Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?

[Raellus]

I'm wondering how the various legitimate military forces would handle the numerous armed "factions" in the Twilight World. What would the ROEs be? Would there be a SOP for dealng with unidentified armed groups?

I was playing in an Armies of the Night PbP and I realized that, in my T2K experience, pretty much every armed group is engaged with deadly force on sight. Of course, when approaching a settlement, most players tend to be cautious and cognizant of the potential presence of legitimate militia forces. But out in the open country, it seems like it's open season on anyone not in the uniform of the PC's national or allied military. How does one differentiate between a marauder and an armed civilian simply trying to defend him or herself? Are all armed people considered hostile? What about legitimate militias and civil defense forces? How does one keep track and tell the difference?

In very recent times, the U.S. military has had a really hard time acting as a police force. It's just not a job to which modern military forces are well suited. This would be a big problem in most theatres but especially in the U.S. with its proliferation of firearms and dueling governments.

Your thoughts?

[Webstral]

My first thought it that playing-it-safe violence would be very widespread. Conventions for estabishing peaceful contact between armed strangers would develop over the course of time, but even then there would be a great deal of bloodshed between people who don't necesarily mean each other harm.

Regarding this, I have been thinking more and more than even within a small cantonment, there will be law enforcement and there will be combat specialists. Fairly quickly, some governors (not implying state governors) with a group of armed combatants will realize that keeping the peace and enforcing the law is quite distinct from active combat. Dealing with thievery and muggings is different than dealing with twenty or fifty guys with small arms raiding the silos.

Getting back to the subject at hand, I think one of the biggest risks to PCs is unintentional combat. While the best military units often look like a bunch of bandits (who know how to take care of their weapons), those same troops appearing in a new locale are certain to alarm the local scavengers, hunters, trappers, and militia--to say nothing of the actual bad guys (supply your own definition for who that might be). One of the big skills in Twilight: 2000 will be making peaceful contact with strangers.

Webstral

[Matt Wiser]

Good question. If you look at some of the adventures, organized military units-even those not holding any allegiance to a higher authority-Krakow, Markgraf of Silesia, etc., consider marauders as "unlawful combatants" and treat them accordingly (summary execution if lucky, being worked to death as forced labor if very unlucky). Of course, some military units are so disorganized that calling them bandits in uniform would be a compliment.

[jester]

In my games it has been simple. The PCs often do get burned however for being to sympathetic, and as member of the Evil GM's guild I use it lest I be dismissed Usualy the evil doers will come on strong, but they have little staying power and run away quickly. Whereas a village militia where are they going to go? They will stay till the death since they will be defending their homes and families.

As for a small hunting party, shots may be exchanged, but a small party of hunters or civilians who are not out for a gunfight will not be overly enthusiastic about getting into a protracted firefight and get their number killer or wounded, or, waste valuable and hard to come by ammo. So civilians <legitimate> would be open to parlay, they may even initiate such, or they will run after the first couple rounds.

Bandits as I said, would usualy be less organized and much better armed. Their attempts to parlay would be noticed and more for selfish purposes, as well as a trying to pull something over on the PCs.

As for "other" irregular forces. In my European games I employ ALOT of cavalry and partisan type forces. The cavalry usualy supply their own horses <yes they are available with a wave of my magic GM wand, of course this iss farm country> But, they are issued semi modern weapons and they act as auxilaries to the main first string Pact Forces. They patrol the roads, patrol the villages etc, they mopp up stragglers <like those from the 5th> downed aircrewmen and keep LRRP and similiar forces on their toes. These guys have killed three PCs and 2 primary NPCs <all unplaned> in one of my campaigns. These guys are treated like regular soldiers when encountered. Sometimes they are shot when captured but usualy they are left tied up which is often the fate of most enemy who are captured.

Partisans, they are shot outright, sometimes tortured. Since I handle partisans as guerillas and well as history has shown most guerillas are nasty people to begin with, often they will have done some nasty things to other allies the PCs may have found afterwards, a village that was freindly or even a PC or NPC so often the PCs have a reason to deal so harshly with these types.

