Idea for starting a campaign

[M-Type]

I want to try and start up a T2000 campaign when I get back to school in September, and I have the benefit of 100% of the people probably not knowing about the game.

I was thinking of starting them off during the Twilight War, with all the PCs being the crewmen in a M1 or M1A1 (or, God providing, an M1A2!!). Things start off great, they're blowing up stuff, and the 'war' is in their favor.

Then they get told they're pushing into Poland, around some random city named Kalisz (this would be 2 or 3 sessions in). Suddenly, things get darker and harder. Ammo and fuel are scarce, and the Pact forces are slamming NATO left and right in Kalisz.

As time goes on, what are the PCs gonna do about their wonderful tank? How will they adapt to their new-found freedom as military command collapses and the Pact forces rush in?

They'll probably go do something stupid and get killed, but that's besides the point...

Do you think this could work?

[weswood]

With enough imagination, anything can work. I like it because the PC's already know each other and don't have to go through that awkward " Hi, I'm Dave, and I ....."

[avantman42]

Sounds like a good idea to me, as long as the players are happy to create characters that will work as a tank crew.

[M-Type]

Originally Posted by weswood

With enough imagination, anything can work. I like it because the PC's already know each other and don't have to go through that awkward " Hi, I'm Dave, and I ....."

Yeah. And most of the people who'd probably playing would know each other too, so they can keep that 'relationship' going. And it would definitely make role-playing better because they won't be afraid to get angry at each other

I might select one of them at random to be the Tank Commander, then he can assign who will be what crewman. That'll add a solid party leader, and will also add some tension at the beginning, at least if someone wanted to be the Voice of the people and didn't get it.

First session mutiny? Time to factor bullet ricochets inside a tank hull...

I also figure that it will avoid the (IMO) costly "buy-stuff with our money" phase. They'll just have the standard stuff the average Tanker would get. 'Nuff said. They can steal/scavenge/buy anything else they want.

EDIT: I could also tweak the alternate history to add Desert Storm, so the players could be veteran tankers from that campaign.

Originally Posted by avantman42

Sounds like a good idea to me, as long as the players are happy to create characters that will work as a tank crew.

That'd be a problem, but I'd be letting them choose their first couple terms themselves, as long as they join the Armor arm before war breaks out.

That or I'd give them all the skills 2 periods of the Armor Arm would give them, and they'd have points or something to choose the rest, barring the 10 limit.

Damn. Now I just want to run this as a PBP to start playing it...

[Raellus]

I think it can definitely work. Here are a couple more things to think about.

The loader position could get boring for whichever player gets assigned that role. You should probably think about how to make loader a more interesting RP job.

Do you think your players will enjoy armored warfare? I can see how it could be a lot of fun, but players will not have as much freedom of initiative to plot and execute their own combat actions as they would if they were playing foot sloggers. They might not like the limitations. Combat encounters could get repetitive fast. You'll really have to be on top of your game to keep it fresh and interesting.

You don't need to add GW1 to your background unless you really want to. By the summer of 2000 pretty much every tank crew is going to be a veteran one. Plus, blasting Iraqis in the open desert and fighting Soviets in central Europe are kind of apples and oranges. But this is your T2KU, so tweak it however you prefer.

If you haven't read Team Yankee by Harold Coyle, I'd recommend it. It's got a lot of potential to be helpful to a GM running a tanker-based game.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Raellus

If you haven't read Team Yankee by Harold Coyle, I'd recommend it. It's got a lot of potential to be helpful to a GM running a tanker-based game.

I'll second that, and also recommend Chieftains by Bob Forrest-West. If you can ignore the technical errors (T-80 destroyed by a Blowpipe missile, Soviet T-60s) it's a good story and has plenty to help a GM planning a game with tanker PCs.

[M-Type]

I'd have to give those books a look-over.

The PCs won't be "tankers" for long, because there'll only be one session or so of 'no limitations' before the Battle of Kalisz. By then fuel and ammo would surely be scarce, and they'd have to make some tough decisions.

But after Kalisz, they can do whatever you want. My reasoning behind giving them the tank would be to put them behind the stick of one of the most powerful things in the game (barring aircraft or attack helicopter. Or Nukes.) and slowly take it away from them until it's inefficient to keep. I want it to leave a hole in their heart if they have to abandon their tank. Give them something to fight for, ie "We need to get more fuel to keep Betsy going!"

