4th ed T2K

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by FPSlover

The only possible way London could justify having most of the TA deploy is if they recreated the Home Guard or something equally as mad to take over defense at home. Which again, is not their job, as it's the TA's job to conduct home defense. Even then, at least SOME (call it at least 25% and more probably 30%) of the TA would have to remain at home so as to properly train said units and war replacements.

There are often misconceptions about the TA's role in T2K. That may be because the original V1 British order of battle was a complete work of fiction in that it completely ignored the TA and appeared to have been written by someone who had zero knowledge of their role / structure (IRL the TA would have formed the bulk of the 2nd UK Division and would have also rounded out other Divisions in the same way that US National Guard Brigades rounded out Regular Divisions). Or it may be because at the end of the Cold War the TA's role changed so it can sometimes take a bit of digging to get to the Cold War period.

The TA in this period was split. Some units did have a home defence role, but others were tasked with reinforcing BAOR. LouieD is more of an authority on this than I am and can correct me if I'm wrong but off the top of my head, the split was something like 75% to BAOR vs 25% UK Home defence (both of those figures include support as well as combat units).

From memory there were something like 14 TA Infantry Battalions and 2/3 Light Recon Regiments (each equivalent to a Battalion and equipped with Land Rovers) allocated to home defence - roughly one per civil defence area plus a couple of spares. There would have probably also one Regular Brigade tasked to home defence, probably based in the London area and mostly made up of Guards Battalions. The TA have no training role - that would have been down to the Regular Army.

Also, there was an attempt to recreate the Home Guard in the early 1980's - it was called the Home Service Force, and numbered approx 5000 men in approx 50 Platoons across the UK at its peak.

As some of you know in the past I've spent many hours working on a realistic (and non canon) T2K timeline for the UK. I've read the new timeline (briefly) and the section on the UK. I find the idea of a Soviet invasion of the UK fanciful and will be ignoring it going forward but I do not think it's Alien Space Bats territory. If I really had to rationalise it I'd posit it the same way as Division Cuba in V1 - a Division sized unit (7th Guards Air Assault according to the UK write up) secures a toehold, HMG is unable to assemble the forces to kerb stomp them, and the Soviets end up securing a town (or maybe a County) - it's basically the Group of Soviet Forces England in the V1 SGUK on a larger scale.

Other than that, while I appreciate it's only a few paragraphs, I don't think they've done too bad a job with the UK setting. There's room for improvement for sure (even with no help from the mainland I rather doubt the IRA would be able to hold their own against the RUC and the UDR without overt military support from the Irish Republic) but it's certainly an improvement on the V1 Survivor's Guide to the UK (although that is admittedly a pretty low bar - at least they didn't have the Queen abdicating). The Cornish Independence angle is plausible.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by FPSlover

Huh, so my guess was right. That is... damn odd. I can get some being sent, at least as volunteers or drafts to increase manpower during the late part of the war, but the entire thing? And reviving the Home Guard (a group that, in all honesty, would have not proven too effective had the Germans ever invaded) to replace them? Madness I say! Sheer bloody madness!

The tl;dr of my other post

1. It's pretty accurate that the bulk of the Territorial Army would have deployed to Europe at the start of the War.

2. The Home Guard was revived in 1982 under a different name (The Home Service Force)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Service_Force

I have to say, V4 appears to cover this more accurately than any previous version, especially V1, which was a joke when it came to the UK..

[FPSlover]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

The TA in this period was split. Some units did have a home defence role, but others were tasked with reinforcing BAOR. LouieD is more of an authority on this than I am and can correct me if I'm wrong but off the top of my head, the split was something like 75% to BAOR vs 25% UK Home defence (both of those figures include support as well as combat units).

From memory there were something like 14 TA Infantry Battalions and 2/3 Light Recon Regiments (each equivalent to a Battalion and equipped with Land Rovers) allocated to home defence - roughly one per civil defence area plus a couple of spares. There would have probably also one Regular Brigade tasked to home defence, probably based in the London area and mostly made up of Guards Battalions. The TA have no training role - that would have been down to the Regular Army.

Also, there was an attempt to recreate the Home Guard in the early 1980's - it was called the Home Service Force, and numbered approx 5000 men in approx 50 Platoons across the UK at its peak.

As some of you know in the past I've spent many hours working on a realistic (and non canon) T2K timeline for the UK. I've read the new timeline (briefly) and the section on the UK. I find the idea of a Soviet invasion of the UK fanciful and will be ignoring it going forward but I do not think it's Alien Space Bats territory. If I really had to rationalise it I'd posit it the same way as Division Cuba in V1 - a Division sized unit (7th Guards Air Assault according to the UK write up) secures a toehold, HMG is unable to assemble the forces to kerb stomp them, and the Soviets end up securing a town (or maybe a County) - it's basically the Group of Soviet Forces England in the V1 SGUK on a larger scale.

Other than that, while I appreciate it's only a few paragraphs, I don't think they've done too bad a job with the UK setting. There's room for improvement for sure (even with no help from the mainland I rather doubt the IRA would be able to hold their own against the RUC and the UDR without overt military support from the Irish Republic) but it's certainly an improvement on the V1 Survivor's Guide to the UK (although that is admittedly a pretty low bar - at least they didn't have the Queen abdicating). The Cornish Independence angle is plausible.

