Settlements - Party-Driven Settlements
Quite often in the campaign the group decides to settle down and oversee a settlement. I've had immense fun doing this as not only are adventures self-generating but they add a layer of involvement for the players.
Settlements rarely involve starting anew but are usually the characters gathering enough NPCs that an existing position is reconfigured into what Twilight 2000 terms a "Canton".
In my campaigns so far these have taken two forms:
1) An existing civilian settlement is settled in and developed. This has been by far the most common.
2) A military position such as a bunker system or outpost is created or adapted as a settlement.
Both have aspects that impact the balance of features. A civilian settlement is often at a trade point nexus, a resource point or similar where a military outpost usually has a site positioned for its defensive capability.Note the term "balance of features". As GM resist the temptation to make everything perfect, every situation should be a trade-off. Some features will be sub-optimal and thus require a greater expenditure of resources, time and manpower than others. Strangely enough in my experience players actually like this and these become the standout memory of the game at that part.
Civilian Settlements.
Configuring a town or farm and so on is simple. It involves simply adding defensive positions and repairing the infrastructure. Existing infrastructure may or may not have been designed with self sufficiency in mind and usually isn't but can be modified
Military Settlements
These settlements are more difficult in some ways because military positions, especially pre-war ones, are usually not designed with self-sufficiency in mind and as the supply chain is a distant and pleasant memory all the infrastructure must be created from scratch.
Basic Necessities:
Defence.
First and foremost Twilight 2000 is a violent environment and comfy spots the players make others will try and take. The important part of this is that it's easy to skimp the interim defence plans for the advanced plans that will come later. Don't do this. Have the players tested constantly so these defences give a pay-off. Players will get bored doing things they start to consider window-dressing.
The first defence plans are simply guarding existing features. Every soldier I've talked to can tell you exactly how much dirt they've shoveled in their lives and rubble and earthwork positions are the primary positions here. If you don't have a working plan of fighting positions the US field manual of the time has some great information for you:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/.../p.../fm/index.html
After this the troops will strengthen the position and create a continuous perimeter. To foreshadow this have some OPFOR attempt penetrations into the positions by identifying strong-points and trying to infiltrate between them. Two to three man teams sneak in while the strong-points are either unwary, distracted or engaged. This can be a whole adventure right here. The perimeter should contain two primary features that you undoubtedly already know; the free-fire zone and the barrier. A fun adventure can be PCs going off in a truck to salvage barrier and defensive materials such as concertina wire. Note that this stuff is often booby trapped. However the PCs may want to salvage that too. Of course not only the PCs want this stuff.
After the perimeter is established the defences are simply hardened. This can be as involved as PCs like and some of my PCs actually carefully constructed concrete bunker systems. I can post reams of stuff about that. However one of the most important aspects will be mines. Passive and/or command-detonated mines are a massive force multiplier and decent minefield allows the players to reduce the perimeter guard significantly. Note that in some cases you don't even need the actual mines, the warning signs are enough. However this implies they take them from an existing minefield thus leaving it unmarked, a sucky thing to do. Maybe making your own is the way to go.
Water:
Water supplies are integral to any settlement. Most people seriously underestimate settlement water requirements that are usually about ten times field requirements. Water needs a few things, firstly being the water source itself. After that a pump, piping (which may already exist) and a holding facility that is usually elevated and most importantly armoured. Enemies seeing an elevated structure assume it's an observation point, the players may indeed use it as one, and direct fire at it. Perhaps they learn about this the hard way 🙂
Pumps should be dug in both to protect them and to stop their noise alerting enemies. Waterwheels and windmills are very effective although vulnerable structures and of course use no fuel. Their structures make good defensive points. Piping may be below ground or above ground. Water-points do not have to be a tap in every house, having running water is an unimaginable luxury as it is and a central water-point is fine. Note that if the players neglect to both armour and link the water-point to the defensive positions they can get very thirsty with water just a few metres away if it can be swept by hostile fire.
Food:
This is an amazing subject considering the situation. A lot of food is actually capable of being created inside the defensive perimeter and the players should think to to so. Pigs especially need little room and can turn a large amount of waste into food. Livestock raids by post-nuclear soldiers drive home the environment the players live in. Note that in nearly all cases livestock is very vulnerable to enemy fire even if inside the perimeter, as are glasshouses and food gardens. Chemical contaminants can wipe out the player's food production in one strike as it kills livestock and contaminates the ground and even irritant gasses can do this.
Actual broad acre farming is problematic. If you model climate damage in your game it might not be even possible. As there are no longer industrial fertlisers the rewards are much smaller as well. Also note that it requires about 0.4 hectares (1.0 acres) of grain production to support one cavalry horse. Broad acre farming is normally outside the perimeter and liable to being overrun by the enemy or burnt/contaminated in an effort to deny the players resources. Defending this ground can be extraordinarily hard but the payoff should be equal to the effort.
Non Player Characters.
It is tempting and easy to have the NPCs simply as robots but you are doing your players and yourself a disservice if you do so. Having complex personalities as your NPCs brings a richness to the game and makes the players live in the world. Some NPCs might not be all that helpful, some can be very much so, some can have good qualities offset by drawbacks and finally some can be treacherous. Every game should have some treachery.
The key I think in developing NPCs in a settlement is to introduce them slowly. If you you dump fifteen squabbling NPCs on the PCs their eyes will cross and they'll ignore them. Then when something happens the NPC could have helped with will lead them to feeling cheated. NPCs are obvioulsy the way you introduce outlier skills into the game. As T2K is in most editions very lean on skills the player who takes "Civil Engineer 6" is taking a big risk in combat should their lack of skills let them down.
In the dark ages before the internet GMs were recommended to have index cards for each NPC. These days a simple word file for the NPCs is enough and as you play leave yourself a bit of time to update the NPC's entry. I have a file the PCs can access that briefly notes the NPC, their wound state and skills as well as the weapons and equipment they have. As players can never know what sort of skills an NPC really has you can have a previously boring NPC in the settlement turn out to be a plumber before the war and suddenly you can make a focus of a session that NPC.
NPCs are living, breathing people with wants and desires. This may mean many things. Some NPCs may bargain to some extent before using their skills. Keep in mind the PCs are generally offering a big thing in the intrinsic safety and stability of the settlement and the NPC would be very aware of that. Make the bargaining only for certain characters or for when the NPC is being taken advantage of. Note that NPCs often have strong solidarity and if one NPC is treated badly the whole lot start to show negative effects.
NPCs are going to want to have a say in the direction of things the players do. This will cause conflict as players resent infringement on their agency and so has to be handled carefully. It's best if you can make the players understand the NPC's viewpoint, it makes perfect sense if they want a bandit they caught to be strung up over the gate but perhaps the player's promised not to do so. Have the NPCs say clearly why they want things and not simply what they want.
This has gotten way too long to add industry, crafts, trading and all the other stuff I wanted to talk about.