Unrealistic/impossible/hard-to-believe aspects in the Twilight 2000 backstory

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Olefin

if you want to design a game at least make it one where the US doesnt behave stupidly in order to have the scenario occur

Because the US never behaves stupidly? Every country's government has behaved stupidly at one time or another, mine included.

[Rainbow Six]

Whilst I don't disagree that the US Divisions going to Yugoslavia doesn't appear to be a logical / sensible decision, I think it has been discussed on this forum before and a viewpoint was put forward that Civgov took the decision from a purely political point of view as a counter to Milgov, who at the time were sending reinforcements to Germany.

If I recall correctly, the proposed logic was that Civgov needed to show that it still had the capability to send troops to Europe as a way of scoring political points against Milgov as both are claiming to be the legitimate Government of the US and if one did send troops overseas and the other didn't, that would weaken the standing of the one that didn't.

That said, looking at this this morning, I'm not sure if there's an anomaly? I'm at work, so don't have access to any materials other than what I can source online, so am going off this timeline

http://www.d20.demon.nl/t2k/t2ktime.html

That states that the 76th and 80th Divisions are sent to Yugoslavia in October of 1998 (specifically late October inthe case of the 76th)

Same timeline then states that the split between US Governments took place on 19th April 1999, i.e. six months after those two Divisions were sent to Yugoslavia.

So if that's correct, it was only the 42nd Division that was specifically sent by Civgov - the other two Divisions were sent before the split, so presumably declared for Civgov at some point after 19th April 1999, at which point they were already in theatre. Or have I missed something (or is that timeline wrong)?

There are a whole host of things that if you study them in any sort of detail don't make sense, but they are what makes Twilight 2000 what it is. On this occasion I think it's simply a plot device to give those who might want to play a Balkans campaign with US player characters, in the same way that the RDF Sourcebook put Israeli units on the ground in Iran (which to me is about as plausible as Scotland winning the next World Cup) so that you could play Israeli PC's in an RDF campaign.

[Olefin]

Keep in mind that this Iranian goverment is a moderate goverment and not the Islamic government that we are familiar with. Iran and Israel have had a long relationship that goes back to the old Persian Empire days - its only recently that the "Death to Israel" relationship has occurred.

So given that kind of government you could have them there. However that doesnt mean that there arent people in Iran (Twilight 2000 version) from the old regime who are too happy about Israelis being there - could be an interesting way to make an Israeli player characters life a lot more interesting in Iran.

There might be an issue with his timeline there that you mentioned as to the Civgov break with MilGov

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Olefin

It only matters if you look at the logic of the game - and frankly a lot of US military and government officials had very little logic

if you want to design a game at least make it one where the US doesnt behave stupidly in order to have the scenario occur

Ah, I think you misunderstand me. The part that doesn't matter was whether the US 7th Fleet was on its way to the Adriatic or to Turkey when it was destroyed by the Italians.

In either case, sending a resupply through a small area (Tyrrhenian Sea/Sicily Strait) where an enemy has significant air and sea assets is idiotic.

The supply issue is another good case of stupidity. Since WW2, most modern militaries (including the US) has been well aware of the importance of logistics, especially for force projection. Troops that cannot be supplied with food, ammo, and fuel are wasted, as they will soon be unable to defend themselves. If they cannot be supported, the troops are NOT sent. At least in Germany, ammo is plentiful since NATO standardized ammo, and it was stockpiled. Not much NATO ammo available in Yugoslavia; deployment requires a supply route, and there is not a secure route available.

(But logistics also leads to my problems with the Mexican/Texican affair - after its initial attack, the Soviets will run low on ammo that cannot be supplied by the Mexicans or US sources.)

Similarly, the Soviet invasion of Alaska, while producing an interesting gaming environment (perhaps), is a pointless waste of Soviet strength. More sensible would have been to assault the North Slope (only) to seize the oil production facilities. Let the Americans stretch their logistics lines to counter attack. What else in Alaska has easily gathered resources immediately useful to the Soviet war effort?

Now, T2K reminds me of Game of Thrones. By the time I got halfway through the third book, I was getting a little annoyed of every character in a leadership position always selecting a path that would lead to the most self-destructive result!

Uncle Ted

[raketenjagdpanzer]

If CivGov wanted to really score some points with the "Folks back home" they'd do their own "Going Home"/Operation: Omega and pull troops out of europe and redeploy them to the southwest and Alaska to fight the Mexicans and Russians, respectively, and as much as possible pull out as much heavy equipment as they could, then use it as a propaganda win.

"The illegal 'Military Government' is still sending troops to Europe - We're bringing our boys back to defend the homefront! Support the legally, democratically elected government of the United States of America! Reject the military junta that threatens the republic!"

