[unkated]

To me here is the trick about Twilight: 2000:

In almost any case, the tactical set up for almost any of the scenarios is fine and dandy -

- your division was smashed by the Russians behind enemy lines in Poland
- you were asked to help this mission on a sub
- your friends in devastated Poland asked for your help
- your find yourself in a Thailand devastated by War
- your unit was tasked to help Kenya or Yugoslavia or the Middle East and things went downhill
- you are in a Texas or Alaska ravaged by a Mexican/Soviet invasion
- you are in a Minnesota ravaged by civil war due to Milgov/Civgov
- you are in a Belgium weakened by war fighting off nasty invading Frenchmen who pretty clean uniforms and tanks that work...

Any of these as a tactical situation is fine; your character the grunt (and on this scale, anyone below the rank of General is grunt to a degree - you are sent where you start from). On the player scale, you did not control anything else about the set up and you have to go on from the situation, however you got there.

It's only when we as players (or DYO scenario or campaign designers) stop to think how did this situation arise, or what other effects to I need to consider, since this is a more realistic setting than DnD or Runequest, that some of the major holes or illogic in the canon rears its ugly head.

Now, everyone has different aspects of canon that they object to or find completely unacceptable. And, yes, I wish that there had been a more comprehensive and better thought out overall plan/timeline by GDW that they could have then demanded that writers adhere to. But they did not. And we're not going to fix it in a way that will satisfy everyone.

While we can discuss (and rehash again) these issues, the best you can do is adjust as you see fit, and have your players concentrate on the issues at hand, tactically, in one corner of the world for the course of a campaign.