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

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

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

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

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

Be-lieve Me
 

Well, I don't know. I've been hearing hints of this "sneak peek" for a while now but I don't really know what to make of it. Call me overly cynical, but I'm always a bit leery of "I can't tell you anything about it, but trust me on this..." [secret knowledge] type hints and allegations stuff. And you yourself wrote, And yes, I imagine that if enough KS backers chime in with constructive criticism, it might lead to some change. I mean, if a hundred people poke holes in the game world history, it might have more of an impact than when a select, mostly anonymous few did. Then again, you could be right and I could be wrong.

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

I managed to look at the draft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<sigh>

Soviets have zero allies.

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

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

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

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

Thanks, but I think it was Raellus that was querying that side of things. Certainly wasn’t me.

Lurken,

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

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

Character attributes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen to that Stainless.

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

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

Those That Forget the Past...
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bundesmarine, not Kriegsmarine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.facebook.com/bill.silvey...61730122691959

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

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

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