4e What happened to the rest of the world? [Archive]

Ursus Maior

02-01-2022, 06:49 AM

I've been tinkering a bit since the box set arrived.

China: ally or adversary of the USSR?

-

I have them as a cautious ally of the USSR after the Taiwan Street Crisis of the Mid-Nineties. Basically a "we got a common enemy in the US", after war almost went hot over Taiwan. This might include an actual attack of some sorts on a USN carrier in 1996, putting it out of action for several months, probably USS Independence, but USS Nimitz would hurt more, obviously.

The latter scenario, a near-loss of a carrier, would make the US pivot to Asia at least temporarily and probably end after an attack of retribution by US Navy aircraft and ship/sub launched cruise missiles on major naval installations, e. g. Hudong–Zhonghua Shipbuilding at Shanghai. Zhonghua yards were building amphibious landings ships at the time, so this would set back any build-up in PLAN invasion forces.

After that, cooler heads could prevail, as both sides lick their wounds, but China buys even more hardware from the USSR than it did historically from the Russians. The Chinese, of course, don't want to grow to attached to a resurgent, revisionist USSR, but play along for a year or so. Once the balloon goes up in Europe, China pulls the plug on most forms of cooperation, except economical ties, which remain largely intact despite pressure by Western nations.

It might be an interesting twist that this pressure ultimately could lead to China switching sides. Since it's the USSR that starts the nuclear spiral in 4E, trying to limit NATO breakthroughs in the European, mostly Polish, front, China would immediately step away from any remains of an alliance. Open condemnation would be the only thing to get NATO's bullseye from Beijing, Shanghai and Dalian. A possible economical alliance in 1998 between the West and China might keep parts of the West alive with China delivering food and basic industrial goods.

Of course, this might draw the ire of Moscow, leading to a few nukes flying towards China as well.

One big mystery I haven't solved in that thread of thinking is Hong Kong, though. Would the British handover the city state on 1 July 1997, if the war broke out just before and China has become an obvious ally of the USSR? We know US and Soviet forces clash for the first time in Western Poland (Poznan) on 6 June 1997, but no date is given for the actual invasion of Poland. Personally, I'd reason that Poland can hardly defend itself against the USSR for more than two weeks. So, if the attack came in late May, China has about two weeks to turn its back on the USSR, before the US and other NATO members start attacking Soviet forces and China gets into the cross-hairs as well.

Rainbow Six

02-01-2022, 07:08 AM

One big mystery I haven't solved in that thread of thinking is Hong Kong, though. Would the British handover the city state on 1 July 1997, if the war broke out just before and China has become an obvious ally of the USSR?

I don't really think there would be any alternative. The handover had been agreed and I don't think that the British Government of that time would want to go back on an international agreement it had signed.

However even if that was the case I rather doubt that there would have been much the British Government could have done to stop the Chinese occupying Hong Kong - in the 1980's / 1990's the HK garrison was a reinforced Brigade, and it was gradually reduced in strength prior to handover so trying to hold on to the Colony and oppose a Chinese invasion would have been a fool's errand that would have caused the needless loss of many lives.

So I don't really see the British Government trying / wanting to delay the handover. If it was scheduled for five years down the line then maybe I could see it happening, but not when we're only weeks out.

Ursus Maior

02-01-2022, 07:47 AM

I don't see this going off the table either, but their would be diplomatic upheavals visible at least. Imagine a close(-ish) ally of one of two opponents getting surprised by its allied state going to war on a "business partner" it wants something really badly from. China would be in a less than optimal position all the while the UK is gearing up for war. No one wants to escalate, but only 15 years earlier, the UK sailed half across the world and beat the Argentinians on a commodity far less valuable than Hong Kong.

The UK might actually work together with the US to push China into the right direction over this, which is away from the USSR. All sides would want that by then, but China might feel that "just doing the right thing" isn't easy to communicate internally. So, they happily (though grudgingly inward) agree to break the alliance with the USSR over getting back Hong Kong. Of course, that's not what everyone tells the press or the Soviets. Officially, Hong Kong is just resolved as was planned, but below that is the layer of Chinese-Western trust-building over the Hong Kong-Soviet matter. Everyone gets what they want, except the USSR.

Rainbow Six

02-01-2022, 08:47 AM

Both countries have signed a legally binding treaty to return HK to Chinese Sovereignty so I don’t really follow why there would be diplomatic upheavals if that happens.

To my mind the upheavals would only occur if that didn’t happen and I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t. In the overall scheme of things I see it as no more than a brief footnote, at least in the v4 timeline ('the former British Crown Colony of Hong Kong was returned to Chinese sovereignty as planned at midnight on the 30th of June 1997').

(V1 where China is two years into war against the Soviets is a different matter altogether - I've previously written at length about why I think the UK would retain control of HK in V1)

Heffe

02-01-2022, 10:22 AM

I think for me the challenge is that you’re unlikely to ever get any sort of consensus on what a default timeline would look like - there’s going to be too many differing opinions and in the absence of anything published there’s nothing to settle any disagreements.

Perhaps not, but it may yet be worth a shot. Something to consider is that players and Refs will continue to release modules for 4e as time goes on. Those player-made modules will be created regardless, and each module that comes out will be creating its own miniature version of the timeline. If there's a way to come up with a default universal timeline ahead of a lot of the modules, it could help to ensure that they all (or at least many of them) maintain at least some measure of consistency when it comes to the descriptions of their relative areas. Otherwise, and this is my fear, there will end up just being no consistent timeline at all, and all of the unofficial modules will just be utter chaos in terms of their level of consistency within the larger T2k narrative.

Tegyrius

02-01-2022, 10:51 AM

This is the same problem faced by every other game line whose publisher has opened up the option of fan publications for sale. Ultimately, it's on the community (which extends far beyond this forum) to discuss whose work is good and whose work is crap, and to make that known through ratings, reviews, and forum threads. Then it's on the referee and the table to decide what their T2k universe is (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6213).

Having seen several vicious urinary Olympiads over the canon status of various fan works, I have little faith that a timeline consensus can or will emerge from any source other than the publisher. And even that will meet harsh criticism, if not outright rejection, from portions of the fan community.

- C.

Raellus

02-01-2022, 01:16 PM

Free League didn't seem very receptive to community input regarding its Alpha & Beta Europe timelines, so I'm not sure if they would be open making a community-made global timeline official. As it now stands, it's up to each individual Ref to do their own world-building, beyond NW Europe. Even if FL does release some sort of official global timeline- with or without community input- it's still ultimately up to up to individual Refs.

That said, creating a global timeline is a fun thought exercise, and if some Refs decide to use it, then it's a worthwhile one as well.

In the timeline that I've been tinkering with, the USSR's survival/revival is predicated, in part, on close economic ties with the PRC. The Soviets sell energy to the Chinese, to fuel the latter's rapid economic growth; they also sell weapons to the Chinese, who have been essentially cut off from western sources after the Tiananmen Square massacre. This infusion of hard currency from China keeps the Soviet economy afloat, and helps keep the Soviet military in fighting shape until WW3 begins.

With the USA engaged in a full-scale conventional war in Europe, and a fresh infusion of current gen Soviet-made weaponry, China decides that the time is right to retake Taiwan. They gamble that the US won't intervene militarily. The PRC also encourages the DPRK to attempt a reunification-by-force with the ROK, giving the US something else to worry about/deal with.

So the T2k 4e relationship between the USSR and PRC is kind of like the Axis "alliance" of WW2- the Germans and Japanese were nominal allies, with the same enemies, but did not really coordinate strategic operations.

I can also see the relationship souring when the Soviets stop shipping oil and gas to the PRC (because they need it for total war).

-

Heffe

02-01-2022, 02:07 PM

To be clear, I wouldn't expect FL to ever accept a fan-made timeline as canon - I was only thinking about it from the standpoint of someone interested in making modules, but being hesitant to jump in with an ill-defined strategic picture of what's happening elsewhere on the planet.

With our current knowledge of Mexico's military capabilities, and the earlier timelines' approach to a Mexican invasion being wholly unrealistic, I think the PRC joining with Russia makes a lot of sense to help keep things balanced. Were that to happen, keeping with the Axis/Allies model I would see the following alliances form up and fall apart as the war continued.

Allies:
Europe and the Americas:
Existing NATO countries

Australia + New Zealand

Asia:
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
Philippines
The Kingdom (?)
UAE (?)
Israel
Egypt (?)

Axis:
Europe and the Americas:
PACT countries
Cuba
Venezuela

Asia:
PRC
North Korea
Iran
Syria

Mostly I'd expect India and Pakistan to be having their own little war between them. Israel would no doubt be a flash point that could break allied alliances in the middle east.

Otherwise, I'm at a bit of a loss wrt to the rest of southeast Asia, Africa, and South America.

I do think it would be neat to continue the tradition of the US splitting into a MilGov and a CivGov, and the concept of New America was great (awful faction, but interesting storytelling. I also like the idea of an invasion into the US, albeit I just don't think Mexico would have what it takes. Perhaps a new alliance of nations in Central/South America? Or alternatively, China and Russia team up to invade across Alaska and down through the PNW?

edit: This is all super high-level of course. The devil is always in the details. Also, please humor me if I've made any glaring errors in judgment. While I feel like I have a good understanding of foreign policy these days, I was a teenager in the 90s, so I'm likely to make some mistakes.

Silent Hunter UK

02-01-2022, 04:42 PM

No, but it does seem clear that implied background is sort of part of their plan. I don't have an issue with that, exactly. It works better in other genres, but it's still not a terrible move (especially after the reaction their timeline got). It frees up others to answer the questions as they'd like. I had to do so for Poland and it was more satisfying and worked better for me.

PCs wouldn't know anyway. It's not like they could go on Facebook and find out.

Raellus

02-01-2022, 05:16 PM

Of course, PCs wouldn't know everything that happened leading up to their respective then-and-now, and they probably don't need to. That said, they'd certainly be privy to at least some background information.

To draw a historical example, a grunt on Okinawa in early 1945 wouldn't know what went on during the Tehran Conference, or in the Wolf's Lair on the eve of the Kursk offensive, or the results of a US daytime strategic bombing raid on city x date y, but he would know the broad strokes of the war- Nazi invasion of Poland, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and probably something of Guadalcanal, Midway, the invasion of Sicily and Italy, and D-Day in the ETO. At the very least, I think most players want to know how their PC got into the game world- when and why did they volunteer, for example, and did they fight elsewhere prior to the campaign start date.

