Announcement from Free League Publishing

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

I was more thinking of T:2013.

Ah! When you said "earlier editions" I took that to mean 1st & 2nd editions.

[Olefin]

Based on the responses I have received from Tomas I am very concerned that they arent prepared for what is needed for a successful launch of V4. Seems to be that there are too few resources dedicated to the game beyond the initial launch - and saying that new sourcebooks would be 1-2 years or more in the future smacks of a game that is not supported well

Given what is going on now and the fact that every stretch goal has been met to where they need more and more he should be immediately staffing up or switching writers over and getting to work on follow ups.

Notice that there is no date on the updated Black Madonna? If they want this to work it need to be out within a couple of months at most of the initial release - i.e. because campaigns using the new system arent going to just wait around for new material. Or they may already be out of the area in the campaign and its a "too little, too late" kind of thing

And turning down offers from me, Raellus and Leg (or saying that at best they would be fan canon) just smells of improper support. Especially since Raellus and Leg have stuff written that could be turned into V4 very quickly

[Olefin]

And now we get the more expanded story we have wanted

STRETCHGOAL 25: HOMELAND HACK – UNLOCKED!
If we reach this goal, we will expand the World at War chapter in the Players’ Manual with texts describing major regions beyond the core settings Poland and Sweden. These texts will cover the US, the UK, and Germany, and an overview of the rest of the world. The texts will be accompanied with include guidelines for placing a Twilight: 2000 campaign in these areas.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It's interesting to see that the Homeland Hack was included as pretty much a last minute stretch goal and yet they had earlier stated something along the lines of "the game will allow you to start your campaign anywhere in the world".
So... from the look of that, you would not have been able to start anywhere in the world (except Poland or Sweden) but now that a stretch goal has been unlocked (and the hardest to reach stretch goal at that), those rules might actually be included in the game?

Or am I missing something?

[wolffhound79]

maybe its an expansion on information for the world????

[Legbreaker]

Chris Lites officially stated on facebook about sixteen hours ago Poland is NOT part of the Warsaw Pact in 4th ed.

Thoughts?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Chris Lites officially stated on facebook about sixteen hours ago Poland is NOT part of the Warsaw Pact in 4th ed.

Thoughts?

You fucking what?
So if Poland isn't allied with the Soviets, then there's only three possibilities I can think of: -
1. neutral like Switzerland (I really can't see that happening with the hardliners in the Polish communist party)
2. goes it alone against all comers (certain death for sure and thus highly unlikely)
3. allied with NATO (even less likely than neutrality considering the hardliners in the Polish communist party)

For the alleged 1980s-1990s time period Free League has claimed for the game, none of those 3 make any logical sense.

As multiple people have said throughout the Star Wars movies...
"I have a bad feeling about this".

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

For the alleged 1980s-1990s time period Free League has claimed for the game, none of those 3 make any logical sense.

Though they have said that the main game will be during year 2000. So not in the 80s-90s.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Lurken

Though they have said that the main game will be during year 2000. So not in the 80s-90s.

You misunderstand me - the game begins in 2000 so to set that up, they supposedly follow the real world through the Cold War period up to the 1990s when there is a point of departure from the real world.
The Twilight War starts around the mid-1990s and is all but over by the year 2000. Hence, this is where PC campaigns begin, after the destruction of society as we know it.
But there has to be a lead up to that destruction, a path that was followed to bring upon the apocalypse of a third world war. A history that took place to allow the end of society and to create a broken world for the PCs to try and fix, starting in the year 2000.

Everything they have told us so far follows that idea.
Free League inferred that they would be following something similar to the 2.2 background (with some changes to allow Sweden to be a PC location as well).
If they want Poland to not be part of the Warsaw Pact, there would have to be logical reasons for Poland to leave the Pact but it would also require a realistic amount of time for Poland to leave the Pact.
It's an event of such huge significance that it would massively affect Europe.

Now unless they want the world background to look as though it was written by a bunch of eight year old boys who think war movies are "cool", Free League need to provide a believable world background. If they don't, then word of mouth alone will pass on the message that 4th edition is garbage and it will be forgotten like 2013 was.
The only halfway reasonable excuse for having Poland not be a part of the Warsaw Pact is if they decided to disconnect themselves from Eastern Europe, the Eastern European economy and the Soviet Union and then that directly leads into the war.

