The question becomes whether or not they appeal to both old and new players.

Older players are loyalists who want something that is nostalgic and maybe plays a little quicker. Current generations of potential players are probably more fickle, having access to more options, with greater ease of access.

Will they produce something that only appeals to newer players and will that be sufficient to sustain the franchise, or will this be a one and done to capitalize on the license while producing localized content for a mostly Swedish audience?

I'm not a fan of the mechanics. I'm probably not going to be a fan of the timeline and backstory.

If they can produce beautiful and functional maps, I'll probably continue buying their products and marry them with 2013's mechanics and v2.2's timeline.

That's a very interesting question. In a year or three, it'll be illuminating to see relative sales figures for Swedish vs. English printings.

- C.

This sort of thing was raised some months back although using other FL games as a guide.
The feeling then was that FL does not have a long term plan for their games and given that they are a relatively small company in the grand scheme of things, they probably cannot afford to commit long term in the same way that WotC/Hasbro can. Simply because they don't have the finances to weather any downturn that may occur over the years.

This is obviously a business decision rather than a lack of interest in the product but it does appear that even with successful FL games, there just is not much official material available after a few years. For whatever reason, their business model appears to be to develop a particular idea, push it for a few years and then develop a new idea.
What that does infer though, is that there will be no long term support of their reboot of T2k.

Agreed. I really like Free League and I own Aliens, Coriolis, and Tales From the Loop. They make gorgeous games but they very much seem to be campaign driven and not setting builders when it comes to source books. I was excited when a new version of T2K was announced but also wary. It does now appear that they bought the rights just for name recognition and just wanted to put out another post-apocalyptic RPG. This is a bit odd since they already have Mutant Year Zero and the sequel to Tales From the Loop, Things From the Flood.

In fact given how dark the setting is I contend that Free League could have easily put out a mini-supplement to accompany Things From the Flood. Call it something like Of Missiles and Machines and have it be a optional set of rules for a post-war Tales From the Loop setting. Three chapters in length it could have had a Cold War gone hot in the eighties scenario, a post-Cold War collapse with regional wars and economic meltdown and then finally extra rules to survive in the post-war/collapse setting. Easy and efficient, tying into a setting they already have established while not messing up T2K.

That’s just my idea, and I wish they had done that instead of mangling T2K.

I actually ran a short campaign under a v1/AD&D rules mix in the Against the Giants books. The PCs basically bombarded the Hill Giant's Fort with mortars into a mess and they never into the dungeon underneath because they couldn't find the entrances after bombarding the fort. There weren't many monsters left to fight either.

The PCs started out well in the Ice Giant Rift, but after lots of automatic weapons fire, grenades and rockets, the PCs ran out of ammo and got wiped out in the melee that happened after that...that's why it was a short campaign. But my friends and I had a lot of fun.

I wasn't using firearms in D&D. Rather, the "x skill points = y number of dice" rolling against a TN set by a controlling attribute lends itself to D&D 3.x which also uses skill ranks and controlling attributes. I converted BAB to a skill with bonuses based on class and used Armor as DR.

It worked well, but my players couldn't get over the idea of not having ever increasing hit points...

I'm guessing it'll depend on three factors:

1. How much Swedish content is produced initially vs. later on in the sales year.

2. Feedback from players (regardless of language) - old school guys will have no problems with crunchy rules, so long as they make sense and can reasonably model the intended real world thing they are trying to model. Newer guys seem to want something that is "fun" - even if the mechanics are a terrible representation of reality.

3. Whether or not the timeline and backstory are sustainable. We all know we're fickle when it comes to this, arguing v1 vs v2 vs v2.2 vs v3 vs alternates. How many of us who aren't from Sweden will look at the timeline and pan it - will it be a "you have to be Swedish to get it" or will it be universally panned by old school guys regardless of our nationality?