Also, "historical" background info can help players come up with PC concepts that they might not otherwise. For example, I've had Australian players want to play Australian PCs. They were able to find a bit in the v1 timeline that would justify Aussie military personnel being in Poland, c.2000. It also helps with justifying a PC having certain skills, like picking up a language not spoken in the AO or home country.

-

Ursus Maior

02-01-2022, 05:58 PM

Both countries have signed a legally binding treaty to return HK to Chinese Sovereignty so I don’t really follow why there would be diplomatic upheavals if that happens.
As usual, legally binding means little in case of war. Many nations have had treaties questioned due to dire political shifts.

Heffe

02-01-2022, 07:15 PM

Of course, PCs wouldn't know everything that happened leading up to their respective then-and-now, and they probably don't need to. That said, they'd certainly be privy to at least some background information.
[snip]
At the very least, I think most players want to know how their PC got into the game world- when and why did they volunteer, for example, and did they fight elsewhere prior to the campaign start date.

Also, "historical" background info can help players come up with PC concepts that they might not otherwise. For example, I've had Australian players want to play Australian PCs. They were able to find a bit in the v1 timeline that would justify Aussie military personnel being in Poland, c.2000. It also helps with justifying a PC having certain skills, like picking up a language not spoken in the AO or home country.
-

This, exactly. I'm not looking to determine every bit of minutia about every nation on the planet. Even just a high level understanding of what's going on in various regions would be hugely helpful. i.e. How do things look in the Middle East? The Far East? What does South America look like? How about Africa? Having those, as Rae calls them, broad strokes, would potentially make the lives of every Ref a lot easier when they're put in a position to answer player questions. It would allow for faster off-the-cuff responses and less planning/legwork for Refs that are just looking to run an adventure.

Raellus

02-02-2022, 05:06 PM

I can't remember why the Soviets invade Iran in v1. I don't think either superpower needs to start the war in the Middle East, but I can see both getting drawn into regional conflict eventually.

In 4e, the Gulf War happens. So, one could posit that Iraq is so destabilized by sanctions and periodic punitive air strikes that Saddam loses his grip on power. Sectarian and ethnic insurgencies flare up. Perhaps he cracks down on the local Shia. Iran steps in to protect their co-religionists. Saudi Arabia isn't about to let Iran take effective control of neighboring Iraq. The "Great Powers" of the region, Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, both want their respective preferred sect to take power in Iraq to tip the balance of power in the region in their favor, so they launch into a proxy war there. It's spirals out of control, until both nations send large conventional forces to duke it out in Iraq. Turkey teams up with Saudi Arabia and Syria sides with Iran.

At that point, things start to get messier. Oil shipments to the West are disrupted by the fighting in the region. The US decides to intervene militarily. The Soviets aren't about to let the US win the upper hand in the Middle East, so they send forces to the Middle East.

So, for a while at least, it's:
Saudi Arabia, Turkey & the USA v. Iran, Syria, and the USSR

OR, before the superpowers intervene in the Middle East, things get really nuts when Israel, fearing Iranian victory in Iraq, decides to nuke strategic military targets in Iran...

As we saw in '91, Israel getting involved can potentially rally Muslim nations, regardless of sect, to join forces against the common foe.

Thoughts?

-

Olefin

02-03-2022, 07:33 AM

So far the new edition publisher has shown a distinct lack of caring about the rest of the world - they basically even ignored places that obviously should have been detailed like the Czech Republic and Denmark and Norway - its like the war has been confined to just a few countries. And while communication breakdown would eventually keep GI's from all sides knowing what is going on the USN is still working and still viable - meaning that mail and newspapers and things like that would be coming over ever so often.

Thus the events in the rest of the world would be known to those in Europe - especially given the huge shipment of US draftees that occurred - they would have brought news of what was happening at home for sure.

Its a monstrous hole that really needs to be filled and could be easily with a relatively small official supplement. Keep in mind how few pages the original edition Sourcebooks devoted to the events happening elsewhere - yet those few pages built up a picture of what was happening elsewhere that you could build on. The later releases added more but at least you had some idea of what was going on in China, Korea, the US, Mexico, etc.

And the official status of "fan canon" has been debated a lot and I brought that up with Marc - but the only new release since 1997 he ever recognized as canon was mine - and I told him that frankly he was making a mistake there - that what Tegyrius and Raellus did was every bit as good as anything GDW ever did and deserved to be recognized as official canon once and for all.

Free League's current fan canon approach leaves you with no baseline to build on - thus you can easily get ten different "official" versions of what is going on outside of Poland and Sweden. Yes that leaves you free to choose your world - but it also makes it hard to write as well - i.e. what version of Great Britain will you choose if there is no official FL release. The fan canon stuff is great but they have no basis in "reality" because they have not been declared canon - and that opens the door to chaos and a lot of work by GM's that shouldnt have to be done if they want to use the 4th edition timeline and setting outside of a limited area in Europe.

And there is a market for material on the rest of the world - Raellus and I proved that with East Africa and Korea.

pmulcahy11b

02-03-2022, 09:01 AM

I can't remember why the Soviets invade Iran in v1. I don't think either superpower needs to start the war in the Middle East, but I can see both getting drawn into regional conflict eventually.

-

I agree with your post generally, but I think that the Sovs would invade Iran to use as a gateway to Iraq and its oils, then that they would attempt to invade (or more, roll over in their thoughts) Kuwait Saudi Arabia, the and the UAE and Gulf States. Meanwhile, Iran does have decent reserves of oil and gas (IRL, sanctions are preventing most of that oil and gas from getting out into the world), and it could serve as a base for their operations in the Gulf.

So they thought. Sounds simple, right? (After all, we're the Soviet Union, and we have troops and equipment up the wazoo!) The Iranians were not simply going to roll over, and it took a lot more effort to pin down Iran. They are still suffering both small and large partisan attacks from Iranian freedom fighters and Iranian Army members gone native. And in pinning down the Iranians as best they could, Iran turned out to be more of a meat grinder than they expected.

In my T2KU, the Gulf War happened. And ever since then, the US and several of the Coalition countries maintained a decent troop presence in Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE, and the Gulf States. And while the coalition has their own problems with insurgents, they were able to being enough troops and equipment to bear to stop the Sovs cold just north of Basra. That effort cost the Sovs and the Coalition a lot of vehicles; the armor battle north of of Kuwait was larger than the Gulf War's 73 Easting.

So now, both sides are nursing their wounds after other Sov-Coalition battles, and each has their own problems with insurgents and groups who would qualify as terrorists. They largely use their remaining vehicles for special missions, their aircraft for very special missions, and their fuel. The Coalition is doing decently, but the Sov commander has nightmares every time he closes his eyes. And both sides are stuck in the Middle East; both sides know it will be a long time before they go home, and there is precious little communications to the US, Europe, or the Soviet Union.

Olefin

02-03-2022, 12:15 PM

unipus

02-03-2022, 04:54 PM

Free League's current fan canon approach leaves you with no baseline to build on - thus you can easily get ten different "official" versions of what is going on outside of Poland and Sweden. Yes that leaves you free to choose your world - but it also makes it hard to write as well - i.e. what version of Great Britain will you choose if there is no official FL release. The fan canon stuff is great but they have no basis in "reality" because they have not been declared canon - and that opens the door to chaos and a lot of work by GM's that shouldnt have to be done if they want to use the 4th edition timeline and setting outside of a limited area in Europe.

As someone who just wrote an entire book about Poland (because there was insufficient official material IMO to run a game set in Poland, the game's default actual setting)... is this really anything new? Doesn't every GM end up having to make calls like this to make the game work for them anyway? It's not like you really need canon beyond what happens are your table, and I can't think of a single game I've ever just blanket accepted the setting of without making a few significant changes to suit my own interpretation.

Basically you've got to draw the line somewhere, but even then I doubt you'll find any two people who agree on exactly where that line should be drawn.

mpipes

02-03-2022, 07:29 PM

Olefin

02-03-2022, 07:53 PM

For now, after looking at what has become available on Drive Thru RPG, there really is no direction from FL. I am afraid that FL is only interested in Sweden and Poland and the rest of the world is pretty much whatever others choose to make it.

Unless FL steps up to the plate with some overall guidance on the other war fronts, I am afraid the product line it is going to turn into a chaotic mishmash.

you are 100 percent correct in your analysis - and it doesnt have to be that way - like I said they need to step up to the plate and put out, at most, a dozen page supplement that would give just enough details on the rest of the world to be able to fill that hole - at the very least the situation in the rest of Europe - i.e. you cant have WWIII in Europe and give basically no details on France, Italy, the Balkans - heck even the V1 Sourcebook at least gave you something about them that was enough that you could have done something with it

and Unipus - you are right about what happens at the table - if the group is content with just Sweden or Poland then you will be fine - the problem will be if they want to really start exploring or say something like "is Poland all there is?" and you have nothing to go on.

Worst case you could always use the old sourcebooks and what was recently put out and just try to run them with 4e rules if people want to go beyond Poland or Sweden - but some of the changes in the timeline already make a lot of the old material moot

Tegyrius

02-03-2022, 08:49 PM

Unless FL steps up to the plate with some overall guidance on the other war fronts, I am afraid the product line it is going to turn into a chaotic mishmash.

Don't confuse the product line with the fan-produced offerings. The product line is whatever FL publishes under the terms of its license with FFE, and I guarantee you that they have a multi-year strategy for that. They're just metering the information they share with us on it.

(Whether or not they can follow through on that strategy is another issue entirely. There is no RPG industry... there is only a subsidized hobby.)

- C.

unipus

02-03-2022, 10:26 PM

Ursus Maior

02-04-2022, 05:57 AM

I am afraid that FL is only interested in Sweden and Poland and the rest of the world is pretty much whatever others choose to make it.

Unless FL steps up to the plate with some overall guidance on the other war fronts, I am afraid the product line it is going to turn into a chaotic mishmash.
I wouldn't look at it that way. The product is still very new, it has its first expansion box coming out this winter and an adventure probably later this year (Black Madonna). It's just one of many products by FL and certainly niche. They're a small company, developing other stuff needs time. Plus, not a lot people played T2K with a completely vanilla timeline back in the days, weren't they? Mixing timelines and elements is really a great opportunity rather than a drawback for me.

Ursus Maior

02-04-2022, 06:23 AM

you are 100 percent correct in your analysis - and it doesnt have to be that way - like I said they need to step up to the plate and put out, at most, a dozen page supplement that would give just enough details on the rest of the world to be able to fill that hole - at the very least the situation in the rest of Europe - i.e. you cant have WWIII in Europe and give basically no details on France, Italy, the Balkans - heck even the V1 Sourcebook at least gave you something about them that was enough that you could have done something with it

From a company's point of view, putting out a small document that just gives facts and dates is probably the worst decision one could make. There is literally zero chance that anyone would like the content 100 % and recommend it. It's just fluff with no stats and game stuff and it is something no referee will use as is. The timeline given was already met with so much vitriol, it just shows this would be a colossal waste of time and money for FL.