And Raellus mentioned the Loader problem, which is a big one. I'm open to ideas, but maybe they're a little under-manned, and someone has to do two jobs? It would make things harder/more interesting for the Tank Commander. Do we load/fire the gun? Or fire the MG? of course, that means less PCs, but I have no idea how many would jump on the idea. If I have a lot, maybe the PCs can all be commanders of their own tanks or something, I dunno.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by M-Type

The PCs won't be "tankers" for long, because there'll only be one session or so of 'no limitations' before the Battle of Kalisz. By then fuel and ammo would surely be scarce, and they'd have to make some tough decisions.

Gotcha.

Originally Posted by M-Type

But after Kalisz, they can do whatever you want. My reasoning behind giving them the tank would be to put them behind the stick of one of the most powerful things in the game (barring aircraft or attack helicopter. Or Nukes.) and slowly take it away from them until it's inefficient to keep. I want it to leave a hole in their heart if they have to abandon their tank. Give them something to fight for, ie "We need to get more fuel to keep Betsy going!"

Devious in a good way.

Originally Posted by M-Type

And Raellus mentioned the Loader problem, which is a big one. I'm open to ideas, but maybe they're a little under-manned, and someone has to do two jobs? It would make things harder/more interesting for the Tank Commander. Do we load/fire the gun? Or fire the MG? of course, that means less PCs, but I have no idea how many would jump on the idea. If I have a lot, maybe the PCs can all be commanders of their own tanks or something, I dunno.

I just had a big duh moment. You could make the loader an NPC.

[M-Type]

Yeah, throwing NPCs around is plan B for everything.

Just dropped $0.01 on Team Yankee. Decided to throw some REAL money around and pay for 2 Day shipping :P

I needed a new summer read anyhow, so two birds one stone.

EDIT: And the NPC Loader could bitch about everything too

[Olefin]

Tanks have other issues as well - i.e. they use a lot of fuel - we found that out during our campaign when I rolled an M1 tank. It was great when we captured a lot of fuel early in the campaign but it became a liability when we started using that fuel up and realized just how much fuel and M1 tank can burn up in one day, let alone a week. We started having to make decisions based on if it was worth taking the tank with us, starting with the Madonna.

[M-Type]

That's what I want my players to slowly realize as command and supply lines start to dwindle..."Where did that fuel truck go?" They go to open fire on a Pact convoy and the loader says "WTF? Where's all the rounds?"

[mikeo80]

Originally Posted by M-Type

That's what I want my players to slowly realize as command and supply lines start to dwindle..."Where did that fuel truck go?" They go to open fire on a Pact convoy and the loader says "WTF? Where's all the rounds?"

Another thought....

Just as the T72's and or T80's start slamming into the US 5th, the fancy night fighting gear on the player M1A1 craps out...Dirt, sand, Murphy, whatever. THey still might have some APFSDSDU rounds, but how to use them if you can not SEE????

My $0.02

Mike

[M-Type]

Originally Posted by mikeo80

Another thought....

Just as the T72's and or T80's start slamming into the US 5th, the fancy night fighting gear on the player M1A1 craps out...Dirt, sand, Murphy, whatever. THey still might have some APFSDSDU rounds, but how to use them if you can not SEE????

My $0.02

Mike

I like it.

"Jones, poke your head out of the hatch and see where those damned Russkie tanks are!"

"But siiiir!"

"Dammit Jones!!"

[weswood]

Originally Posted by M-Type

I also figure that it will avoid the (IMO) costly "buy-stuff with our money" phase. They'll just have the standard stuff the average Tanker would get. 'Nuff said. They can steal/scavenge/buy anything else they want.

I like that. I have an Issue Equipment List I made up and anything else they want, they have to be able to pack on thier back.

[M-Type]

Originally Posted by weswood

I like that. I have an Issue Equipment List I made up and anything else they want, they have to be able to pack on thier back.

Keeps them from sitting there for 20 minutes planning out their inventory and amount of money left. Not that that isn't fun in the right scenario.

But since they'd still be in the military at start, the only thing they'd get is their issued gear and maybe a souvenir for their tank.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said but would just like to add the following regarding NPCs,

Have the PCs as the most important crew members of the tank and make the other positions for NPCs like the Loader example given before. So maybe you8 have just two PCs and then 2 NPCs in the tank.

But...

