SOF in T2K

[Raellus]

What's your take on special operations forces in the Twilight world?

I tend to think that SOF warriors would be fairly rare in the later stages of the Twilight War. SOF types tend to draw the more dangerous missions and seem to suffer disproportionate casualties compared to line units. After three or four years of high intensity combat, one could argue that there would be very few true SOF left.

On the same tack, after the TDM, SOF training programs would probably suffer. Considering the historical antipathy towards SOF in the upper echelons of the conventional force structures of most armies, I could see the brass being reluctant to part with their "best" (this might be relative in after '97) men as the fresh recruit pool dwindles.

On the other hand, the nature of warfare after '97 (a non-continuous front, lower force-to-space ratios, cantonments, "raids", etc.) would seem to favor unconventional warfare and its practitioners.

As a GM, I usually allow folks to play SOF types, despite myself. I know that playing SOF types is rather alluring and I don't want to spoil anybody's fun. As a result, in my PbP campaign, the proportion of SOF to non hovers around 4 to 14, although at times during the campaigns three-year history, its been higher. This usually lends to a decent balance but the SOF types usually have more to work with, both skills and gear-wise. As a GM, I'm not sure how to address these imbalances fairly.

As a player, I've never played an SOF type. I usually prefer the "ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances" motif. Part of me, though, really wants to RP the highly skilled, professional warrior; the other part is weary of descending into munchkinism. Lately, I've gotten a hankering to try playing an "operator". ATM, I'd love to play a grizzled German KSK noncom, decked out in Flektarn and strapping an G8/HK21 with all the trimmings, a P21/USP pistol, and sweet dive/combat knife.

Special forces in the Twilight War are neither special nor particularly forceful. Discuss.

[cavtroop]

I think lots of small groups in T2k would be called SOF, but aren't 'true' SF (ie. Q course, etc.). Just small groups of infantry/scouts that work well together, that would be given missions that would traditionally go to 'true' SF units. Actual operators would be exceedingly rare I'd think, for the reasons you outlined - they'd all be dead/stranded/etc.

When I used to GM (I would now, but can't find players!), I let people be SF if they wanted. Generally though, I had good players that didn't abuse it. I'd make them come up with a real good story of how they got to where they were, etc. I never played an SF player - it's kind of like playing the game on 'easy mode'

[weswood]

I prefer to let players be the character they want to be. It's a game, played for fun. As long as the player can justify the character, I tend to let them run with it.

But I think in order to balance the game, they start out with minimal gear. Either they start out as having escaped from POW status, or they managed to lose the gear ( boat flipped over, whatever.)

[kato13]

Canon modules have Russian, Czech(IIRC) and US Special forces. I think strong unit cohesion and general survival knowledge will help these units survive better than most, somewhat countering their use on the more difficult missions.

[Webstral]

In addition to the proper SF types, there would be a need for lots of guys doing SF types of missions. Once again using my own work as a concrete example, in Thunder Empire the leadership identifies a very strong need for both LRS and small unit trainers to raise local militias and give them the training they need to make the most of whatever weapons they do have. (Knowledge goes both ways, by the way.) None of the soldiers who come to operate in these modes are properly trained SF.

In Poseidon's Rifles, my newest name for the USCG enclave on the northern New England coast, there is a need for LRS and for commando-style raiders to precede attacks on enemies throughout the area. The Marines who become part of First District pretty much run the training for both of these functions.

LRS pretty much defines the SF role among the Green Jackets (State of Vermont), the Granite Brigade (State of New Hampshire), the Black Watch (southern Vermont), the forces of Keene (also New Hampshire), and the 43rd Military Police Brigade in western MA. The infantry units, LRS or otherwise, are trained for raiding, but it would be hard to confuse them with properly-trained Special Forces.

In Silver Shogunate, the Shogun (Nevada) really doesn't have any SF. His special troops are more like SWAT or are members of his secret police.

I've been cooking up some nastiness for southern Idaho, which is under the control of New America [Howling Wilderness]. My working title for this is The Final Solution. As in other locations, LRS-style operators are about as close as they come to true SF.

Colorado is going to need scads of true SF to bring other sections of the US back into the fold. How they will manage to train and equip these soldiers is an open question.

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

I don't see many people being sent back to US and by 2000 sent back to even the UK for training. I can see selected members of unit who have been through the training setting up 'mini-courses' to help train what may be needed locally.