At least you won't realise the weirdness of some of the things in there. Like fighting between US and Sweden. And towing an 317 meter long aircraft carrier into the center of Stockholm and anchoring it in an area which is about 400x800 meters (after having towed it > 90 kilometers through narrow sea lanes).

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it, and it's well within range of shore fire from a very hostile populace.
The stupid burns.
Not to mention the ship they've chosen didn't even get it's crew until a few months earlier - nowhere near enough time for everyone to learn their jobs properly and start acting as an actual team.
Oh, and then there's that little fact that the Baltic Sea is basically the Soviets playground, ringed on the east and south with loads of naval facilities and shore based aircraft that would just LOVE to have a go at sinking a US carrier.
Shall we talk about reinforcements now? How easy would it be to block any NATO ships with a few sea mines and a diesel powered sub or two....
Did I mention how stupid the idea is?
...and then you find out that originally FL were going to have the carrier totally undamaged and in 100% fighting condition, yet still without all it's supporting ships...
How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

I agree, there's absolutely no reason to bring it in there in the first place.

That's actually one thing they got right. The ship has 'only' 12,5 m draft (wikipedia) which should be enough (although I didn't check depth for the whole route. And FL probably didn't either). sea chart over where it's anchored. Zoom out and try to figure out how to get there :confused:

It is just silly. Which makes one wonder exactly what "military consultants" did they use? No one, and I mean NO ONE, that has any real expertise in military capabilities of the military forces at issue would dream of a US supercarrier in the Baltic Sea. Now, it is OK to go against military orthodoxy to make a good story, but that needs to be set up in a realistic manner, such as supporting a MEU performing amphibious ops. However, as written a US nuclear carrier in the Baltic is ridiculous. The fact that there are other things that are just as ridiculous tells you just how amateurish FL's efforts truly are in coming up with a believable background. As much as I cringe over elements of T2K's GDW written background, overall it makes enough sense to be believable. FL's effort wildly misses that mark on both the background and the mechanics. While the mechanics have sorta simplistic, "beer and pretzel" feel to them, I find them horribly unintuitive and clunky. V1 and V2.2 frankly look like elegant genius in comparison to me. The best I can say about FL's Alpha is that it gives me a far better appreciation at just how good GDW's game mechanics were.

Which brings me back to the burning question I still have. Exactly what "military consultant" did they use? Whoever they used must be a fake, because what they present as background wildly fails to match up with any scenario for a NATO conflict envisioned by either NATO or PACT military theorists - it just does not. I just cannot see anyone familiar with NATO, PACT, or Soviet doctrine and plans (or even a somewhat knowledgeable wargamer for crying out loud) signing off on what was presented. Even the weapon ratings seem horribly whacked out to me. You'ld think that FL's weapon ratings at least looked realistic, but I don't see those as even being accurate at this point.

And with all that US airpower (and anti-aircraft missiles from ships!) in the Baltic Sea, the Soviets still manage to do airborne landings north of Stockholm.

It seems they didn't have many. There is one American who was listed as a military consultant and he apparently spent time in the US Army (I seem to recall something about being Airborne or something) however he was low rank and it seems very obvious that he has no understanding of military logistics.
Couple that with the fact that the lead designer from Free League did actually serve in the Swedish military as a conscript but it seems he was in intelligence or another support service rather than a combat arm. And again, he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding when it comes to military logistics.

It's only rumour the lead was even a conscript. I can't find any indication they had ANY military experience beyond working as a journalist in the west bank area.
Guess how all their articles (that I could find) are written....

Just think of the glee of all those Tu-22M Backfire crews!!! A US supercarrier in the Baltic all by its lonesome!! :behead: FL might as well have put a Typhoon boomer into the Great Lakes!!! SHUDDER!!!

Panorama pic of where USS Harry S. Truman is supposed to be anchored. The sailing ship to the left is 70 m long (water line) 500 meters away and the cruise ship to the right is probably about 200 m long.


But it would be cool in Mutant. A bit like the Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes, or the crashed Star Destroyers in the recent Star Wars movies. But in a game that's supposed to be based in reality? Not so cool.