And your post is why I shouldn't reply to someone without collecting my thoughts and half asleep. I was well aware of the TA's role in the BAOR, albeit given the war, most would have long since called up to fill it and other places. Indeed, from what I can gather, most would have been gone and mobilized within the first few months of the war being made official.

As for the HSF, I did not know that and I suppose further research will be needed on that front. 5,000 men dispersed across the country would have been hard pressed to stop any invasion. Even the one you imagined. Does it say anywhere if they expanded it during the war period?

As your your scenario in particular, I agree with it. Albeit it is rather odd sacrificing such an elite division for a task that is almost certainly suicidal. Sure, they may not die immediately, but it will only take time for remaining British units in country to converge and destroy them. And for what in the grand scheme of things? Chaos? Even landing in NATO's rear would have produced a slightly higher survival rate (and caused more damage/loss of life) than landing them in the UK.

It is good to hear at least that Operation Armageddon was not implemented by the Irish government. Although that might actually make sense when compared to what I've read on here and elsewhere. With fanciful landings of Soviets in the UK, a broken US and armies destroyed left, right and center, a Irish invasion of Northern Ireland seems like nothing in comparison. As it stands though, that did not happen and we are left with an unusual situation. The IRA (at least as of the late troubles) were not meant to go toe-to-toe or even close with British units in the UK. If they had tried, they would have been destroyed.

[Raellus]

Although I too have some issues with the new backstory, I don't think hyperbole and name-calling is helpful or even merited. This is an Alpha, and if enough folks offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of certain problematic aspects of the project, they might get fixed.

IMHO, some folks are reading a bit much into the bit of the backstory regarding the failure of NATO's Operation Reset offensive (unless I'm missing a more detailed description of said op somewhere else in the Alpha). It seems to me that the authors were deliberately vague in order to leave room for Ref interpretation. One is free to interpret it as "NATO is effectively destroyed and running for the hills", OR one can interpret it more conservatively (closer to what happens to the Summer 2000 offensive described in v's 1 & 2).

Also, I think some people miss the entire point of the game- that player parties are supposed to be cut off and on their own. T2k is not a wargame. It's a military ROLE PLAYING GAME.

-

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by FPSlover

And your post is why I shouldn't reply to someone without collecting my thoughts and half asleep. I was well aware of the TA's role in the BAOR, albeit given the war, most would have long since called up to fill it and other places. Indeed, from what I can gather, most would have been gone and mobilized within the first few months of the war being made official.

Yeah, when I researched the subject for my alternative Survivor's Guide it seemed pretty likely that trying to cover home defence commitments would be challenging, especially if you presume that some of the home defence Battalions would be either in or close to nuclear targets so may have been vaporised.

Originally Posted by FPSlover

As for the HSF, I did not know that and I suppose further research will be needed on that front. 5,000 men dispersed across the country would have been hard pressed to stop any invasion. Even the one you imagined. Does it say anywhere if they expanded it during the war period?

I haven't had a chance to study V4 in detail but they seem to prefer a big picture, broad strokes style, so I'd be surprised if there's a specific reference to the HSF being expanded - it's probably something that can be left to an individual to decide. I'd agree that the HSF would be unlikely to make much impact on a Soviet invasion.

Originally Posted by FPSlover

As your your scenario in particular, I agree with it. Albeit it is rather odd sacrificing such an elite division for a task that is almost certainly suicidal. Sure, they may not die immediately, but it will only take time for remaining British units in country to converge and destroy them. And for what in the grand scheme of things? Chaos? Even landing in NATO's rear would have produced a slightly higher survival rate (and caused more damage/loss of life) than landing them in the UK.

I'd agree with all of that. A Soviet invasion makes zero sense to me (other than as a plot device to potentially create interesting adventures in the UK. Again, I find myself drawn to comparisons with the original Group of Soviet Forces England)

Originally Posted by FPSlover

It is good to hear at least that Operation Armageddon was not implemented by the Irish government. Although that might actually make sense when compared to what I've read on here and elsewhere. With fanciful landings of Soviets in the UK, a broken US and armies destroyed left, right and center, a Irish invasion of Northern Ireland seems like nothing in comparison. As it stands though, that did not happen and we are left with an unusual situation. The IRA (at least as of the late troubles) were not meant to go toe-to-toe or even close with British units in the UK. If they had tried, they would have been destroyed.

V4 hints at some Irish Republic support for the IRA but doesn't go into detail as to what that support might entail. Again, if I had to posit a scenario, I'd say there are reports in the South of Loyalist atrocities (real or imaginary) and a local Irish Army commander unilaterally decides to intervene and crosses the border. Once that genie is out of the bottle I don't see it getting put back in. The best comparison I can think of would be the Balkans in the 1990's. When I wrote my non canon V1 stuff I compared Derry to Stalingrad.

I do wonder if a UK Sourcebook might be in the pipeline for later.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, I think some people miss the entire point of the game- that player parties are supposed to be cut off and on their own. T2k is not a wargame. It's a military ROLE PLAYING GAME.

It's almost as if you've read the game, