplements that made references to the Germans going east, more details of how the combat in Poland went specific to help setup the Poland campaign trilogy of books.

Okay so reading V2.2 it seems that the major difference there is that the Coup against Gorbachev by the hardliners is successful and we see the return of the Warsaw PACT. Yet most of the folks that I am reading at a facebook page and here seem to have a bad taste for this background. What is the reason for that?

I also have T2013 rule books in my DTRPG collection. I have tried multiple times to read thru that time line and I just either can't stop laughing or going "it doesn't work like that" sort of comments. I had bought it based on the fact that it was there and it seemed when I bought it almost a decade ago, that this was probably going to be the rules going forward.

So all that said, if they are rebooting the timeline, background; which they have to and make this new edition jive with what modules in V1 and V2 have been released. Would it go all the way back to the "Red Dawn" style divide Germany sort of bit? Or would it work better like this mockumentary from ZDF (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZf-M_vC22w&list=WL&index=19&t=287s). Where due to the East German government wanting to go hard line they don't have the wall collapse. Hardliners take over the Soviet Union just after Gorby visits East Germany for the anniversary of the GDR's founding. Just before Hasslehoff is up on the Wall singing for it to come down and it being pulled down. War breaks out because of mistakes by Bush foreign policy team and the Soviets leadership. Where it ends with full on SIOP on everyone. Basically Berlin crisis 1989.

Either the Red Dawn or the Berlin Crisis 1989 background seems to make the most sense to me as being playable timelines and not fully scuttling the background in what is mostly been published before for GDW modules. Which in turn ought to allow for the game to run well until the first series of errata get published and they start to see whether its worthwhile to pump out their own modules going forward.

2nd thought about this planned 4th Gen of T2K, the Merc 2k supplement. My friends and I played the heck out of this rule book and using V2.0 rules for most. We used the same characters we had for the core game but dropping the rads and having them all get out of active duty forming a private military corps that did operations around the world either "A-Team (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkQjCLtRyTY)" sort of adventures or full on using the gazetteer and special ops book to have stuff like what was talked about the old Soldier of Fortune magazines we could find at used books stores near us for cheap.

I wonder how easy it will be to blend Merc 2k with this new planned rule set, since I could see that being a viable alternative time to come out so if folks don't want to do post-apoc. They could do a Great Depression/Great Recession style background with the same sort of characters and being guards to some archeology team in war torn ME and keeping the terrorists off them. Trying to pull off some hostage rescue of vacationers in some south seas island chain that pirates seized their cruise liner. If not something else from the news in the last decade.

Lastly, I cant remember where I read it if it wasn't in the designer notes of V2.0 Twilight 2000 or in the designer notes of 2300AD. That the folks at GDW gamed out WW3 thru to the 2300 time line. Said they used their own in house game rules, which I wonder if they used their own Third World War series of board games (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/2629/third-world-war-series) to play out the conflict. I wonder if the new folks would do something similar to game out the land conflict from when the war starts to when we end up on our own to help establish the background.

[Legbreaker]

I'm currently talking with a rep from Fria Ligan re the setting and how my work will integrate with what they're already done. It's still fairly early, but it's looking like the setting for 1st, 2nd and 4th will be basically compatible, especially outside the heavily detailed areas of Europe.
Now I don't know what they've kept the same and what they've changed as yet, but it appears they're sticking relatively closely to the 2.2 version where the Soviet coup succeeded.

Rule set is radically different of course, but that doesn't mean scenarios, background info, history and so forth won't be able to used with earlier rules, or even something totally different such as GURPS, Phoenix Command, D20 Modern, etc. I would think this would include Merc.

[Legbreaker]

This should answer a lot of your questions re 2300 http://stalexone.tripod.com/gg2/resources.htm

[Southernap]

This should answer a lot of your questions re 2300 http://stalexone.tripod.com/gg2/resources.htm

Sweet. Thanks for that nice bit of history.

[mcchordsage]

I'm curious! I hope the rules have sufficient depth and options for me to find engaging, while not really being very confident they well.

Still, keeping the 2000 time frame makes me interested. I discarded the base v1 and v2.2 timelines for my own anyway, so if I have to again no big deal.

Art's alright! The three guys walking in the rain's probably my favorite of the bunch. To copy some internet comedians, I saw the m/45 and I clapped.

As much as I dislike the low-prep/no-prep mindset, or the games it creates, older systems certainly don't encourage it. Laziness transcends rule sets. I've had plenty of bad GMs for GURPS, D&D (all editions), T2K, CoC, Star Trek, and Warhammer 40k who either didn't do their homework or did it in a way that contravened player ability to plan. When it works, it works great. When it doesn't, it isn't fun.

[langdolin]

I have played all three versions of this game and I have enjoyed them all. We have had to make and use house rules for all three. No big deal. I am excited and hopeful. I plan on supporting this edition as I did the third and the second and the first. Probably won’t have a play group, but will buy into the Kickstarter.
So. Bring it already.
If you guys need play testers. Drop me line.

[Tegyrius]

I wish Scott Glancy was still posting here, because I think he's the only active industry professional registered on the board and I'd dearly love to see his analysis of this. Alas, it looks like he hasn't visited us for five years.

I own several Free League products, though life events over the past couple of years have left me without a local gaming group with which to test-drive them. Having read Coriolis, Tales From the Loop, Symbaroum, Forbidden Lands, and Alien, I am fairly confident that whatever we get will have first-rate production values. The writing in those products is generally solid, though there are some idiosyncrasies that I suspect result from ESL authors or editors. I will also note that their tagline for 4th Edition hints at their expertise in alternate-history settings. Tales From the Loop's tagline is "Roleplaying in the '80s That Never Was," while for 4th Edition, they've chosen "Roleplaying in the World War III That Never Was." I do not believe that was accidental, nor that it was lazy writing.

Having not actually played with any of those systems enough to find the edges of coherence, I can't provide detailed analysis as to their suitability for T2k. Generally speaking, though, I will note that with the exception of the Old School Renaissance movement, I am seeing current game design trends going for a lot more fast play over rigorous simulations. I don't think this is a reaction to the stereotype of younger gamers having short attention spans or expecting to be spoon-fed material (and seriously, guys, why not just complain about Millennials killing station wagons and fax machines while you're at it?). Rather, I believe it's an acknowledgement that the core market for tabletop RPGs is middle-aged adults whose work and family responsibilities don't leave them the time for rigorous prep, whose gaming time is rare and precious, and who want the mechanics to not bog down the progression of the story when they do get to play. So while I am skeptical about whether Free League's house system will have the right tone for Twilight: 2000, I embrace the intent and will give them the benefit of the doubt.

As far as the complaints about representation that I saw upthread - if you have to complain about representation, I'm not sure anything you read on a gaming forum will change your mind. But people who are not middle-aged white dudes will be more likely to get into the hobby, and to stay in the hobby, and to keep supporting the hobby with their money if they see characters in the art, writing, and story options who are like themselves. In a hobby that was always a tiny niche, and which (apart from D&D5) is facing ever-increasing challenges from other entertainment media, we need all the new blood we can get. If you don't want women gamers, gamers of color, LGBTQIA+ gamers, or other gamers who aren't exactly like you at your table, I pity you, because I've been playing with those folks since Vampire: The Masquerade 1e in the early '90s, and most of the best roleplayers at my tables and LARPs have not been middle-aged white dudes. So if Free League wants to insert representation into 4th Edition, I will quite happily stand there and hand them the representation insertion tool of their choice while giggling at your whines of outrage.

- C.

[Targan]

Due to the system they're using, I have zero interest in the new edition for me personally. But I won't be trash-talking it on social media. I'm sure some groups will enjoy the new edition, and I hope it's a rip-roaring success.

[Olefin]

I am hoping the new game will be quite a success. They are still open to having new V1 and V2.2 stuff released as well as long as its pdf's and I have been talking to them too about working with them on new releases for V4 or modifying what I have published to take it from V2.2 canon to V4 canon (but most likely modified to fit their version of the timeline).

It is great to see that the timeline will be one that we will be mostly familiar with (with some changes of course). Of course the real proof will be in the mechanics of the V4 edition which we will all have to see what they will be like once its finally released.

[Tegyrius]

Due to the system they're using, I have zero interest in the new edition for me personally.

And that's perfectly fine. You are not required to like it. There are no edition police ready to break down your door and take away your Harnmaster conversion.

I still refuse to have anything to do with Shadowrun post-3e, or Vampire 5e, or L5R 5e, because the older editions work fine for my purposes and the newer ones have gone in directions that are not to my tastes. For that matter, I'm probably never going to touch the Storypath system that Onyx Path has bolted onto the Trinity Continuum reboot, despite my own involvement with the Aeon line. But I also recognize that I am not the target market for everything, and I am glad that those properties are still making money and bringing together active fan communities.

It would be healthy, I think, to apply the same logic to Free League's T2k, as you are doing. Those groups who like it? They're going to be looking for more material. Some of them will find the old 1e modules, which will lead them to the earlier editions. Heck, some of them will probably find Paul's site and buy PDF or print-on-demand copies of the 2.2 rules so they can play with all the equipment he has statted.

- C.

[Raellus]

Having not actually played with any of those systems enough to find the edges of coherence, I can't provide detailed analysis as to their suitability for T2k. Generally speaking, though, I will note that with the exception of the Old School Renaissance movement, I am seeing current game design trends going for a lot more fast play over rigorous simulations. I don't think this is a reaction to the stereotype of younger gamers having short attention spans or expecting to be spoon-fed material (and seriously, guys, why not just complain about Millennials killing station wagons and fax machines while you're at it?). Rather, I believe it's an acknowledgement that the core market for tabletop RPGs is middle-aged adults whose work and family responsibilities don't leave them the time for rigorous prep, whose gaming time is rare and precious, and who want the mechanics to not bog down the progression of the story when they do get to play. So while I am skeptical about whether Free League's house system will have the right tone for Twilight: 2000, I embrace the intent and will give them the benefit of the doubt.

That's a good point re target market. I hadn't considered that simplified rule sets could be targeted just as much towards busy middle aged folks as at the low-attention-span younger crowd. That makes a lot of sense. I, for one, don't have hours to devote to game prep and rules parsing. Simple can easily be made more complex. In my experience, it's more difficult to do the reverse.

And I agree wholeheartedly re your points about diversity and representation. The more the better. Just because there might be an image of a trans warrior, for example, in the game art doesn't mean you have to play one. That people have a problem with minority representation in gaming in 2020 makes me sad.

Despite the surge in popularity of D&D recently, tabletop RPG'ing is still a pretty geeky subculture. Being as many "geeks" weren't necessarily the most popular kids growing up, it's surprising how intolerant and exlusionary some gamers can be of the other. I hope that we are seeing a sea change now.

[Olefin]

Twilight 2000 has never been a game that had an issue with minority representation - look at the original art that was on the boxed set and the original modules - blacks, whites, Latinos and women who were obviously armored and infantry members. Considering the time period when it was released the game has always been about a full representation of the ethnicities, genders, and races that made up a typical NATO unit of wartorn 2000.

Heck look at the entry under Body Combat Damage - Bobbi Lee kicking a guy in the head and breaking his neck - and Bobbi Lee is a woman - and this in a game that was released in 1984.

Thus the 4th edition embracing that is a continuation of what the game has always been about - i.e. you can play or be anyone as part of a campaign.

[Raellus]

I'm really digging the art.

https://mailchi.mp/b66279b6b260/alien-pre-order-extended-to-aug-1677598?e=f9afd9e842&fbclid=IwAR3KC6uJjP3aISzHqgIctixTIzjEN1MoL-dg3Whq_Jpb2fYtvXz9n3zoUB4

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Interesting to see that Free League has a forum devoted to T2k but more so for some of the comments.
It appears that the single voice of dislike of 4th edition that has been seen here has been, shall we say, exaggerated, into a "group of old guard wishing for 4th editions downfall".

[Raellus]

It appears that the single voice of dislike of 4th edition that has been seen here has been, shall we say, exaggerated, into a "group of old guard wishing for 4th editions downfall".

How can there be an informed dislike of something no one has yet seen? I think the pre-judging of a yet-to-be-seen product, based on principle, or inferences based on Free League's existing product, or whatever, probably comes across to a lot of folks as a "group of old guard wishing for 4th edition's downfall".

I'm a little cynical, a little skeptical, but I'm going to give it a chance before I make up my mind one way or the other.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I find myself actually getting a little bit more excited for the new edition as the weeks roll by. As mentioned elsewhere, the Year Zero rules are not my particular cup of tea but I am very interested in seeing what other material Free League might produce for the Twilight setting.
So while I wouldn't be inclined to use the rules, I'd have no particular objection to buying the books and supporting the new edition.

[Tegyrius]

Interesting to see that Free League has a forum devoted to T2k but more so for some of the comments.
It appears that the single voice of dislike of 4th edition that has been seen here has been, shall we say, exaggerated, into a "group of old guard wishing for 4th editions downfall".

Also interesting to see that in the update Rae linked, they pointed to the Facebook group but not to this forum.

How can there be an informed dislike of something no one has yet seen?

"All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again."

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There's a few facebook sites for T2k, some more welcoming than others, which one did they choose?

As for not making any connection to this specific site... well... that's a decision that's open to interpretation and ripe for misinterpretation. Considering the number of published official articles, books etc. etc. that have come from certain members of this forum, I'd like to think that not mentioning this forum was just a simple oversight.

[Tegyrius]

Looks like https://www.facebook.com/groups/twilight2k/, which tells me nothing - I'm not on FB. Is that a group that's known to the community?

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm not a facebook user myself, I find its format pretty much useless for finding topics of interest. However I do know that some people from this forum have had problems with one specific facebook T2k group.
It essentially boiled down to "there will be no opinions other than my own", the person in charge declaring something along the lines of "T2k should be done this way and this way only, you do not have the right to disagree with me, so do things my way or you get hit with the ban hammer".

[Legbreaker]

I'm not a facebook user myself, I find its format pretty much useless for finding topics of interest. However I do know that some people from this forum have had problems with one specific facebook T2k group.
It essentially boiled down to "there will be no opinions other than my own", the person in charge declaring something along the lines of "T2k should be done this way and this way only, you do not have the right to disagree with me, so do things my way or you get hit with the ban hammer".

And the group they've linked to is that particular group....

[Raellus]

Let's be fair. The other T2k FB page isn't exactly a-political. Based on some of the stuff that was posted there, it's not terribly surprising that a legitimate company might not want to be publicly associated with it.

I hope that's not the reason Free League didn't name-drop this forum. I think we do a really good job keeping politics out of the discussion here.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And the group they've linked to is that particular group....
I had a suspicion it was but I couldn't be sure.
My assumption that it was that specific FB group was based on the amount of fluff material in the comments. A lot of "this is cool", "here's something interesting" type posts and plenty of links to things to be used for gaming inspiration but no solid body of info on, well, anything much at all and no in-depth discussions of anything, as far as I could tell from a quick scan over the posts.

[Legbreaker]

Let's be fair. The other T2k FB page isn't exactly a-political.

It's not intended to be. It's intended to not cow down to PC and minority demands. Members may say what they like without risk of censorship (beyond the usual politeness society as a whole expects), as long as it's tied back to T2K in some way.
The group linked to is run by a self confessed communist who actively shuts down anyone with a differing opinion. Definitely not a place for open and free discussion.

[Cypher]

Totally agree Olefin, this has been one of the most refreshing (admittedly small) rpg communities in this regard, and like you said, a diverse cast has always been represented in T2k (like the v2 cover, for example). It's one of the things that (subconsciously I think) made it stand out for me all those years ago as opposed to classic d&d, for example.

Some gaming communities have seen a vocal minority responding extremely negatively to the idea of a cast of characters with more diversity - see the reaction to Games Workshop's recent novel series announcement with a black space marine on the cover :eyeroll:

Back to 4th Ed, I quite like the art direction we've seen so far, it's got a reasonable amount of grit.

As I've said over on the FL forums, my big hope is for a set of settlement building and expanding rules, with appropriate tweaks for different biomes around the world as the setting expands.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Now Tegyrius* will know better than me so if wants to correct me, no problem, but I'm pretty sure 3rd Ed. had rules for scavenging materials and building various structures. I have a vague recollection of it because at the time I thought it was similar (in a good way) to the same rules in the Aftermath RPG.
They may be suitable for converting to 4th Ed. perhaps?

* and any of the other forum members who play 3rd Ed.

[Targan]

It's not intended to be. It's intended to not cow down to PC and minority demands. Members may say what they like without risk of censorship (beyond the usual politeness society as a whole expects), as long as it's tied back to T2K in some way.
The group linked to is run by a self confessed communist who actively shuts down anyone with a differing opinion. Definitely not a place for open and free discussion.

I couldn't give a shit that she's a communist. I find myself eye-rolling at quite a few of her pronouncements. But on the plus side, she's driven away quite a few bigoted wankers from her page, and I find that pleasing to me.

[Legbreaker]

I couldn't give a shit that she's a communist. I find myself eye-rolling at quite a few of her pronouncements. But on the plus side, she's driven away quite a few bigoted wankers from her page, and I find that pleasing to me.

Others may see it differently, but personally the greatest bigotry I've seen in that group is from them.

[Targan]

Others may see it differently, but personally the greatest bigotry I've seen in that group is from them.

Well no-one is forcing you to interact with that page. No downside that I can see.

[sellanraa]

Just chiming in to say I'm still cautiously optimistic and hope it brings in a new group of players interested in the setting. Digging the new art too :)

[Olefin]

Well at least she let me back on when I published the fanzine and pointed out how unfair it was to kick off a canon writer and one who was trying to get material from other writers for more of the fanzine. And so far it’s been ok being back on there - got in contact with Joe Thomas for instance and he is open to more material for the 3rd volume of the fanzine.

And the Facebook group I moderate definitely is as apolitical as it can be. I pointed that out recently and pointedly - as long as it’s Twilight 2000 related all discussion and viewpoints are welcome. Which is a big difference from the other FB page that literally kicked people off for having conservative viewpoints on their personal FB pages even if they never mentioned it on the T2K FB page. Which doesn’t say we haven’t had a few rough spots of our own.

It’s one reason so many have come to our FB page. And I always mention this forum as a place to go as well and that Paul’s page is a great source of info.

One thing I am happy about is that the 4th edition writers are very open to new material for the current editions being published either at drivethrurpg thru Marc or on their own forum they will be establishing. Ie they are saying that now that 4th edition is out that you can still publish new work on the earlier editions if you wish.

[Olefin]

I couldn't give a shit that she's a communist. I find myself eye-rolling at quite a few of her pronouncements. But on the plus side, she's driven away quite a few bigoted wankers from her page, and I find that pleasing to me.

well the number of people who have been driven away by her is considerable - almost all of them have joined our FB page - and they are definitely not bigoted wankers from what I am seeing - they have made our FB page a very going concern with actual free dialogue where you dont have to worry about every utterance being politically correct or getting banned

but again we keep it to T2K - thats why I recently left the main FB Babylon 5 page - it was turning into a discussion on current politics instead of what it was supposed to be about - thats why I am glad the 4th edition is sticking to the old timeline in the main - i.e. with luck it wont get itself mired in today's politics and cancel culture in any way since those didnt exist back in 1995-96

[Olefin]

I am interested by the way to see if they will keep New America - it was a focal point of V1 but not really mentioned that much in V2.2 - almost as if the writers began to realize that it really didnt make sense to have some vague organized conspiracy movement like that when they started on the second edition

Be interesting to see how they handle it or if instead they may have various separatist organizations spring up throughout the world like the German one mentioned in Going Home

[Raellus]

well the number of people who have been driven away by her is considerable - almost all of them have joined our FB page - and they are definitely not bigoted wankers from what I am seeing - they have made our FB page a very going concern with actual free dialogue where you dont have to worry about every utterance being politically correct or getting banned

During the height of the BLM protests in the wake of the George Floyd killing, someone on the the alternative FB T2k fan page posted a meme of a kneeling British soldier firing an SLR with the caption, "This is how you take a knee."

If that's the kind of "a-political free speech" that the FB GP page welcomes, then again, I can see why Free League is staying away. At the very least, that post and the lack of admin response to said drove this contributor away.

Back to T2k, though, I think New America is the bad guy du jour for 2020. Back in the 1980s, it might have seemed like something out of left field, but with the proliferation of anti-gov't and alt-right (read: white supremacist) militias in the U.S. nowadays, New America seems more realistic than ever. If it isn't featured in v4, it might be because it hits too close to home.

[sellanraa]

Back in the 1980s, it might have seemed like something out of left field, but with the proliferation of anti-gov't and alt-right (read: white supremacist) militias in the U.S. nowadays, New America seems more realistic than ever. If it isn't featured in v4, it might be because it hits too close to home.