...and as mentioned, EASILY within range of all sorts of man portable weapons.
Only place I can think of that would be worse, is a Pact harbour.

Yet, to FLs credit, atleast they stated that Stockholm is held by a a mixed force of Swedes and Americans. But how the hell were they able to slow the Soviets down, being cut off and beong close to Soviet airfields, while UK rolled over and died?

Unfortunately the more exposure I get to FL's reboot of T2k, the more I think they are doing a number of things because they think it would be "cool" in a game.
That panorama view of Stockholm harbour linked by pansarskott shows the utter unbelievability of having the Harry S. Truman in those waters. Only the captain of the Costa Concordia would think it's a good idea to get so close to shore, and we know how that went...

Close to shore? I'll show you close to shore! :D

Oxdjupet (pics) is a narrow strait in the sea lane into Stockholm. There's a 19th century fortress there.
The ferries/cruise lines to Åland and Finland pass though it everyday. The ship in the pic is 28 meter wide (probably max width, lenght 171 m). A Nimitz-class carrier is 40 m wide at the water line, 77 m wide max. 317 m long at WL.

https://external-content.duckduckgo....6pid%3DApi&f=1

The more I look at it, the more utterly insane it is for any military captain to even consider sailing through the approaches to Stockholm, let alone anchor close to the city.
We're talking upwards of 100km of sailing, almost every single step of it within range of shoulder fired AT weaponry!
And I'm not even talking very sophisticated, modern systems either, RPG-7's and the like!
Imagine what you could do with a couple of 105 tank guns or the like, or a small battery of 81mm mortars and delayed fuses.
It's total and utter MADNESS!!!

Attachment 4552

On the upper left side of that map, just east of the road, is Arlanda airport. Sweden's largest airport. You can see it as a pale splotch. Or use Google maps.

It's not unreasonable to assume that the roro-harbour Kapellskär (east of Norrtälje in upper right, where the road ends ) is under Soviet control


The Swedish navy have ships that have been built for littoral combat. I don't think the ships in a carrier group are suited for that. The map give you an idea of the water/land ratio in the archipelago.


There is a sea lane that goes 'straight' east, north of "Värmdö NV' on the map. It still has to pass the Oxdjupet strait.

Redirect
 

This discussion has veered away from v4 rules and mechanics. Here's a thread already dedicated to Sweden in T2k.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....6256#post86256

-

"No one, and I mean NO ONE, that has any real expertise in military capabilities of the military forces at issue would dream of a US supercarrier in the Baltic Sea."

This is getting to 2013's level of stupid, with their "French nuclear subs sailing up the Rhine to get close enough to nuke Russian" horse shit.

Please tone it down. At least one person who worked on 2013 is an active member here and, who knows, someone involved with v4 could be lurking too. We can not like things without resorting insults and name-calling.

Also, this thread is for rules and mechanics discussion. I'll unlock the v4 thread for general discussion, but if there's insults and name-calling again over there, it'll go back into lockdown.

-

Okay, so I didn't get a chance to finish this yet, but I was able to look at one thing which I was very curious about, the comparison between starting skill ability in v1 and v4.

1LT Ruzicka - the v1 version of the character didn't make CPT - gets CBE80 and CVE80, so how does that compare to v4 CPT Ruzicka for performing these tasks?

First, combat engineering: 1LT Ruzicka, with CBE80, is 80% likely to succeed on an AVG skill check. CPT Ruzicka, with Intelligence B (d10) and Tech C (d8) has only a 69% chance of succeeding on a routine skill check, but he gets a bump for having the Combat Engineering specialty - his Tech die increases from d8 to d10, upping his chance to 75%. 1LT Ruzicka, the v1 character, is slightly better at setting a demolition charge in a non-combat situation, say, then CPT Ruzicka, the v4 character, making them roughly comparable. However, CPT Ruzicka can, if he fails the roll, push the results, giving him another chance to succeed at the risk of taking on Stress; pushing the roll gets him to 94% chance of success, significantly better than 1LT Ruzicka, with a potential cost.