Give them two or maybe even three tanks if you have enough Players. Then they have to co-ordinate with the other tanks during attacks and movement etc. etc. I've seen this work quite well because the tank while it's run by two or three Players, ends up being treated like a single entity. The Players spend a lot of time working out things with each others tank crew - you let the Players worry about managing the tanks and so you end up with less to manage about the tanks.

This can be particularly impactful when some of the tanks get damaged and they then have to start sacrificing parts from one to keep another running and so on. Or they have to redistribute the ammo or fuel. Or worse, when one tank has to be abandoned and then suddenly you have one or two extra people to stick inside the working tanks.

[M-Type]

In reading the in-depth T2000 timeline here, I'd love to do something in Alaska.

Every 5 RL minutes, "Roll to evade frostbite!!""Roll to evade feral wolves!""Frostbite again!"

That'd be great. For me as the GM at least.

[Legbreaker]

The city of Lodz was the immediate aim of the US 5th ID, they were driven back westwards to Kalisz by the sudden arrival of all those extra Soviet and Polish units. Most of the 5th never even saw Kalisz with the 256th Brigade being overrun before Divisional HQ reached the town.

Many encounters in T2K are not with armoured opponents. With a machinegun added to the loaders hatch, they can participate just as much in combat as the gunner (coaxial machinegun) and commander. The PC driver should be asked to make fairly regular driving rolls when in motion to reflect their ability to read the terrain, keep the vehicle in cover while also allowing the weapons guns to be brought to bear. Can be quite a stressful time for them if they get it wrong and everyone's yelling at them to a) get them out of the line of fire or b) get them into a position where they can shoot back!

Desert Storm is touched on in the 2.x timelines. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3109

[Marc]

Hi to everyone, after some time away from this forum.

M-Type, perhaps you will find this link of your interest. Some top-down counters for your Abrams:

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/JClick.php?UID=368

It's only an example. The site has more top-down counters for every period. Just take a look in the "modern section".

http://www.juniorgeneral.org/load.php?Period=10

I've used them in some of our last games, printing, plasticizing and cutting them. The same site contains trees, buildings, troops,... ´

I think one important thing to bear in mind when gamming a vehicle based scenario is the practical problem to manage distances,speeds and times. Depending of the situation, you will find yourself changing from a “battlefield mode” (large distances and/or speeds) to the more usual (in rpg terms), “personal mode”. Even these two game scales are possible at the same time. If you are able to manage this problem in a fluent way, I’m sure your players will enjoy a great gaming session.

I agree with the post of StainlessSteelCynic if you are thinking to run a vehicle-based game. Not taking decisions is frustrating for the players. It’s a usual problem in some situations when the game group is acting as a crew of any vehicle in any setting.It's a good idea to consider to give them responsibility positions in one or more vehicles. Of course, it implies more difficulties for the referee!!

[M-Type]

I love Junior General! They have paper models for every imaginable era.

Leg: Adding a gun would definitely allow the Loader to do something, and I agree with the rolls for the different spots.

I figured the driver would be making rolls for navigating, the Commander would be shouting orders and spotting enemies, the Loader would be loading (and firing the MG), and the gunner would be...gunning :P

I'd probably throw a few mechanic skills at someone (maybe the all-powerful Loader?) so that they don't just sit there if they break down.

Any maybe, if the GM is willing, the 'light at the end of the tunnel' can be the Middle East front, where the oil 'flows like water'!!

Well, that's at least what the nice man from CENTCOM will tell them.

[Tegyrius]

Another permutation: rather than having multiple tanks to accommodate a large number of PCs, have one tank and one or two light AFVs or soft-skins working as a hunter-killer team. This also lets you have a broader range of skills among the PCs (or attach a few more NPCs with support skills).

- C.

[M-Type]

Have 'em part of an Armored Cavalry squadron, so the exceeding number of PCs can be in some fast(er) moving vehicles, the Recon boys (or girls).

[Olefin]

the part about counting shells was a big deal with us - we started with a full load for my tank and an NPC with a tank as well in my campaign (we were an armored unit during the breakout attempt) and we managed to hit a supply dump that had some captured shells in it - but eventually shells started to be an issue - when we got to Krakow we bought some but they werent cheap (sure we have shells no problem - and then you see what they want for them!).

You start getting to the point of seeing a ripe target for ambush and then having to decide if its worth the loss of shells to go for it. By the time we finally got back to a US unit we were basically down to the last few we had left.