I've never been super interested in the US/'back home' side of T2K, but I hope they lean into this. This has always been just below the surface in the US, so grappling with that content within the structure of a game could be really useful and meaningful.

[Olefin]

During the height of the BLM protests in the wake of the George Floyd killing, someone on the the alternative FB T2k fan page posted a meme of a kneeling British soldier firing an SLR with the caption, "This is how you take a knee."

If that's the kind of "a-political free speech" that the FB GP page welcomes, then again, I can see why Free League is staying away. At the very least, that post and the lack of admin response to said drove this contributor away.

Back to T2k, though, I think New America is the bad guy du jour for 2020. Back in the 1980s, it might have seemed like something out of left field, but with the proliferation of anti-gov't and alt-right (read: white supremacist) militias in the U.S. nowadays, New America seems more realistic than ever. If it isn't featured in v4, it might be because it hits too close to home.

Actually that post is gone - and both of us know who posted it - cough cough Legbreaker cough cough - and that led to the direct "its either about T2K or the post is gone" edict - so come back if you feel like it - have been making sure I am on there more and that the moderators are more engaged

Actually I think if anything an organized New America needs to be gone - i.e. there is no way that there will be a single anti-govt organization that does what NA does - for one those groups tend to not be ones that cooperate with each other - now several different groups here and there - some pro-left, some pro-right, some criminal gangs, some just good old fashioned "screw the govt I aint paying taxes or sending my food anywhere but here" groups - makes a lot more sense

Think more the World War Z situation (from the book not the movie) - they mentioned multiple breakaways here and there - none of them were coordinated but they were major pains in the butt to getting the country back together (there were mentions to a criminal gang in Chicago and a breakaway group in South Dakota that required tanks and Bradleys to put them down)

so you have a leftist group here, a rightist group there, organized criminal gangs here (i.e. think NYC Armies of the Night situation in Manhattan) but with little coordination between them

and frankly the whole New America philosophy was complete BS - I have never ever heard anything like that here in the US preached by any rightist or for that matter leftist group

[Olefin]

Also I hope they are smart enough to not slavishly say they need to obey the Twilight 2300AD future - especially considering its not GDW anymore controlled.

Things like leaving Mexico occupying a big part of the Southwest and ignoring the simple fact that a lot of the area they occupied is dependent on water from the north - i.e. how they end up staying there with no water supplies at all is not logical. I could see possibly them occupying areas like San Diego or possibly southern AZ or Texas because the water situation is different - but LA as a thriving metropolis when almost all their water comes from sources under US control (and the US hates the Mexican occupation) - nope.

So with luck they can fix some of the obvious issues of the old editions since they wont have that whole "tied to the timeline of 2300AD" that GDW had.

[Raellus]

Actually that post is gone - and both of us know who posted it - cough cough Legbreaker cough cough - and that led to the direct "its either about T2K or the post is gone" edict - so come back if you feel like it - have been making sure I am on there more and that the moderators are more engaged

Thanks for removing the offending post. I didn't want to name names.

and frankly the whole New America philosophy was complete BS - I have never ever heard anything like that here in the US preached by any rightist or for that matter leftist group

Unfortunately, that's not true. Both Richard Spenser (one time leader/spokesperson of the Alt-right movement) and Jared Taylor (founder of American Renaissance) call for a "White Homeland" within the borders of what is currently the U.S.A. Both are pals with former KKK leader David Duke. Neither are shy about any of this either. That's just two, relatively "moderate", white supremacists representing fairly large groups. There are lots of smaller, more extreme white supremacist groups (Atomwaffen Division, for example) out there as well. Have you heard about Accelerationists? They want to try to trigger a race war that will lead to a breakdown of the American state after which they can form their dream of a white homeland. All it takes is one charismatic figurehead to bring all of these groups together, either by force of personality or just force (like the SS destroying the SA) and you've got yourself a New America.

If you're interested in the topic, you might want to watch Alt-right: Day of Rage on Netflix. It examines both the Alt-right and Antifa movements and profiles a couple of its leaders (two Alt-right, one Antifa). It definitely leans left, but it gives the right ample voice. If you weren't aware of the Alt-right's complete platform, this doc will learn you.

[Olefin]

Oh I know about the alt-right guys - the issue is that those groups really dont gell together - you need a leader to bring them together - also keep in mind 1996 timeframe you dont have twitter, you have a very rudimentary internet, you dont have a lot of what is needed today that lets groups like that and the antifa coordinate any kind of nation wide event

Especially if the game keeps the breakdown of communications going that was a feature of the situation in the US - i.e. its one thing if you can coordinate and communicate - its another given after the TDM that you were lucky if you could coordinate with the next county over let alone nationwide

Now lots of groups like that sprouting up and being a handful en masse - that works and gives GM's a lot more freedom to create - i.e. its not "here we go again with the latest NA cell" - instead its more like "ok what group of wack jobs can I have the players run into this time"

[Raellus]

Oh I know about the alt-right guys - the issue is that those groups really dont gell together - you need a leader to bring them together - also keep in mind 1996 timeframe you dont have twitter, you have a very rudimentary internet, you dont have a lot of what is needed today that lets groups like that and the antifa coordinate any kind of nation wide event

That's a good point. Consider, however, that 20th century fascists were able to do it pre-internet. Franco in Spain managed to unite monarchists, Catholics, and various other right-wing groups in 1930s spain. Mussolini too, in Italy.

Especially if the game keeps the breakdown of communications going that was a feature of the situation in the US - i.e. its one thing if you can coordinate and communicate - its another given after the TDM that you were lucky if you could coordinate with the next county over let alone nationwide

Again, a fair point. By the same token, a breakdown in nat'l comms also makes it difficult for the gov't to effectively counter-message extremist propaganda. Also, the FBI's probably going to have its hands full trying to ferret out pro-Soviet spies, agitators, etc. to have the resources to focus on right wing organizations, however extreme.

Now lots of groups like that sprouting up and being a handful en masse - that works and gives GM's a lot more freedom to create - i.e. its not "here we go again with the latest NA cell" - instead its more like "ok what group of wack jobs can I have the players run into this time"

True. I think either approach is fine. However, if one wants a big bad instead of lots of similar little bads, New America is a reasonable way to do it.

[Olefin]

FYI what I really hope is that they really do a trial run of the timeline and the game past as many veterans as they can - and by that I mean hard core players, GM's, module/sourcebook writers - both official and unofficial, both past and present. Add in a sprinkling of newbies or rookies as well as they need to bring more than just a bunch of guys who have been around since 1984 onboard if they want to make the game long term viable.

Get a decent amount of input and replies and then make sure it works as much as it can - there will never be perfect game but they can do what it takes so that its not like New Coke or the last two Star Wars movies where they ended up pissing off the real lovers of the product in the process of trying to redo something that had been out there a while.

And make sure that they know the time period - i.e. all you dont want is a writer in his 20's who has no idea what the 90's were like past old reruns of Friends and Seinfeld, especially the level of tech.

For a lot of young people the idea that the internet was dial up and slow as hell, that cell phones were almost non-existent and bulky as hell and that computers were nothing like today's are is beyond their comprehension. Showed my kids what computer graphics were like in the 90's and they literally couldnt believe we played those games for instance. Let alone the concept of a floppy disk.

[Benjamin]

I posted this on the Free League Twilight 2000 Facebook page a month ago...

My three cents...
(I’m a long time player and fan of Twilight 2000 who always uses the V.1 history.)
1. Make sure you have a very good and detailed vehicle rule set that handles vastly different vehicles and their armor. An M1 Abrams will not be penetrated by a M16 no matter how good the die roles. The armor levels between a HUMVEE and a T-80 with reactive armor are not really comparable. And the top of a tank is tissue paper compared to their frontal armor. Furthermore mechanics should exist that in some way replicate the difference between an M1A2 with A functional CITV and an M1A1. So many games ignore, downplay or over simplify vehicles, but every T2K group I’ve heard about and run with lived by their vehicles.

2. This is an alternate history your doing...think of the implications of that as you write the setting and choose gear. You’ll have (using V.2 T2K) about 4 years of peace to cover that will not be our post-Cold War history. What about the EU? The US 1992 election? Quebec referendum of 1995? So many things will quickly change if the Soviet Union does not fall and the world has a renewed even more tense Cold”er” War.

3. Do Not inject current political opinions or biases. There is no 9/11, endless war on Terror, Second Bush, Obama, Trump or Coronavirus. It’s more War Games, Red Dawn, Rocky IV, and Top Gun but with slightly better Tech and perhaps a bit of exhaustion. (I could see a real feeling of “We got so close to winning and now this.” taking hold in the West.) America is still leader of the Free World. There’s still a Third World. And given the level of repression the Soviets will need to implement to stop their collapse and hold onto Eastern Europe, they most definitely will be seen as the “Evil Empire.”

Do these well and you will have an excellent and interesting setting.
That’s of course just my humble opinion. Thanks.
P.S. Please do a Tales of the Loop non-canon crossover Supplement.

I think #3 is the most relevant recently.

Benjamin

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hmm, a crossover with Tales From The Loop... there's an interesting idea.
Ideas, ideas...

If you don't mind a little bit of "weird science" in your games you could have the Loop in Sweden connect with the Loop in America, perhaps like a wormhole from Stargate.
The GM would have to decide what impact that has on the game world obviously, for me, I'd have the Loops require massive amounts of power to achieve the wormhole. There'd be a lot of time and effort spent rebuilding the power generation & distribution network in both countries to allow the Loops to have enough energy to create a wormhole... and after that, the North American personnel can have another chance at "Going Home".

[Olefin]

FYI guys notice the he also doesnt have this forum in the list of places he refers to in his press releases as well as my FB group.

When I sent him email he seemed unaware of this forum - and my facebook group is a private group that you have to be invited to. Which probably explains why they werent mentioned and not any post that was on it.

[Raellus]

Alpha PDF's are available to KS backers today. Check your e-mails and download away!

-

[Silent Hunter UK]

Anyone interested in a test game on RPOL?

[Ewan]

Downloaded the files and production quality looks really good.

[Ash247]

I'm liking the artwork alot.

[Ewan]

I'm liking the artwork alot.

Totally agree

[comped]

UK is gets Sealanded... Somehow. Among other things. People are not happy.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Sealanded? Do you mean Sealioned?

[comped]

Sealanded? Do you mean Sealioned?
Indeed. Bloody autocorrect.

[Silent Hunter UK]

It's funny, because there is a place called Sealand off the British coast...

[Olefin]

So the UK sends everything basically to fight and doesnt even leave the Territorial units behind? What the heck? That makes basically no sense at all - there is no way the UK commits everything and basically leaves themsevles bare naked against the Soviets - and reading Reset this isnt just the 5th that gets destroyed - its basically most of NATO

Three Polish Corps, one UK, one US, one German, one Netherlands, one Belgian - ALL of them get overrun and are "running for the woods"? What the heck - so basically the Soviets win the war and NATO is finished? This in a war with the active participation on the NATO side of multiple former Warsaw Pact nations and France?

So we are to believe the Soviets destroy EIGHT FULL CORPS????

Sorry when exactly did the Soviet Army become an unstoppable juggernaut against basically the entire armies of Western Europe, the US, and Central and Eastern Europe?

And what happened to all the reinforcements that were being sent - that many men would have rebuilt back to full strength every unit in the US Army that got deployed to Europe- are they saying that ALL OF THEM died on the way over?

[Olefin]

Eight full Corps destroyed by the Soviets in RESET? By what - did the Soviets somehow ally with HG Wells Martians? Invent tank armor that cannot be penetrated by any modern weapon? This isnt two Corps taking it on the chin, one running for its life and another cut off, with most of it holding on in Poland while the 5th gets wiped out.

This is the heart of NATO wiped out and the survivors running for the hills. Basically they have the Soviets winning the war.

Sorry but if this is their so called history I will stick with V1 and V2.2.

[Olefin]

and I would like to actually give my honest real opinions of the back story, the war, the end of the war and the Soviets somehow being an unbeatable force but I would have to violate every forum guideline to give an honest real opinion

So instead

IT SUCKS

[Olefin]

Oh and no mention of Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc.. - i.e. were they all too busy doing something else for three years?

And the French join in the fun, get nuked like crazy and dont retaliate??? Sure what the hell its not like they care about Paris and Northern France

[Olefin]

and ignoring the background and details and timeline can be done - but then it makes 4th edition COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY WORTHLESS for those who want to do a campaign who arent famliar with the V1 and V2.2

This is game writing 101 they are ignoring - its fine and dandy if you want to write a game that you play for a couple of nights and move on - but sucks big time if you want to do a campaign - and frankly this spits in the face of the long time players of this game

[Jason Weiser]

Ok, Olefin. I get it. We're all rather invested in this and have deep concerns...can you let someone else respond to your posts? :D

[Olefin]

Ok, Olefin. I get it. We're all rather invested in this and have deep concerns...can you let someone else respond to your posts? :D

Sorry - as I said to you - this just hurts

[swaghauler]

Olefin, man... deep breath in, deep breath out...

Jason, your closest to Olefin. You may need to scoot over there and check his blood pressure. I'm worried about him.

So what I'm hearing here is that the V4 timeline was written by Russian internet trolls.

[Olefin]

Olefin, man... deep breath in, deep breath out...

Jason, your closest to Olefin. You may need to scoot over there and check his blood pressure. I'm worried about him.

So what I'm hearing here is that the V4 timeline was written by Russian internet trolls.

Oh I havent yet begun to fight this abomination - and frankly I would agree with you on the Russian internet trolls - or Soviet fanboys

[Rockwolf66]

Oh I havent yet begun to fight this abomination - and frankly I would agree with you on the Russian internet trolls - or Soviet fanboys

From what I have read of the 4th ed timeline it was written by an Antifa fanboy who gets off to images of AOC.

In it the US President is a warmongering idiot. The Brits are somehow ineffective, and the Russians are superhuman.

Lets not get into how IRL the Russians and the Chinese have too much spilt blood between them to ever ally again.

All in all it's ham fisted leftist BS.

[Legbreaker]

So what I'm hearing here is that the V4 timeline was written by Russian internet trolls.

You're actually not that far off...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I'm just going to pretend this never happened, and keep playing 1e Twilight 2000.

Maybe this spring I'll put together a T2k on Discord or Roll20.

But I won't be playing this.

[FPSlover]

So the UK sends everything basically to fight and doesnt even leave the Territorial units behind? What the heck? That makes basically no sense at all - there is no way the UK commits everything and basically leaves themsevles bare naked against the Soviets - and reading Reset this isnt just the 5th that gets destroyed - its basically most of NATO

Three Polish Corps, one UK, one US, one German, one Netherlands, one Belgian - ALL of them get overrun and are "running for the woods"? What the heck - so basically the Soviets win the war and NATO is finished? This in a war with the active participation on the NATO side of multiple former Warsaw Pact nations and France?

So we are to believe the Soviets destroy EIGHT FULL CORPS????


The only possible way London could justify having most of the TA deploy is if they recreated the Home Guard or something equally as mad to take over defense at home. Which again, is not their job, as it's the TA's job to conduct home defense. Even then, at least SOME (call it at least 25% and more probably 30%) of the TA would have to remain at home so as to properly train said units and war replacements.

As for the eight Corps', that's anywhere from 240,000 men to 400,000 men (if I knew the exact corps', I could probably track down the exact numbers). Those losses would be among the bloodiest battles in history, and that's just NATO casualties. If upwards of 400,000 NATO lost their lives, I'd hate to see Soviet casualties. They almost certainly are in much excess of NATO.

[Lurken]

So the UK sends everything basically to fight and doesnt even leave the Territorial units behind? What the heck? That makes basically no sense at all - there is no way the UK commits everything and basically leaves themsevles bare naked against the Soviets

From the Alpha, chapter "World at War", UK segment:
"EXCERPT"

They seem to have sent all Territorial Forces and relaunched the Home Guard to fill that role. And it seems that the last remnants of them charged into the Soviet MGs at Trafalgar Square.

[FPSlover]

From the Alpha, chapter "World at War", UK segment:
"EXCERPT"

They seem to have sent all Territorial Forces and relaunched the Home Guard to fill that role. And it seems that the last remnants of them charged into the Soviet MGs at Trafalgar Square.

Huh, so my guess was right. That is... damn odd. I can get some being sent, at least as volunteers or drafts to increase manpower during the late part of the war, but the entire thing? And reviving the Home Guard (a group that, in all honesty, would have not proven too effective had the Germans ever invaded) to replace them? Madness I say! Sheer bloody madness!

[Rainbow Six]

The only possible way London could justify having most of the TA deploy is if they recreated the Home Guard or something equally as mad to take over defense at home. Which again, is not their job, as it's the TA's job to conduct home defense. Even then, at least SOME (call it at least 25% and more probably 30%) of the TA would have to remain at home so as to properly train said units and war replacements.

There are often misconceptions about the TA's role in T2K. That may be because the original V1 British order of battle was a complete work of fiction in that it completely ignored the TA and appeared to have been written by someone who had zero knowledge of their role / structure (IRL the TA would have formed the bulk of the 2nd UK Division and would have also rounded out other Divisions in the same way that US National Guard Brigades rounded out Regular Divisions). Or it may be because at the end of the Cold War the TA's role changed so it can sometimes take a bit of digging to get to the Cold War period.

The TA in this period was split. Some units did have a home defence role, but others were tasked with reinforcing BAOR. LouieD is more of an authority on this than I am and can correct me if I'm wrong but off the top of my head, the split was something like 75% to BAOR vs 25% UK Home defence (both of those figures include support as well as combat units).

From memory there were something like 14 TA Infantry Battalions and 2/3 Light Recon Regiments (each equivalent to a Battalion and equipped with Land Rovers) allocated to home defence - roughly one per civil defence area plus a couple of spares. There would have probably also one Regular Brigade tasked to home defence, probably based in the London area and mostly made up of Guards Battalions. The TA have no training role - that would have been down to the Regular Army.

Also, there was an attempt to recreate the Home Guard in the early 1980's - it was called the Home Service Force, and numbered approx 5000 men in approx 50 Platoons across the UK at its peak.

As some of you know in the past I've spent many hours working on a realistic (and non canon) T2K timeline for the UK. I've read the new timeline (briefly) and the section on the UK. I find the idea of a Soviet invasion of the UK fanciful and will be ignoring it going forward but I do not think it's Alien Space Bats territory. If I really had to rationalise it I'd posit it the same way as Division Cuba in V1 - a Division sized unit (7th Guards Air Assault according to the UK write up) secures a toehold, HMG is unable to assemble the forces to kerb stomp them, and the Soviets end up securing a town (or maybe a County) - it's basically the Group of Soviet Forces England in the V1 SGUK on a larger scale.

Other than that, while I appreciate it's only a few paragraphs, I don't think they've done too bad a job with the UK setting. There's room for improvement for sure (even with no help from the mainland I rather doubt the IRA would be able to hold their own against the RUC and the UDR without overt military support from the Irish Republic) but it's certainly an improvement on the V1 Survivor's Guide to the UK (although that is admittedly a pretty low bar - at least they didn't have the Queen abdicating). The Cornish Independence angle is plausible.

[Rainbow Six]

Huh, so my guess was right. That is... damn odd. I can get some being sent, at least as volunteers or drafts to increase manpower during the late part of the war, but the entire thing? And reviving the Home Guard (a group that, in all honesty, would have not proven too effective had the Germans ever invaded) to replace them? Madness I say! Sheer bloody madness!
The tl;dr of my other post

1. It's pretty accurate that the bulk of the Territorial Army would have deployed to Europe at the start of the War.

2. The Home Guard was revived in 1982 under a different name (The Home Service Force)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Service_Force

I have to say, V4 appears to cover this more accurately than any previous version, especially V1, which was a joke when it came to the UK..

[FPSlover]

The TA in this period was split. Some units did have a home defence role, but others were tasked with reinforcing BAOR. LouieD is more of an authority on this than I am and can correct me if I'm wrong but off the top of my head, the split was something like 75% to BAOR vs 25% UK Home defence (both of those figures include support as well as combat units).

From memory there were something like 14 TA Infantry Battalions and 2/3 Light Recon Regiments (each equivalent to a Battalion and equipped with Land Rovers) allocated to home defence - roughly one per civil defence area plus a couple of spares. There would have probably also one Regular Brigade tasked to home defence, probably based in the London area and mostly made up of Guards Battalions. The TA have no training role - that would have been down to the Regular Army.

Also, there was an attempt to recreate the Home Guard in the early 1980's - it was called the Home Service Force, and numbered approx 5000 men in approx 50 Platoons across the UK at its peak.