Plus, most groups will use Poland and Sweden as their setting. Other countries in far off places hardly influence what happens there. And for Europe you get the basic facts: WW3, nukes, Soviets fighting NATO and former WP countries. Stalemate. Operation Reset. NATO fails liberating Eastern Europe. Post-collapse. Go!

Look at it this way: If you'd picked up the game in '84, what did you get?

1995: China fights USSR. The USSR gets supported by WP states, because everyone's a good commie.
1996: West Germany starts WW3 while annexing East Germany while the NVA just watches. WP declares war on Germany, except for Romania, who find an ally in Yugoslavia. NATO comes to Germany's rescue, since NATO is now in business of wars of aggression; except France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece, because people speaking non-Germanic languages are apparently the only ones with a clear head.
1997: Greek and Turkey finally go to war. Italy violates Austrian neutrality, because backstabbing lunatics is now everyone's game. Meanwhile, Germany actually wins against the USSR, so they Commies go nuclear. Everyone joins into that game.
1998: France and Belgium start shooting refugees. Since everybody has been at it for 2 1/2 years already, divisions are now down to 50 %. Apparently, Germany could levy new combat effective divisions still by 1945, after 5 years of war, but by 2000 suddenly they forgot that every male above the age of 18 has had either training as a soldier or in civil defense, police, firefighting or healthcare. Italy is really successful as is Greece. The US break de facto apart over a refugee crisis. Mexico invades the US. Yugoslavia invades Hungary, despite Italy having occupied Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia, while Greece annexed Macedonia. Unclear what's left of Yugoslavia by that point except Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegowina.
1999: The US break apart even further. Europe stabilizes, because everyone's dead.
2000: Thinking that stability is bullshit, NATO wants to go for another round, fails miserably over getting its hands on a "turn back time" MacGuffin and now is worse off than ever before.

Meanwhile, I'm adopting stuff from 1E and 2E for my campaign, but boy am I glad FL isn't putting out anything like these 6 pages from 1984.

Ursus Maior

02-04-2022, 06:27 AM

Again, a few sentences here and there in the old core books were certainly not enough to actually run the game in any other part of the world, so how much does it matter? As a GM you were still pretty much (wait for it) on your own. Unless you waited patiently for modules and got lucky and you had been hoping to run a game in Iran or Appalachia or on a submarine or something.

Put this in the context of pretty much any other game and it starts to seem like a pretty silly demand.

But yeah it's pretty clear that FL has a plan, but they also have a lot of pots on the stove and not enough bandwidth to get it done in a very expedient manner.

THIS. We're customers of a niche product at the very beginning of the product line. We all. I hope, knew that from the beginning. And the fan base wasn't exactly hard to please so far. So why throw us something quickly cobbled together. It wouldn't be worth anybody's time or money.

Olefin

02-04-2022, 02:03 PM

From a company's point of view, putting out a small document that just gives facts and dates is probably the worst decision one could make. There is literally zero chance that anyone would like the content 100 % and recommend it. It's just fluff with no stats and game stuff and it is something no referee will use as is. The timeline given was already met with so much vitriol, it just shows this would be a colossal waste of time and money for FL.

Plus, most groups will use Poland and Sweden as their setting. Other countries in far off places hardly influence what happens there. And for Europe you get the basic facts: WW3, nukes, Soviets fighting NATO and former WP countries. Stalemate. Operation Reset. NATO fails liberating Eastern Europe. Post-collapse. Go!

Look at it this way: If you'd picked up the game in '84, what did you get?

1995: China fights USSR. The USSR gets supported by WP states, because everyone's a good commie.
1996: West Germany starts WW3 while annexing East Germany while the NVA just watches. WP declares war on Germany, except for Romania, who find an ally in Yugoslavia. NATO comes to Germany's rescue, since NATO is now in business of wars of aggression; except France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece, because people speaking non-Germanic languages are apparently the only ones with a clear head.
1997: Greek and Turkey finally go to war. Italy violates Austrian neutrality, because backstabbing lunatics is now everyone's game. Meanwhile, Germany actually wins against the USSR, so they Commies go nuclear. Everyone joins into that game.
1998: France and Belgium start shooting refugees. Since everybody has been at it for 2 1/2 years already, divisions are now down to 50 %. Apparently, Germany could levy new combat effective divisions still by 1945, after 5 years of war, but by 2000 suddenly they forgot that every male above the age of 18 has had either training as a soldier or in civil defense, police, firefighting or healthcare. Italy is really successful as is Greece. The US break de facto apart over a refugee crisis. Mexico invades the US. Yugoslavia invades Hungary, despite Italy having occupied Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia, while Greece annexed Macedonia. Unclear what's left of Yugoslavia by that point except Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegowina.
1999: The US break apart even further. Europe stabilizes, because everyone's dead.
2000: Thinking that stability is bullshit, NATO wants to go for another round, fails miserably over getting its hands on a "turn back time" MacGuffin and now is worse off than ever before.

Meanwhile, I'm adopting stuff from 1E and 2E for my campaign, but boy am I glad FL isn't putting out anything like these 6 pages from 1984.

You actually get a lot more than that - which is what Chico is showing with his day to day breakdown that he is posting. It gives you exactly what is needed to know what is going on elsewhere enough that a GM could have taken that information and played the game elsewhere with at least some confidence that he or she was following canon. And they have quite a while to come up with a basic timeline - and two major reference works that detailed out the whole world in the V1 and V2.2 sourcebooks as well as things like the RDF, Howling Wilderness, East Africa and the Korean book that they could have used to come up with how the events in Europe affect the world.

So you dont have to start from scratch - you can go thru and easily do a nice concise timeline that shows what is going on elsewhere. Plus that is called knowing your base and your target market

Those timelines and details mattered a lot to the core T2K market - thus you make a point of it to get that right in your release. As for them being a small company - so what??? They were offered and turned down multiple offers by people to assist them in the launch - heck coming up with a plausible timeline is part of what both Raellus and I had to do with our stuff - and Frank is working with them and could have easily assisted them.

And the timeline they did come up with for events in Europe really needed help - if you have issues with V1 at the least they didnt send over 500,000 reinforcements and then suddenly forget they sent them over like FL did in their timeline.

So again - basically if you only want to play a limited campaign in Central Poland and Sweden then who cares about timelines. But if your players are like "this is getting boring what about the rest of the world" then you are going to have a major issue with basically the rest of the world barely being mentioned.

unipus

02-04-2022, 02:10 PM

Moving on... maybe you have your answer here Raellus?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60257080

Ursus Maior

02-04-2022, 02:58 PM

Raellus

02-04-2022, 03:28 PM

Ok fellas, let's get this thread back on topic. There's no point in whinging about Free League did or didn't do regarding a global timeline. Heffe's OP was an entreaty that we, the community, create something in the absence of an official product release, not an invitation to complain that there hasn't been one yet.

I'll start.

Moving on... maybe you have your answer here Raellus?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that 4e should feature a Soviet-PRC alliance- at least, that is, for the first couple of years of the war. I'm a big-time fan of the v1 timeline, but it always struck me as improbable that the Soviets could fight a multi-front war against the bulk of NATO and the PRC and do as well as they did. With the combined military power of NATO and the PLA, the correlation of forces is just too stacked against the Warsaw Pact. Add in the tech gap (NATO's tech superiority), and the situation almost beggars belief.

That's one area that I think the 4e timeline could actually improve on the v1 timeline.

-

Tegyrius

02-04-2022, 04:59 PM

Spartan-117

02-04-2022, 05:31 PM

Timeline development should always take into account the desired end state - in other words, what do you want the game world to be like at the "today" of the game, the time in which campaigns are occurring? It seems that FL has chosen to have a world that is slightly less devastated than in previous editions. Witness the presence of a working A-10 in one of the boxed set's random encounters, and the implication that this is an uncommon but not exceptional occurrence.

- C.

This is one of FL's more 'unusual' choices IMHO. A-10's fly, but personal and group equipment is dramatically scaled back from previous editions. 1/6 of all PCs start with 1 spare magazine only.

In 1st edition, "Each character begins the game with a set of fatigues, combat webbing, a rucksack, and a personal weapon."

Even if a 1st edition PC ended up with 1 month of Time in Combat (not sure this is mathematically possible) and are also enlisted, they would a 500 equipment allowance and could purchase 5x 280-round cases of 5.45mm/5.56mm ammo at a cost of 100 each, representing almost 47 full magazines of ammo.

Personally, I'd like to see more balance in this area for 4e games. 2013 handles this well with group equipment rolls for a wide range of useful options (animals, food, fuel, support weapons, vehicles) plus individual selections equal to weight allowance to preserve player agency and support PC concepts.

That's the gold standard in my opinion. 4e tries hard with the 'group gear' concept, but gimps the PC equipment so much that character concepts suffer unnecessarily and group gear gets allocated to things many PCs should probably start with.

Raellus

02-04-2022, 05:43 PM

I prefer the more spartan ;) starting gear allowance of 4e. IMHO, v1-2.2 were too generous with kit. It never really made sense to me that a soldier cut off behind enemy lines after a failed offensive (involving traveling quite a ways from the start line to arrive at Kalisz) would start play with 47 full mags (or most everything else starting allowances could buy). Granted, I haven't actually played 4e yet, so maybe it's not that fun to start off with so little, but it seems a lot more realistic to me.

Since this thread is about world-building, if we continue this discussion re starting gear, let's move it over to Mechanics & Rules:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6517&page=3

-

Heffe

02-04-2022, 07:16 PM

Heads up that I'm slowly but surely building a timeline spreadsheet for what's contained in the ref manual. I figure that will be a better starting point for understanding the canon timeline's impact on individual nations. I'm up to '97 so far - I'm hoping to have it complete enough to be able to share sometime in the next two weeks or so.

Olefin

02-05-2022, 10:52 AM

@Olefin
You're confusing the boxed core sets with the full canon of 10 years or so of publications for 1E, including a golden era house magazine. What Chico posts is not what's in the core set. I went through those six pages today for my post.