[Ewan]

If the Warsaw Pact ended in February 1991 and the coup in the Russia/Soviet Union was in August 1991 then why would Poland be part of the Warsaw Pact.
https://www.nato.int/cps/us/natohq/d...ied_138294.htm

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Because the premise of Twilight: 2000 is that the Warsaw Pact did not end.
In the real world, the Cold War ended, in the T2k world it did not.

[sellanraa]

Can anyone who is on FB expand on the context of this statement? Was it just totally out of the blue that he mentioned it?

Definitely seems like an unnecessary change that radically changes the storyline and I guess I wonder what their justification might be.

Anxiety...growing...

[Legbreaker]

The question was asked if Poland was still part of the Pact in 4th ed. Chris' simple answer was "no".

[Legbreaker]

Attachment 4481

Attachment 4482

[sellanraa]

That's really weird. I wouldn't even think to ask that question because it's just sort of a given that the global political scenario would remain unchanged. I wonder how people will react to that news.

[Rainbow Six]

I think this may have been signposted in the sample pages that were posted at the start of the thread

Polish Army
Newly independent, the Polish Army was, until recently, part of the Soviet Bloc. Now operating on their own, they sought to join NATO prior to the breakout of the War.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well, I hope they have a really decent reason for Poland somehow becoming independent considering the resistance the Poles would have had from inside their own government & the communist party.
And the Soviets.
Hungary or Czechoslovakia ring any bells?
Otherwise, it's going to be a problem for anyone with even minor knowledge of the Cold War to suspend their disbelief to accept the 4th Ed. timeline.

It's a cause for concern. What's next? What about the clash between Indonesia and Australia? What about the Soviets turning great patches of China into radioactive slag? These are all parts of the timeline that indicate the conflict is global and that the whole world is suffering.
If nothing else, they serve as guidelines, as illustrations of the state of the world.
If they aren't included, how does the GM know what the feel of the gameworld would or could be?

There needs to be a believable reason for the war, there needs to be a believable chain of events. The T2k setting requires a breakdown of military command so that the PCs are free to adventure however the GM & Players see fit.
If there's no Europe-wide clash between NATO and WarPac, how do they achieve the destruction of the world so that the PCs are released from military authority?

[swaghauler]

It sounds like they took a page from my alternate history.

In my world, the Pact fell, and the very real-world Visegrad group of Poland, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary formed. They joined the EU and NATO after the year 2000 but... IN MY TIMELINE, Russia instead begins to foment "revolutionary groups" in these countries in order to regain control of them (see modern-day Ukraine for an example of this). The violence in Poland leads the PRO-WESTERN Polish government to seek aid from Germany and the West to counter Russian-backed rebels inside the country. Most of NATO says "no way" because they are involved in operations in Africa, East Timor, The Middle East, and Kosovo. The US, UK, and Germany do come to the Polish Government's aid, however. This causes the now-familiar schism in NATO. This is also the reason why some towns in Poland are pro-West and some are pro-Russian. It should also be noted that in my timeline the rest of the Visegrad powers are also under such a state of Russian-influenced "insurrection" but are primarily pro-Western in outlook as well.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Well, I hope they have a really decent reason for Poland somehow becoming independent considering the resistance the Poles would have had from inside their own government & the communist party.
And the Soviets.
Hungary or Czechoslovakia ring any bells?
Otherwise, it's going to be a problem for anyone with even minor knowledge of the Cold War to suspend their disbelief to accept the 4th Ed. timeline.

It's a cause for concern. What's next? What about the clash between Indonesia and Australia? What about the Soviets turning great patches of China into radioactive slag? These are all parts of the timeline that indicate the conflict is global and that the whole world is suffering.
If nothing else, they serve as guidelines, as illustrations of the state of the world.
If they aren't included, how does the GM know what the feel of the gameworld would or could be?

There needs to be a believable reason for the war, there needs to be a believable chain of events. The T2k setting requires a breakdown of military command so that the PCs are free to adventure however the GM & Players see fit.
If there's no Europe-wide clash between NATO and WarPac, how do they achieve the destruction of the world so that the PCs are released from military authority?

By having many SMALL "flashpoints" that require "immediate attention" so that you really don't KNOW it's a WORLD WAR until it's too late.

In my own alternate timeline, I did this by...

1) Having the Soviet Union FALL.

2) The West then draws down its own military strength through 1997.

3) The US NEVER gives Russia the aid package which in real life kept her economy from totally crashing in the early '90s. A desperate Russia begins selling the ONE THING she has in plenty, Military Technology.