As some of you know in the past I've spent many hours working on a realistic (and non canon) T2K timeline for the UK. I've read the new timeline (briefly) and the section on the UK. I find the idea of a Soviet invasion of the UK fanciful and will be ignoring it going forward but I do not think it's Alien Space Bats territory. If I really had to rationalise it I'd posit it the same way as Division Cuba in V1 - a Division sized unit (7th Guards Air Assault according to the UK write up) secures a toehold, HMG is unable to assemble the forces to kerb stomp them, and the Soviets end up securing a town (or maybe a County) - it's basically the Group of Soviet Forces England in the V1 SGUK on a larger scale.

Other than that, while I appreciate it's only a few paragraphs, I don't think they've done too bad a job with the UK setting. There's room for improvement for sure (even with no help from the mainland I rather doubt the IRA would be able to hold their own against the RUC and the UDR without overt military support from the Irish Republic) but it's certainly an improvement on the V1 Survivor's Guide to the UK (although that is admittedly a pretty low bar - at least they didn't have the Queen abdicating). The Cornish Independence angle is plausible.

And your post is why I shouldn't reply to someone without collecting my thoughts and half asleep. :) I was well aware of the TA's role in the BAOR, albeit given the war, most would have long since called up to fill it and other places. Indeed, from what I can gather, most would have been gone and mobilized within the first few months of the war being made official.

As for the HSF, I did not know that and I suppose further research will be needed on that front. 5,000 men dispersed across the country would have been hard pressed to stop any invasion. Even the one you imagined. Does it say anywhere if they expanded it during the war period?

As your your scenario in particular, I agree with it. Albeit it is rather odd sacrificing such an elite division for a task that is almost certainly suicidal. Sure, they may not die immediately, but it will only take time for remaining British units in country to converge and destroy them. And for what in the grand scheme of things? Chaos? Even landing in NATO's rear would have produced a slightly higher survival rate (and caused more damage/loss of life) than landing them in the UK.

It is good to hear at least that Operation Armageddon was not implemented by the Irish government. Although that might actually make sense when compared to what I've read on here and elsewhere. With fanciful landings of Soviets in the UK, a broken US and armies destroyed left, right and center, a Irish invasion of Northern Ireland seems like nothing in comparison. As it stands though, that did not happen and we are left with an unusual situation. The IRA (at least as of the late troubles) were not meant to go toe-to-toe or even close with British units in the UK. If they had tried, they would have been destroyed.

[Raellus]

Although I too have some issues with the new backstory, I don't think hyperbole and name-calling is helpful or even merited. This is an Alpha, and if enough folks offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of certain problematic aspects of the project, they might get fixed.

IMHO, some folks are reading a bit much into the bit of the backstory regarding the failure of NATO's Operation Reset offensive (unless I'm missing a more detailed description of said op somewhere else in the Alpha). It seems to me that the authors were deliberately vague in order to leave room for Ref interpretation. One is free to interpret it as "NATO is effectively destroyed and running for the hills", OR one can interpret it more conservatively (closer to what happens to the Summer 2000 offensive described in v's 1 & 2).

Also, I think some people miss the entire point of the game- that player parties are supposed to be cut off and on their own. T2k is not a wargame. It's a military ROLE PLAYING GAME.

-

[Rainbow Six]

And your post is why I shouldn't reply to someone without collecting my thoughts and half asleep. :) I was well aware of the TA's role in the BAOR, albeit given the war, most would have long since called up to fill it and other places. Indeed, from what I can gather, most would have been gone and mobilized within the first few months of the war being made official.
Yeah, when I researched the subject for my alternative Survivor's Guide it seemed pretty likely that trying to cover home defence commitments would be challenging, especially if you presume that some of the home defence Battalions would be either in or close to nuclear targets so may have been vaporised.

As for the HSF, I did not know that and I suppose further research will be needed on that front. 5,000 men dispersed across the country would have been hard pressed to stop any invasion. Even the one you imagined. Does it say anywhere if they expanded it during the war period?
I haven't had a chance to study V4 in detail but they seem to prefer a big picture, broad strokes style, so I'd be surprised if there's a specific reference to the HSF being expanded - it's probably something that can be left to an individual to decide. I'd agree that the HSF would be unlikely to make much impact on a Soviet invasion.

As your your scenario in particular, I agree with it. Albeit it is rather odd sacrificing such an elite division for a task that is almost certainly suicidal. Sure, they may not die immediately, but it will only take time for remaining British units in country to converge and destroy them. And for what in the grand scheme of things? Chaos? Even landing in NATO's rear would have produced a slightly higher survival rate (and caused more damage/loss of life) than landing them in the UK.
I'd agree with all of that. A Soviet invasion makes zero sense to me (other than as a plot device to potentially create interesting adventures in the UK. Again, I find myself drawn to comparisons with the original Group of Soviet Forces England)

It is good to hear at least that Operation Armageddon was not implemented by the Irish government. Although that might actually make sense when compared to what I've read on here and elsewhere. With fanciful landings of Soviets in the UK, a broken US and armies destroyed left, right and center, a Irish invasion of Northern Ireland seems like nothing in comparison. As it stands though, that did not happen and we are left with an unusual situation. The IRA (at least as of the late troubles) were not meant to go toe-to-toe or even close with British units in the UK. If they had tried, they would have been destroyed.
V4 hints at some Irish Republic support for the IRA but doesn't go into detail as to what that support might entail. Again, if I had to posit a scenario, I'd say there are reports in the South of Loyalist atrocities (real or imaginary) and a local Irish Army commander unilaterally decides to intervene and crosses the border. Once that genie is out of the bottle I don't see it getting put back in. The best comparison I can think of would be the Balkans in the 1990's. When I wrote my non canon V1 stuff I compared Derry to Stalingrad.

I do wonder if a UK Sourcebook might be in the pipeline for later.

[Tegyrius]

Also, I think some people miss the entire point of the game- that player parties are supposed to be cut off and on their own. T2k is not a wargame. It's a military ROLE PLAYING GAME.

It's almost as if you've read the game, Rae:

Twilight: 2000 is Game Designers' Workshop's trademark for its role-playing game of survival in a devastated world.

A character is more than a battle rifle and an 18 on a random vehicle table. A story is more than a set of combat results. The foremost objective of any RPG setting design process should be an interesting environment in which the player characters have the freedom to act and the capability to evoke meaningful change on some scale.

- C.

[Legbreaker]

There are definite....problems. We've been trying to tell them that for months, but...
Believe me though, this is MUCH better than it was in earlier versions!

[Legbreaker]

This is an Alpha, and if enough folks offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of certain problematic aspects of the project, they might get fixed

Didn't happen when they were actually asking for input. Played around the edges a bit and threw some lace on to pretty it up....

[Raellus]

Believe me though, this is MUCH better than it was in earlier versions!

Played around the edges a bit and threw some lace on to pretty it up....

They've made significant changes from earlier versions, and then toned it down again, so now it's set in stone? I don't quite follow that line of reasoning.

Plus, this time, they're soliciting feedback from all of the KS backers, not just a select few. Might that have a little more weight than small group that got an exclusive sneak peek?

-

[raketenjagdpanzer]

This honestly sounds worse than the mangling Twilight 2013 created.

Congratulations, Free League, you managed to make a game that somehow made Twilight 2013 seem better. That's...quite an accomplishment.

[Olefin]

Although I too have some issues with the new backstory, I don't think hyperbole and name-calling is helpful or even merited. This is an Alpha, and if enough folks offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of certain problematic aspects of the project, they might get fixed.

IMHO, some folks are reading a bit much into the bit of the backstory regarding the failure of NATO's Operation Reset offensive (unless I'm missing a more detailed description of said op somewhere else in the Alpha). It seems to me that the authors were deliberately vague in order to leave room for Ref interpretation. One is free to interpret it as "NATO is effectively destroyed and running for the hills", OR one can interpret it more conservatively (closer to what happens to the Summer 2000 offensive described in v's 1 & 2).

Also, I think some people miss the entire point of the game- that player parties are supposed to be cut off and on their own. T2k is not a wargame. It's a military ROLE PLAYING GAME.

-

It specifically says that all the NATO units assigned to RESET were overrun and the troops running for the hills.

They assigned EIGHT FULL CORPS to RESET - this isnt just the 5th Division - this is every division that was assigned in the SECRET document

So that means 3 Polish Corps, One German, One British, One Belgian, One US and One Netherlands Corps all overrun and destroyed

SOVIETS UBER ALLES

I read the entire Alpha player manual for the background and the war.

So unless you are a Soviet Fan Boy the 4th edition isnt for you as far as timeline and background

[Olefin]

I'm just going to pretend this never happened, and keep playing 1e Twilight 2000.

Maybe this spring I'll put together a T2k on Discord or Roll20.

But I won't be playing this.

Same here but in my case I will accept V1 or V2.2 - the timeline is an abdomination and basically fails on multiple levels

And the Soviets are either armed with unobtanium weapons or are using zombies or the US Military and government were all infected with stupdity to the point of being brain dead to the way the timeline and background are written

And a game that has a crappy half ass antifa/Soviet fan boy background where the US military and government act like complete morons and the Soviet Army is all conquering is the last thing I want to play

My suggestion - keep the mechanics, trash the entire campaign background, timeline, and war events including RESET and start over

[Jason Weiser]

And a game that has a crappy half ass antifa/Soviet fan boy background where the US military and government act like complete morons and the Soviet Army is all conquering is the last thing I want to play

Ok, Olefin. No more political stuff. I get you're mad. We're all a bit put off by this. But let's not bring RW stupidity into it. And that also applies to anyone else commenting. This is my last freindly warning.

[Olefin]

I am not being political - the person who was one of the main writers is a pro-Soviet writer who on his FB page loves all things Soviet. So given that, this an accurate description of what we are seeing here in the background/timeline/war events - the Soviets act intelligently, the Americans act stupidly, the US govt acts even more stupidly and the Soviets somehow beat a coalition of the US, NATO and Warsaw Pact (with the French fighting in the war on the NATO side) and do it in a way that crushes basically half or more of NATO in Operation Reset - eight full Corps

This isnt right wing or left wing - I would feel the same way if they made a Democrat President do something stupid or portrayed a Democratic goverment as being stupid and war mongering. I am not interjecting politics in any way and there was no intention of doing so.

[Jason Weiser]

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.

[Olefin]

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.

If its a raid that makes sense. Not an invasion. Have the invasion be Iceland and it makes sense - they have almost no weapons, no martial background and the island can be held with a single division. But not the UK

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I am not being political - the person who was one of the main writers is a pro-Soviet writer who on his FB page loves all things Soviet. So given that, this an accurate description of what we are seeing here in the background/timeline/war events - the Soviets act intelligently, the Americans act stupidly, the US govt acts even more stupidly and the Soviets somehow beat a coalition of the US, NATO and Warsaw Pact (with the French fighting in the war on the NATO side) and do it in a way that crushes basically half or more of NATO in Operation Reset - eight full Corps


Which designer was it? The lead (Tomas Härenstam) hasn't used his Facebook page in like 9 years.

Not doubting you, but I am genuinely curious, and Mr. Härenstam is the only designer of T2k listed on Free League's webpage.

[Spartan-117]

Not all victories in war are about taking and holding substantial amounts of territory. Just putting your boots on the enemy's homeland would have major psychological effects and impact morale on both sides.

For example, the Doolittle Raid caused only minor physical damage and resulted in the loss of every aircraft. And yet...

[Rainbow Six]

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.
Agreed. What's their objective? It feels to me like something that's been included to make the game World more 'interesting' by adding an unexpected element rather than something that has any plausible RL explanation.

I mean, I get the psychological effects, but is that worth throwing away an entire Division? (That's if it was only one Division - there's only one mentioned in the UK Gazetteer section but the timeline is light on info about specific units so there may have been others, at least at the outset).

[FPSlover]

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.

Until it's explained, my take is that the division was sacrificed in an attempt to draw home British forces on the continent. Even if it was quickly destroyed, perhaps the Soviets hoped that civilians would panic enough to force at least some British units to be redeployed for home defense. Although even that is a stretch, given their absence would only make a dent in NATO forces there and not be a fatal pull-out. But that "hail-Mary" attempt makes a bit of sense, as otherwise, what is the point?

[Lurken]

I mean, I get the psychological effects, but is that worth throwing away an entire Division? (That's if it was only one Division - there's only one mentioned in the UK Gazetteer section but the timeline is light on info about specific units so there may have been others, at least at the outset).

Reading it closer, it was a much larger force than the Air Division, but it is the Air Division that is the last organized Soviet unit in UK.

[Raellus]

"In the end, the NATO divisions of Operation Reset are overrun, survivors fleeing into the woods. The final order from HQ is short and to the point: “Good luck. You’re on your own now.”"

p. 148 v4 Player's Manual (Alpha Version)

I still think this is vague enough to allow Ref's room for interpretation. It doesn't say "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "wiped out". "Overrun" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. Several US divisions could be described as having been overrun during the Battle of the Bulge, but organized elements of said continued to fight on. German divisions on the eastern front during the later years of WWII were routinely overrun, but many broke out of Soviet pockets and fought their way back to German lines, sometimes over and over again.

As to the Soviet invasion of the UK, I agree that it doesn't make much sense either on either a strategic or operational level. Yes, it would be a morale blow to the Brits, and yes it might cause the UK to withdraw some of its forces from the continent, but is that worth the sacrificing of an elite division? It's a pyrrhic victory at best. Once the Brits managed to wipe the lone, isolated Soviet division out, the morale effects would flip (better for NATO, worse for the Soviets). Even if the Soviets could get them there (which I find highly unlikely), keeping them supplied and fighting for more than a week or two is going to be nearly impossible without total control of the sea lanes and air corridors between Scandinavia and the UK. In the very next bit of the history, they have the USN wiping out the remains of the Red Fleet.

Iceland makes more sense, but I reckon Free League didn't want to rip off Red Storm Rising and risk a lawsuit from the Clancy estate and Larry Bond.

[Jason Weiser]

Not all victories in war are about taking and holding substantial amounts of territory. Just putting your boots on the enemy's homeland would have major psychological effects and impact morale on both sides.

For example, the Doolittle Raid caused only minor physical damage and resulted in the loss of every aircraft. And yet...

True, but the material and manpower costs of 30 B-25s is a lot less than a Soviet Airborne Division of thousands of men. I mean even in v1 canon we have elements like the Mexican and Alaskan operations...but even those had a lot more force behind it.

[Rainbow Six]

I've read it a few times now and I have no clue how strong the UK invasion force was. My best guess is that it may have been a larger force which was hit heavily by tactical nuclear strikes in the early stages of the invasion and the 7th GAAD is the only part of it that's still a cohesive unit.

[Raellus]

I've read it a few times now and I have no clue how strong the UK invasion force was. My best guess is that it may have been a larger force which was hit heavily by tactical nuclear strikes in the early stages of the invasion and the 7th GAAD is the only part of it that's still a cohesive unit.

Wait, are you suggesting that the UK nuked its own territory (or allowed NATO to do so) to destroy the Soviet invasion force?

[Rainbow Six]

Wait, are you suggesting that the UK nuked its own territory (or allowed NATO to do so) to destroy the Soviet invasion force?
Well, per page 148 of the Player Manual, someone definitely did. Granted, it could have been part of the Soviets' invasion strategy but the reference to the use of tactical nukes comes right after a sentence about UK and US troops staging a desperate defence. Nuking UK territory sounds like a pretty desperate form of defence. :)

And somehow or other the invasion force has been reduced to a solitary Air Assault Division by 2000.

[Raellus]

Nuking UK territory sounds like a pretty desperate form of defence. :)

Indeed!

To our UK members, does v4 make the UK a more interesting potential campaign setting than earlier versions do?

-

[comped]

Indeed!

To our UK members, does v4 make the UK a more interesting potential campaign setting than earlier versions do?

-

Only when compared to the train-wreck that was the Survivor's Guide To The UK... Which is itself not as horrible as the UK Shadowrun supplements and books.

[Rainbow Six]

Indeed!

To our UK members, does v4 make the UK a more interesting potential campaign setting than earlier versions do?

-
Honestly, if you put the Soviet invasion to one side I don't see that much different from V1, it's just been presented in a better written format and got rid of some of the awful cliches (I do sometimes wonder if the writer of the canon Survivor's Guide to the UK based his work on the UK Section of EPCOT).

HMG controlling an area of southern England but out of touch with the rest of the country? Check
Quasi independent Scotland? Check
Quasi independent Wales? Check

The situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different, but not in a good way - it's not plausible as presented without an armed intervention by the Republic of Ireland military

I'm puzzled by the reference to 'the ravages of war' being felt less keenly in the North. I find it hard to believe that the many of the big urban areas of the North - Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, etc - wouldn't be in various stages of anarchy. I'm going to presume that they mean the more rural parts like Cumbria, but that represents a relatively small part of 'the North'.

They give no clue where the British Army is based (other than to say where they're not, which is near the Government in Reading. Oh, and as far as I know the Region Six bunker moved from Reading to Maidenhead in the 60's) so that one is left up to the GM. Ditto the Soviets and the Americans. FWIW the most logical places for the Army would be Aldershot (20 miles from Reading) or Salisbury (60 miles from Reading) or Catterick (240 miles from Reading). So maybe they want the Army in Catterick.

EDIT. Thinking about it more, I'm puzzled as to how the 'King and his Ministers' (I presume they mean His Majesty's Government) can control their area if they're out of touch with the Army. And to be honest, if the Army know the King is in a bunker in Reading they're going to be doing everything they can to get him to safety.

There's also no specific detail at this stage on nuclear targets (or if there is I haven't found it yet) So they're leaving a lot to an individual GM to decide (or, as I said earlier, maybe there's a sourcebook in the pipeline). That's not necessarily a bad thing - V1 filled in much of these sorts of gaps but filled them in with rubbish) but really I don't see V4 bringing anything substantially new to the table, it's just a reboot of V1 with some minor tweaks - even the Russian invasion isn't really new - as I've already mentioned a few times V1 had the Group of Soviet Forces England. I haven't read anything yet which makes me think of the 7th Guards AAD any different (disclaimer - I've really only read Chapter Seven in depth).

So really, the answer to your question is that as far as I can tell, V4 doesn't really change anything unless I was planning to game in Northern Ireland. To be honest, if I was going to run a UK campaign set around the year 2000 I'd use my own background / timeline (which is basically a lightly tweaked V1 timeline).

Really, this is part of the reason why personally I think Free League missed a huge opportunity by trying to reboot the classic timeline. As I've said to you and others in the past, I think it would have been far smarter of them to have advanced the timeline ten years and given us Twilight 2030 rather than go backwards and try and reinvent the wheel.

As far as I can tell, all they've managed to do instead is play around with things to try and achieve the same end result as the original (5th US Division is overrun somewhere in eastern Europe thus creating the 'Good Luck You're On Your Own' scenario) while alienating some people in the process (I've just looked on their own forum and it is not receiving universal love there either). I think the phrase I'm looking for is 'if it's not broken don't fix it'.

[mpipes]

Guys,

Don't necessarily look at what the designers put out as gospel. You can scan it to pdf, convert to Word and then re-write it as you wish.

Essentially, that is what I did. I didn't like the second Dark Ages flavor GDW came up with and rewrote huge swaths of the background. While I did not invade the UK, Japan and Alaska were invaded. The Soviets actually penetrated all the way to Montana. The Airborne and Naval Infantry units in Japan were eventually captured, and the Soviet were so weakened in their Far Eastern forces that Japan backed by US Marines, ANZAC, Filipino, and S. Korean troops capture the Kuriles.

I could go on, but I hope everyone gets the point. If you don't like it, change it. After all, a zombie campaign might be fun.........:cool:

[mpipes]

Rainbow Six....you might want to do something about your files link.

As to those that like Chinese porn or gambling (it seems to have both) or just a good chuckle; click away!!!

[Rainbow Six]

Bugger. Thanks for the heads up. My hosting company stopped offering hosting a while ago and I never got round to updating my sig. Have amended it.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Indeed!

To our UK members, does v4 make the UK a more interesting potential campaign setting than earlier versions do?

-

You got rid of the football hooligan gangs, so that's something.

[comped]

As much as it might sound ridiculous, and the past several months not withstanding, at least the UK pavilion at Epcot has British workers...

Somehow the few that are left are migrating between there and the Canadian pavilion, depending on what they feel like, at least according to the ones I talked to on Sunday. Some kind of strange Commonwealth exemption Disney gave them for manpower purposes, right now it's supposed to only be Americans staffing non-american pavilions if there aren't any people from the actual country.

I have no idea if the author of the particular section is British but he is getting torn apart to shreds on the official FL forums...