If they did this as news of the "Final Offensive" of the 5th Division began to filter back they'd surely win big; CivGov troops come home, in good order, rolling tanks, APCs and other equipment off whatever ships, flags flapping in the breeze, units being prepared for redeployment, etc. etc.

Then three months later, a ragtag bunch of soldiers with nothing but the guns they're carrying come staggering off a bunch of ships and are then set loose...

It'd be a huge blow to MilGov on the public opinion front, and as strange as it might seem I would think public opinion would matter a great deal: what cantonment is Farmer brown taking his last functional tractor, three strong sons, and a couple tons of wheat to? The CivGov one or the MilGov one?

Of course all of that is predicated on the notion that CivGov could scrape together the sea-lift to do an "Operation: Omega" to begin with...

[Olefin]

That issue of resupply is why my GM had the Med Cruise changed to a DIA operation to get the CivGov troops to come over to MilGov - hey 42nd Division here is a bunch of shells and tank parts and other stuff to get your division back on its feet - and if you announce for MilGov we will send more - and MilGov would have an ability to supply out of Israel whereas you got me where CivGov is getting fuel to even send a single ship to Yugoslavia let alone supplies for three divisions to fill it

And the description of the three divisions is not one of three cutoff divisions out of supplies and out of luck in the US Army Guide and the only canon description of the area - i.e. the Albania Challenge article - its pretty clear that the US force there is still operational. So that means supplies.

By the way there are ways to explain how the three divisions could be still equipped

1) Captured Italian supplies - which would be NATO standard as to shells, ammo, etc..

2) NATO providied equipment, ammo, shells, etc.. that were shipped to Yugoslavia prior to the Italians jumping into the war and being used by the three divisions

3) Re-equipped with enemy equipment to a large extent - i.e. well no more M-16 ammo but there is plenty for all those AK's we captured

Still by the time those divisions were sent CivGov could have made a hell of a lot more political capital sending them to kick the Mexicans in the teeth and retake Texas - I doubty my Oct 1998 one American really gave a rat's butt listening on the radio that our glorious forces were advancing in Yugoslavia to help our allies there when those doing the listening were on the run out of Los Angeles and San Antonio and Phoenix and Santa Fe

much better politics about how they saved Louisiana from the Mexicans or how Dallas is still American because the CivGov led 42nd kept it free of the Mexican scourge


Frankly I think the whole Yugoslavia thing was not thought out well - and that fact that the only thing ever written about the US forces there outside of the US Army Vehicles Guide was that one Albania article pretty much shows that GDW didnt put a lot of brain cells into the idea as a well

Plus there is CENTCOM getting 6000 troops from Europe in December 2000 - well why dont they go after the three divisions sitting in Yugoslavia instead? They have a unified MilGov/CivGov command there - and that is a whole Corps to reinforce them and they are a hell of a lot closer to them than Bremerhaven is - and Israel probably still has the ships to get them - and if not the French sure do - and I bet they would love to have more US troops show up to fight the Russians and keep them from having to do it to support their new Kuwaiti and Saudi and Iraqi allies

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Targan

Because the US never behaves stupidly? Every country's government has behaved stupidly at one time or another, mine included.

Oh and Targan I never said the US never behaves stupidly - but frankly the US leadership in the game, especially CivGov is close to treasonously stupid - MilGov sent a hell of a lot of troops to fight the Mexicans and Russians in the Southwest

CivGov didnt send anyone and talked one division out of joining the 5th Army when they tried to clear out Texas

Thats not stupid - thats STUPID

and no politician trying to score political points says "screw the citizens of CA, AZ, NM, LA, OK and TX - we got better things to do in Yugoslavia"

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

- but frankly the US leadership in the game, especially CivGov is close to treasonously stupid - MilGov sent a hell of a lot of troops to fight the Mexicans and Russians in the Southwest

CivGov didnt send anyone and talked one division out of joining the 5th Army when they tried to clear out Texas

Thats not stupid - thats STUPID

and no politician trying to score political points says "screw the citizens of CA, AZ, NM, LA, OK and TX - we got better things to do in Yugoslavia"

This rationale is probably why the US Military got fed up with how the US Government was running the war and set up a rival Military Government.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Olefin

and no politician trying to score political points says "screw the citizens of CA, AZ, NM, LA, OK and TX - we got better things to do in Yugoslavia"

While I do have serious problems with the "Why", I can actually see how a naive president could be convinced of this. Yugoslavia is the ONLY place where CIVGOV has any true foreign presence (CIA outposts aside). I can see where someone feels supporting this is important (perhaps they feel success will allow them, and not MILGOV, to negotiate the end of the war with the Soviets or to pickup defections overseas at the same rate they did at home). Colossally stupid yes, but at least stupid with a motivation.