I am also talking about the very extensive world building that is in the V2.2 sourcebook - there is enough detail there to be able to play anywhere in the world - ie gives good basic info and better yet the information on the British and French militaries let’s you create characters in other countries that based their militaries on those countries - for instance Uganda or Tanzania or Djibouti as I did when I did the East Africa Sourcebook

pmulcahy11b

02-05-2022, 11:39 AM

I agree with your post generally, but I think that the Sovs would invade Iran to use as a gateway to Iraq and its oils, then that they would attempt to invade (or more, roll over in their thoughts) Kuwait Saudi Arabia, the and the UAE and Gulf States. Meanwhile, Iran does have decent reserves of oil and gas (IRL, sanctions are preventing most of that oil and gas from getting out into the world), and it could serve as a base for their operations in the Gulf.

So they thought. Sounds simple, right? (After all, we're the Soviet Union, and we have troops and equipment up the wazoo!) The Iranians were not simply going to roll over, and it took a lot more effort to pin down Iran. They are still suffering both small and large partisan attacks from Iranian freedom fighters and Iranian Army members gone native. And in pinning down the Iranians as best they could, Iran turned out to be more of a meat grinder than they expected.

In my T2KU, the Gulf War happened. And ever since then, the US and several of the Coalition countries maintained a decent troop presence in Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE, and the Gulf States. And while the coalition has their own problems with insurgents, they were able to being enough troops and equipment to bear to stop the Sovs cold just north of Basra. That effort cost the Sovs and the Coalition a lot of vehicles; the armor battle north of of Kuwait was larger than the Gulf War's 73 Easting.

So now, both sides are nursing their wounds after other Sov-Coalition battles, and each has their own problems with insurgents and groups who would qualify as terrorists. They largely use their remaining vehicles for special missions, their aircraft for very special missions, and their fuel. The Coalition is doing decently, but the Sov commander has nightmares every time he closes his eyes. And both sides are stuck in the Middle East; both sides know it will be a long time before they go home, and there is precious little communications to the US, Europe, or the Soviet Union.

I also have a blurb in the B-52 section of US Bombers that B-52s were known in the Middle East for their 24-hour nonstop bombing of Baghdad, levelling the city. Might have to remove that, though.

pmulcahy11b

02-05-2022, 11:42 AM

Many of the latest posts are for V1.2.2, including mine, and this is a 4E folder. Could a moderator pull out the V1/2.2 posts and put them in their own directory, perhaps. :batting my eyes:

Ursus Maior

02-05-2022, 04:59 PM

The more I think about it, the more I believe that 4e should feature a Soviet-PRC alliance- at least, that is, for the first couple of years of the war. I'm a big-time fan of the v1 timeline, but it always struck me as improbable that the Soviets could fight a multi-front war against the bulk of NATO and the PRC and do as well as they did.
I second that and have had thoughts in a similar direction. This is something that's even scary probable today (as of news today). By the 1990s, Western industries want to expand into China. It's a win-win for everybody and China absolutely needs the tech transfer and the commerce. But what, if they have better alliance with the USSR than historically with Russia, since the USSR is no paralyzed, but an actual actor on the world stage?

Tech transfer from the USSR and some from the West combined with the raw production power of China could not only end in the PRC become a powerhouse, but also deliver the USSR the masses of equipment it would need for the Twilight War. It could answer the question "how?" in another way, too: If China starts grabbing land in the Pacific - not speaking about an invasion of Taiwan or South Korea, just fortifying islands in the South China Sea, like today - that'll alert US and UK and distract them somewhat from Europe.

Heffe

02-05-2022, 11:44 PM

I agree that the PRC joining with the USSR would certainly explain a lot of the wonkier bits in the 4E canon. Regarding South Asia, I do wonder about India and Pakistan, but I imagine both nations would have blown themselves to bits.

One area I’m really struggling with in the Ref’s manual, at least in the timeline, is Yugoslavia. There’s no mention of Yugoslavia or the nations that followed its collapse.

What do you all think, would Yugoslavia still have collapsed in FL’s timeline?

Ursus Maior

02-06-2022, 07:21 AM

One area I’m really struggling with in the Ref’s manual, at least in the timeline, is Yugoslavia. There’s no mention of Yugoslavia or the nations that followed its collapse.

What do you all think, would Yugoslavia still have collapsed in FL’s timeline?Yes and I absolutely see this as one of Europe's flashpoints in 1997.

The fragmentation of Yugoslavia started around Tito's death in 1980, but was not just related to his death, though he was a unifying force for the country. Since the 1970, economic growth throughout the country came paced very differently. Something similar can be said for the idea of a unified state, which changed a lot with the new constitution of 1974. The constitution ended in Kosovo becoming an autonomous province within Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia arguing for greater autonomy and Serbia taking the most unitarist stance. To make matters worse, Yugoslavia by the late 1980s was economically failing. So much, that the Reagan administration feared Yugoslavia might enter the Soviet bloc to save its economy. Austerity was the word of the day and that didn't sit well with the richer states of the country.

De facto, Yugoslavia was a confederation after 1974 and then the economical factor hit full force. Croatia and Slovenia were the most developed and industrialized federal states within in the union. In 1987, public opinions in Slovenia saw better economic opportunities for the state outside a Yugoslav union than within. At that time, communism lay on its worldwide ideological deathbed and when the USSR was visibly breaking apart - being the world leader in communist matters - the idea of that being a goal to aim for in Yugoslavia, was just evaporating. As the USSR was softening up on power and started talking to Yugoslavia again, the West stopped pouring so much money into Yugoslavia, but the USSR couldn't compensate. So matters grew worse fiscally and that added to Slovenia and Croatia wanting out of the republic. It didn't help that Serbians began driving an evermore rhetorically nationalist course and Milosevic became president of Yugoslavia after going on record with the sentence, "[a]t home and abroad, Serbia's enemies are massing against us. We say to them 'We are not afraid. We will not flinch from battle'" in November 1988.

In January 1990 the communist party more or less imploded and multi-party elections were held the same year. The Slovenes held an independence referendum the same year and Croatia followed on 2 May 1991. On 25 June 1991 Slovenia declared independence and Croatia followed the same day. Slovenia made it out within ten days, but Croatia was more complicated, because there were larger parts of the country where Serbians lived, who in turn declared splitting off from Croatia in December.

So, even before the August Coup changes history of 4E, Yugoslavia is de facto broken up, having lost Slovenia completely and seeing fighting during the Croatian War of Independence.

What happens after late 1991 in 4E Yugoslavia is open for speculation, of course, but I don't see the USSR acting very differently for at least two years than Russia did. It seems, they wouldn't have been powerful enough to intervene in any large way. With communism hopping of the deathbed in 1994, after the death of Gennady Yanayev and Vladimir Kryuchkov taking over, the USSR might intervene more actively. Honestly, I don't see them automatically becoming allies of Serbian led Yugoslavia, because, while the Russian-Serbian bonds werre historically strong, Serbian nationalism wouldn't necessary play well with the USSR: Serbians emphasized their Orthodox Church a lot again and that's not in the interest of the USSR. But should Milosevic approach the USSR and propose a deal like "we downplay nationalistic and religious tones for weapons and peace troops", I could see the USSR meddle with that.

Of course, the West by then was active in the Balkans as well. IFOR wasn't a thing until 1995, but by 1994 this looked like it might happen. The USSR might want to join in on stabilization, albeit with its own agenda. Similar to the 1999 incident at Pristina airport, there might something like that in the winter of 1996/1997 at Mostar airport. With the Soviets already actively fighting in the Baltics, they might try to grab Mostar airport. Who knows, maybe the Italian, Franco-German and Spanish forces behave a lot like the US and British did at Pristina, but maybe they also buckle and let Moscow have that airport for Soviet troops to pour in. It might throw oil into the fire for what happens later that year and convince President West that the US need to be swift, decisive and hard in their response to the USSR invading Poland and other former Warsaw Pact countries.

Heffe

02-06-2022, 06:29 PM

That's great context, thank you Ursus Maior.

It seems then that Yugoslavia would have likely still have broken into multiple states. While their political future would have remained uncertain, it isn't clear that they would have been able to get their shit together enough by the time major war had broken out to "pick a side". Due to that, I think with some possible exceptions, the Balkans would have remained fairly neutral as things started falling apart. Given the USSR's rolling through Hungary and Austria however, I think it can be assumed that the former Yugo states would have been very cautious indeed, being caught between NATO nations and the Russian Bear.

Given what's happening in eastern Europe, and the USSR not really having any real allies in Europe during the 4E timeline, I think that just really bolsters the idea of the PRC joining the USSR. I also think there's a strong case for India joining up as well, though surely the tensions between India and China would remain. In short, it seems the major players on the Axis side in Europe and Asia would be:

The USSR, China, India, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. There's probably cases to be made for some additional nations to switch sides which would be interesting to explore, such as (IMO), Turkey. Elsewhere in the world, you'd also have nations such as Cuba, Venezuela, etc. possibly picking up arms with the Axis. The USSR also had a few treaties with nations in Africa and southeast Asia as well which would likely come into play

NATO at the time would have been comprised of the following nations (apologies if I missed any here): The US, UK, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey (officially). In Asia, you'd also have allies of various scope in Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, and Pakistan. Australia and NZ surely would join the Allied endeavors as well. Not sure how many nations in Africa and South America would join in on the Allies side.

Ursus Maior

02-07-2022, 03:59 AM

I really don't see India, Iran or even Syria join the USSR or China in a formal alliance. Syria would get immediate unwanted attention from Israel and thus the US. This is not in the interest of Hafze al-Assad, who was seriously ill since the 1980s and had his son and designated successor Bashar receive Western education, in London mostly. A Soviet-leaning neutrality, yes, that I could see, but an alright alliance seems highly unlikely. There is nothing to gain for Syria or the Assads from that, only preemptive strikes from Israel. Syria had learned its lesson after Yom Kippur and never challenged Israel directly afterwards, just through intermediaries. Stability and prosperity became Syrias goals and they were achievable. The USSR always wanted something from Syria, a naval base, ressources, selling weapons, but Syria needed little in return, mainly weapons and money, which it also got from Europe. Going into a full alliance would mean loosing that.

India is a different case, but essentially similar. Technological transfer, including money and weapons from the USSR and Europe would prohibit a wartime alliance with the USSR. You don't choose a side in a war, unless you have to, especially, if both sides want to sell you their stuff. India is also in no need to align with the Soviets and certainly unwilling to align with the Chinese. In the 80s, India is going through a liberalization and booms quite a bit; though not as much as the Tiger States do, which is why it's often forgotten.