[Raellus]

I think it's interesting/curious that in v4's The World At War some of the SSR's cleave off the Soviet Union and some don't. For example, the Baltic states do, but Ukraine does not. How about the Caucuses republics and all of the 'Stans?

There's no explanation given, that I've found, so I suppose they're leaving it up to Ref interpretation.

-

[comped]

Sorry to double post, but I just wanted to give an example of what is being said about the UK situation, by the official author of said section, on the official forums...

In Northern Ireland, I didn’t bother calling the IRA the Provisionals because there was no need to confuse the various Irish Republican movements at that time (INLA, the Continuity IRA, Real IRA, Oglaigh nah Eireann, Clann na Gael etc) when most readers get what we mean by the IRA (and in fact PIRA had two ceasefires and the Good Friday Agreement in that time so arguably either CIRA or RIRA could have taken advantage and led the Irish Republican movement in that moment (accepting that the GFA probably didn’t happen in this timeline, but PIRA was still on ceasefire). In a longer piece, with the space to expand, it would be potentially interesting to delve more deeply into this, but for this short piece there just wasn’t the space.

The Good Friday agreement was not agreed to until 1998. As far as I have read, there is no mention of the Good Friday agreement in the timeline. That is a basic googleable fact. The timeline diverges in 1991, there is seven years difference between them. Also it is fairly important to mention, at least to someone who has a grasp of Northern Irish politics and history like myself, that there's a huge difference between the PIRA and many of the other groups he mentioned, and that kind of detail is absolutely necessary if you want to have a game with Northern Ireland even acting in the periphery, so a game set in Wales or Cornwall or Scotland, or even the republic. never mind that there's no reason why they would reasonably uphold a ceasefire in the middle of the Cold War going hot, with their best chance in years to do anything meaningful. If there wasn't the space to be specific enough, and in my opinion if you're going to write about something that needs specifics you should probably make sure there's specifics involved, then why print it at all?

[Olefin]

Although I too have some issues with the new backstory, I don't think hyperbole and name-calling is helpful or even merited. This is an Alpha, and if enough folks offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of certain problematic aspects of the project, they might get fixed.

IMHO, some folks are reading a bit much into the bit of the backstory regarding the failure of NATO's Operation Reset offensive (unless I'm missing a more detailed description of said op somewhere else in the Alpha). It seems to me that the authors were deliberately vague in order to leave room for Ref interpretation. One is free to interpret it as "NATO is effectively destroyed and running for the hills", OR one can interpret it more conservatively (closer to what happens to the Summer 2000 offensive described in v's 1 & 2).

Also, I think some people miss the entire point of the game- that player parties are supposed to be cut off and on their own. T2k is not a wargame. It's a military ROLE PLAYING GAME.

-
What part of “all the divisions involved in Reset were overrun and their survivors running for the woods” was unclear? That’s eight Corps including the entire Polish Army overrun and the survivors running for their lives. I have read a lot of military history and that pretty much is a destroyed NATO and Soviets Uber Alles situation - that is not in any way close to V1 or V2.2 - we aren’t just talking the 5th here - we are talking every division in the Secret handout.

And this is very late in the war - this isn’t a situation like where units were overrun in Korea in V1 - this is the last gasp the last effort - ie there isn’t anyone left to stop the Soviets

Sorry but that is utter BS - and one other big question - where are the hundreds of thousands of reinforcements that the US put together - are you telling me the Soviets killed them all or most of them in the big naval battle? Because there isn’t a lot of fighting between the supposed huge naval battle and Reset

[Raellus]

What part of “all the divisions involved in Reset were overrun and their survivors running for the woods” was unclear? That’s eight Corps including the entire Polish Army overrun and the survivors running for their lives.

Repost from #152:

"In the end, the NATO divisions of Operation Reset are overrun, survivors fleeing into the woods. The final order from HQ is short and to the point: “Good luck. You’re on your own now.”"

p. 148 v4 Player's Manual (Alpha Version)

I still think this is vague enough to allow Ref's room for interpretation. It doesn't say "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "wiped out". "Overrun" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. Several US divisions could be described as having been overrun during the Battle of the Bulge, but organized elements of said continued to fight on. German divisions on the eastern front during the later years of WWII were routinely overrun, but many broke out of Soviet pockets and fought their way back to German lines, sometimes over and over again.

-

[Olefin]

Repost from #152:

"In the end, the NATO divisions of Operation Reset are overrun, survivors fleeing into the woods. The final order from HQ is short and to the point: “Good luck. You’re on your own now.”"

p. 148 v4 Player's Manual (Alpha Version)

I still think this is vague enough to allow Ref's room for interpretation. It doesn't say "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "wiped out". "Overrun" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. Several US divisions could be described as having been overrun during the Battle of the Bulge, but organized elements of said continued to fight on. German divisions on the eastern front during the later years of WWII were routinely overrun, but many broke out of Soviet pockets and fought their way back to German lines, sometimes over and over again.

-

From the Secret Handout

5th Infantry Division’s avenue of advance from LESZNO to LODZ along
route RED is bounded on the right (south) flank by the III US Corps main elements, including 2nd Armored Division and 1st Cavalry Division (main body of III US Corps advance to LUBLIN) with 3rd ACR in reserve. 29th and 34thinfantry divisions are advancing further south on their right flank, along the Czech and Slovak borders, toward KRAKOW.
(S/NATO) 5th Infantry Division’s avenue of advance from LESZNO to LODZ is bounded on the left (north) flank by elements of I German Corps (1st and 7th Panzer Divisions, 11th Panzergrenadier Division, and 27th Fallschirmjaeger Brigade) and the
Polish Warsaw Corps advancing from POZNAN to WARSAW.

They are supported by I Netherlands Corps in reserve. On their left (north), I UK Corps and the Polish Pomeranian Corps are to move from SZCZECIN to surround and bypass GDANSK and then move to occupy BIALYSTOK with I Belgian Corps in reserve holding the perimeter around GDANSK.

(S/NATO) Note that current end-strength of the units designated as divisions
is approximately equivalent to one brigade of vehicles and heavy equipment (including artillery) and few or no air assets. Personnel strength for most units is about 50% of nominal end-strength for the peacetime unit size. Corps strengths are similarly reduced to the approximate strength of a full-strength division. All units under OPERATION RESET have been reinforced and resupplied to the maximum amount available by EUCOM/LANDCEN

Ok so the Soviets overran all those forces and the survivors went running for the woods? Suuuurree - that is flat out ridiculous

Per their own handout you are talking about eight Corps that in total are the size of full pre-war divisions, with the divisions making them being approximately the size of a brigade in size and at half strength - i.e. this isnt the 1000 man divisions of V1 and V2.2.

Basically its the end of NATO - this isnt the death of a Division - this is the death of NATO as a fighting force -again this is Soviets Uber Alles and they win the war - which definitely 100% is not what V1 and V2.2 in any way were - not at Kalisz

Frankly this timeline and background is a goat screw.

I know people were hungry for the new edition - but unless you are someone who cheered the Soviets on in Red Dawn I doubt this will be well received by anyone as anything they can build a campaign on.

[Raellus]

Ok so the Soviets overran all those forces and the survivors went running for the woods? Suuuurree - that is flat out ridiculous

Per their own handout you are talking about eight Corps that in total are the size of full pre-war divisions, with the divisions making them being approximately the size of a brigade in size and at half strength - i.e. this isnt the 1000 man divisions of V1 and V2.2.

Basically its the end of NATO - this isnt the death of a Division - this is the death of NATO as a fighting force -again this is Soviets Uber Alles and they win the war - which definitely 100% is not what V1 and V2.2 in any way were - not at Kalisz

Frankly this timeline and background is a goat screw.

I know people were hungry for the new edition - but unless you are someone who cheered the Soviets on in Red Dawn I doubt this will be well received by anyone as anything they can build a campaign on.

Repost #2:

I still think this is vague enough to allow Ref's room for interpretation. It doesn't say "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "wiped out". "Overrun" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. Several US divisions could be described as having been overrun during the Battle of the Bulge*, but organized elements of said continued to fight on. German divisions on the eastern front during the later years of WWII were routinely overrun, but many broke out of Soviet pockets and fought their way back to German lines, sometimes over and over again.

*... and "fleeing into the woods." Some of those overrun divisions were rallied, hastily reorganized and reinforced, and put right back into the fight.

If you want to interpret, "In the end, the NATO divisions of Operation Reset are overrun, survivors fleeing into the woods...” as the absolute worst-case scenario, you're free to do so, but I don't see anything in the Alpha rules that states one has to interpret the above the way you have.

And again, the whole point of the backstory is to arrive at a "Good luck. You're on your own..." point where the military-themed survival role-playing game can begin. T2k is not a strategic war game- it never was.

-

[Legbreaker]

Which designer was it? The lead (Tomas Härenstam) hasn't used his Facebook page in like 9 years.

Not doubting you, but I am genuinely curious, and Mr. Härenstam is the only designer of T2k listed on Free League's webpage.

I saw a number of names pop up on the draft docs. Tomas is best described as the lead designer, certainly not the only one.

[Legbreaker]

They've made significant changes from earlier versions, and then toned it down again, so now it's set in stone? I don't quite follow that line of reasoning.

Plus, this time, they're soliciting feedback from all of the KS backers, not just a select few. Might that have a little more weight than small group that got an exclusive sneak peek?-

It was far more than a sneak peek. We were encouraged to actively contribute and then our suggestions either ignored of given only the slightest attention. In some cases there were glaring issues raised and all that happened was changing of a word or two with the core problem remaining.

This was in a period where there were supposed to be broad changes made to the foundations of the background. You really think they're going to do anything significant now? All that will happen now is tweaks to layout, spelling, and MAYBE a few names here and there.

[Olefin]

Repost #2:

I still think this is vague enough to allow Ref's room for interpretation. It doesn't say "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "wiped out". "Overrun" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. Several US divisions could be described as having been overrun during the Battle of the Bulge*, but organized elements of said continued to fight on. German divisions on the eastern front during the later years of WWII were routinely overrun, but many broke out of Soviet pockets and fought their way back to German lines, sometimes over and over again.

*... and "fleeing into the woods." Some of those overrun divisions were rallied, hastily reorganized and reinforced, and put right back into the fight.

If you want to interpret, "In the end, the NATO divisions of Operation Reset are overrun, survivors fleeing into the woods...” as the absolute worst-case scenario, you're free to do so, but I don't see anything in the Alpha rules that states one has to interpret the above the way you have.

And again, the whole point of the backstory is to arrive at a "Good luck. You're on your own..." point where the military-themed survival role-playing game can begin. T2k is not a strategic war game- it never was.

-

I beg to differ - RDF Sourcebook and Kings Ransom are both set up for those who want to do straight war games and playing in an organized military setting - as is the East Africa Sourcebook. Thus it can be played as a strategic war game. And there are those who have used the rules to play units during the war itself - thus again it can be used - especially if you use The Last Battle rules to do so.

As to to the destroyed part - made direct comments on the dropbox comments so will see what they say - but there are other references that basically show the remaining US forces as scattered in Europe - i.e. there are no organized US units left - while the Soviets clearly still have an organized army and military

[Raellus]

It was far more than a sneak peek. We were encouraged to actively contribute and then our suggestions either ignored of given only the slightest attention. In some cases there were glaring issues raised and all that happened was changing of a word or two with the core problem remaining.

This was in a period where there were supposed to be broad changes made to the foundations of the background. You really think they're going to do anything significant now? All that will happen now is tweaks to layout, spelling, and MAYBE a few names here and there.

Well, I don't know. I've been hearing hints of this "sneak peek" for a while now but I don't really know what to make of it. Call me overly cynical, but I'm always a bit leery of "I can't tell you anything about it, but trust me on this..." [secret knowledge] type hints and allegations stuff. And you yourself wrote, Believe me though, this is MUCH better than it was in earlier versions!

And yes, I imagine that if enough KS backers chime in with constructive criticism, it might lead to some change. I mean, if a hundred people poke holes in the game world history, it might have more of an impact than when a select, mostly anonymous few did. Then again, you could be right and I could be wrong.

My point is, I don't see the point in bitching and moaning about something that isn't necessarily set in stone. I doubt it will do much good. I'd rather try to stimulate change through constructive means and official channels, than rant and rave about it on a fan site.

-

[Olefin]

It was far more than a sneak peek. We were encouraged to actively contribute and then our suggestions either ignored of given only the slightest attention. In some cases there were glaring issues raised and all that happened was changing of a word or two with the core problem remaining.

This was in a period where there were supposed to be broad changes made to the foundations of the background. You really think they're going to do anything significant now? All that will happen now is tweaks to layout, spelling, and MAYBE a few names here and there.

I also had a ton of comments with Tomas and Marc - and got flat out ignored by them and told that what was leaked wasnt the reality of what the game would be -
I have direct quotes that say basically said that what was leaked was totally inaccurate as to the timeline, background, war and campaign start situation - and then out comes the Alpha and it backs up the leaked material - and if anything its worse

and refs can ignore anything they like - but the war and timeline and background is canon if its not changed and would have to be used by anyone writing for the 4th edition - and frankly as stated before its a goat screw - and at this point I doubt Tomas will be listening to anyone even with them getting ripped a new one on FB, here and discord. After all he hasnt been listening to anyone so far.

[Targan]

My point is, I don't see the point in bitching and moaning about something that isn't necessarily set in stone. I doubt it will do much good. I'd rather try to stimulate change through constructive means and official channels, than rant and rave about it on a fan site.

There's some merit in that. I think by this stage though, it will be what it will be.

On the plus side for me personally, I had very low expectations for it from the start, so it's not like I'm going to end up disappointed. And we have, what, 4 other T2K rules sets to choose from, and can pick and choose whatever groovy morsels do arrive in the new version for our own current and future campaigns.

[Olefin]

Well, I don't know. I've been hearing hints of this "sneak peek" for a while now but I don't really know what to make of it. Call me overly cynical, but I'm always a bit leery of "I can't tell you anything about it, but trust me on this..." [secret knowledge] type hints and allegations stuff. And you yourself wrote,

And yes, I imagine that if enough KS backers chime in with constructive criticism, it might lead to some change. I mean, if a hundred people poke holes in the game world history, it might have more of an impact than when a select, mostly anonymous few did. Then again, you could be right and I could be wrong.

My point is, I don't see the point in bitching and moaning about something that isn't necessarily set in stone. I doubt it will do much good. I'd rather try to stimulate change through constructive means and official channels, than rant and rave about it on a fan site.

-

the sneak peek and the Alpha as far as the players manual as it pertains to the war, the background, the timeline are basically the same - it was leaked material and the minute I saw it I was like oh crap - and the so called denials that I got werent worth the electrons that were used

[Olefin]

There's some merit in that. I think by this stage though, it will be what it will be.

On the plus side for me personally, I had very low expectations for it from the start, so it's not like I'm going to end up disappointed. And we have, what, 4 other T2K rules sets to choose from, and can pick and choose whatever groovy morsels do arrive in the new version for our own current and future campaigns.

We need to tell Tomas that this is unacceptable - and frankly people crowing about the "artwork" five minutes after it was out and not even reading the rules and the actual game background show that they werent serious potential players

[Raellus]

And we have, what, 4 other T2K rules sets to choose from, and can pick and choose whatever groovy morsels do arrive in the new version for our own current and future campaigns.

If there aren't any changes to the v4 backstory, then I probably won't use it as is, but I like the way that you're looking at it, and that's probably how I'm going to look at it too.

We need to tell Tomas that this is unacceptable - and frankly people crowing about the "artwork" five minutes after it was out and not even reading the rules and the actual game background show that they werent serious potential players

Yes, but why would they listen to people ranting about "antifa Soviet fan-boys" either? Seriously?

I understand that you are frustrated that they didn't listen to you when you were a secret advisor or whatever (I'm really curious about that whole arrangement), but that doesn't mean that Tomas et al won't listen to the rest of us.

-

[Louied]

There are often misconceptions about the TA's role in T2K. That may be because the original V1 British order of battle was a complete work of fiction in that it completely ignored the TA and appeared to have been written by someone who had zero knowledge of their role / structure (IRL the TA would have formed the bulk of the 2nd UK Division and would have also rounded out other Divisions in the same way that US National Guard Brigades rounded out Regular Divisions). Or it may be because at the end of the Cold War the TA's role changed so it can sometimes take a bit of digging to get to the Cold War period.

The TA in this period was split. Some units did have a home defence role, but others were tasked with reinforcing BAOR. LouieD is more of an authority on this than I am and can correct me if I'm wrong but off the top of my head, the split was something like 75% to BAOR vs 25% UK Home defence (both of those figures include support as well as combat units).

From memory there were something like 14 TA Infantry Battalions and 2/3 Light Recon Regiments (each equivalent to a Battalion and equipped with Land Rovers) allocated to home defence - roughly one per civil defence area plus a couple of spares. There would have probably also one Regular Brigade tasked to home defence, probably based in the London area and mostly made up of Guards Battalions. The TA have no training role - that would have been down to the Regular Army.

Also, there was an attempt to recreate the Home Guard in the early 1980's - it was called the Home Service Force, and numbered approx 5000 men in approx 50 Platoons across the UK at its peak.

As some of you know in the past I've spent many hours working on a realistic (and non canon) T2K timeline for the UK. I've read the new timeline (briefly) and the section on the UK. I find the idea of a Soviet invasion of the UK fanciful and will be ignoring it going forward but I do not think it's Alien Space Bats territory. If I really had to rationalise it I'd posit it the same way as Division Cuba in V1 - a Division sized unit (7th Guards Air Assault according to the UK write up) secures a toehold, HMG is unable to assemble the forces to kerb stomp them, and the Soviets end up securing a town (or maybe a County) - it's basically the Group of Soviet Forces England in the V1 SGUK on a larger scale.

Other than that, while I appreciate it's only a few paragraphs, I don't think they've done too bad a job with the UK setting. There's room for improvement for sure (even with no help from the mainland I rather doubt the IRA would be able to hold their own against the RUC and the UDR without overt military support from the Irish Republic) but it's certainly an improvement on the V1 Survivor's Guide to the UK (although that is admittedly a pretty low bar - at least they didn't have the Queen abdicating). The Cornish Independence angle is plausible.

Rainbow is spot on, the bulk (for instance 26 of the 40 TA Inf Bns had NATO commitments) of the TA would be going across the Channel on TTW. Plans were very detailed (I have even found documents in the NA showing that plans were being drawn up in the late 1980's to blow the Channel Tunnels which had just started being built !). My co-authors and myself are currently engaged in fleshing out UKLF, besides the 47 HSF Coys, there were 175 HD Res Coys, 14 TA Bns, and 17 Regular Bns committed to Home Defence. Not to mention the whole 7,000 plus UDR would be placed on active service in NI......

If anyone needs more detail I will start a new thread (and I'll try to be short....)

[mpipes]

I managed to look at the draft.

I am with Olefin on a lot of the criticisms. THE ART WORK IS AWSOME.....but....

The background does not look that bad to me. Very sparse on details, leaving to Referees to fill in the blanks. Not terrible, but not that great. A bit too Swedish centrist to my taste for PC generation. My biggest gripe is the complete ignoring of the Central European military. You need a bit of flavor for German, Danish, UK, Czech, and Slovak forces. Italy and Hungary would be a good idea as well. I much prefer the overall wider sweep of forces in the GDW versions. However, this may be planned for rectifying in later modules. At the very least, the background and character generation should include the afore mentioned militaries and a least some German and UK units mentioned (and maybe a few Pole, Slovak, and Czech units here and there). Also, who are the Soviet allies? None???

A lot of the rules look like crap to me with the entire underlying character attributes and skill ratings looking clunky not to mention weapon ratings and vehicle stats. Vehicle and weapons need to be expanded.

Say what you will about the GDW editions, but their attributes, skills, and rating are far more straightforward and intuitive. The rules need to stick to kilogram weights and meter weapon ranges, speeds, and movements.

UNFORGIVEABLE: The Swedish focus given the lack of anything on NATO or PACT forces/PCs etc. I understand why its there but really; exactly what are the chances of encountering Swedish Army troops (or equipment) in Central Europe versus any NATO or PACT forces (or any equipment)?? That just needs to be fixed.

ALSO MY EYES ARE BURNING!!!!
A RPD picture is shown for the PKM. That's like an entry for a lion and then showing a picture of a bobcat. I'm sorry, but that is just plain sloppy!!!

And the guys obviously don't know beans about hunting. You don't need to use a shotgun on grouse or any bird. It darn well makes things easier, but if you are good enough (and my uncle is) you can shoot grouse or ducks out of the sky with a rifle. On the other hand, they do know about grenade fishing; I tip my hat to that!!