By the way its the same with guys who love to shoot like crazy with their M-16's and SAW's - rock and roll is a great way to fight if you have ammo resupply and a pretty dumb way to fight if you are spending hours picking up every brass casing to get reloads.

[M-Type]

Originally Posted by Olefin

You start getting to the point of seeing a ripe target for ambush and then having to decide if its worth the loss of shells to go for it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm going for. Start the players as "newbie" tankers (in RL), then slowly have them learn the harsh realities of the T2k'verse until they're expert tacticians in-game and RL.

I would definitely start them out with a full load, and plenty of chance for re-supply for the first 2-3 sessions, as they learn the ins and outs of the system and enjoy blowing up those pesky Pacts.

Then there's the big push into Poland. Throw in some urban fighting, tricky corners and pesky infantry, and the supply lines get cut/overrun/disappear...

[M-Type]

I managed to get the v2.2 East Europe Handbook, and it has a mini-campaign setting about the 8th ID (Mechanized) making a lightning run through Northern Poland and Lithuania, then getting stuck in the swamps of Latvia.

I think this is perfect, as it'll give the PCs the feel of 'awesome explosive action' as the 8th ID fly through Poland and Lithuania, since their job was for pursuit and deep-penetration of Pact forces, then they all suddenly get stuck with no idea where to go.

Their only map is an outdated CIA one (given in the book, bonus!), and their tank would be seriously compromised. They'd join the scout/recon forces trying to scavenge food and fuel, and trying to find their way back to friendly lines.

[Legbreaker]

For table top games I give the players the map from the V1 box, an old atlas I bought a few decades ago, and maybe, just maybe and only if I'm in a good mood, the maps (if any) from the applicable module. Other than that they're pretty much on their own for maps.

However, they can occasionally find information about their local area in the oddest of places. The national park map for example I've presented as a six foot high metal sign (which they loaded up on top of their vehicle and took with them).

Attachment 1861 Attachment 1862

Attachment 1859
Attachment 1860

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by M-Type

I managed to get the v2.2 East Europe Handbook, and it has a mini-campaign setting about the 8th ID (Mechanized) making a lightning run through Northern Poland and Lithuania, then getting stuck in the swamps of Latvia.

I think this is perfect, as it'll give the PCs the feel of 'awesome explosive action' as the 8th ID fly through Poland and Lithuania, since their job was for pursuit and deep-penetration of Pact forces, then they all suddenly get stuck with no idea where to go.

Their only map is an outdated CIA one (given in the book, bonus!), and their tank would be seriously compromised. They'd join the scout/recon forces trying to scavenge food and fuel, and trying to find their way back to friendly lines.

This might actually be not to bad to do on RPOL...

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

However, they can occasionally find information about their local area in the oddest of places. The national park map for example I've presented as a six foot high metal sign (which they loaded up on top of their vehicle and took with them).

That's the most inspired bit of practical looting I've seen in years.

Originally Posted by M-Type

Have 'em part of an Armored Cavalry squadron, so the exceeding number of PCs can be in some fast(er) moving vehicles, the Recon boys (or girls).

Yep. And it gives them already-available alternate transport for the times they don't want to use the tank's fuel thrashing around the countryside in search of prey like a dyspeptic Tyrannosaurus. For that matter, with the right PC/NPC mix, the NPCs can stay with the base camp and tank to pull security and maintenance duty while the PCs go off looking for plot.

(Just don't use this as a way to kill off the NPCs and destroy the tank while they're off-screen. That's a major GM dickmove.)

- C.

[M-Type]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

...like a dyspeptic Tyrannosaurus.

I don't know how to respond to this, but one of the tanks has to be named "T-Rex" or something now.

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

(Just don't use this as a way to kill off the NPCs and destroy the tank while they're off-screen. That's a major GM dickmove.)

The only time I would ever kill off NPCs off-screen was if I planned a big battle and dropped some hints, but they didn't listen and headed out to do recon or something. A lesson they'd unfortunately have to learn the hard way...

[Sanjuro]

some of the tanks get damaged and they then have to start sacrificing parts from one to keep another running and so on. Or they have to redistribute the ammo or fuel. Or worse, when one tank has to be abandoned and then suddenly you have one or two extra people to stick inside the working tanks.

Stop hitting me with those negative waves!
(Someone had to say it...)