Certainly, Iran was one of the states the US feared most to join the Soviet bloc. It was always highly unrealistic, though. The mullahs were as much opposed to the USSR as they were to the US. The one thing the Soviets had going for themselves was that the US had the more recent imperialistic past in Iran. But the agnostic to outright anticlerical Soviet policy was as much a no-go to Iran as was Soviet imperialism. For a Soviet-Iranian alliance to work, the Iranian communist Tudeh Party would have had to come to power. That's a nigh impossible thing to happen. In the 80s, the mullahs were in power through popular support and the sheer will to survive Iraqi aggression. The communists didn't help at all in the war, plus it didn't help them that nominally Iraq was aligned to the Soviets and a socialist state. A communist coup in Iran would have fared even worse than in Afghanistan.

Essentially, if you weren't allied to the USSR in peace, why join them in war? China I could see, because they have ideological mutuality (to some degree) and China has an axe to grind with the US after 1996 plus it's booming fast. The rest? Not so much, with caveats.

Now, all of these three states probably would take Soviet and maybe Chinese money. Some might even have joint exercises (India might), but why be drawn into conflicts that don't gain them anything? Being member of the "neutral bloc" worked historically, I don't see, why that would change.

Now, I could see Iraq join the Soviet bloc after 1991. The reason that didn't happen historically is certainly that the USSR was on its deathbed and never recovered. But if it would recover, foreign aid and arms exports would be all over the place in Iraq. The same might work for Eritrea, which has the power to close the Red Sea through its islands.

I see other potential candidates, too. Libya is one such country. Gaddafi was egocentric enough to put his ideas of amassing power before the people of Libya, so he might renew his partnership with a USSR hellbent on revisionism in during the 1990s. Benghazi was already used to seeing Soviet ships earlier in the Cold War, so releasing it, would be easy to manage.

Another country could be Yemen. Though communist South Yemen imploded in 1990 and reunified de jure with North Yemen into Yemen proper, the reunification process was halted during a brief civil war from 4 May to 7 July 1994. I could see the USSR intervene here on behalf of its former allies. It might be the first glance of things to come, in the Balkans or Caucasus, but less visible. If the Soviets play their hand correctly here, airmobile forces deployed from Iraq, Tartus (Syria) and Benghazi (Libya) would deploy swiftly, reinforced by marines landing several days later, who would sail in from Iraq.

There would be repercussions from the West, but only so much. Yemen is of little interest to most during these days and ending a civil war is always welcome. The US would probably put more troops into Saudi Arabia, but other than that, it's not a big thing in the media. Once the Twilight War nears, however, the USSR has bases in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, which would threaten the Persian oilfields and Israel, creating a third point of interest the US have to watch out for other than Europe.

Heffe

02-07-2022, 12:01 PM

My apologies, I'm talking specifically about the 4e timeline. In the 4E canon timeline, it's clear that Syria and Iran are already on board with the USSR. In fact, it appears as though the apocalypse really starts specifically because of those three countries working together.

The official timeline from 4e follows (summarized):

1998 - After more than a decade of occupation, Israel retreats from Lebanon, under heavy fire from Hezbollah. Syria attempts to capitalize, and attacks the Golan Heights. Israel pushes back hard, deep into Syria. In response as Israel reaches just a few miles from Damascus, al-Assad starts using chemical weapons, driving Israel out of Syria. With the help of Iranian and Soviet airstrikes and Soviet warships in the Mediterranean, Syrian forces descend into northern Israel. Israel calls for aid from the US, but the US balks, already heavily engaged in Europe. Israel, thinking they're alone, decides to use tactical nuclear weapons.

Which brings me back to what we were talking about previously - in the 4th edition, the USSR is already somewhat isolated, geopolitically speaking. Most of Europe has either already joined NATO, or is at least more friendly with NATO than they are with the Soviets. Hence why I think it makes sense for China to get on board with the Axis as well as possibly India, given that Pakistan, their primary regional enemy, is already aligned with the US.

unipus

02-07-2022, 02:26 PM

Heffe

02-07-2022, 03:06 PM

This is definitely a part of the 4e timeline that takes some chewing to swallow. Why would any nation be eager to get into bed with the Soviet Union? It can't be doing all that much better than historically, economically. The Warsaw Pact has collapsed. The USSR itself can be seen as an illegitimate state since it has only been preserved by an armed coup. It's hard to see anyone who has a choice in the matter seeing the Soviets as a good one.

What's missing, I think, is a demonstration of power from the Soviet Union that could convince others that they're the winning side.

Today, you have countries siding with Russia because they have fears about over-expansion from the West. But that's taken 30 years to develop.

Here's what I have from the Ref Manual so far:

1994 - Spike in global oil prices and economic reform leads to economic prosperity and reformation of the Red Army begins. The USSR closes the troop technology quality gap with the US over the next couple of years.

1995 - Kryuchkov says the Baltic states leaving the USSR was due to a CIA plot.

May 9 1996 - USSR invades Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and brings them under Soviet rule within a week. US response is tepid. Soviet forces move to the borders of Poland and Finland.

1997 - West takes office and the US bolsters troops in Europe. Kryuchkov sees it as an existential threat, and orders a false flag, followed by an invasion of Poland. This triggers the US to start a bombing campaign against Soviet forces in Poland. The USSR responds in kind by striking US bases in the UK, Germany, and Turkey. The USSR advance approaches the Polish border, and NATO/US forces are sent to the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. The USSR responds by invading much of eastern Europe.

Options developed from canon for why some of the nations jumped in bed with the USSR:

I can't see Iran and Syria being overly dependent on Russian oil, but perhaps they're so eager to get at Israel that they join the US's enemy?
Maybe the Baltic states leaving really was a CIA plot. Or at least Russia was able to convince a few nations of such.
The show of force against the Baltic states is powerful enough to convince some nations.
Some nations believe Russia's false flag against Poland, and see the US as the aggressor?

Raellus

02-07-2022, 03:30 PM

What's missing, I think, is a demonstration of power from the Soviet Union that could convince others that they're the winning side.

Rolling the Baltic States demonstrates to Europe- Eastern Europe, in particular- that the Soviet Union has the means and the will to use military force to back its policy goals. Frankly, I think this should happen earlier in the timeline.

Also, in the 4e timeline, Soviet natural gas might be nearly as important to Europe as Russian gas is today, giving the USSR a bit of economic leverage there (as evidenced by current real-world fears that a strong NATO response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine would prompt Russia to close its pipeline to the west, resulting in civilians deaths due to cold during winter).

As for India and Pakistan, I don't think clear-cut alignment with one or another of the Superpowers is necessary for achieving the desired end. In fact, I think the Superpowers- in particular, the Soviets- are not going to be able to focus their diplomatic efforts everywhere, with equal efficacy. The Soviets are going to be focused on Europe, China is going to be focused on Taiwan, and the USA is going to be focused on Europe and Taiwan. Add in a volatile Middle East, and the Superpowers are going to be spread very thin. In other words, the Superpowers, preoccupied with other flashpoints closer to home (or more vital to their national interests) essentially leave South Asia up to its own devices. (Perhaps China steps in later, once war breaks out, to help one side or the other, but mostly to pursue its own ends). That neglect essentially leads to a war where curated diplomacy might have saved the day.

So, border and ethno-religious tensions boil up between India and Pakistan, not directly related to what's going on elsewhere in the world, and the Superpowers (USA, USSR, PRC) don't step in with a diplomatic solution. A shooting war between India and Pakistan ensues. It's not directly related to the rest of World War III, but it becomes a part of the global conflict nonetheless. And, of course, it goes nuclear...

-

Heffe

02-07-2022, 05:55 PM

As for India and Pakistan, I don't think clear-cut alignment with one or another of the Superpowers is necessary for achieving the desired end. In fact, I think the Superpowers- in particular, the Soviets- are not going to be able to focus their diplomatic efforts everywhere, with equal efficacy. The Soviets are going to be focused on Europe, China is going to be focused on Taiwan, and the USA is going to be focused on Europe and Taiwan. Add in a volatile Middle East, and the Superpowers are going to be spread very thin. In other words, the Superpowers, preoccupied with other flashpoints closer to home (or more vital to their national interests) essentially leave South Asia up to its own devices. (Perhaps China steps in later, once war breaks out, to help one side or the other, but mostly to pursue its own ends). That neglect essentially leads to a war where curated diplomacy might have saved the day.

So, border and ethno-religious tensions boil up between India and Pakistan, not directly related to what's going on elsewhere in the world, and the Superpowers (USA, USSR, PRC) don't step in with a diplomatic solution. A shooting war between India and Pakistan ensues. It's not directly related to the rest of World War III, but it becomes a part of the global conflict nonetheless. And, of course, it goes nuclear...
-

I like that approach with southern Asia - it feels a lot cleaner than trying to figure out a way to shoehorn them into the broader conflict.

Ursus Maior

02-08-2022, 05:31 AM

My apologies, I'm talking specifically about the 4e timeline. In the 4E canon timeline, it's clear that Syria and Iran are already on board with the USSR.

I know the paragraph, but given the fact that FL offers us just that, I'd be cautious to read a full blown military alliance between the three states into that, since that would be a major political shift and is nowhere mentioned before or afterwards. I'd expect more to take that for granted.

In fact, this is all we get for that region for 1998, the year that the war becomes global an nuclear. So, it could also be that the Iranians help Syria, since both regimes are close, and the USSR does the same, for the same reasons. Similar to how other countries might conduct punitive actions at the same time against the same opponent of their mutually allied state, without themselves being in any form of formal alliance.

Case in point: Syria participated in Operation Desert Storm, but at no point was there a formal alliance between Syria and the US in place beyond the goal to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Also, the following nations supported North Yemen in the 1994 civil war: USA, Jordan, Qatar, Egypt, Sudan, Iran and India. While South Yemen was supported by Saudi Arabia, Oman, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, UAE, Cuba, North Korea and China. Though neither were the US allied with Iran during that time, nor at war or even close to with Saudi Arabia.

I hope, I'm getting my point across here.

Ursus Maior

02-08-2022, 05:56 AM

Today, you have countries siding with Russia because they have fears about over-expansion from the West. But that's taken 30 years to develop.
I think, there is more to it than just the fear of over-expansion, but yes, the 30 years gap is a problem. Today, authoritarianism seems to be appealing, too again, not just for autocrats, but also the masses that vote them into power. Authoritarianism was never the selling point of the USSR, though, despite being part of the package. It had to be masked over, however, despite its appeal to some, since ending exactly that: tyranny, was part of the selling narrative the USSR always used.

So, why go into bed with the USSR after 1991? Well, the coup d'etat wasn't a bad thing for everyone. The Chinese applauded it, having long feared Gorbachev's policies of democratization and transparency. Cuba, North Korea and all other recipients of Soviet aid weren't to happy either, this included Serbian nationalists, by the way, since Yugoslavia slipped out of their hands for precisely the same reasons: transparency leads to questions and multi-party elections led to nationalist parties taking control in member states.