<sigh>

[Lurken]

Soviets have zero allies.

Sweden has things vanishing. The entire government+parliament goes =POOOF= behind friendly lines when going somewhere else instead of their designated bunker shortly after the war begins.

An entire Mechanized division goes =POOF= in the woodland s of Småland one week after invasion. Zero traces of anyone from that division or anything from that division.

Gotland going =POOF=, as in no one knows what is going on there. Absolutely no one.

Also, Rainbow, my name is listed in the Playtesters. We were invited to give criticisms and suggestion. I can vet Leg, he was there too.

[Rainbow Six]

Also, Rainbow, my name is listed in the Playtesters. We were invited to give criticisms and suggestion. I can vet Leg, he was there too.
Thanks, but I think it was Raellus that was querying that side of things. Certainly wasn’t me.

[mpipes]

Lurken,

I certainly don't want to criticize the playtesters, but.....

Did you guys buy off on the weapon and vehicle rating system?

Character attributes?

These mechanics seem wildly messy to me and not intuitive at all, but I grew up in the old style D&D and SPI era, so maybe I am just damaged goods in a sense.

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

[Legbreaker]

I focused more on the background. The rules gave me a headache just thinking about them.

[Lurken]

Lurken,

I certainly don't want to criticize the playtesters, but.....

Did you guys buy off on the weapon and vehicle rating system?

Character attributes?

These mechanics seem wildly messy to me and not intuitive at all, but I grew up in the old style D&D and SPI era, so maybe I am just damaged goods in a sense.

Does anybody think they are good? Or an improvement over V 1 or 2.2?

The system was done as it was. I did point out some bits that I found wonky. But didn't get listened to. The Weapons... I didn't even look there. Couldn't be arsed. I cared about the story. Because, you can play T2k with any system. It lives with the world and setting, not the rules.

[Legbreaker]

It lives with the world and setting, not the rules.

Exactly right. There's many instances over the last nearly 4 decades T2K has existed where people have used alternate mechanics. The setting is the game.

What we have been presented with, that's not T2k when looked at from that perspective. Lurken and I did our best, but it seemed their minds were already made up. The overall situation was set in stone and all our comments and suggestions amounted to a few minor tweaks here and there. Fortunately we were able to talk them out of some of the REALLY bad ideas, but, as can be seen, by no means anything close to all.

It wasn't just the two of us though, there were others who will remain anonymous until they choose to speak up. Suffice to say the community did speak, but it seems our voices fell on, if not deaf ears, certainly ones hard of hearing.

[Rockwolf66]

It was far more than a sneak peek. We were encouraged to actively contribute and then our suggestions either ignored of given only the slightest attention. In some cases there were glaring issues raised and all that happened was changing of a word or two with the core problem remaining.

As someone who did see draft information, We did complain about the timeline and how pro-Soviet it was and got told that we were looking at "Outdated information" and that the finished project would not reflect "current politics in any way".

This is lies because President West is a warmongering Idiot who embodies multiple Leftist stereotypes of Republican Politicians.

As such I hope to get the game used as not to give them a dime for it.

[Silent Hunter UK]

How is West a warmonger? He wasn't the guy who invaded Poland.

[Lurken]

He wasn't the guy who invaded Poland.

Perhaps not. But he is the one who launched nukes on Soviet forces after USSR didn't nuke Israel after they nuked NUAR.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And let's not forget that the US government decides to invade Sweden for "reasons".
Invading a neutral country that was known to be pro-NATO seems a bit "warmongering"...quite a bit, really...

[Benjamin]

And let's not forget that the US government decides to invade Sweden for "reasons".
Invading a neutral country that was known to be pro-NATO seems a bit "warmongering"...quite a bit, really...

Yeah, I haven’t read the Alpha T2K stuff, but I have seen quotes and numerous summaries of the timeline. I, during college, wrote two term papers on the importance to the Northern Flank during the Cold War. While there were contingency plans to invade Sweden during the Second World War (usually as a counter to possible German occupation), there were no reasons at all to invade Sweden during the Cold War. It makes no sense politically or militarily. It would be exceedingly foolish to mount a war of aggression against a friendly neutral. I knew Sweden would be a gaming location, but I didn’t realize how shoehorned in it would be.

Also how on earth does post 1991 Soviet Union fight all of NATO, including France, plus the ex-Warsaw Pact nations while holding down the restive non-Russian Soviet Republics? The entire TL seems to be one big Mexican invasion.

I’m so glad I dropped out of the Kickstarter. I certainly don’t need yet another rule set for Twilight and all I would have been interested in would be a decent backstory. That appears to be a no show so it’s still V1 for me.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Yeah, I haven’t read the Alpha T2K stuff, but I have seen quotes and numerous summaries of the timeline. I, during college, wrote two term papers on the importance to the Northern Flank during the Cold War. While there were contingency plans to invade Sweden during the Second World War (usually as a counter to possible German occupation), there were no reasons at all to invade Sweden during the Cold War. It makes no sense politically or militarily. It would be exceedingly foolish to mount a war of aggression against a friendly neutral. I knew Sweden would be a gaming location, but I didn’t realize how shoehorned in it would be.

Also how on earth does post 1991 Soviet Union fight all of NATO, including France, plus the ex-Warsaw Pact nations while holding down the restive non-Russian Soviet Republics? The entire TL seems to be one big Mexican invasion.

I’m so glad I dropped out of the Kickstarter. I certainly don’t need yet another rule set for Twilight and all I would have been interested in would be a decent backstory. That appears to be a no show so it’s still V1 for me.

You haven't even got to the Soviet "Sealion" invasion of the United Kingdom yet and that's after the Soviet northern fleet somehow charms it's way through the Baltic without being bottled up or torn to pieces

The game world setting pretty much reads like a high schooler's attempt at alternate history with the writer not actually having any understanding of military operations, logistics or politics let alone how those three aspects were dealt with during the Cold War.

[mpipes]

Amen to that Stainless.

[Legbreaker]

The original draft had Pres West as an OBVIOUS Trump stand in with ALL the "orange man bad" tropes, real, imagined or falsified.
This is where the claims of it being heavily political came from. If you look, you can still see a lot of that in the alpha, although we did get them to walk it back quite a lot!

...and then they replaced that brain fart with "Operation Sealionski".... :confused:

[Raellus]

I find it interesting that folks are upset about the fictional POTUS of v4. I've seen him described as a warmonger here, several times, by a few different posters. I read the v4 World At War too and didn't really get that impression of him, but maybe I'm not sensitive to that kind of thing.

Even if that's a fair characterization of how he was written, is it really outside the realm of possibilities that a US president could be bellicose in temperament and policy?

Could one not argue that past US presidents have been guilty of "warmongering"? How about Polk? (Mexican-American War) McKinley? (Spanish-American War) LBJ? (Vietnam-American War- which started during the Ike admin, and escalated during JFK, but LBJ really poured on the gas) George W. Bush? (Iraqi Freedom)

All of the above wars were either started, provoked, or escalated by US presidents (and these don't count any of the minor Cold War brushfire proxy wars in which the US was indirectly involved). None of them were fought to defend the US from a real existential threat. I think it's fair to level accusations of warmongering in these instances. (Lest I be accused of being politically motivated with this list, I am not- it's pretty non-partisan: two were started by Democrats, two by Republicans)

Heck, only one world leader in the entirety of human history has authorized combat use of nuclear weapons in anger, and that was a US president (Truman, another Democrat).

My point is, US presidents have, at times, been the aggressors when it comes to waging war. So v4's fictional POTUS isn't some sort of implausible/unrealistic outlier, by any means.

More importantly, how many players really care about the role of a fictional POTUS in a WWIII RPG?

-

[Lurken]

And let's not forget that the US government decides to invade Sweden for "reasons".
Invading a neutral country that was known to be pro-NATO seems a bit "warmongering"...quite a bit, really...

I did suggest alternatives. Like using the reason I will in my book, or that the USSR just invades Gotland/Scania to either totally dominate the Baltic Sea, or flank around Denmark to force the Baltic open.

[Ewan]

As for "Operation Sealionski" (I like that name) if anyone thinks that the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy would let a Soviet invasion get near the UK before nuking them till they glow is very much mistaken. To quote from the Players Manual "1998 saw the nukes, leaving 25 million dead, before the Soviet invasion."- so half the country is dead and HMG is not going to fire off what remaining strategic and tactical nukes they have at the invasion fleet while it's still in the North Sea before the land - yeah right.

Also the 7th Guards Air Assault Division is going to fly across a good number of countries before it gets to the UK and depending on the route taken would have to run the gauntlet of the Royal Norwegian Air Force, Royal Danish Air Force, Royal Swedish Air Force, Luftwaffe and potentially the Polish Air Force. Now where is the Soviet Air Force going to get all the fighters to escort the transport across to the UK.

I'm sure that the Soviet high command could have a better use for the 7th Guards Air Assault Division on mainland Europe.

[pansarskott]

The SU Northern Fleet would have to be dispersed early to survive, I can't imagine Northen Fleet bases not being targeted by US/UK nukes in 98.

Then, the Northern Fleet finally stops playing with the Royal Navy, sweeping them aside, and launches an invasion of the British isles.

Sounds easy. But plenty of US Navy ships should be in the area well.

[Lurken]

Sounds easy. But plenty of US Navy ships should be in the area well.

And French, Norwegian, Kriegsmarine and Dutch elements. And their respective countries air assets

[Silent Hunter UK]

Kriegsmarine

Bundesmarine, not Kriegsmarine.

[mpipes]

As for "Operation Sealionski" (I like that name) if anyone thinks that the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy would let a Soviet invasion get near the UK before nuking them till they glow is very much mistaken. To quote from the Players Manual "1998 saw the nukes, leaving 25 million dead, before the Soviet invasion."- so half the country is dead and HMG is not going to fire off what remaining strategic and tactical nukes they have at the invasion fleet while it's still in the North Sea before the land - yeah right.

Also the 7th Guards Air Assault Division is going to fly across a good number of countries before it gets to the UK and depending on the route taken would have to run the gauntlet of the Royal Norwegian Air Force, Royal Danish Air Force, Royal Swedish Air Force, Luftwaffe and potentially the Polish Air Force. Now where is the Soviet Air Force going to get all the fighters to escort the transport across to the UK.

I'm sure that the Soviet high command could have a better use for the 7th Guards Air Assault Division on mainland Europe.

I can see a Soviet invasion pre-nuke being done as a "super" Dieppe Raid to hopefully get the Brits to recall a Corps from the main front, but that would be pointless after the nukes fly. There seems to be no point to it other than putting Russians into the UK for game purposes.

Looking at the backstory again, it mostly seems ok - right up to when the US sends the USS Truman into the Baltic. That would NEVER have happened. The Baltic is just too confined for general carrier ops, and while the US might send a carrier into the Baltic to support combat ops by the Marines, it just would not be done to send a statement. For a start, the US Navy largely regards the Baltic as a "lake" that "belongs" to Europe; its not part of the traditional "blue waters" that the US Navy operates in. Maybe a battleship SAG would have been sent, but not a carrier and certainly NOT a brand new nuclear carrier.

Then it appears that only the US reacts to the Polish invasion. ARE THESE DESIGNERS NUTS!!!! NATO would be up in arms immediately demanding a withdrawal. You just had the Baltic States re-annexed and now the Soviets are driving toward Germany, and it is only the US responding!!!! And then they fabricate a US invasion of PRO-NATO Sweden!! Correct me if I am wrong, but Swedish and NATO planning presumed that Soviet territorial violations would likely force Sweden into a NATO-PACT war as a NATO ally....so exactly why would the US invade? And apparently it is only the Royal Navy fighting the Northern Banner Fleet; don't the designers know that the US Navy's entire doctrine for a NATO war was aimed at engaging and neutralizing the Northern Fleet! And this is just through 1997.

US draft not implemented till 1998. Manpower concerns only arise in 1998!!
Do the guys not realize what the casualty rates of modern combat look like? And apparently they don't know that a Soviet juggernaut hitting Poland would reach into Germany well within a year. If the Soviet Army is still stuck in Poland after six-months, then they have lost or are losing and need to either use nukes to open up exploitable gaps in the front lines (Soviet doctrine) or negotiate to get what they want. The US simply would not, under any circumstances, use nukes if NATO had the Soviets bottled up in Sweden and Poland. US doctrine and planning, not to mention NATO, was solid on that point. Only if the Soviets were advancing and well into Germany would nukes be authorized, and then the targets would be on PACT (well USSR) territory targeting logistics and troop concentrations (at least initially). And oh yea, the entire Eastern Europe would be at war from 1997...not just getting around to everyone joining in in 1998.

And these guys are obviously clueless as to the physics of EMP....you don't get that with tactical nukes at low altitudes. It takes the big freaking warheads at high altitudes. I've always felt that the GDW versions overplayed the effects of EMP somewhat. There are going to be effects, but will the whole electrical grid of the world get toasted...maybe and maybe not. But tac nukes can't do the trick.

A quarter of the French population dead, Moscow was "only" targeting American troops, and France DOES NOT retaliate with ALL its nuclear forces. Yea.... right....can I interest anyone here in prime beach property in Alaska or Iceland??

The UK invasion....really DOES ANYONE think that after a year of war with at least four US carrier battlegroups plus three UK carriers and at least one French (and maybe even a Spanish) carrier there would be anything left afloat of the Soviet Northern Fleet bigger than a missile boat by 1998? Or an un-nuked Central London? Enough said.

America. Not sure I'ld quibble with that write-up that much.

Curious about Ukraine. They would have gotten independence. And maybe Belarus.

Overall, the background reads a bit like a left of center European guy-on-the street's view of a European War, who really does not know much about the doctrines or plans that would have been at play in a NATO war or even the politico-military underpinnings of the alliance. They certainly have not presented anything plausible for a NATO-USSR conflict in the 1990s. Maybe that is by design to a point, as they just wanted to have SOMETHING to explain a war, but the consensus here on the forum will most likely be that they BADLY missed the mark. I understand the designer's desire to have Sweden playing a role, but an invasion by the US is simply not possible. Too many NATO allies would be up in arms over that. Now the Soviets invading to secure an airbase for supporting the Baltic Fleet and an invasion of Poland, Germany, or Denmark...yea that is within possibility. But you can't have the Russians bottled up in Sweden or Poland and then have NATO using nukes (and rest assured there would have had to be NATO consensus to use nukes in Europe - there just would - no matter who was President). Also, Russia is not going to take on NATO without allies; they just won't. If they can peel off a few NATO allies like what GDW did, then yes, but solo Russia starting a war against a united NATO; NEVER. Keep in mind, Russia never wanted to use nuclear weapons. However, their doctrine called on using tactical nukes to win a war if things were stalemated. The Soviets always knew that a solo war against NATO would likely lead to a stalemate REQUIRING them to use tactical nukes. They may be aggressive, but they are not dumb or crazy. You just cannot have a united NATO and a solo USSR going to war; not unless it is life or death for Russia (and I say Russia deliberately because it was and is all about Mother Russia - the Republics were buffers to protect the Motherland). So for a solo Russia-NATO war; NATO has got to start it - period.

I really had high hopes for the game, but this drivel from the clunky game mechanics to the misfired background may be too much for veteran TW2000 players to swallow. At the end of the day, this background somehow makes the Soviets largely sound the most reasonable and aggrieved - and that is after invading the Baltic States and Poland. That may be an unfair "feeling," but in what universe do you use tactical nuclear weapons on a large scale on a nuclear armed foe that appears to be losing? The background glosses over it, but the Soviet fleets would be decimated. If all the Soviets have after a year of warfare is part of Sweden and Poland, and a decimated navy, it can hardly be said that NATO is losing. So why the nukes? I can't get that out of my head.

I shudder to think what the 1st draft looked like with its "political" overtones. This is just poor fiction utterly devoid of any consideration as to what the actual war would have looked like. All that said, parts of it actually sound good, but the good stuff is really overshadowed by the bad.:bash:

[Benjamin]

I know this is an alternate history but given that the Point of Divergence is only 1991 we can still draw some general conclusions as to how world history would proceed.

The TL says that post Coup the Soviet Union suddenly rebuilds due to mild liberalization and vast oil profits. Liberalization is what brought about the collapse of the Communists in Eastern Europe. The USSR is not China. China had 20+ years of cordial relations with the US and her regional allies to build up a vast export economy. The Soviet Union does not. It has only 5 years and a hostile West, without its old captive market in East Europe. If you think Russia’s economy is bad now imagine if it didn’t have access to Western markets and faced renewed sanctions. As for the huge oil profits windfalls...the major jump in oil prices lasted all of 1 year. Then they can back down. The Soviet Union’s infrastructure was dangerously poor and once the Middle East, Nigeria and pre-socialist collapse Venezuela increase their oil output the Soviet economy would collapse, probably some time in late 1992. (I think Trevor Dupuy’s “Future Wars: the World’s Most Dangerous Flashpoints.” would be a far more likely outcome given this POD, especially the chapter on a Second Russian Civil War.)

Back when the Kickstarter was announced I posted on the Free League T2K Facebook page pointing out three things I thought they would need to do to keep T2K realistic and playable. It appears they failed at all three. Especially where I warned them against bringing current politics and biases into the setting. On Facebook the head editor, but I notice now not the author of the background, assured me that it would not have any current biases. Ha, ha!

Of course these aren’t the only problems with the TL. I watched the overview of the time put up on YouTube by James Langham, who helped write V2 and consulted on this V4 timeline. He says pretty much everything is “plausible” and goes along with it up until the invasion of Britain. Then he finally has a quibble, he’s British so I guess this was finally a bridge too far for him. I for one was dubious from right about where the USSR magically rebounds economically after the coup led by economic hardliners.

A final point I want to make in this rant...in real life after the Soviet Union actually collapsed, NATO did not accept Polish membership until 1999 and the Baltic states waited a further 5 years until 2004. To do so numerous trade and monetary concessions were made to Russia. Even then this was very controversial in both Russia and NATO. Imagine if the hardline led Soviet Union still existed...did EVERY leader of a NATO nation suddenly forget their continent’s long history as well as the concept of “spheres of influence”? NO NATO would not have risked nuclear Armageddon to protect the Baltics or even Poland. I still think even the far better V2 timeline with a Coup Attempt POD is far fetched but at least it makes a bit of sense. This new Timeline on the other hand stretches far into the realm of Alien Space Bat insanity.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I said it before but I'll say it again...
The game world setting pretty much reads like a high schooler's attempt at alternate history with the writer not actually having any understanding of military operations, logistics or politics let alone how those three aspects were dealt with during the Cold War.

[swaghauler]

I know this is an alternate history but given that the Point of Divergence is only 1991 we can still draw some general conclusions as to how world history would proceed.

A final point I want to make in this rant...in real life after the Soviet Union actually collapsed, NATO did not accept Polish membership until 1999 and the Baltic states waited a further 5 years until 2004. To do so numerous trade and monetary concessions were made to Russia. Even then this was very controversial in both Russia and NATO. Imagine if the hardline led Soviet Union still existed...did EVERY leader of a NATO nation suddenly forget their continent’s long history as well as the concept of “spheres of influence”? NO NATO would not have risked nuclear Armageddon to protect the Baltics or even Poland. I still think even the far better V2 timeline with a Coup Attempt POD is far fetched but at least it makes a bit of sense. This new Timeline on the other hand stretches far into the realm of Alien Space Bat insanity.

This is why I used Poland as the "flashpoint" when I wrote my own alternate history for V2.2. I had Russian-backed rebels creating chaos in Poland and the legitimate Polish government receiving aid from Germany, the Uk, and the US. The situation was very similar to what Russia ACTUALLY did in the Ukraine and I wrote my history in 1999. Imagine my shock at seeing Russia do EXACTLY what I predicted she'd do to prevent Poland from joining NATO. I then had the other members of the Visegrad Group join the fray. That was the spark that brought ruin to Europe.

[Rockwolf66]

This is why I used Poland as the "flashpoint" when I wrote my own alternate history for V2.2. I had Russian-backed rebels creating chaos in Poland and the legitimate Polish government receiving aid from Germany, the Uk, and the US. The situation was very similar to what Russia ACTUALLY did in the Ukraine and I wrote my history in 1999. Imagine my shock at seeing Russia do EXACTLY what I predicted she'd do to prevent Poland from joining NATO. I then had the other members of the Visegrad Group join the fray. That was the spark that brought ruin to Europe.

The problem is that the writers of V4 are leftists. You could tell immediately when you read the draft of the new timeline. West was a horrible leftist pache of Trump with a bit of Bush tossed in. While it is tones down in the Alpha the elements are still there.

They don't view the Soviets or the Chinese as aggressive badguys. They think of the Soviets in the back of their mind as the good guys. Thus the Soviets get to do things that they should not be able to do at all.