The "How" is more of a mystery to me. Getting reinforcements past two enemy nations into very restricted waters, with at most a tiny fraction of what ever US assets are in the region seems like suicide. Not to mention the myriad of societal and logistical issues that you would see when trying to strip the US east coast of that volume of troops post TDM.

[Raellus]

I agree that the "why" is not as far-fetched as some of you think. For most of the last century, the U.S. has found itself in the position of being a world power. A huge part of that mantle is military power. In order to maintain that lofty position, one has to show the flag abroad, often attached to a rifle. If one is unwilling to walk the walk, they lose legitimacy at home and abroad. You just don't see any truly isolationist presidents since FDR took office. A lot of that has to do with the Cold War. No one wanted to be seen as soft on communism, or ceding world leadership to the Soviets. Entertaining such notions was political suicide. So, looking at it through that lens, it makes some sense.

In the v1.0 scenario, you have a president whose legitimacy is challenged openly by a competing faction. MilGov has a heavy presence in Europe. This gives them a degree of legitimacy, at home and abroad. The CivGov leader, seeing himself as the true head of the nation's federal government, wants the same sort of legitimacy, so he sends military forces to a region in Europe where they can fight the Soviets without much risk of a direct confrontation with MilGov forces. I agree that it's a rash, somewhat frivolous, wasteful move, but an American president has never used military forces in such a manner? It's a bad call, but people- yes, even presidents- do make bad calls.

[Olefin]

Oh I know American Presidents have done some stupid things in the past - but I stilll cant see how you score political points sending off three divisions on a nowhere mission when your own country is under invasion

and this isnt Alaska we are talking about here or the Mexicans taking some godforsake desert land along the AZ or NM border - this is Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas and Houston falling to the Mexicans and CivGov saying hey lets go help those Croats and Serbs instead

not exactly minor cities we are talking about here

[kato13]

To save those cities you have to send your loyal units into MILGOV controlled areas, At best you work together to repel the Mexican forces and gain a little respect (MILGOV will get more as they have more forces). At worst you lose the forces to MILGOV control as they realize they can get better logistical support from MILGOV. So to CIVGOV not losing the units to MILGOV might be seen as a "win". Then it comes down to how to use this "resource" to your best political advantage.

So while illogical it can be seen as a high risk high reward scenario to deploy overseas. I still feel it is stupid at every level, but these are politicians we are talking about

[James Langham2]

There may be a fairly obvious solution to supplying the divisions in Yugoslavia, through Israel. It still has a good economy (relatively speaking) - if you can get the transport to move it plus requisitioning what you can locally the three divisions (which are light remember) should be OK.

[Olefin]

thats actually what my GM came up with - if you look at the Olefin universe thread that is how he changed Med Cruise when we played it - to drop off MilGov agents to bring the three divisions under MilGov using supplies from Israel and an offer to keep supplying them or to evacuate them to join CENTCOM

Israel most likely stilll has naval forces and ships left to escort supplyl ships past the Italians and Greeks - and would have access to fuel from the Saudi's and Iranians to get the ships and supplies back and forth

[Twilight2000v3MM]

Unrealistic? My two cents..... it's fiction guy. Enjoy it as is :-)

[Olefin]

And actually you are free to change the history of the game anyway you wish after the game start - and as has been stated before here character actions can change the game a lot.

And if you want to ignore certain parts of the back history and have a non-canon game - then if your GM is for it then go right ahead and do it.

It would be different if this was still a supported game with new modules being released and its history constantly being updated and any non-canon game would quickly run askew of what was being released.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Olefin

It would be different if this was still a supported game with new modules being released and its history constantly being updated and any non-canon game would quickly run askew of what was being released.

I don't believe it would be that different, if at all.
Ultimately, somebody is not going to be completely happy with the game "out-of-the-box" and they are going to change aspects to suit what they want. That could be from simply adding/removing items of equipment to rewriting the entire backstory.
It's happened with many games, it's still happening with many games and most likely always will and it doesn't matter that those games are in production or not.

As the end-user of the product, you have the privilege and the right to use it how you want. For example, the game has its focus as a group of US Army characters, I've never once gamed in T2k with a US military character and the games I've been involved in have had very few, if any, US military characters so the American-centric path of the game was removed by us, for us. That's just how we chose to play the game, it doesn't mean everyone else has to.

[Olefin]

I have always wondered if anyone has ever done a Chinese themed game - with how China collapsed after being nuked it would make very fertile ground for a Twilight 2000 campaign - and you could even add in a couple British or US characters as well (possibly left behind during the retreat to Hong Kong or South Korea).

Or alternatively a pure Indian or Pakistan game since both of those countries also had their nuclear war and fell apart as a consequence - fertile ground indeed for the game.