Everyone wanting to suppress this at home, might hop onboard the train of "anti-nationalist internationalism", if there's money to be made from, power gained or both. And there are plenty of anti-West, anti-American sentiments around by 1991 already. This is after decades of ideological warfare, keep in mind. I'd say, this could be argued to be plausible, despite "the end of history" being big talk. The anti-American and anti-Western narrative, historically, was a bid dead, sure, but it reared it's head in the form of terrorist attacks on capitalist and American institutions by 1993 (World Trade Center bombing) and then the 1998 United States embassy bombings.

The USSR was always quite good at spinning these narratives. Imagine, the likes of Timothy McVeigh getting some help by the KGB. Not in Soviet disguise, obviously, but maybe by some Irish guys. McVeighwas raised Catholic, the IRA was aided by the Soviets (as were other urban guerillas in Europe), contacts could be established. If the US appear vulnerable from the inside, this would drive flock into the Soviet camp.

If one wants to establish an alliance between Muslims and Soviets, I'd still consider Iran an unlikely true ally of the USSR. But influencing extremists that used to fight in Afghanistan into now fighting the US covertly, is not hard to imagine. The US weren't exactly a role model for many of the mujahedin, they were seen as imperialists, too. Especially after US forces were stationed more or less permanently in Saudi Arabia, did certain groups begin to target the US.

What the USSR would need to do in the 1990s is, get on its feet, start influencing covert groups wanting to hurt the US and then connect these groups to the nations from which their members come. The latter is the tricky part.

Can it be done in 7 years or so? No, probably not. But can a Soviet leader, who maybe thinks a little bit too much of himself come to think he has all the pieces in place for a necessary operation of the scale of invading Eastern Europe? Certainly. Miscalculations of that sort have happened before. It would probably make his so called allies turn their back on him, once they recognize his follies. But that just makes the world a messier place, not a safer one.

Ursus Maior

02-08-2022, 06:09 AM

Also, in the 4e timeline, Soviet natural gas might be nearly as important to Europe as Russian gas is today, giving the USSR a bit of economic leverage there (as evidenced by current real-world fears that a strong NATO response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine would prompt Russia to close its pipeline to the west, resulting in civilians deaths due to cold during winter).

It's really not. Gas hasn't been unimportant, of course, since the 1970s. However, by the 1990s, Germany, the main buyer of Russian/Soviet gas was still using a lot more coal and nuclear fuel. Gas power-stations weren't so common 25-30 years ago. Between 1997 and today gas power-stations almost doubled their share from 8.7 % to 16.1 %, but energy consumption for heating changed more drastically, since until the 2000s, oil and even coal were used in private homes for heating and oil in industrial and commercial buildings as well.

In an era, when the Soviets would have had little else to trade with Europe, they were much more dependent on gas exports than Europe was. All former Eastern Bloc countries were more or less running on coal and nuclear, with oil and gas in the mix only spuriously.

In the 1990s, what Europe needed from Russia or Soviet Union, was not creating problems for them in the security realm. Exports into Russia didn't become a relevant thing until the late 1990s, because purchasing power remained so small. That could be levied differently, had the USSR survived, maybe.

Maybe, the USSR needs to become China to Europe, before China does? There is not a lot of time, though.

Questerr

02-08-2022, 08:46 AM

Ursus Maior

02-08-2022, 09:09 AM

(Multi-year lurker, first time poster)

I think one of the biggest changes to keep in mind with 4e is that the backstory no longer explicitly states the Soviets deliberately targeted global oil infrastructure.

It seems like the strategic nuclear strikes were mostly counter-force strikes against critical military and nuclear facilities as well as targeting leadership and continuity of government sites.

That means, it’s quite possible aircraft could still be in use, but are becoming less common as spare parts dry up.

Hi there and welcome from my neck of the woods.

I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, but I think the approach as to how to narrate World War III differs greatly between FL and GDW. A lot of this might have to do with personal experience. FL are hobby enthusiasts and Tomas Härenstam apparently was a Middle East correspondent for some time. Most GDW founders and full time staffers were war veterans and wargame designers. There is a difference in life experiences and the kind of stories one wants or even is able to tell.

And from how I read FL's edition, which I mechanically quite like, ideas like "counter-force strikes", "continuity of government sites" or strategic supply chains are not something they're focusing on or even consider in the back of their head to be of narrative value. The FL team seems to be about the first-hand experience of the scarcity of the barest things that make civilization in an ongoing warzone. Hence the "survival" aspect of 4E and the more "Jane's Division Remnants Catalogue" approach of 1E and 2E, if I might say so.

All in all, I think any referee would be best advised to bespoke tailor a timeline for their respective campaigns. I found this forum (and the Discord) to be excellent troves of ideas for that. Although, I might come off as very critical sometimes (I fear, I hope not!), ideas from both places will probably make it into my campaign at some point.

Questerr

02-08-2022, 09:30 AM

Hi there and welcome from my neck of the woods.

I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, but I think the approach as to how to narrate World War III differs greatly between FL and GDW. A lot of this might have to do with personal experience. FL are hobby enthusiasts and Tomas Härenstam apparently was a Middle East correspondent for some time. Most GDW founders and full time staffers were war veterans and wargame designers. There is a difference in life experiences and the kind of stories one wants or even is able to tell.

And from how I read FL's edition, which I mechanically quite like, ideas like "counter-force strikes", "continuity of government sites" or strategic supply chains are not something they're focusing on or even consider in the back of their head to be of narrative value. The FL team seems to be about the first-hand experience of the scarcity of the barest things that make civilization in an ongoing warzone. Hence the "survival" aspect of 4E and the more "Jane's Division Remnants Catalogue" approach of 1E and 2E, if I might say so.

All in all, I think any referee would be best advised to bespoke tailor a timeline for their respective campaigns. I found this forum (and the Discord) to be excellent troves of ideas for that. Although, I might come off as very critical sometimes (I fear, I hope not!), ideas from both places will probably make it into my campaign at some point.

Personally, I think the nature of the strategic nuclear strikes is very important, especially if your story at all involves Americans who want to get home and find out what happened to their families.

A counter-force strike means an America that is badly wounded and severely disrupted with various on going problems, but one with the hope of recovery.

A counter-value strike means America is the corpse of a country, where every city with a population above 25,000 is a smoking radioactive crater and there’s no hope for anything beyond tiny local governments likely for centuries.

And even with the breakdown in supplies and the survival situation in Europe, there should be enough radio signals reaching Americans even in Poland/Sweden for them to know which scenario occurred.

Olefin

02-08-2022, 12:11 PM

Raellus

02-08-2022, 01:13 PM

Welcome, Questerr!

I think one of the biggest changes to keep in mind with 4e is that the backstory no longer explicitly states the Soviets deliberately targeted global oil infrastructure.

I see it as strongly implied, by the 4e rulebook's presumption that military units generally need to brew alcohol fuel for their vehicles.

A major lesson of the Allied strategic bombing campaign during WW2 is that its biggest impact was achieved by targeting oil refineries. Raids against Axis war production largely failed to achieve significant reductions in arms (in fact, it increased every year until 1945); damage to transportation and infrastructure was often repaired fairly quickly. Raids on cities did not lower morale as much as hoped. In fact, studies showed that bombing raids usually steeled resolve instead of weakening it. Raids against oil refineries and synthetic oil production, however, brought the Axis war machine to a near standstill. If the Allied air forces had shifted their focus to bombing oil production earlier in the war, the war very likely would have ended earlier than it did.

I can't see either side ignoring that lesson in WWIII.

-

Heffe

02-08-2022, 01:24 PM

Obviously there must be fuel available as the manuals state that the USN is still very much in the game - i.e. that its not like the 1st and 2nd editions where outside of places where fuel was available (i.e. CENTCOM basically) the USN is not a going concern - witness Satellite Down where it is basically stated that the USN had no ships capable of going to Mexico to get the satellite back or Last Submarine on the east coast

Here's the relevant quote:

"When the smoke clears, the US has obliterated the Soviet navy [in the Atlantic], but suffered huge losses in the process. President West has lost his capacity to ship more troops and equipment to Europe - as well as the ability to bring the forces already there back home."

I suppose there's room for a few interpretations there, but to me at least, that reads as though there's not a whole lot left of the USN. At least not in-theater. Perhaps a few warships still sailing around, but that's about it.

Other relevant bits of info are that the world's populations have been reduced by about half to two thirds by the time 2000 rolls around.

Here's another choice quote or two that add flavor:

"Africa and South America, largely spared from the war itself, are hit hard when world trade collapses. International shipping comes to a standstill and fuel prices skyrocket, when any can be found at all."

"Both sides at first only attack military and command and control targets. Step by step the nuclear duel escalates, and soon industrial centers and other civilian targets are annihilated – not only in continental Europe, but also in the United Kingdom, and soon ICBMs fall in the US and Russian heartlands. Both sides show just enough restraint to avoid total nuclear annihilation – for now – but the electromagnetic pulses knock out most electronic communication, and civil order in the affected countries starts to break down."

To me, there's clearly a few differences between the old editions and 4e, but overall the layout of the world is likely pretty similar. Command, control, and communications have basically broken down the world over. Any kind of fuel is incredibly hard to come by, even more so in continental Europe. I would imagine "industrial centers" could easily mean oil production facilities depending on the Ref's interpretation, etc.

Rainbow Six

02-08-2022, 02:02 PM

To me, there's clearly a few differences between the old editions and 4e, but overall the layout of the world is likely pretty similar. Command, control, and communications have basically broken down the world over. Any kind of fuel is incredibly hard to come by, even more so in continental Europe. I would imagine "industrial centers" could easily mean oil production facilities depending on the Ref's interpretation, etc.
Yeah, that was my take on it as well, that they're trying to recreate the 'feel' of the original V1 timeline, with a gradual nuclear exchange that starts in Europe then escalates without tipping over into outright mutual assured destruction.

Heffe

02-08-2022, 07:10 PM

Hi all,

As promised, here's the canon timeline, broken apart and reassembled/summarized in spreadsheet form. This should hopefully provide a good basis for Refs looking to expand their own world timeline. Please let me know if you see any errors/problems/typos/etc.

Creation notes:

Nations and locations mentioned have their font color listed in black. Any nation added manually has blue font.
The list of nations clearly isn't complete. I added the larger, more economically powerful nations from most continents, or those nations I thought might be pretty interesting in which to run scenarios/campaigns.
I did add a note for those nations that are officially a part of NATO, or, since the Warsaw PACT presumably still fell apart, those nations that I'm tentatively referring to as the AXIS powers. Really just the OpFor. I also listed a few nations that while not officially in NATO, appeared to act as allies against the USSR in the canon timeline.