Mind you that Thomas himself lied to the Discord group when he said that this would not reflect current political events.

[Legbreaker]

Mind you that Thomas himself lied to the Discord group when he said that this would not reflect current political events.

I believe he honestly can't see it because of his own bias.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I don't know if any of you chaps are on Facebook, I'm planning on doing a livestream regarding these quite frankly gross distortions of the T2k plot/worldbuilding committed by Free League. You don't have to follow me/friend me, the livestream will be viewable by all.

https://www.facebook.com/bill.silvey.7/posts/10161730122691959

[Benjamin]

I believe he honestly can't see it because of his own bias.

Same on Facebook when I warned against current political biases creeping into the setting. Thomas claimed to be totally aware of this potential issue and was doing everything to prevent it. That didn’t happen.

It appears that the problem arose primarily from Chris Lites, the person listed as the primary author. His political biases are readily apparent on his “witty” Facebook page. It’s fine to have biases, everyone does. But given that he looks too young to even have been alive during the Cold War, I’m guessing that he has nothing but these biases to go on when writing about the Cold War. And I think you’re right, Thomas who almost certainly has similar biases just didn’t even notice. When you live in an echo chamber it’s very hard to hear anything beyond it.

[Legbreaker]

Chris has possibly pissed me off more than anyone else. Not from any one thing he's said or done, everything's just added up since I first became aware of him several years ago (when he first "leaked" news of the game and refused to put me in touch with the company, or even pass on my contact details).
Tomas has been relatively easy to deal with for most non-game related things, but trying to get him to understand what we were concerned about in the drafts was like pulling teeth - with a wet noodle. Extremely frustrating and ultimately totally ineffective.

[Spartan-117]

It's Spartan Time! Two G&Ts in, here comes the wisdom!

The great irony is that all the left believe the right is in an echo chamber and all the right believe the left is in an echo chamber. Because yeah, social media AI feed us the meals we want to eat.

Listen, you guys who were pre-Alpha and are still upset, consider this - You already moved the needle. If this is better than it was before, congrats! That's truly an accomplishment. I mean really, over the Internet, you helped someone else move from an extreme position you absolutely disagreed with to something closer to the middle, that maybe you hate just a touch less? Mark your f-ing calendars; on the Internet, in the echo chambers previously mentioned, that's not something that normally happens.

What do we do when we move the needle but don't get it to where it needs to be? We keep pushing. We enlisted allies (I know, I know.. but yeah, everyone needs allies) and we try to move the needle some more.

Unless you gain some spectacular and applicable insight into how to move the needle by over-analyzing someone else's political leanings, it's probably a better use of everyone's time to gather input and feedback and offer it in as-a-constructive manner as possible.

You've already had some success and this project is still in alpha. Don't fold now, the game is just getting started.

[Lurken]

You've already had some success and this project is still in alpha. Don't fold now, the game is just getting started.

That point of view is nice to hear.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, we did move it, just nowhere near far enough, and now the fan bois are praising it for being so "stunning and brave"....

[raketenjagdpanzer]

As promised, today's rant...

https://www.facebook.com/bill.silvey.7/videos/10161730120921959/

[Legbreaker]

And a DAMN FINE rant it is too!
Where can we find the youtube link?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

And a DAMN FINE rant it is too!
Where can we find the youtube link?

I'll upload it to Youtube probably tomorrow; I am playing AD&D right now.

[Legbreaker]

I would say you've got your priorities all backwards, but since it's Advanced D&D and not one of the heretical later pretend versions, you're forgiven. ;)

[Southernap]

It's Spartan Time! Two G&Ts in, here comes the wisdom!

The great irony is that all the left believe the right is in an echo chamber and all the right believe the left is in an echo chamber. Because yeah, social media AI feed us the meals we want to eat.

Listen, you guys who were pre-Alpha and are still upset, consider this - You already moved the needle. If this is better than it was before, congrats! That's truly an accomplishment. I mean really, over the Internet, you helped someone else move from an extreme position you absolutely disagreed with to something closer to the middle, that maybe you hate just a touch less? Mark your f-ing calendars; on the Internet, in the echo chambers previously mentioned, that's not something that normally happens.

What do we do when we move the needle but don't get it to where it needs to be? We keep pushing. We enlisted allies (I know, I know.. but yeah, everyone needs allies) and we try to move the needle some more.

Unless you gain some spectacular and applicable insight into how to move the needle by over-analyzing someone else's political leanings, it's probably a better use of everyone's time to gather input and feedback and offer it in as-a-constructive manner as possible.

You've already had some success and this project is still in alpha. Don't fold now, the game is just getting started.

At the same time if the needle was moved, but it was only moved a tenth of an inch. Then did it really matter? If they were unwilling to talk about or even make adjustments to the lore, then what does that say if they start to get rule questions or concerns where things don't work in the rules? You want changes to character creation? Yea we might consider it....okay we did some tweaks and here you go with the rule changes. [Narrator: The changes were minor and not what the play testers found were issues]. I have also seen in other places both in board games and wargame miniatures that play testers have found issues with not only the lore, but the rules. Kvetching, hair pulling, and rending of garments occurred. Only for the designer to offer up insults and ban folks or attempt to ban folks from commenting on how messed up the game is at either the alpha or beta phases.



*******************************************
To me there are ways to try and make a new TL work for Tw2k post 1991. That would be exploiting Yugoslavia. To drag Sweden, like what FL wants to do into the game it isn't that hard and I really think that you can take the 1991 coup and make it work. You can work the "Peace Dividend" in and still make the whole idea of the Twilight war work.

Not that it matters much but take this:


1991 - Coup occurs and Gorby is disposed. Hardliners come into play
1991 - Even with the hardliners in power the need to feed folks and get the economy that Gorby destroyed back up causes USSR to go internal for a while. PACT collapses and the Eastern Europe tries to come up to speed fast with democracy and capitalism. The cracks start to falter
1992 - Clinton comes to power. With the collapse of Soviet Union. High off win in Iraq in 1991. Peace Dividend comes into effect in the west. Yet, the needs for the US to be the Hegemonic power starts to play. The US has troops in Somalia, Arabia, Korea, and the American Hemisphere. All while NATO scales back.
1992 - Bosina war starts. the USSR pledges military and financial aid to keep the Yugoslavia states together or at least to defend the Slavic peoples.
At this point I think have the incident at Pristina Airport occur earlier, this starts to give a cause belli for the war in the west. Have the ChiComs decide that going after the Kamchatka Peninsula and its bases along with the traditional 1969 border crisis creep up again. Introduce an economic collapse of some sort that throws everyone into the doldrums, whether it is the 2008 Great Recession or not. So some see the rising Soviets at this point fat and flush with cash making communism work and capitalists go count trees.
1994 - The PACT comes back into play after the economy in the east falters. With the New Soviets promising to share their oil wealth.
1995 - The PACT goes west after "reports" of NATO atrocities in Yugoslavia when IFOR fails to protect Slavs from genocide.
1996 - To assist in securing the Northern Flank with war against NATO. The PACT invades Sweden to either allow for breakout of the Soviet Naval Forces in the Baltics or to attack Norway.
At which we take everything else in either V1 or V2 timeline to have occurred at some point after 1996 with the course of the war.

The only other change I would make is maybe have the the RDF books shift and instead deal more with Iraqi in some way, shape, or form. Maybe even have it being that the Soviets invade Iraq to drive into Saudi Arabia oil fields. Since by this revised timeline Iran isn't a reason for the Soviet Invasion and most anyone knows about Iran is current history. While Desert Shield/Storm/Sabre are still fresh in the memories.

The biggest issues I have with the lore as written in the 4th Edition is the logic games to get us from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the invasion of the Baltic states and the use of nuclear weapons because the Soviets invade Poland while the US invades Sweden with a carrier force that doesn't exist in real life until 1998 and couldn't even get into the Baltic with said carriers due to simple physics. I am not even going to try and wrap my head around the mid-east setup, it sounds very much like some bad fever dream of Z grade pulp fiction writer of action adventure novels. There are just too many plot holes in the post 1998 time line that makes sense. There are massive nuclear strikes on the US, but somehow at surviving port facilities a convoy of thousands of ships is assembled and sent to Europe with men. Wait...what? How does that even work? Similarly after the nuclear strikes, there are protests in major cities throughout the US? Wait...what? Did we have the infamous "thanksgiving day" massacre or did it not happen? The plot holes here are so huge that again a Z grade pulp fiction writer would have problems hand waving them away, let alone feel bad for creating them.

The number of plot holes in the new lore is troubling and makes it difficult to fit the older modules into the new game, let alone explain what is or isn't canon. That isn't even going to touch on the fact that they took a MacGuffin (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin) in the form of a V1 module about Operation Reset. Moved the whole operation that is the reason for the 5th ID to be destroyed and call that Operation Reset. Which completely invalidates said module as well as prevents you from using said module (and its related Polish modules) for anything since you rip the heart of the module out by eliminating the MacGuffin.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It was implied at some point a few months back that you are not meant to try and fit modules from earlier editions into Free League's reboot of T2k.
I vaguely recall something to the effect that anything published before Free League's reboot is NOT canon for their version.

[Legbreaker]

Indeed.
Can't use previously published materials! They won't get their cut!

[Benjamin]

SNIP


*******************************************
To me there are ways to try and make a new TL work for Tw2k post 1991. That would be exploiting Yugoslavia. To drag Sweden, like what FL wants to do into the game it isn't that hard and I really think that you can take the 1991 coup and make it work. You can work the "Peace Dividend" in and still make the whole idea of the Twilight war work.

Not that it matters much but take this:


1991 - Coup occurs and Gorby is disposed. Hardliners come into play
1991 - Even with the hardliners in power the need to feed folks and get the economy that Gorby destroyed back up causes USSR to go internal for a while. PACT collapses and the Eastern Europe tries to come up to speed fast with democracy and capitalism. The cracks start to falter

—Gorbachev didn’t wreck the Soviet economy, communism did. Eastern Europe can’t reform quickly because their industries are outdated and run down. It would take time and the Hardliners would never allow the West to move in and get economic control.

1992 - Clinton comes to power. With the collapse of Soviet Union. High off win in Iraq in 1991. Peace Dividend comes into effect in the west. Yet, the needs for the US to be the Hegemonic power starts to play. The US has troops in Somalia, Arabia, Korea, and the American Hemisphere. All while NATO scales back.

—Clinton gets elected in late 1992 but doesn’t “come to power” until January 20, 1993. I’m not so sure about what NATO does. The Coup brings Hardliners to power...so what are these Hardliners hardline about? Most likely economic reform will be reversed and sabres will be rattled concerning the status of Eastern Europe. Some European nations might reduce military spending but in many ways tensions will actually increase, especially as Jugoslavia falls apart. Either way no bailout money will be going into the Soviet Union from the West and the US economy can afford to be a hegemonic power as the USSR withers.

1992 - Bosina war starts. the USSR pledges military and financial aid to keep the Yugoslavia states together or at least to defend the Slavic peoples.

—This will be another Afghanistan/Vietnam for the USSR at a time when they completely can’t afford it. It’s actually likely to occur given historical ties and Russian pride, but it won’t end well for them even if the West stays completely hands off.

At this point I think have the incident at Pristina Airport occur earlier, this starts to give a cause belli for the war in the west. Have the ChiComs decide that going after the Kamchatka Peninsula and its bases along with the traditional 1969 border crisis creep up again. Introduce an economic collapse of some sort that throws everyone into the doldrums, whether it is the 2008 Great Recession or not. So some see the rising Soviets at this point fat and flush with cash making communism work and capitalists go count trees.

—There is no Great Recession in the works for the early or mid-1990s. The groundwork has already been laid for the economic boom of the 90s while the internet and housing bubbles were each 6-to-10 years away. That can’t really be changed by a POD of mid-1991. Added to this the crime wave of the 1980s was abating. Global economic growth might be slower with a belligerent Soviet Union still around but it’s on its way. The Pacific Rim, where Soviet influence is minor will see its historical boom. Very quickly a stagnant Soviet Union will be left behind, even more than the Russia of our history.

1994 - The PACT comes back into play after the economy in the east falters. With the New Soviets promising to share their oil wealth.

The economy in Eastern Europe was well past “falters” prior to the 1989 events. The Soviet Union has nothing to offer but oppression and Poland et.al know that. There is no oil windfall for the Soviet Union. Their infrastructure was a mess and without Western assistance and trade deals it gets worse. The Gulf War oil price spike lasted less than a year. After that OPEC moved up production quotas and the Soviet Union’s oil industry would never keep up.

1995 - The PACT goes west after "reports" of NATO atrocities in Yugoslavia when IFOR fails to protect Slavs from genocide.

If the Soviet Union moves into Jugoslavia there is probably no UN/NATO presence beyond Slovenia and maybe Macedonia. The Soviet Union still has a veto on the security council and at this point they would be loath to loose even more regional influence to the West.

1996 - To assist in securing the Northern Flank with war against NATO. The PACT invades Sweden to either allow for breakout of the Soviet Naval Forces in the Baltics or to attack Norway.

—Sweden does little to secure the Northern Flank. They need control of the Northern half of Norway which might call for crossing Finnish territory but bringing the well armed Swedes into the war makes no sense for either side. Occasional illegal overflights might be a go but nothing too provocative.

At which we take everything else in either V1 or V2 timeline to have occurred at some point after 1996 with the course of the war.

—-This the general problem. The post Coup V2 timeline never made much sense but may have been reasonable given our understanding at the time of its writing. The V4 timeline on the other hand is crap.



MORE SNIPE



No offense is intended here; your ideas are far better than what I’ve seen with V4.

I’ve just gotten tired of the authors of “historical” RPGs where the background setting makes no sense. It’s one thing if your doing a Cold War setting with Vampires, magic or Cthulhu but T2K is “hard alternate history” and should be written as such. The V4 timeline is a mishmash of teenage “moar cool!”, political axe grinding and downright ignorance of the Cold War era.

[Benjamin]

I'll upload it to Youtube probably tomorrow; I am playing AD&D right now.

Bill, I watched your Facebook video yesterday but couldn’t comment. My IPad has issues with the Facebook video player.

I too like Stålenhag’s “Tales From the Loop” setting, but I thought you were a bit too kind when you said it wasn’t political. I found the follow up, “Things From the Flood”, to have very strong and pervasive political undertones. To me it seemed very anti-capitalism. The entire Flood setting centers around consumerism and the high-tech wonders it spawned falling apart and leaving decay. There are also strong environmental overtones as well. Stålenhag is a wonderful artist be he and his setting are very steeped in euro-left political ideology. This doesn’t mean I dislike the setting but I found “Things From the Flood” overly pessimistic and out of touch with the economic realities of the 1990s. Perhaps Sweden, still recovering from its socialist experience of the 1970s and early 80s was doing poorly in the 1990s but the rest of the West were doing quite well in the 1990s.

[It turns out Sweden had its worse economic crisis in over 50s starting in 1990. Banks failed and unemployment skyrocketed due to over lending. This obviously shaped the “Things From the Flood.” but historically would not have held true for the US and elsewhere.]

As for the V4 TL I agree it’s garbage and I feared this would be the case from early on. That’s a major reason why I dropped out of the Kickstarter. Chris Lites has no filter on his strong political biases and the team at Free League were certainly not the ones who would be able or willing to reign him in. Either way it is what it is. Another version of T2K to strongly avoid.

[Olefin]

Good to see that I am not alone in thinking that the background, timeline and war events are garbage. And you are right about the political leanings of those who wrote the game. And you can see that Tomas has already posted on the FL FB page that there are no large scale US forces left in Europe and no "lines" to get back to

In other words this atrocity of a V4 release is 100% NOT TWILIGHT 2000 as we knew it and loved it

And the Free League fan boys, almost none of them actual T2K players, clearly are only looking at this as a game to spend a couple of evenings on and then go to the next game.

And yes I have had the Chris Lites experience - and he is everything that Legbreaker said and worse - and has a very definite political viewpoint

And Tomas told us that the Alpha would be changed form the original drafts we saw about the the total destruction of NATO and the US Armed forces that he said was just a draft, wait for the Alpha - and then out comes the Alpha and if anything its worse - and whats even worse is that comments that Tomas has made make it clear that his own writers arent keeping him in the loop on the Alpha - he just told me that only the 5th was supposed to be destroyed - I pointed out that Secret Handout said eight full Corps were assigned to Reset and the Players Manual clearly said they were all overrun and survivors running for the woods

[mpipes]

And Tomas told us that the Alpha would be changed form the original drafts we saw about the the total destruction of NATO and the US Armed forces that he said was just a draft, wait for the Alpha - and then out comes the Alpha and if anything its worse - and whats even worse is that comments that Tomas has made make it clear that his own writers arent keeping him in the loop on the Alpha - he just told me that only the 5th was supposed to be destroyed - I pointed out that Secret Handout said eight full Corps were assigned to Reset and the Players Manual clearly said they were all overrun and survivors running for the woods

If that is the case, then maybe Tomas will reign the idiots in and get a decent backstory in place. But then those pesky mechanics are a pile of poop also.

Just out of curiosity, what was the goal? From what I thought many moons ago, they were intending the game to be mostly compatible with the previous editions....at least enough so that only minor tweaking would be needed. This pile of poop seems to want to kick hard core players - you know the guys that will shell out bucks for MANY follow on products for YEARS - in the crotch.

[Olefin]

If that is the case, then maybe Tomas will reign the idiots in and get a decent backstory in place. But then those pesky mechanics are a pile of poop also.

Just out of curiosity, what was the goal? From what I thought many moons ago, they were intending the game to be mostly compatible with the previous editions....at least enough so that only minor tweaking would be needed. This pile of poop seems to want to kick hard core players - you know the guys that will shell out bucks for MANY follow on products for YEARS - in the crotch.

Frankly I dont see them putting out any follow on products except Frank's Madonna - this smacks of one and done - and not being there to support a campaign based game - which explains the total lack of the world at war and the lack of being able to play any character that is with NATO or even the other WP members that are clearly mentioned in the game

And you are right - this went from being a V2.2. update to a total rip it up and start over

Notice that the oil war which was a huge part of V1 and V2.2. is completely lacking here - no targeting at all of petroleum sources and refineries which the original game went out of its way detailing

[Jason Weiser]

Just re-read the entire mess of a background to make sure I got what I said right:

Ok, for starters? Iraq and Syria allying to form this 'New United Arab Republic?' Have they literally not studied any of the history of those two countries? They cordially hate each other. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Syrians gleefully cut Iraqi access to the main oil pipeline Iraq used to get its oil to the Mediterranean. This cost the Iraqis billions in lost oil revenue. Moreover, the Syrians were a major arms dealer to Iran. There is no way, not with Hafez Al-Assad and Saddam Hussein still in the picture that these two will ever cooperate on anything.

Next, The Sweden timeline seems like a torturous method to a simple goal: Get Sweden into the war. A little history serves well here too? Whiskey on the Rocks anyone? Considering the Soviets violated Swedish territorial waters and airspace all throughout the Cold War, why couldn't an incident be the catalyst?

Finally, the writing on Page 143 is so vague, that even if Tomas is indeed being honest that he is only referring to the 5th Division being destroyed, then he should have made it clearer, this to me is bad writing and poor sentence structure.

Also, the strange occurrences in Sweden with military units and Parliaments disappearing, one has to wonder if this was a bad attempt at cross-marketing with Tales From the Loop?

[Southernap]

No offense is intended here; your ideas are far better than what I’ve seen with V4.


No offense taken. I was trying to make something work with the "Coup is successful" timeline and bring in some other major events from the 1990s that occurred. The only other way to make the "Coup is successful" work, is have the 1989 Berlin Wall crisis happen where the East Germans or the Russians go all Tienanmen Square on the protesters in Berlin and Gorby goes to "retire" at his dacha and then has a "medical" incident while on retirement.

I only brought up the great recession, idea was that there was a thread for a while in the early to mid 90s in various media from books to games. That assumed the absorption of Eastern Europe into the common markets might have caused the collapse of some economies due to migration of low income workers. That said, we can quibble about details all day long still we both agree that there are some good options from the real history that can provide points of divergence for the counterfactual.

[Legbreaker]

I am of the opinion we should all let FL crash and burn.

A few years from now another company picks up the title and, hopefully, looks at forums such as this, discord, FB, etc and sees where both FL and 93 went wrong and does better.
Really, it's not THAT hard is it? Just take the 1st & 2.x timelines and clean them up a little, same thing with the 2.2 ruleset (yes, I know there's a lot who prefer 1st, but...) and boom, you've got a viable 5th ed that a) doesn't piss people off, b) is 100% compatible with the early versions and c) actually ADDS to the host of resources already out there.