Second, civil engineering. 1LT Ruzicka, with CVE80, again succeeds 80% of the time on an AVG task; CPT Ruzicka's Intelligence B (d10) and Tech C (d8) tap out at 69%, and he lacks a specialty to bump it up - there's a Builder specialty which isn't defined in the Alpha rules, something for the FL team to fix, but I'm guessing this is where it would apply, if the CPT had it. The edge here goes to 1LT Ruzicka, unless CPT Ruzicka pushes his roll, which increases his chance to 90%, again with a potential increase in Stress.

More generally, CPT Ruzicka appears more versatile; Tech in v4 applies pretty broadly, covering the equivalent of everything from ELC to NWH to SCR; this is where I hung up with 1LT Ruzicka, trying to allocate points widely enough to make him comparable to the CPT.

So, digging in the numbers just a little bit, it appears at first blush that v1 and v4 characters are both pretty good at what they do, with some important differences. On a cursory read, I didn't expect the v4 character to be as capable as the v1 character, but I have to rethink that now, at least until I get a chance to playtest them side-by-side.

Ignoring the purely mechanical aspects, *shouldn't* a captain be at least as capable as a 1LT? Is there the ability to choose what capabilities you have in v4, to reflect a hard-charger 1LT vs. an incompetent CPT who got their ticket punched?

To choose them? No, not as far as I can tell.

However, the random length of terms can reflect this: my v4 character made CPT in three years, over two terms, but two terms can last anywhere from 2-12 years, meaning Tom Ruzicka could be CPT at 24 or at 34! That's too much variability for me - depending on the final published rules, I may damp terms down to 2-4 (d3+1) or 2-5 (d4+1) years.

Based on my military experience, that idea fails distressingly often.

Same here...

CO: "So, why are you getting out? What if you get a job you don't like?"

Me: "I have a job I don't like now. At least when I'm out, if it turns out I'm working for an idiot, I have the option of finding a new job..."

Which is difficult to plan out. Typical officer promotions are 2 years between O-1 and O-2 and between O-2 and O-3, and then it varies. Typically it's like 4-5 years to go to O-4 and O-5 and 7 yesrs to go to O-6 - at least in the US.

But it depends upon competitiveness and year group and lots of other things.

Promotion to higher rank is handled quite differently in a number of other nations. For example, in many British Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations, promotion is subject to positions being available. You may qualify for promotion, you may even attend to the courses to train you for that new rank and you may even end up taking on the responsibilities of that new rank but unless there is a vacancy you will not get promoted.
Alternately, if there are many vacancies within a unit, they will sometimes push their own troops to take the promotion courses so that one of their own gets to fill the vacancy rather than bringing in a new person unfamiliar with the unit.

You could very well have Captains who are qualified for promotion to Major and work for several years as de facto Majors but are not given the rank because their are no slots available in their unit.
I specifically choose that example because the OC of my last Army Reserve unit fell into exactly that situation. As a Reserve unit, the number of personnel in the unit depends on how many people in the area are interested in joining the Reserves and unfortunately for him, the numbers declined over the years so the unit went from being an under-strength Company to an over-strength Platoon.
While he was qualified to be promoted to Major and he was expected by higher command to do the work of a Major, the unit was not large enough to justify having a Major in command.

Perhaps the Free League system is some sort of attempt to replicate that

A commendably generous suggestion ;)

Yep - I'm familiar with Australia's military - specifically how in many cases everyone who is in a particular type of career track within the military may number in the single or low double digits and know each other. I especially like (at least in Navy), one can give two weeks' notice and leave for a different career. In the US, officers have a minimum obligation (and enlisted is one step removed from modern-day slavery).

I wonder if the v4 mechanics will support this type of situation - including forced conscription?

The life path career generation factors in conscription without specifying 'forced' (I mean, you could argue that any conscription is forced inasmuch as it doesn't give the choice but I don't know if you mean something more extreme?)