Some interesting things to note as I went through the creation process:

There's still just a complete dearth of information about the vast majority of nations in the world.
There exists huge gaps in the timelines of even those nations that are covered extensively. Lots of opportunities here.

Let me know what you guys think.

Questerr

02-09-2022, 09:51 AM

Welcome, Questerr!

I see it as strongly implied, by the 4e rulebook's presumption that military units generally need to brew alcohol fuel for their vehicles.

A major lesson of the Allied strategic bombing campaign during WW2 is that its biggest impact was achieved by targeting oil refineries. Raids against Axis war production largely failed to achieve significant reductions in arms (in fact, it increased every year until 1945); damage to transportation and infrastructure was often repaired fairly quickly. Raids on cities did not lower morale as much as hoped. In fact, studies showed that bombing raids usually steeled resolve instead of weakening it. Raids against oil refineries and synthetic oil production, however, brought the Axis war machine to a near standstill. If the Allied air forces had shifted their focus to bombing oil production earlier in the war, the war very likely would have ended earlier than it did.

I can't see either side ignoring that lesson in WWIII.

-

So I agree that the Soviets and US probably would target oil infrastructure in the territories of their enemies and their allies. The US isn’t going to miss a chance to target Baku and the Soviets are definitely hitting Houston/Beaumont (among other locations), but I guess I should narrow my point down that the deliberate targeting of oil infrastructure in *neutral* countries doesn’t seem to be the case in 4e.

Ewan

02-09-2022, 11:46 AM

Hi all,

Let me know what you guys think.

Hi, had a quick look and it looks interesting and very useful. I might even adapt the format for other games

Olefin

02-09-2022, 12:18 PM

"I suppose there's room for a few interpretations there, but to me at least, that reads as though there's not a whole lot left of the USN. At least not in-theater. Perhaps a few warships still sailing around, but that's about it."

FYI thats not quite the story - Tomas and Chris were asked about the USN when the game was released and also for the beta release - their comments were that the USN was still active off the coast of Europe - i.e. they got hit hard but its not the 1e, 2e situation where you are talking the USN down to one active nuclear submarine and a few destroyers in the whole Atlantic and the Pacific has nothing

Heffe

02-09-2022, 03:39 PM

Heffe

02-09-2022, 03:41 PM

Decided to put the timeline stuff all online.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BMpOdouXLwU0_f7q_sE-Y0n7DdX64FX-zHZn-HWfQ2U/edit?usp=sharing

Feel free to edit/add to it as you see fit. I have a hard copy of the canon stuff on my own drives, so I'd only ask that no one deletes/overwrites anyone else's work without asking them first.

*edit - set it as comment permissions so that no one can just come in and delete other people's work. Just to be safe.

Raellus

02-09-2022, 04:54 PM

FYI thats not quite the story - Tomas and Chris were asked about the USN when the game was released and also for the beta release - their comments were that the USN was still active off the coast of Europe - i.e. they got hit hard but its not the 1e, 2e situation where you are talking the USN down to one active nuclear submarine and a few destroyers in the whole Atlantic and the Pacific has nothing

Besides being pre-release, that sounds pretty unofficial.

Like others here, I wonder if at least some of the vagueness evident in official 4e was by design. By not making definitive statements in the published materials regarding the status of non-aligned/neutral nations' oil production facilities, nuclear strike targets, and the status of major combatants' naval forces (to name just the topics that have come up in this thread), FL is giving Refs a lot of freedom to shape their respective campaign worlds as they see fit. In other words...

Want a T2kU with more fossil fuel availability? Nothing in 4e canon says you can't. Want a T2kU with almost none? Nothing in 4e canon says you can't.

-

Olefin

02-09-2022, 08:41 PM

Heffe

02-10-2022, 01:37 AM

and there is that comment right in the manual about timelines as well in 4e - the problem is that you dont get a cohesive world for those who wish to expand the world - but again the creators of 4th edition apparently dont care about a cohesive timeline or world - versus V2.2 where Marc told me that I had to make what I wrote fit in the timeline and world events to be considered canon

4e really is more like the canon and timeline is what you make of it in a lot of ways given the statements that the creators made in the official released manuals

This is something that actually excites me about the game, and why I’ve gone to the effort of splitting the canon timeline apart. The community right now has an opportunity before it to create the Twilight 2000 world that we want, rather than having a generated world thrust upon us. We can make the changes we feel will better fit the narrative. We can attempt to drive toward a more realistic depiction of the apocalyptic third world war, so long as we include the incredibly narrow depictions that FL has included for us (or hell, we can even rewrite that depiction should we so choose). We can include New America as being an emergent threat if we liked the concept from the original. We can make sure Mexico never takes the southwest (that one still gets me). We can even incorporate a lot of the community works that folks here have toiled away on over the years. Etc etc etc.

Indeed, maybe there won’t be any interest in this kind of dialogue. Maybe everyone will argue about what they think would have really happened, and the whole thing will fall apart. If that happens, so be it. But, if a new community-crafted timeline does take root, if it does get embraced, it could change the direction of the game and how the community interacts with it. Content creators in the community program will have a default setting they can use to craft new adventures and modules around. Not all of them will, but some will choose to if the timeline is crafted well enough. And over time, that community created timeline and the modules that work inside of it will make for a better resource for new Refs, and ultimately help drive more players to the game.

I realize that all sounds a bit starry-eyed, and that there have been attempts in the past to do this kind of thing that have fallen apart. I recall reading about a DC project at one point that never seemed to come to fruition. But the alternative in my mind is that we just sit around playing the existing stuff, and FL will release modules over the next few years that will slowly build a more complete narrative, while still leaving it to new refs to do a lot of the heavy lifting themselves. To me at least, that just seems like it would be such a wasted opportunity.

chico20854

02-10-2022, 07:34 AM

I recall reading about a DC project at one point that never seemed to come to fruition.

It's still going on - the daily "25 Years Ago" thread is an extract of our work. But, yes, it is not where we once dreamed it would be!!!

Olefin

02-10-2022, 07:58 AM

Besides being pre-release, that sounds pretty unofficial.

Like others here, I wonder if at least some of the vagueness evident in official 4e was by design. By not making definitive statements in the published materials regarding the status of non-aligned/neutral nations' oil production facilities, nuclear strike targets, and the status of major combatants' naval forces (to name just the topics that have come up in this thread), FL is giving Refs a lot of freedom to shape their respective campaign worlds as they see fit. In other words...

Want a T2kU with more fossil fuel availability? Nothing in 4e canon says you can't. Want a T2kU with almost none? Nothing in 4e canon says you can't.

-

FYI Raellus keep in mind that you can have an active Navy but not the right kind of ships to be able to support and reinforce an army in the field - destroyers can transport troops and supplies but not enough for an army - dropping off a couple hundred men with supplies and ammo for a couple of days is one thing, bringing over enough supplies to keep a division in the field is another

the Japanese managed to keep a small force on Guadalcanal barely supplied with reinforcements and supplies with just destroyers - but you are talking about several Army Corps here

the other factor is the situation in the United States - i.e. you could have the entire navy and transport structure intact (which they dont) but that doesnt mean anything if you dont have anything to transport - i.e. it hard to send more tanks over if no one is making tanks anymore or the ones you have are too busy fighting each other (the mention of US states that declared independence and most likely grabbed anything of military value in their borders when they did it)

Raellus

02-10-2022, 03:06 PM

FYI Raellus keep in mind that you can have an active Navy but not the right kind of ships to be able to support and reinforce an army in the field - destroyers can transport troops and supplies but not enough for an army - dropping off a couple hundred men with supplies and ammo for a couple of days is one thing, bringing over enough supplies to keep a division in the field is another

I'm not sure why your comment was addressed to me, but I'll respond anyway.

To send reinforcements from CONUS to Europe, or bring US soldiers back home, one wouldn't necessarily need any military transport ships at all. Civilian merchant ships of all sorts could, in a pinch, be used as troop transports. One would only need enough warships to escort said civie transports to and/or from Europe.

I don't think anyone is claiming that no civilian merchant shipping exists in the 4e T2kU. I'm confident that at least a few naval vessels would be available for escort duties, even as last as 2000.

The question is, is the fuel for said ships- civie and naval- available?

-

Heffe

02-10-2022, 03:16 PM

It's still going on - the daily "25 Years Ago" thread is an extract of our work. But, yes, it is not where we once dreamed it would be!!!

This is awesome. I had no idea that was the impetus behind the 25 years ago thread. I'll have to start diving into there. Thanks for the info!

Heffe

02-10-2022, 03:24 PM

I'm not sure why your comment was addressed to me, but I'll respond anyway.

To send reinforcements from CONUS to Europe, or bring US soldiers back home, one wouldn't necessarily need any military transport ships at all. Civilian merchant ships of all sorts could, in a pinch, be used as troop transports. One would only need enough warships to escort said civie transports to and/or from Europe.

I don't think anyone is claiming that no civilian shipping exists in the 4e T2kU.

-

Certainly there would still be a small modicum of civilian shipping happening - just not enough to make a serious dent in the collapse or enough to ferry large numbers of men and equipment. That canon piece about international shipping coming to a standstill, at least in my mind, mainly refers to large bulk container ships and oil tankers. The global shipping industry is going to be locked down by lack of fuel, lack of personnel, lack of repair parts, and fear of being sunk by hostile forces. Smaller outfits probably have the means to move around, though even they would be suffering from lack of adequate access to oil and spare parts, even if they still have the manpower available. That said, some enterprising and risk-taking small merchant captains could probably end up doing quite well for themselves indeed, so long as they stayed below the radar and stayed in friendly waters. That actually sounds like a great start to an adventure.

Olefin

02-10-2022, 03:29 PM

I'm not sure why your comment was addressed to me, but I'll respond anyway.

To send reinforcements from CONUS to Europe, or bring US soldiers back home, one wouldn't necessarily need any military transport ships at all. Civilian merchant ships of all sorts could, in a pinch, be used as troop transports. One would only need enough warships to escort said civie transports to and/or from Europe.

I don't think anyone is claiming that no civilian merchant shipping exists in the 4e T2kU. I'm confident that at least a few naval vessels would be available for escort duties, even as last as 2000.

The question is, is the fuel for said ships- civie and naval- available?