[Olefin]

I am of the opinion we should all let FL crash and burn.

A few years from now another company picks up the title and, hopefully, looks at forums such as this, discord, FB, etc and sees where both FL and 93 went wrong and does better.
Really, it's not THAT hard is it? Just take the 1st & 2.x timelines and clean them up a little, same thing with the 2.2 ruleset (yes, I know there's a lot who prefer 1st, but...) and boom, you've got a viable 5th ed that a) doesn't piss people off, b) is 100% compatible with the early versions and c) actually ADDS to the host of resources already out there.

And d) let’s us build off the work of the past and honor it and go forward with the timeline but with improvements like an actual decent UK Sourcebook

[raketenjagdpanzer]

This is kind of how I felt when 4e D&D came out, insisting that things like Tieflings and Eladrin were "always" in various settings, including Greyhawk, etc.

[Raellus]

Although it's nice to have a place to vent, a lot of the discussion in this thread has been in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of our forum guidelines. Some of it has been downright nasty. I've let this go on for too long.

A little refresher is probably in order.

Keep It Civil

We can all agree to disagree but let's make sure to do so respectfully. No name-calling, sarcasm, or other childishness is appropriate or welcome here. If you are upset with someone and want them to know about it, send them a PM and try to work it out privately. If another member is really getting on your nerves, you can use the forum tools to place that person on your ignore list. We don't tolerate flame wars here.

Please don't attempt to incite internecine forum conflict with deliberately provocative and/or inflammatory posts. In interweb parlance, please don't be a troll.

Keep It Constructive

Folks post a lot of original T2K material here, most of it of the highest quality. Many contributors invite and welcome constructive criticism. If, however, they do not solicit feedback, then it's poor form to pipe in give it anyway. And please, don't post just to tear down the hard work of others. If you really don't like something that someone else has posted, and can't express this respectfully and with the intention of creating a constructive dialogue with the poster, then you should probably just keep it to yourself.

Keep it Apolitical

Partisan politics tend to lead to nastiness, so please don't drag political opinions into this forum. We don't tolerate hate speech or of any kind. Slurs pertaining to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation will result in a permanent ban from this forum.

If You Refuse To Follow These Guidelines…

Failure to follow these forum guidelines will result in administrative action. This could be a warning, a temporary ban, or even permanent banishment from the forum community.

-

So, to sum up, constructive criticism of v4 is appropriate and allowable in this thread. However, name-calling and trashing are NOT.

-

[Legbreaker]

Pretty hard to be constructive when the foundation material is just soooo bad and the company responsible has so far shown very little inclination to actually listen to those of us who've already spoken up directly to them. :(

But, you're right. Insults, etc aren't going to help anyone.

[Raellus]

Pretty hard to be constructive when the foundation material is just soooo bad and the company responsible has so far shown very little inclination to actually listen to those of us who've already spoken up directly to them. :(

This comment is kind of what I'm talking about. Fair or not, this point has been made, ad nauseum, here and elsewhere. How is repeating it constructive?

We've all had time to vent. Enough is enough. Let's try to move on.

But, you're right. Insults, etc aren't going to help anyone.

I'm glad that we agree on that, at least.

-

[Legbreaker]

This comment is kind of what I'm talking about. Fair or not, this point has been made, ad nauseum, here and elsewhere. How is repeating it constructive?

Hence my earlier comment about just letting FL crash and burn.

[Raellus]

Hence my earlier comment about just letting FL crash and burn.

Again, what's the point (of this comment)? You said it once before. That's enough. Ad nauseum.

-

[Olefin]

Again, what's the point (of this comment)?

-

its called constructive criticism and debate - which is what the board is for - and he has a point unfortunately - and he is not alone in his point - but I really dont want to see V4 crash and burn. Hopefully Tomas is going to listen to the rising tide of criticism and realize that its time to start listening to the fans who love this game with a passion and joy and deep abiding committment to it - the ones who kept it alive all these years when many other games would have disappeared entirely.

V4 could be and can be so much more - but he needs to swallow his pride and realize that Twilight 2000 was never just about basic survival - it was also a great military simulation game that gave us a bunch of fantastic modules where you didnt just have to survive but as a character actually make a difference in the world

go stop a madman in the Ukraine and Warsaw

take out a bunch of generals in a hotel in Iran and in the process maybe derail the Soviet plans in Iran for good

find a way to somehow keep your the forces in Kenya going on a shoe string and a prayer

Stop the last Boomer from turning what was left of the US into radioactive ruin

Or save two kids from a bunch of pirates using a replica of a 200 year old ship

That is Twilight 2000 as well - and someone needs to remind Tomas and Marc of that

[Raellus]

its called constructive criticism and debate - which is what the board is for

Wait, now you're a defender of free speech?!? The following is NOT constructive criticism:



IT SUCKS

And a game that has a crappy half ass antifa/Soviet fan boy background where the US military and government act like complete morons and the Soviet Army is all conquering is the last thing I want to play

My suggestion - keep the mechanics, trash the entire campaign background, timeline, and war events including RESET and start over

Oh I havent yet begun to fight this abomination - and frankly I would agree with you on the Russian internet trolls - or Soviet fanboys

Sorry but that is utter BS -

Frankly this timeline and background is a goat screw.

- and frankly people crowing about the "artwork" five minutes after it was out and not even reading the rules and the actual game background show that they werent serious potential players


In other words this atrocity of a V4 release is 100% NOT TWILIGHT 2000 as we knew it and loved it

These are all from different posts in this thread. No emphasis added. Those are your words, every quote arguably a violation of forum guidelines, definitely in spirit, if not in the letter.

Cease and desist or be banned.

-

[Olefin]

Nothing that I posted tonight in any way violate the guidelines of this board. That is called listening to you Raellus and posting accordingly.

[Jason Weiser]

Gentlemen, in the interests of easing tensions and giving us all a chance to calm down, I propose strongly that we lock the thread for 24 hours.

[Raellus]

Unlocked.

It's totally acceptable to criticize v4, as long as the criticism is constructive (i.e. offers alternatives, solutions, fixes, etc.) and the tone of said is civil (i.e. no name-calling and insults). If those guidelines aren't followed, this thread will be relocked.

-

[mpipes]

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don’t just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

2) You can’t have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don’t believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won’t risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL’s scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitzs are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

4) Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you’ll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

5) Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

6) Put Sweden’s spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they?

7) You can’t have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

8) This can’t be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

9) Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel’s side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly?

10) Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

[3catcircus]

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don’t just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

2) You can’t have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don’t believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won’t risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL’s scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitzs are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

4) Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you’ll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

5) Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

6) Put Sweden’s spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they?

7) You can’t have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

8) This can’t be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

9) Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel’s side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly?

10) Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Pretty much everything you said.

If you want realistic timeline events, all you gotta do is look at headlines over the last 10 years. China muscling it's way through the Pacific with man-made islands, resulting in confrontation with it's neighbors. Instead of the Spratley's or the ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, maybe the 2008 Russia-China border agreement results in a later dispute that'll draw Russia in conflict with China?

Despite some misgiving about the timeline, I really like TW2013s mechanics - skill points have a definite effect on the randomness of dice rolls rather than just affecting the target number, which reflects the randomness of the real world where even experts can be wrong sometimes.

[Raellus]

If you want realistic timeline events, all you gotta do is look at headlines over the last 10 years. China muscling it's way through the Pacific with man-made islands, resulting in confrontation with it's neighbors. Instead of the Spratley's or the ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, maybe the 2008 Russia-China border agreement results in a later dispute that'll draw Russia in conflict with China?

Absolutely. It wasn't difficult to create a timeline for a T2030. The biggest challenge was narrowing down the list of current conflict zones that contributed to the beginning of WWIII to only two or three major ones. There are just so many conflict zones and potential flashpoints in our world today.

The problem with creating a Twilight 2000 timeline that includes the fall of the Iron Curtain and collapse of the Soviet Union c.1991 (i.e. v4) is plausibly explaining how the rump Soviet state recovers by '97 or so, and manages to wage a fairly successful offensive war against most of NATO and the former WTO. I'm not sure it's possible to do this realistically. This is why I think the v1 alternative, No Collapse, timeline is really, IMHO, the only viable way to go to get to 2000 as campaign starting point.

But, v4 is trying, so the best thing that disgruntled folks can do is give their constructive feedback on the Alpha directly to Free League and hope that it sinks in. It's too much to hope for a RETCON- I just don't see them redoing their entire timeline. However, if they make it just a little more realistic/plausible, that, for me, would be a win.

-

[pansarskott]

Good writeup!



11) The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.


The weird thing is that the French military does a coup because the civilan government does not retaliate. And then the coup-makers does not retaliate.

The following day, the French President announced that France would not retaliate, provoking major riots throughout the country. In reaction, a group of generals, the Three Consuls, instigated a coup and overturned the government, seizing Paris and other major cities.

It's not really clear if they have missile subs, or attack subs left. Both types are nuclear powered. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_France)
For now, the government keeps its coastline under the surveillance of the last three French nuclear submarines

[Jason Weiser]

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don’t just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.


To quote Bill Slivey - "Twilight: 2000 is the lore."

2) You can’t have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don’t believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

Moreover? Except for the French, much of NATO's nuclear capable assets had SIOP taskings. I mean, we gave the FRG Pershings? I don't think we did that out of sheer kindness. We did it because we wanted nuclear buy-in from the rest of the alliance.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won’t risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL’s scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitz's are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

The first skipper of a carrier that does this in waters like the Baltic is the first skipper to get relieved of command for cause in the Third World War. And pulling into a potentially hostile harbor with a nuclear-capable asset? Um, no. See the USS Cole for what a bad idea this is in RL. And that was just a DDG. A TLAM-capable DDG. Nope, they might have some lighter units pull into Stockholm, but it's too far forward for friendly assets.

4)Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you’ll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

Even this is a bit of a stretch. The RAF is no slouch, and most of that airborne unit isn't going to make it to the DZs. The Spetsnaz should already be operating in the UK before the outbreak of war in a clandestine mode? But against the UK's formidable internal apparatus plus SAS let off the leash? I won't even talk about what most military installations in the UK were going to be like in case of war. There's a reason the RAF Regiment exists. I give most Spetsnaz teams about 3-6 months. That's assuming they're just doing SR work. If they're doing DA work? Dead as doornails much sooner.

5)Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

Without allies, the Soviets are toast. They just don't have any strategic depth to hold off NATO before you're playing Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo, now with more ATGM! Considering the Soviets consider that sort of thing a national security goal to avoid it ever happening again, I expect Soviet pre-war diplomacy to be a bit more...adroit?

6)Put Sweden’s spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they?

One does wonder. At the very least, raising hell in the invader's rear area?

7)You can’t have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

mpipes is on the money. The Soviets would have used first in this situation precisely to support an advance by their forces. They would have hit first with overwhelming use of tactical and theatre nuclear weapons. The Soviets for years vacillated in their planning on whether or not they would go nuclear from the outset (depended on who was in power).

8)This can’t be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

That's the thing, v1 and v2 were world wars. There was stuff going on all over! You had Iowa sinking a Kirov with her 16" guns off of Grenada. You had fighting in Alaska and Texas. You had a sourcebook on Thailand! This version is sadly a bit myopic in it's focus. Even v1, while it's focus was Europe, gave lip service to the rest of the world.

9)Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel’s side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly?

It's not just anti-Semitic. It's laughably naïve about middle eastern politics ca. 1991. First, Syria and Iraq hated each other. A lot. Syria took every opportunity during the Iran-Iraq war to screw Iraq. They shut down pipelines Iraq needed for oil revenue to buy arms and they sold the Iranians everything they could afford, and helped others ship arms to Iran as well. Then there's the not so small fact that Syria sent troops to participate in Desert Storm in 1991. Granted, they didn't do much, but they were there. So no, Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad are not going to do anything in cooperation.

The last time I could honestly say that an Arab coalition realistically threatened the survival of the state of Israel on a level that nuclear weapons release was contemplated was 1973. And even then it was a stretch. Nope, the IDF is going to mop the floor with any realistic combination of Arab armies. To me, a more realistic threat? Egypt goes fundamentalist earlier. It was always possible, and the Soviets cozy up to the new regime. You have Egypt and a rearmed Syria looking for a rematch? Then it gets interesting. But even then, the Gulf Arabs + Iraq ironically aren't going to sit back and say "Gee, we think this is an awesome state of affairs." Will they side with Israel? On a de factobasis, but not de jure.

As for the Balkans? Considering it was a powder keg in the 90s? There should be fighting galore in the former Yugoslavia, with both sides backing various factions.

10)Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

Big drop of the ball here. This is an European company, I think not doing this is just a non-starter.

11)If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

The Force De Frappe was there to make sure any nuclear aggressor against France suffered as badly as France did. The idea of France not launching is just plain not realistic. They had an independent force, not subject to the US SIOP, and they would have executed that plan, no matter what we or anyone else said to them, especially if the Soviets are dropping warheads on French foreheads. Forget Paris. If Lille or Le Havre catch a nuke, it's on.

12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Resource management is part of the game. It can be tedious, and I will admit I fudge it, but then again, I at least pay it lip service. Logistics is a bitch, and in T2K, like in RL, failing to pay attention can and will kill you in a variety of un-fun ways.

[Black Vulmea]

To me there are ways to try and make a new TL work for Tw2k post 1991. That would be exploiting Yugoslavia.
Yes! It's not like we don't have precedent for strife in the Balkans precipitating a world war . . .

I admit I was never fond of the geopolitics and timeline in v1, either, to be honest, and house ruled it as an Able Archer scenario that went tragically wrong.

If I ever run v4, I will as well: a Balkans crisis with NATO and PACT intervention, a Pakistan-India-China kerfuffle, and Iraq flexing in the Middle East.

[3catcircus]

To quote Bill Slivey - "Twilight: 2000 is the lore."

12)

Resource management is part of the game. It can be tedious, and I will admit I fudge it, but then again, I at least pay it lip service. Logistics is a bitch, and in T2K, like in RL, failing to pay attention can and will kill you in a variety of un-fun ways.

If 2000 is the lore, will it be given sufficient attention to detail? Part of the resource management is knowing what kit you have and what you need to keep it working.

That race through the countryside dodging an evemy tank? You absolutely need to keep track of fuel burned and bullets fired because the quest for resources drives the way a campaign unfolds. If resource management, encumbrance, and tending to the injured are hand-waved, what else is there to focus the players? This isn't the D&D dungeon crawl mindset...

In other words, how hard is it to develop ammo cards, weapon cards, vehicle cards, etc.? Or is the thinking that the rules set won't support that level of granularity?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.
<snip>

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.
France sent agents to sink a Greenpeace ship in the harbour of a friendly nation to prevent the ship from protesting nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific - and this reboot timeline wants us to believe France would sit back and do nothing if someone dropped an actual nuclear warhead on them?
Ah yeah, NO!

12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.
Unfortunately that will not happen. None of the things you suggest fit with their other Year Zero games and because this reboot is very firmly based on the Year Zero rules, it will not be changed.
The Year Zero rules suit the dungeon crawl style of the FL games philosophy so they are not going to change the design to suit the more sandbox style that 1st & 2nd and 2013 have.
If 2000 is the lore, will it be given sufficient attention to detail? Part of the resource management is knowing what kit you have and what you need to keep it working.

That race through the countryside dodging an evemy tank? You absolutely need to keep track of fuel burned and bullets fired because the quest for resources drives the way a campaign unfolds. If resource management, encumbrance, and tending to the injured are hand-waved, what else is there to focus the players? This isn't the D&D dungeon crawl mindset...

In other words, how hard is it to develop ammo cards, weapon cards, vehicle cards, etc.? Or is the thinking that the rules set won't support that level of granularity?
As I mentioned above, the Year Zero games all appear to me, to be based around dungeon crawling and the most minimal book-keeping that they can get away with.
You could be forgiven for calling FL's reboot as "Twilight: 2000 lite" but I think even that fails to recognise just how stripped back the Year Zero system is compared to what we expect from a game that has a central theme of surviving & rebuilding in the post-apocalypse of a global war.

The Year Zero rules seem to work well for Tales From The Loop but your characters in that game are children and adolescents. They haven't had the life experience to accumulate special skills and training so the generalized approach to handling Skill tasks works. But for a game where the characters are adults or older adolescents? Characters who have had years of schooling or time in the workplace and have years of acquired experience & knowledge?
The Year Zero rules are basic and to paraphrase one of the designers of the T2k reboot, they want to replicate the thrill of gunfights & car chases you see in movies - the Year Zero rules will work for this purpose. They don't want rules that are more sophisticated because they seem to view that as bogging down the gameplay.
The Year Zero rules are for all intents and purposes here, pulp action rules and just like I do not believe Savage Worlds rules work for Twilight: 2000, I don't believe any other pulp action rules set will work either.

And FL do actually have weapon cards but they seem to have no clear direction on how and what to produce. To illustrate what I mean, they devote several pages to weapons cards but some could be easily combined. There is no functional or physical difference between the Soviet manufactured SVD and the Polish manufactured SWD.
The SWD is a Polish made SVD, the names are different because one is in Russian and the other is in Polish... so why have two different weapons cards, one for each?

This is true for a number of the Polish weapons because they choose to have Soviet weapons cards, Swedish weapons cards, Polish weapons cards, US weapons cards and so on.
This seems like a good idea but in reality it's unnecessary duplication of information and a total waste of page space & development time - but it does give the impression on first glance that they have a lot of weapons in the book.

[Silent Hunter UK]

They also missed out the OT-64.

[Raellus]

StainlessSteelCynic shared an interesting find in another thread, but it seems particularly germane to the v4 T2kU, so I'm reposting the link here. I encourage y'all to read it. It's worth your time. The author's strategic analysis is quite illuminating, and particularly germane to the v4 World At War controversy/debate. A particularly eye-opening quote follows:

"[The Soviet Union] Launching a conventional war with limited aims in Northern Europe (Seven Days to the Rhine) with an openly declared promise not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, would produce such a shock to our system it would have been economically catastrophic.

"Recovery from that would have put Russia and the USA on more equal financial terms as much of the Dollar economy is based on confidence and communication, while the Russian economy was captive. It may not be a plan to take over the world, but quite possibly enough coercion to get the world to pay them off - give them Germany, Denmark, Holland and back off from China to stop them [the Soviets] slapping us about.

"It was unlikely, but many historical pivots only needed a gentle push off the cliff. In August 1991 I sat in a tank shed in Hohne listing to the BBC news tell us about the Soviet coup in Moscow . Gorbachev was rumoured to have been killed, the Tamanskya Guards Division were rolling around the Kremlin, shady generals were in charge and unhappy with the imminent end of Soviet power. There were still millions of WarPac soldiers and tons of equipment within a day’s drive from our position.

It was genuinely the scariest couple of days of my career."

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Soviet-Union-ever-superior-to-the-United-States-in-any-way-during-the-Cold-War-1945-1991

So perhaps the Soviet attack on Eastern Europe in the v4 timeline was a result of two pieces of Soviet strategic thinking. One, to bring some of its errant former republics and WTO members back into the Soviet fold, recreating the territorial buffer between Mother Russia and NATO (a top Soviet priority since its national inception). Two, to take control of some NATO territory to hold hostage, as it were, to be ransomed for massive financial compensation in hard currency (or gold, or energy), thereby resuscitating the moribund Soviet economy.

-

[Raellus]

One of the main criticisms leveled at v4's setting- IMHO, a legitimate, very fair one- is that the Soviet Union, without major allies, nearly steamrolls NATO in the Twilight War and, at the Death of a Division starting point, is considerably stronger than its Euro-American enemies.

I'm not sure that this can be explained/justified to everyone's satisfaction but here are some ideas that I hope go some way to reconciling v4's setting with real world circumstances, geopolitics, and strategic military balance of forces.

The first two ideas don't really require any modifications to the v4 timeline. The others do.

NATO overconfidence stemming from the Gulf War
One could argue that this happened, IRL. Coalition forces had very little trouble smashing Iraqi units equipped with Soviet weapons and following- roughly- Soviet doctrine. This easy victory gives NATO the mistaken impression that it can handle a Soviet invasion of central Europe with much less trouble than was anticipated pre-1991*. This leads to institutional complacency and a draw-down of forces (not as dramatic as what happened after the IRL collapse of the Soviet Union, but still a RIF).
*If you're interested, I go into much more detail regarding the fallacy of this way of thinking in this thread:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897

Economic drain of the former Warsaw Pact on NATO
Again, IRL, this was an issue that Germany had to deal with- East Germany's moribund economy was a millstone around the neck of W. Germany for at least a decade following reunification. Trying to incorporate the similarly weak economies of the other former Warsaw Pact nations into the European Union and/or NATO would put a strain on the democratic, capitalistic economies of Western Europe. This would likely result in a decrease in defense spending, regardless of the continued threat of the still-extant USSR.