We had one criminal join our group in one campaign. He caused many PCs to be killed and wounded and forced the PCs to fight their way out from a minning complex. They caught him with a radio and caught one of the enemy attackers who had info. The PCs put 2 and 2 together and found out their spy. 1 of the PCs wanted to shoot him, instead they hung him, heaving him on his tiptoes till the rope was taunt and left him. One PCs then shot him in one of his legs so he had to stand on his tip toe perfectly balanced lest he slowly strangle, and of course trying to keep his balance he would fall constantly with the noose choking him, the only way to get leverage was to lean into the noose have it choke some more and get his good leg under him and try to use his shattered leg as well which would cause him to fall again and repeat the process.

As Jack Sparrow said the inner circle of hell is reserved for mutineers and traitors.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think that in T2K, the idea of unlawful vs. lawful combatants would be thrown out, in favor of "who's shooting at me" vs. "who's helping me."

[Targan]

In my campaign Major Po had a rule that anyone who was armed and had not been identified as a friendly was deemed to be a marauder and was subject to immediate termination with extreme prejudice. The PCs then took that rule to comical (for them) extremes. In one session one of the PCs had a civilian in his sights who was holding a stick (to use as a makeshift club). Major Po then gave the civilian one verbal warning to drop the stick. Luckily the civilian obeyed and avoided being shot.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I think that in T2K, the idea of unlawful vs. lawful combatants would be thrown out, in favor of "who's shooting at me" vs. "who's helping me."

Right. But I'm wondering how people would handle "first contact" with armed groups. With the numerous criminal groups, enemy combatants, deserters, stragglers, militias, partisans, hunters, etc. it seems very complicated. One would want to be extremely cautious when approaching armed groups but at the same time avoid blowing away folks unecessarily. It's a razor thin line.

A thought on deserters: anyone in a "friendly" uniform but not acting as part of a recognized unit would be considered a deserter. Deserters are sometimes (or oftentimes in totalitarian systems) subject to summary execution in the event of capture. In the Twilight War, where there would be even less of a distinction between deserters and marauders, this practice might be even more widespread. On the other hand, manpower shortages in T2K would be so accute that some armies may feel in necessary to try to rehabilitate deserters and reincorporate them into legit units. How do you think deserters would be dealt with?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Raellus

A thought on deserters: anyone in a "friendly" uniform but not acting as part of a recognized unit would be considered a deserter.

You're assuming a much firmer command structure than the setting requires. FWIW, I see the typical party as not being a "recognized unit".

How do you think deserters would be dealt with?

Unless you have someone who actually saw them desert, nothing. For all you know they are stragglers or all that's left of a destroyed unit.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

How do you think deserters would be dealt with?

I think if their only crime was desertion, in general every effort would be made to rehabilitate them. There could be a multitude of reasons why someone deserted, and not every deserter will automatically be a lost cause. Plus as you say, manpower shortages are going to be chronic, so every man (and woman!) counts.

If on the other hand the deserter has committed other crimes either in the course of deserting or afterwards, then the likliehood of them being rehabilitated decreases as the seriousness of the offences increases...those who have committed murder or other violent crimes would probably have nothing to look forward to except execution, although even then there might be exceptions...(I'm thinking of the Dirty Dozen type scenario here...)

[JimmyRay73]

In games I played in the past we didn't worry too much about desertion. My take on it as I explained in game once was "Remember that last communication that said 'you're on your own?' That means we're just following orders by going our own way."

"Lawful" vs. "Unlawful" basically came down to whether you continued to shoot if I gave you a way out, or if I spotted you being a blatantly evil bastard.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by JimmyRay73

In games I played in the past we didn't worry too much about desertion. My take on it as I explained in game once was "Remember that last communication that said 'you're on your own?' That means we're just following orders by going our own way."