-

I was replying to your comment earlier in reply to my USN posts - sorry I should have just made it a general post

One question about fuel may be more is there fuel in Europe - i.e. its great if you can ship stuff there but you need to get the boats or planes home too or you are not going to be able to keep up any supply effort for long

Heffe

02-10-2022, 04:43 PM

I was replying to your comment earlier in reply to my USN posts - sorry I should have just made it a general post

One question about fuel may be more is there fuel in Europe - i.e. its great if you can ship stuff there but you need to get the boats or planes home too or you are not going to be able to keep up any supply effort for long

One of the issues is that the only relevant verbiage here is incredibly vague.

"When the smoke clears, the US has obliterated the Soviet navy [in the Atlantic], but suffered huge losses in the process. President West has lost his capacity to ship more troops and equipment to Europe - as well as the ability to bring the forces already there back home."

Does this mean the US doesn't have enough ships to carry large amounts of troops/equipment? That they don't have enough fuel? That the men operating the ships have lost contact with command? That their morale is so low that they're simply unwilling to risk further trips?

It could be any or all of those reasons. Or something else entirely.

Raellus

02-10-2022, 04:47 PM

Certainly there would still be a small modicum of civilian shipping happening - just not enough to make a serious dent in the collapse or enough to ferry large numbers of men and equipment. That canon piece about international shipping coming to a standstill, at least in my mind, mainly refers to large bulk container ships and oil tankers. The global shipping industry is going to be locked down by lack of fuel, lack of personnel, lack of repair parts, and fear of being sunk by hostile forces. Smaller outfits probably have the means to move around, though even they would be suffering from lack of adequate access to oil and spare parts, even if they still have the manpower available.

I agree wholeheartedly. ↑THIS↑ is a crucial premise of any T2k timeline. It explains why US military forces around the world are dwindling by 2000, and presents a major challenge to any PCs who must cross an ocean to get home.

That said, some enterprising and risk-taking small merchant captains could probably end up doing quite well for themselves indeed, so long as they stayed below the radar and stayed in friendly waters. That actually sounds like a great start to an adventure.

Indeed.

-

Spartan-117

02-10-2022, 07:52 PM

Twilight 2000: Free Trader.

I feel like there's another GDW RPG that covers tramp trading also.... just don't die during character generation.

The Zappster

02-11-2022, 02:50 AM

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/declassified-document-reveals-merseyside-master-23046423.amp

Not into 4th Ed myself but this seems like a fitting place for this. From the website of my local newspaper.

Ursus Maior

02-11-2022, 05:12 AM

Twilight 2000: Free Trader.

I feel like there's another GDW RPG that covers tramp trading also.... just don't die during character generation.

Mayday, Mayday, this tramp trader MS Kalisz... we are under attack... propulsion is gone... the Bofors on the fo'c'sle is gone... Mayday... taking water fast... calling anyone... please help... We're on our own...

Ewan

02-11-2022, 11:14 AM

kcdusk

02-14-2022, 03:32 AM

Olefin

02-14-2022, 10:40 AM

Mayday, Mayday, this tramp trader MS Kalisz... we are under attack... propulsion is gone... the Bofors on the fo'c'sle is gone... Mayday... taking water fast... calling anyone... please help... We're on our own...

Now that sounds like the start of a good adventure

kcdusk

02-16-2022, 07:50 PM

Current day pontoon bridge built across Pripyat River, tying in to 2TK because its on the Chernobyl site of 1986.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44319/pontoon-bridge-appears-in-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-that-could-give-russia-unique-access-to-ukraine

May or may not mean anything, just felt like the past and present intersecting.

Ursus Maior

02-17-2022, 03:24 AM

Worth noting that the pontoon bridge was deployed on the Belarusian side of the Chernobyl exclusion zone, so it's still a bit up the road from the (former) town of Prypyat. It's interesting though that the Russians train river crossings in the Exclusion Zone proper, because they would need to cross it, if they strike from the North towards Kiev.

unipus

02-18-2022, 04:58 PM

This is something that actually excites me about the game, and why I’ve gone to the effort of splitting the canon timeline apart. The community right now has an opportunity before it to create the Twilight 2000 world that we want, rather than having a generated world thrust upon us. We can make the changes we feel will better fit the narrative.

I think this is also just a natural reaction to the way the hobby has developed. Back in the day, "session zero" wasn't a thing anyone had heard of. These days, everyone putting a game out assumes you're going to houserule and poke at it -- so why not leave it wide open to do so.

Hell, it gave me the opportunity to publish an entire book on a very specific setting. You can definitely argue that stuff should have been in the core book (although it never was, in any edition of the game), but the fact that it wasn't left the door open for me to create an interpretation that made sense to me and was fun at my table... which probably wouldn't be 100% the case had it been in the core book, really! And I'd have a lot less sales. ;)

On the topic of "what's left of the USN?" ... well, it's the same thing. If your players want to sail home and you want to say that's going to be the adventure of a lifetime just finding a seaworthy ship and crew brave enough to risk it, then you can do that. If you want to play it that the war in Europe is still sustainable and there's just enough word and supplies coming from back home to make that viable, you can do that too. If you want a game where ships are still out there volleying missiles at each other now and then, you can do that too. You could of course always do all of these things, but now at least you're not contradicting the written word to do so.

Heffe

02-18-2022, 05:51 PM

I think this is also just a natural reaction to the way the hobby has developed. Back in the day, "session zero" wasn't a thing anyone had heard of. These days, everyone putting a game out assumes you're going to houserule and poke at it -- so why not leave it wide open to do so.

Hell, it gave me the opportunity to publish an entire book on a very specific setting. You can definitely argue that stuff should have been in the core book (although it never was, in any edition of the game), but the fact that it wasn't left the door open for me to create an interpretation that made sense to me and was fun at my table... which probably wouldn't be 100% the case had it been in the core book, really! And I'd have a lot less sales. ;)

On the topic of "what's left of the USN?" ... well, it's the same thing. If your players want to sail home and you want to say that's going to be the adventure of a lifetime just finding a seaworthy ship and crew brave enough to risk it, then you can do that. If you want to play it that the war in Europe is still sustainable and there's just enough word and supplies coming from back home to make that viable, you can do that too. If you want a game where ships are still out there volleying missiles at each other now and then, you can do that too. You could of course always do all of these things, but now at least you're not contradicting the written word to do so.

Of course! I bought your book btw, it's great. :D

Like I said in the other worldbuilding thread, I get that maybe everyone just wants to do their own thing, and that's all fine. But I do worry that with so many content creators just making products, eventually there's going to be just a ton of discrete modules, none of which work together, and IMO that's going to hurt the game in the long run.

Any Ref that's looking to run more than one module with their group is going to be running the risk of those modules not working together, in which case they'll have to houserule, potentially extensively, in order to make it work for their players. In my mind, it makes more sense to at least try to flesh out the world a little more, at a really high level, just to help center the game around a default timeline. For example, knowing which countries are fighting which, and why, etc. Hell, even knowing which countries are still in existence (Yugoslavia anyone?).

As an example, say we have multiple modules be released for the US by various content creators over the next few years. One may have Russia and Mexico/Cuba invading as in the original games. Another may not, or may have some other group invading. Others may have no one invading the US, but perhaps New America has taken a bigger chunk of the country.

Each of those options is fine, and those Refs are free to determine their own games as they see fit. But it might help them if there was something to build off of *as an option*. And if a default timeline helps to ensure that there are multiple modules made inside the same cohesive "world", then all the better.

kcdusk

02-24-2022, 03:06 PM

I'm quietly impressed by V4. I hope to share my thoughts and first few days gaming soon.

I've done what i normally do. I'm running a solo game, set in wherever the current hotspot is. This latest one is set in present day Ukraine.

I'm running my PC across the border into Ukraine, under a paper thin cover as being a journalist. I've met my first arranged contact on the ground, yada yada, stuff happened, and a few die rolls later I'm on foot heading east.

I've got a Woods encounter then a hills encounter to be played out. My game has been a mixture of two set pieces i thought would be good to play through some initial rules. And random encounters that i've been able to tie into the direction of the game. A bit of a story is developing.

I know one PC isn't going to impact the world in a big way. My hope is to play though some of the different rules, do some reconasonce, call in some off board artillery (or maybe mortar fire), generally be a nuisance, live off the land and make it back out. I'm using actual weather happening at the moment to impact my game world. We'll see how things go.

My little introductory solo adventure is progressing slowly but well. My PC is making his way across Ukraine towards the Soviet border, and its only over night my story arc has come a bit clearer.

Very sad to read about the Ukraine invasion. I have melancholy feelings about Russian forces taking Chernobyl. But, in my story line my PC is now making his way to Chernobyl. In my story the timeline is 2 weeks behind current day. I like Chernobyl as a location. I'm not sure what "happens" when my PC gets there, but it feels like worlds colliding!

unipus

02-24-2022, 06:36 PM

Of course! I bought your book btw, it's great. :D

Like I said in the other worldbuilding thread, I get that maybe everyone just wants to do their own thing, and that's all fine. But I do worry that with so many content creators just making products, eventually there's going to be just a ton of discrete modules, none of which work together, and IMO that's going to hurt the game in the long run.

Any Ref that's looking to run more than one module with their group is going to be running the risk of those modules not working together, in which case they'll have to houserule, potentially extensively, in order to make it work for their players. In my mind, it makes more sense to at least try to flesh out the world a little more, at a really high level, just to help center the game around a default timeline. For example, knowing which countries are fighting which, and why, etc. Hell, even knowing which countries are still in existence (Yugoslavia anyone?).

As an example, say we have multiple modules be released for the US by various content creators over the next few years. One may have Russia and Mexico/Cuba invading as in the original games. Another may not, or may have some other group invading. Others may have no one invading the US, but perhaps New America has taken a bigger chunk of the country.

Each of those options is fine, and those Refs are free to determine their own games as they see fit. But it might help them if there was something to build off of *as an option*. And if a default timeline helps to ensure that there are multiple modules made inside the same cohesive "world", then all the better.

Hey, thanks!

I just don't see there as being one perfect way of doing things. Too much detail and people crucify you for what you get wrong. Not enough and people complain on that. A heavy canonical approach ends up with unpleasant interactions like the one going on over in the Romania thread. The opposite leaves you with potential chaos.

One anecdotal example of my own is that someone bought my book, noticed I had omitted the canonical position of the 1st Cav, and wondered what was up. I think he believed my book was an official module, which is kinda nice but also indicates the problem you're pointing out. But, I explained my rationale/mistake, gave some ideas of how to resolve it, and we went on our merry ways without any unpleasantness. I will probably update the PDF at some point to fix this.

But fundamentally chasing perfection is a problematic goal, especially with how strongly some people end up feeling about the weirdest things.