Combine NATO overconfidence in its conventional military forces vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the economic drain of trying to incorporate former WTO nations into the EU/NATO, and you have a recipe for a weaker NATO c.1995.

AFAIK, the following scenarios are not part of the v4 setting. In fact, very little mention is made of parts of the world outside of Europe in the current v4 materials.

North Korean Invasion of the ROK
If North Korea views rising tensions in Europe and the Middle East as an opportunity to make a play for forced reunification, it could take advantage by launching an attack on the South. This would undoubtedly draw away several US divisions that could otherwise be deployed to Europe. It is also likely that Asia-Pacific allies like Australia would also send forces to aid the ROK.

PRC Invasion of Taiwan
I see this as much less likely as a DPRK invasion of the ROK, given that the Chinese military was not nearly as strong c.1995 as it is today. However, if the US appears distracted by a major war in Europe and/or a war in Korea, the PRC regime may see an opportunity to regain its rebellious province by force. This too would likely draw US forces and perhaps those of its Asia-Pacific allies, to defend Taiwan.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Thank you for the input and for sharing your ideas with us. I was wondering the same, though I have not, for now, come up with ideas that satisfy my understanding of the 1990s. My main critique with your points 1) and 2) is that the lack of a collapsing USSR and the (historically) desolate state of it in 1991 under your assumptions would have led to less vigilance and strength than historically, but a stronger USSR. That seems at least counter-intuitive to me.

Historically the dissolution of the USSR was something no-one expected to happen. It lead to a collapse of the military forces of Russia and the other successor states, but also billions of financial aid by Western countries. The former Eastern Bloc states were not integrated into NATO until the late 90s and into the EU until 2004 (Finland joined in 1995, but was not an Eastern Bloc nation). While we do not know about EU enlargement in FL's timeline, former Warsaw Pact countries were not admitted to NATO in that timeline. Because of that, a larger financial drain than happened historically is not likely.

Germany is a special case of course. Though, given the historical financial drain and the massive demobilization process that came with the complete elimination of GDR forces and equipment and the down-scaling of the active army as well as large parts of the territorial army (the latter was hit war worse than the actual field army), I do not see a heavier drain on FL's version of the Bundeswehr. Actually, that is quite unlikely, given the clear and present danger the USSR would still have played in FL's 1990s.

Maybe we should look at what makes the USSR such a formidable foe, instead of specific, as of yet not hinted to, weaknesses on NATO's side. With the Gang of Eight taking control and Gennady Yanayev dying under mysterious circumstances, one might think of internal strife or even struggle's for power and "active methods of consolidation" by surviving members of the junta. This reeks of a, maybe short but pronounced, period of internal cleansing, state terrorism and a generally shorter leash. Keeping some forms of liberalization, like small private businesses, but tightening the grip on the big state industry.

The nascent oligarchs of 1990/1991 might have to make the choice of falling in line or mysteriously dying, too, much earlier than in our history. Propaganda trials against "counter-revolutionary capitalists" and "imperialist agents" (i. e. uncovered NATO spies or their goons) might have been the only signs to the West that the USSR was trying to stay alive and using old methods. Other than that, freedom of press would have been reduced to levels not seen since 1968 and the Iron Curtain would have been simply moved back a little.

With the oligarchs never coming into being properly, the large sell-out of the Soviet economy does not happen. Since no republics, except the Baltics, leave the USSR, its industry and economy does not get torn up. This softens the blow to living standards, health care and, foremost, tax revenue, allowing for comparatively huge investments into the armed forces when compared to known history. This is basically what happened from 2000 onward under President Putin, but it saves the population ten years of grief and the economy the same time of total collapse and brain-drain from bright minded individuals and large swathes of the labour force to emigrate, drink themselves to death or simply being unemployed.

Avoiding the historical collapse would be the single most important factor in the USSR remaining a credible opponent. It does not, however, let the USSR actively close the huge gap in military prowess that existed by 1990 already. It merely saves it from total, historical downfall. But while the West will still move forward, avoiding collapse might still mean stagnation and thus (effectively) falling behind even more. That fact will be hard to compensate or write away by any publisher.

However, a few years after Desert Storm, the oil prices spike in 1994 and the USSR gets a huge increase in revenue, basically for free. This money can be spent on internal security, military hardware and further reforms. This is the first actual leap forward the USSR might be able to enjoy and since it comes right at the point when historical down-scaling in the West comes into full effect: Clinton is president for one year, all East German forces have been dissolved, the personnel of the Bundeswehr is reduced to ca. 360,000 soldiers (130,000 less than 1989), NATO forces have begun moving out of Central Europe for good.

Now, as mentioned, it's questionable all this will happen exactly the way it used to happen, especially, if NATO sniffs any huge sums of money being invested into the armed forces of the USSR. But if the Soviets play their hand well, they might look pretty weak and of course T2K NATO cannot know what "alternate history" it missed, when the August Coup succeeded. So scaling down will be the law of the land.

The USSR, of course, will have to deal with Chechnya, Nagorny-Karabakh and Transnistria (even, if Moldavia did non secede, though: did it?). However, these brush wars will give the armed forces a clear mission to safeguard the Union and it will give the KGB a chance to keep the army occupied. Also, new tactics and weapon systems can be tried out, the trauma of Afghanistan overcome and experience be won. This experience is something NATO will lack, at least as a cohesive structure, though parts of it will, of course, have participated in Desert Storm and peacekeeping the Balkans. That is not the same, though: The Gulf War might have led to overconfidence, I agree there, as we saw, when the USAF lost a F-117 Nighthawk over Serbia, because the F-117s used the same routes multiple times.

Do that against a near-peer enemy in the early days of "punitive air-strikes against an aggressor attacking a friendly, but neutral nation, and you might get eviscerated quickly. Though the obvious question would be, if NATO would treat the Soviet Army, that just surprise attacked Poland, treat like Serbia in 1999? I doubt this clear lack of military professionalism and I doubt even more it would happen more than once. Though one big screw-up might give the Soviets a sufficient edge for the initial clash.

My biggest problem here is that as per FL's timeline, the Soviet Union attacks Poland in a similar manner as it did attack the Ukraine in 2014 or Georgia in 2008: deception, propaganda warfare, instigation of riots and then an offensive thinly veiled as peacekeeping mission. The US answer that by conducting "a broad air bombing campaign against the advancing Soviet forces with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles". That's a unilateral approach by the USA which is stupid, but plays into the hands of the USSR: Poland is backed by a US air campaign, but there are no other belligerents. Now the USSR does the most idiotic thing it could do: It rips of it carefully donned mask of "coming in peace" and strikes against US installations in Germany, Turkey and the UK, triggering NATO Article 5; mutual defense. In order for that to make sense, there must have been a plan, even if it was dumb.

To put this into perspective, this is like Germany getting away with laying hands on Czechoslovakia in 1938 (equivalent to the USSR annexing the Baltic States), then attacking Poland and when France and the UK declare war, going on a killing spree against every other nation in Europe and America, drawing everybody into a war already in 1939. Why would the USSR do that? What's the plan here? By comparison, in Red Storm Rising the USSR starts a conventional war against NATO as a feint attack to have free hands in seizing Middle-Eastern oilfields. It's not a great plan and it fails, but it's a plan.

So, why would the USSR draw NATO into a war that until then had "only" been a punitive air-campaign by the USA and a ground-warfare campaign the Soviets certainly were winning. If the USSR had wanted a surprise attack against its former Bloc allies, strategic surprise could have been achieved better before NATO got involved than afterwards. But if it was not about Central or Eastern Europe, what is the goal of this war? A Clancyesque war for oil? Plundering Europe for revenue? Defense under the impression of an imminent attack?

I think that question needs an answer, before we can ask what went wrong on both sides. The question of the weakness of NATO is important, but it is likely connected to the reason of the war.

[Raellus]

All fair points, UM. I don't disagree with your assessment. I still think NATO weakness has to be a major factor in both the Soviet's calculations vis-a-vis launching a war and in explaining their early success when it got underway.

I didn't mention this earlier but I think another contributing factor to NATO weakness in the run-up to WWIII would be internal divisions in the former East Bloc countries (and, in particular, within reunified Germany). I think that communist fifth columns in Eastern Europe would be more troublesome in v4 timeline than they were IRL. Netflix did a doc on former DDR military and Stasi antigovernment activities in the days after reunification. There's a thread on that here:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6178&highlight=perfect+crime

To sum it up, I can see these efforts being much more sustained and disruptive with an extant Soviet Union (providing moral and perhaps covert material support). I can also see similar operations taking place in the other former-WTO countries.

My biggest problem here is that as per FL's timeline, the Soviet Union attacks Poland in a similar manner as it did attack the Ukraine in 2014 or Georgia in 2008: deception, propaganda warfare, instigation of riots and then an offensive thinly veiled as peacekeeping mission. The US answer that by conducting "a broad air bombing campaign against the advancing Soviet forces with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles". That's a unilateral approach by the USA which is stupid, but plays into the hands of the USSR: Poland is backed by a US air campaign, but there are no other belligerents. Now the USSR does the most idiotic thing it could do: It rips of it carefully donned mask of "coming in peace" and strikes against US installations in Germany, Turkey and the UK, triggering NATO Article 5; mutual defense. In order for that to make sense, there must have been a plan, even if it was dumb.

To put this into perspective, this is like Germany getting away with laying hands on Czechoslovakia in 1938 (equivalent to the USSR annexing the Baltic States), then attacking Poland and when France and the UK declare war, going on a killing spree against every other nation in Europe and America, drawing everybody into a war already in 1939. Why would the USSR do that? What's the plan here? By comparison, in Red Storm Rising the USSR starts a conventional war against NATO as a feint attack to have free hands in seizing Middle-Eastern oilfields. It's not a great plan and it fails, but it's a plan.

So, why would the USSR draw NATO into a war that until then had "only" been a punitive air-campaign by the USA and a ground-warfare campaign the Soviets certainly were winning. If the USSR had wanted a surprise attack against its former Bloc allies, strategic surprise could have been achieved better before NATO got involved than afterwards. But if it was not about Central or Eastern Europe, what is the goal of this war? A Clancyesque war for oil? Plundering Europe for revenue? Defense under the impression of an imminent attack?

I think that question needs an answer, before we can ask what went wrong on both sides. The question of the weakness of NATO is important, but it is likely connected to the reason of the war.

I agree with you that there's definitely something missing, as far as explanation goes. I have a hard time reconciling what v4 presents with real-world geo-political and military strategic considerations. I can't really explain it, but I'll try.

I did read the Soviet invasion of Poland as a fait accompli for a general offensive aimed at reconquering most, if not all, of the former WTO nations. In other words, the Soviets were planning on restoring a buffer between itself and the pre-'91 NATO nations by regaining control of the former WTO countries. The offensive's strategic objective was to do so, although its publicly stated objective was to save the Polish people from an oppressive military regime.

Maybe the Soviets didn't expect much resistance, given what happened in the Baltics (I have a hard time buying the tiny, poorly armed Baltics being allowed to break away in the first place). Maybe they figured that NATO wouldn't go to war to protect Poland, much like Britain and France didn't really go to war with Nazi Germany in 1939 (i.e. the Phony War/"Sitzkrieg").

Maybe the US airstrikes were too effective to be ignored and the Soviets were faced with the decision of calling off the offensive or starting the next, general offensive vs. NATO phase early?

I still very much prefer the v1 timeline, but I like trying to make things work, so this a fun thought exercise for me.

-

[Ursus Maior]

I read your contribution on A Perfect Crime (which I did not know before, so thanks for that hint) and I could imagine a USSR-backed or at least USSR-tolerated anti-reunification campaign by former members of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS, Ministry for State security, i. e. "Stasi"). However, I have three remarks, bear in mind that I have not watched the documentary yet.

1) I get the impression that the documentary proliferated a hyperbolic story of the amount of discontent in the early years of a reunified Germany. There were demonstrations against the Treuhand, the government agency that mostly ran the economic transformation of the former GDR, certainly. However, riots were - as far as I know - not happening. Strikes did happen numerous times, though.

2) The Stasi was dissolved in 1990, a couple of months before reunification. While an underground network certainly was a possibility and mostly likely a fact, including agents starting to work for Soviet and later Russian secret agencies, the main operational body of Stasi was so utterly wiped out in the last months of the GDR that any major operations would have been unthinkable. It is important to understand that, even before reunification, the Stasi lost its central headquarters, when it was stormed by anti-government protesters and the main archives were looted, as others had been (these incidents happened between December 1989 and January 1990). All members of Stasi were dismissed on March 31st 1990. A few hundred were hired on temporary contracts in order to dissolve the agency proper. A full set of files on Stasi employees even made it into the hands of the CIA (i. e. "Rosenholz files"), most likely being bought from KGB operatives, who were entrusted with these files by Stasi in order to safekeep Stasi secrets in Moscow, as collapse was evidently imminent. The two KGB agents in questions were soon found dead "under mysterious circumstances", which - as we learned in the past decades - seems to hint at KGB revenge killings. This shows however, in what a desolate state of affairs even KGB and Soviet secret agencies weree by early 1990. The USSR really is in a catastrophic mess by that date.

3) My main point here would be that any major spiel by late Cold War intelligence agencies would need to be a major theme for FL's 4th edition of T2K, were it to be easily accessible and credible for players. The historical USSR was weak, derelict and so immensely corrupt, that corruption - i. e. personal relations of individuals for the means of personal gains - were probably the only thing that kept the political system somewhat going. Whereas the hoipolloi were heading towards serious lacks of everything (in 1992 there was a notable decline in calorie intake within the Russian Federation), future oligarchs and the political elite were filling their pockets. Neither this nor the collapsing state of the USSR is a theme in FL's edition; nor is any large scale intelligence coup or counter-revolution.

To sum this up, what I find most baffling with this new edition is its lack of a concise theme for the well known setting of T2K. This leaves many questions open for players that would be highly relevant for many groups, some of which I was already asked, when giving a short introduction to one of my players, e. g.: Who started the war and why? How do Polish people feel about the war, i. e. what do they think of NATO, Americans, Germans, Soviets etc.? How do Swedish people feel? Is their a strong anti-American stance? [After all, Sweden was attacked by the US and then beaten into an alliance; which alone is dumb and contradicts pre-war arrangements, since Sweden was clearly to side with NATO in the event of a war.] And how do other NATO countries feel about the war, e. g. Germany had a strong anti-war stance both in politics and the masses, how does this interact with the US attacking the USSR first (yes, over the USSR attacking Poland)? Would Germans really support triggering Article 5 after US installations were hit in Germany? I could see this go both ways in the 1990s actually.

That none of this can be answered from the core rulebooks is a major drawback for this product. Especially since it's already "niche". I don't know about FL's other products, but they seem to be thematically strong (Coriolis and Alien come to mind), but from riffling through their books, deeper narratives do not seem to be part of their publication strategy. I might be wrong here, though, as I did not read to deep in any of their games.

[Ursus Maior]

I didn't mention this earlier but I think another contributing factor to NATO weakness in the run-up to WWIII would be internal divisions in the former East Bloc countries (and, in particular, within reunified Germany). I think that communist fifth columns in Eastern Europe would be more troublesome in v4 timeline than they were IRL.
As I mentioned before, none of the former Warsaw Pact nations was a NATO state historically by 1997 and FL agrees here. Keeping these states out of NATO might have been a major contributing factor for the USSR to attack, and they might have had help from within these states. But that is neither a theme or even mentioned, nor very likely: Poland was in open insurrection against communism before 1990, the CSFR had dissolved by the mid-nineties, but anti-communism was strong before and Romania had just shot its communist leader. The Czech Republic and Slovakia might have been easy targets, maybe Hungary and Bulgaria, too, and Romania would have been easy to beat militarily, but Poland had the the strongest and toughest army of all former Pact nations. In fact, during the August Coup of 1991 that army was mobilized against the Eastern Front, should the victors of that coup attempt an invasion. The Polish security apparatus actually expected exactly that, which FL describes.


I did read the Soviet invasion of Poland as a fait accompli for a general offensive aimed at reconquering most, if not all, of the former WTO nations. In other words, the Soviets were planning on restoring a buffer between itself and the pre-'91 NATO nations by regaining control of the former WTO countries. The offensive's strategic objective was to do so, although its publicly stated objective was to save the Polish people from an oppressive military regime.

Maybe the Soviets didn't expect much resistance, given what happened in the Baltics (I have a hard time buying the tiny, poorly armed Baltics being allowed to break away in the first place). Maybe they figured that NATO wouldn't go to war to protect Poland, much like Britain and France didn't really go to war with Nazi Germany in 1939 (i.e. the Phony War/"Sitzkrieg").

Maybe the US airstrikes were too effective to be ignored and the Soviets were faced with the decision of calling off the offensive or starting the next, general offensive vs. NATO phase early?

I could go with the USSR re-annexing the Baltics. It's not off the table today and certainly they would have been the first to suffer from a resurgent USSR in 1991. But an invasion by the USSR of its former allies, no matter how involuntary allies they were at times (e. g. Romania had basically stopped cooperating with Pact structures during the 1980s), would have been a stupid move. In 1945 these nations were not invaded, but liberated from German occupation and annexation. True, that difference was sometimes hard to notice, but it had credibility in the citizens of Poland and the other countries no being mass-murdered or declared sub-humans in the style Nazi Germany had done it. Certainly, there were atrocities committed by Soviets or local regimes, but in general life as better in several magnitudes after 1945 than between 1939 and 1945.

A military invasion and occupation would nullify that narrative and cost the USSR hundreds of thousands of troops to maintain occupation, cash to rebuilt and political goodwill; all of which would be lacking at home. That would doom all forms of gap-closing with the West or improving the economy. It would even make the situation of the USSR worse than before 1989. There's a reason after all, Russia never tried this, not even with former Soviet republics. As of now, Russia is only nibbling away from its neighbors what it can swallow. Or, almost.

The problem with such an alternate history clearly is that we know too much about that part of history for our imagination to trigger disbelieve. Certainly, no-one would have poked the Soviet Bear in the Nineties on purpose to cause a war. The USSR itself shouldn't be in a position to invade, so leaders wouldn't come up with a plan to do so. And the trope of the insane dictator and/or the hardline US president/general is feels stale at least.

I still very much prefer the v1 timeline, but I like trying to make things work, so this a fun thought exercise for me.

Yeah, v1 made the Germans the bad guys by having them attack the Soviet forces in Germany. That was one huge plot device that was totally out of the question and frankly got post-war Germany totally wrong. It's quite hard to write believable contra-factual history, as it turns out. In the 1980s this might have turned away a couple of German players, but coming up with a similar reason for war today, let's say a Polish
cabal of officers and their non-communist Ukrainian and Lithuanian co-conspirators who want to revive the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, would probably sound completely absurd or turn away a sizeable customer base.

[Raellus]

To sum this up, what I find most baffling with this new edition is its lack of a concise theme for the well known setting of T2K. This leaves many questions open for players that would be highly relevant for many groups...

That none of this can be answered from the core rulebooks is a major drawback for this product, especially since its already were "niche". I don't know about FL's other products, but they seem to be thematically strong (Coriolis and Alien come to mind), but from riffling through their books, deeper narratives do not seem to be part of their publication strategy. I might be wrong here, though, as I did not read to deep in any of their games.

[Emphasis added]

I agree with this 100%. FL erred on the side of under-explaining and what explanation they did offer only leaves the reader with more questions. As GM I like having freedom to customize the game world, but I think that FL kind of passed the buck to the GM as far as explaining a believable setting for his/her players. The GM has enough work to do without having to rationalize why the game world is the way that it is for his/her players.

-

[Cdnwolf]

I just want to say thank for everyone's input on this subject. I seem to have been away too long (my wife got sick and died a year ago) but I was one of the first to back this new kickstarter. It will now mean I have a hard copy of every version of the game including the rare TWL2013. And remember the messy discussions that one brought out.

All I say is remember it is just a game and it is up to the person running the session what he wants to do. Just have fun.

[Raellus]

All I say is remember it is just a game and it is up to the person running the session what he wants to do. Just have fun.

This is a vital perspective, and an important reminder. Thank you.

I seem to have been away too long (my wife got sick and died a year ago).

I'm sorry for your loss, Cdnwolf. I don't even want to imagine. We're glad to see you again.

-

[kato13]

My condolences to you on your loss Cdnwolf.

If this place can give you any comfort, distraction, or joy, I am glad we are here for you.

[Silent Hunter UK]

My condolences on your loss, Cdnwolf.