4) Russia sells NK, Iran, Iraq, and Africa huge sums of military equipment and tech. She partners with India (a strong economy) trading equipment for resources.

5) The '96 Mexican elections go south and a NARCO-PUPPET state forms there and in Guatemala. Russia trades heavy military tech for cold hard drug money and the cartels gain the power to at least prevent the US from pushing a coup in Mexico.

6) Kosovo, East Timor, and the African incidents help stretch the US thin.

7) Moscow negotiates a loose peace between Iraq and Iran with Syria kind of joining in. This creates a new threat in The Gulf and the US reacts to this (spreading herself even thinner).

8) Turkey becomes more militant and the issue between Turkey and Greece becomes hot again.

9) NK begins rattling her saber as she becomes concerned over "warming relations" between China and the US. The NK war goes hot in early '99 with Russia supporting (goading?) her into it.

10) As Iran rearms, the US begins helping Pakistan (already fighting with India) to increase her military strength. This triggers India (afraid of BOTH Pakistan AND China) to turn towards Russia. The border skirmish between India and Pakistan becomes a full-on war.

11) Russia and China have their border dispute in 98 (just like in real life) but this time it goes HOT. This is the Russo-Chinese War in the V2.2 rules for me.

12) PUTIN rises to power in late '98 NOT 2003, and basically makes the waves he made in the real world. He basically tries to seize control of former Pact territories through subversion and insurgency.

13) Late into the hostilities, Spain decides it's a good time to try and take Gibraltar. The UK and the US are forced into a new theater of war.

14) Italy and France are engaged in Africa and Italy supports Greece against "Turkish Aggression" and this goes "hot" in the Med.

15) At Russian urging, Mexico attacks the US in early '99 in response to the US seizing Mexican oil platforms at sea and trying to overthrow the NARCO-PUPPET state. The Russians send "advisors" (division Cuba) and additional equipment to aid the Mexicans.

16) The TWILIGHT WAR from inception to the start of the game (in 2000) begins in LATE '97 as a series of "interventions." It goes full conventional in late '98 and The Exchange occurs on Thanksgiving day of '99. Thus most units have been scavenging for less than a year and are STILL developing those skills JUST LIKE the PCs will be (during play). The short timeframe means that there is NO RAMP-UP to a wartime economy. This will be a "Come as you are war." That's why everyone is looking in their supply depots to scavenge older AFVs and Aircraft. There simply was no major "wartime production."

17) The Exchange consists of only a few large warheads used to "knock out" power and communication grids in Europe, the US, and Russia. The rest of the nukes are "tactical" and fall from planes and Naval vessels so as to NOT trigger a "MAD" response. Thermobaric munitions are used EXTENSIVELY just like Putin did at the Second Battle of Grozny. The loss of the power grid creates sufficient chaos to cause most governments to lose control of their country.

If you look at all of the "small conflicts grown large," you can see that the ENTIRE WORLD is at war and that it just kind of "snuck up on everyone." This is how I envisioned a V2.2 timeline running.

And IF you are actually reading what my alternate timeline looks like, you can see for yourself that "cannon" goes RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW in my world.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Chris Lites officially stated on facebook about sixteen hours ago Poland is NOT part of the Warsaw Pact in 4th ed.

Thoughts?

This feels like a bait & switch to me, one of the reasons I backed it was the assurance that the timeline would match v1's history. Now that they have my money, "Oh, just a few touch-ups..."

It also feels like a needless and spiteful change, such as when the Confederacy re-appeared in the 3rd edition of Space:1889, after being safely dead in the first two editions. A lot of people didn't buy that edition for that reason.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

This feels like a bait & switch to me, one of the reasons I backed it was the assurance that the timeline would match v1's history. Now that they have my money, "Oh, just a few touch-ups..."

I'm not keen on the idea of T2k Poland being in the NATO camp either but, to be fair, AFAIK, FL never said v4 would align with the v1 timeline. They were pretty clear from pretty early on (pre-KS launch, at least) that v4 would lean closer to the v2 timeline (of which I am not a fan).

[mpipes]

There is nothing that requires the characters to be operating independent of military authority. Its easy enough to have them operating as part of a larger squad or company. It all depends on the type of campaign you want and/or players desire.

In my world, I had a bit more military strength existing, but it was no mans land in the devastated Poland or large chunk of the rest of the world. So players could be anything from a M1A1 crew in a badly depleted armored company, a group of survivors of a C-130 crash landing on a mission gone wrong, a small Spec Ops team, to the classic group stragglers from the 5th.