Would you find them in the T2K settings, well there was Soviet unit operating in Southern Poland. I think they made it in the original modules and they returned again in the series of modules that were suppose to take place in 2001 a year later for those who didn't move on to catch the boat. Even in the Krakow and Warsaw Modules one of the unspoken things if they had the pleasure of meeting DIA/CIA agents in those areas would try to recruit the party to carry out such operation for them. There was small A-Team on Operation Reset that B troop of the 116th was suppose to support.

As for units of trained Green Berets, SAS, SBS, Seals, or your particular flavor of Special Operation unit would be hard press to be completely made of members who have been trained to pre-war standards. Even these units one of the things for NATO units is they train, train, and train more. I see Long Range Recon Patrols type Vietnam style Ranger companies being recruited and trained too at Corps and Division level where possible.

Also one of the issue with canon I have had was the fact that the all of the 75th Ranger Regiment was sent to the Middle East when in reality either the Battalion from Fort Stewart or Benning going there, the other one to Europe and Fort Lewis being deployed to Korea, with probably a couple Battalions in training. As well Special Forces Groups and Seal Teams in various stages of training in late 1997. Many of these units were kept home to help in the rebuilding process after the Thanksgiving 1997. Many of the not Ranger units could be put to good use in helping out. Yes, granted they aren't using their combat skills, but an A-Team or Seal Platoon could be put to good use in places where you don't have the means or population to send various support brigades.

From 1999 and 2000 there are regions of the Eastern Europe that are ripe for the type of missions that SF, Seals, and the SAS have trained for. In making partisan units behind enemy lines. I am sure there are Soviet groups doing the same thing in Eastern Germany. Also I am sure there would be various groups working in Southeastern Europe and Italy to work with pro-NATO partisans. Where as many of the units before 1999 were there to harass enemy and didn't do much force multiplier operations. Also the Polish Legions were suppose to be under the control of US SF groups too during the final Offensive that lead to the destruction to the 5th US Mechanized Division.

As for the playing the game in easy mode. No I find it the opposite to be true, especially if the GM limits it to one type in the group. Yes, this person has all of this training, but at the same time he has to prove to his 'new' team he knows what he doing, and then there is rank issue too. If Generals have trouble in accepting advice from a mere Sergeant, it not any easier trying to convince a Lt or Captain that their plan wouldn't work and your would work. Even in a Group without an Officer, and the Sergeant was the highest ranking person, he would still have convince the party to do things his way.

Remember many Officer and many Non-coms are fond of the Spec Warrior types. There are even some who have passed the various course aren't confident that they can do what others believe and shown they have been able to do. The thing is this type of character has to work to 'fit' in. For Lone Rangers won't last too long in the T2K world.

Abbott

[chico20854]

To reinforce one point Abbot brought out, there are really two roles people have in mind when discussing SOF in the Cold War/T2k context.

The first is the one made popular by the movies, and into which US Army Special Forces have slipped into post-Cold War, and many other militaries have their SOF execute - direct action, commando-type operations - basically raids against high value targets by highly trained, superior quality light infantrymen.

The second role, which had been largely downplayed in the popular imagination and press, was conducting insurgency and counterinsurgency campaigns and training local forces. During the 80s this largely overshadowed the direct action role for US Army Special Forces - they were chock full of guys that spoke Russian, Polish and Ukrainian.

The Ranger battalions were the direct-action guys, the SF were the ones to make the Soviets divert combat troops to protect their supply lines, (in the T2k context the Polish Free Legions were the children of 10th SF Group.) In addition, SF and the Long-Range Surveillance guys were providing targeting info for deep strikes (air, cruise missile, IRBM).

There had been a lot of discussion on the old board about raising additional Ranger battalions. It makes sense to me, makes GDW's commitment of the entire 75th Ranger Rgt to CENTCOM more reasonable to understand.

In 2000, I would imagine that there might be remnants of Ranger and other direct-action units scattered about, possibly attached or part of regular infantry/combat units. The SF guys would be a mixed bag... some would be deep into Byelorussia and the Ukraine, some in Poland, some "come back in from the cold" with whatever friendly unit they bumped into or were assigned to by whatever remained of high command. Some would have gone native and never come back. The state of the army in 2000 IMHO would argue against having much direct-action guys concentrated together, as the casualties would be irreplaceble and the insertion, target location and commo assets needed to perform missions scarce.