Right. I agree that in the case of the 5th ID or other units that received similar messages in the course of the war, unattached troops would not immediately be considered deserters.

But I don't think it's necessarily always as clear cut as that. Soldiers that made no attempt to return to their own lines/cantonments would, technically, become deserters. Perhaps I've been reading too much lately about the Ostfront of WWII but soldiers labelled as deserters have been shot or hung on much thinner pretexts. Of course, soldiers who were making good faith efforts to return to their command would likely be granted a good deal of lattitude.

In CONUS or other theaters where encirclements or Kalisz-type scenarious were not as common, the innitiative/lattitude offered to soldiers by "You're on your own"-type "orders" probably would not be as widely afforded. So, identifying deserters would be easier. On the other hand, I can see a lot of troops returning home from their respective battlefields "deserting", at least temporarily, in order to determine the fates of their loved ones. I'm wondering how far NATO militaries would go to discourage this. There's no doubt in my mind that the Soviet army would deal very harshly with deserters. But, on the whole, I agree that rehabilitation would be the preferred method of dealing with deserters unless, of course, other crimes were committed by said deserters.

From a purely gameplay POV, that freedom afforded by "You're on your own..." is one of the things that makes T2K so cool and sets it aside from a military procedural.

[simonmark6]

I'm not sure if the Ostfront is an apt comparison for Kalsiz. For the 5th, they've been given cart blanche to find their own way home and can probably rationalise being anywhere:

A whorehouse in Krakow?

We were lying low until the enemy action died down and were going to try to break through during the winter.

A floating brothel on the Wistula?

We were heading for the Baltic to look foe a ship home.

Behind NATO lines, deserters might well be treated differently.

The Soviets may well have tried the shooting deserters method, this is what has led to mass desertions and the massacre of officers. Many local commanders may have a different policy now as they are watching their own back, if they are too brutal with deserters, some of their own men might decide it's time for regimen change....

As for identifying friendlies, or at least not immediately hostiles, in the fluid environment of T2K, that's going to be really difficult. Some encounters are no brainers: convoys of merchants or soldiers are easy to identify, one can be traded with, one avoided/shot up and looted (mix and match according to your group). Hunters are more difficult, they could look like a scouting group for bandits, however they are likely to break contact and run after the first few shots.

Larger armed groups? More difficult, I've assumed that local forces will have some sort of ID, maybe an armband, certainly the army of Krakow and the Army of Sileasia do, however nothing stops marauders from wearing these too. For at least a few years there'll be a lot of shoot first and ask questions later in my opinion. After that, the lack of fuel and spare parts will most likely make random travel by small groups highly unlikely so things will get simpler as you are likely to know the people around you. This would make the life of random travellers more dangerous as local forces are likely to assume that forces they can't identify are automatically marauders.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by copeab

You're assuming a much firmer command structure than the setting requires. FWIW, I see the typical party as not being a "recognized unit".

Good point. I agree.

[fightingflamingo]

I take a much darker view of how combatants & non combantants would be treated in T2K. My general assumption is that once the strategic exchange begins, that the character of the war would begin to resemble the worst aspects of the Eastern Front in WWII. I can easily see disiplince breaking down on both sides following November 1997 (earlier for European armies subject to theatre range attacks prior to the use of ICBMS) in regards to the treatment of prisoners.
I think that this would be haphazard however, with some units giving quarter, but increasingly more and more units would not, especially as the burden for feeding & providing aid to POWs becomes more of a drain on both sides logistical systems which would be beginning to come apart at the seams.
As resources decline, and the remaining units in the field are fighting for survival, producing their own food, fuel, and ammunition, the best that a POW might ask for is slave labor in the capturing units catonment, and a great many might be executed once any intel could be gained from the POWs.
By 2000 I think that fit POWs would be disarmed and sent to work camps, with very meager rations where they would basically be worked to death, and the unfit and injured would be killed.
Not a very uplifting outlook, but neither is the premise of a Twillight War. I just think that it would degrade to the lowest point.