If you don't agree with something; change it to your likes.
I had Italy staying out till a violent coup came about with a change to NATO after TDM.
Texas WAS NEVER independent.
The Soviets managed to get a force as far south as Montana after invading Alaska.
Turkey got aid from an Israeli-Egyptian alliance and a US Corps showed up in late 1997.
France became a totalitarian Socialist regime that invaded Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, with Spain and Portugal invading as a NATO ally response.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by mpipes

There is nothing that requires the characters to be operating independent of military authority. Its easy enough to have them operating as part of a larger squad or company. It all depends on the type of campaign you want and/or players design.

True, but "good luck, you're on your own" is a central tenet of T2k, and what makes it different than other military-based RPGs. I've played in a few campaigns where military authority and the chain of command were given more emphasis, and all but one of them sucked. Most RPG'ers aren't interested in being bossed around by other RPG'ers based on rolled (or, more likely, self-assigned) ranks (which in this context, are purely make-believe). Operating as part of a larger military organization removes a considerable amount of player agency. There are ways around this off course- being part of a small LRRP team far behind enemy lines, for example- but the essence of T2k is being part of a small unit cut off from its parent organization, and essentially free to make its own decisions.

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

It sounds like they took a page from my alternate history.

I think I can safely say without breaking the NDA I signed, they haven't. It's very different to what you've described.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

True, but "good luck, you're on your own" is a central tenet of T2k, and what makes it different than other military-based RPGs. I've played in a few campaigns where military authority and the chain of command were given more emphasis, and all but one of them sucked. Most RPG'ers aren't interested in being bossed around by other RPG'ers based on rolled (or, more likely, self-assigned) ranks (which in this context, are purely make-believe). Operating as part of a larger military organization removes a considerable amount of player agency. There are ways around this off course- being part of a small LRRP team far behind enemy lines, for example- but the essence of T2k is being part of a small unit cut off from its parent organization, and essentially free to make its own decisions.

-

This +1
This is exactly why GDW designed the game the way they did.
There is an article (I believe it's included with some of the Far Future publications) that states they specifically wanted the military command structure to be severely weakened or almost gone so that the PCs would be free of military control.
The aim was to allow a PC group to have the freedom to adventure like they do in games like D&D.

As stated by several people on this forum (including me), everyone is free to make their game follow whatever rules and gameworld logic that they desire but "Good luck, you're on your own" completely negates the idea that the PCs have to operate under military authority.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

By having many SMALL "flashpoints" that require "immediate attention" so that you really don't KNOW it's a WORLD WAR until it's too late.

In my own alternate timeline, I did this by...

Not bad at all.

None of that's in 4th though, not a single bit.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

True, but "good luck, you're on your own" is a central tenet of T2k, and what makes it different than other military-based RPGs. I've played in a few campaigns where military authority and the chain of command were given more emphasis, and all but one of them sucked. Most RPG'ers aren't interested in being bossed around by other RPG'ers based on rolled (or, more likely, self-assigned) ranks (which in this context, are purely make-believe). Operating as part of a larger military organization removes a considerable amount of player agency. There are ways around this off course- being part of a small LRRP team far behind enemy lines, for example- but the essence of T2k is being part of a small unit cut off from its parent organization, and essentially free to make its own decisions.

-

Oh yeah, this, very much this. I have also played in campaigns that tried to adhere to a strict chain of command and by and large haven't found it to be an enjoyable experience.

[hell-fish]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

By having many SMALL "flashpoints" that require "immediate attention" so that you really don't KNOW it's a WORLD WAR until it's too late.

In my own alternate timeline, I did this by...

I like this a lot. Good job.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Oh yeah, this, very much this. I have also played in campaigns that tried to adhere to a strict chain of command and by and large haven't found it to be an enjoyable experience.

The strict chain of command can be good game as well - I personally loved the campaign we did in Iran - got to take out the Soviet commanders at the hotel in Kings Ransom and other fun missions - and in no mans land between the two armies there was plenty of the right vibe for those who wanted a broken down world - basically the command structure went right out the door once you were there

and we got sent to what was left of Pakistan to get parts for the F-16's that were still left - and take it from me it made Poland look like a walk thru the park as far as game and campaign play

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The strict chain of command can be good game as well

Sure. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste. You do you. That said, I don't think it's any accident that the vast majority of T2k adventure modules explicitly release the player party from the military chain of command.

-