It does give a degree of flexibility inasmuch as if you are playing a character who is a local of the country where your game is set you don't have to choose a military option for your At War Term (although presumably you can).

I haven't looked it up (I can't quickly lay my hands on my 2013 book) but it reminds me of the way the Last Year worked in that version.

I don't think it's explicitly stated in any of the Archetypes - you'd probably just have to choose a semi appropriate one (Gunner, Grunt, maybe Mechanic) and expand on it via your backstory, but that's narrative rather than mechanical.

WRT changing career, again I think Life Path will accommodate that mechanically, although if you use rules as written minimum term lengths will apply. So essentially your minimum time obligation is 1d6 (i.e. whatever you roll for that term. So you could spend a year as a military officer or six years dependent on what you roll). I suppose that's much the same as V2.2 and 2013, only the term lengths were fixed. (It's been years since I created a PC using v1 rules but from memory there was no game mechanic to cover how long you spent in a specific career field, it was narrative).

V4 Archetypes are again going to be down to what you decide as a backstory (I may have missed this, but I don't think the narratives even give a mechanical option - i.e. dice roll - to determine the character's age. It's entirely up to you.)

Australian officers also have a minimum commitment of (going from memory) the time spend training plus that again.
Enlisted also have a commitment, most commonly 4 years.

I think the minimum obligation in the British Army is also four years for enlisted. For officers is similar (might be three). IIRC rightly officers can join on a short service commission (minimum commitment) then switch to a longer term contract once they're in. There are get out opportunities for all ranks during training but once your training is complete you're committed.

IIRC the maximum term for enlisted in the British Army is usually 22 years. To carry on beyond that I think you need to get promoted to either Warrant Officer or Late Entry Officer (a scheme that promotes long serving NCO's to Commissioned Officers at the end of their enlisted service).

We did have open-ended enlistment for a while but if I remember it was as a direct result of needing to increase manpower for the War on Terror.
Open-ended enlistment meant you could serve for even just one year and then quit, it was seen by the government as making military service more attractive. That plus they tried the direct entry into special forces bit, probably hoping to catch some lads enamoured with SAS.

Obviously it was not as good as the government thought, enlistment periods are now similar to what they were in the 1980s-90s - usually three to six years depending on role and position (for example, Infantry officers sign up for six years initial service after completion of training). However once you've served your Initial Minimum Period of Service and if you choose to sign on again, you are essentially on open-ended enlistment with the only requirement being advance notice of desire to resign (for example, with officers it's usually three-months notice of resigning).

Ammo use, house rule?
 

Not mine, but from the "Twilight:2000 solo" blog https://twilight2000solo.blogspot.co...ding-home.html

"House Rule - Successes and ammo usage: When you roll more than one success in ranged combat, each additional success after the first can be used to reduce the amount of ammunition expended. For each success sacrificed, the amount expended can be reduced by half (round down, minimum of 1). Successes used in this manner cannot be used to cause critical hits. All successes may be used, regardless of source (Ability, Skill or Ammo die)."

As yet, I have not played the v4 rules yet, only read them lightly and much commentary here and on FB. I am aware that ammo usage is a point of contention. It seems to me that the designers' intent is that "you keep pulling the trigger until the target falls down or is lost somehow", which rubs a lot of players the wrong way. Some part of that resistance is a loss of player agency, as it strips away the player's control over how many shots to fire.

The above sounds like a compromise-- character skill and luck contribute to keeping down ammo usage. It does seem heavily reliant on luck, though.

Thoughts?

Seems rather gamist. One can have trigger discipline and still miss. The decision to pull the trigger x number of times to send y number of rounds downrange has nothing to do with luck. Whether firing one bullet from a revolver, a burst from an M4, or holding the trigger on an M2HB for 3 seconds - they're all conscious decisions whose end results don't change the amount of ammo expended - only whether or not they're hits or misses.