[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by mpipes

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don’t just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

To quote Bill Slivey - "Twilight: 2000 is the lore."

Originally Posted by mpipes

2) You can’t have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don’t believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

Moreover? Except for the French, much of NATO's nuclear capable assets had SIOP taskings. I mean, we gave the FRG Pershings? I don't think we did that out of sheer kindness. We did it because we wanted nuclear buy-in from the rest of the alliance.

Originally Posted by mpipes

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won’t risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL’s scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitz's are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

The first skipper of a carrier that does this in waters like the Baltic is the first skipper to get relieved of command for cause in the Third World War. And pulling into a potentially hostile harbor with a nuclear-capable asset? Um, no. See the USS Cole for what a bad idea this is in RL. And that was just a DDG. A TLAM-capable DDG. Nope, they might have some lighter units pull into Stockholm, but it's too far forward for friendly assets.

Originally Posted by mpipes

4)Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you’ll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

Even this is a bit of a stretch. The RAF is no slouch, and most of that airborne unit isn't going to make it to the DZs. The Spetsnaz should already be operating in the UK before the outbreak of war in a clandestine mode? But against the UK's formidable internal apparatus plus SAS let off the leash? I won't even talk about what most military installations in the UK were going to be like in case of war. There's a reason the RAF Regiment exists. I give most Spetsnaz teams about 3-6 months. That's assuming they're just doing SR work. If they're doing DA work? Dead as doornails much sooner.

5)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

Without allies, the Soviets are toast. They just don't have any strategic depth to hold off NATO before you're playing Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo, now with more ATGM! Considering the Soviets consider that sort of thing a national security goal to avoid it ever happening again, I expect Soviet pre-war diplomacy to be a bit more...adroit?

6)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Put Sweden’s spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they?

One does wonder. At the very least, raising hell in the invader's rear area?

7)

Originally Posted by mpipes

You can’t have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

mpipes is on the money. The Soviets would have used first in this situation precisely to support an advance by their forces. They would have hit first with overwhelming use of tactical and theatre nuclear weapons. The Soviets for years vacillated in their planning on whether or not they would go nuclear from the outset (depended on who was in power).

8)

Originally Posted by mpipes

This can’t be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

That's the thing, v1 and v2 were world wars. There was stuff going on all over! You had Iowa sinking a Kirov with her 16" guns off of Grenada. You had fighting in Alaska and Texas. You had a sourcebook on Thailand! This version is sadly a bit myopic in it's focus. Even v1, while it's focus was Europe, gave lip service to the rest of the world.

9)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel’s side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly?

It's not just anti-Semitic. It's laughably naïve about middle eastern politics ca. 1991. First, Syria and Iraq hated each other. A lot. Syria took every opportunity during the Iran-Iraq war to screw Iraq. They shut down pipelines Iraq needed for oil revenue to buy arms and they sold the Iranians everything they could afford, and helped others ship arms to Iran as well. Then there's the not so small fact that Syria sent troops to participate in Desert Storm in 1991. Granted, they didn't do much, but they were there. So no, Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad are not going to do anything in cooperation.

The last time I could honestly say that an Arab coalition realistically threatened the survival of the state of Israel on a level that nuclear weapons release was contemplated was 1973. And even then it was a stretch. Nope, the IDF is going to mop the floor with any realistic combination of Arab armies. To me, a more realistic threat? Egypt goes fundamentalist earlier. It was always possible, and the Soviets cozy up to the new regime. You have Egypt and a rearmed Syria looking for a rematch? Then it gets interesting. But even then, the Gulf Arabs + Iraq ironically aren't going to sit back and say "Gee, we think this is an awesome state of affairs." Will they side with Israel? On a de factobasis, but not de jure.

As for the Balkans? Considering it was a powder keg in the 90s? There should be fighting galore in the former Yugoslavia, with both sides backing various factions.

10)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

Big drop of the ball here. This is an European company, I think not doing this is just a non-starter.

11)

Originally Posted by mpipes

If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

The Force De Frappe was there to make sure any nuclear aggressor against France suffered as badly as France did. The idea of France not launching is just plain not realistic. They had an independent force, not subject to the US SIOP, and they would have executed that plan, no matter what we or anyone else said to them, especially if the Soviets are dropping warheads on French foreheads. Forget Paris. If Lille or Le Havre catch a nuke, it's on.

12)

Originally Posted by mpipes

I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Resource management is part of the game. It can be tedious, and I will admit I fudge it, but then again, I at least pay it lip service. Logistics is a bitch, and in T2K, like in RL, failing to pay attention can and will kill you in a variety of un-fun ways.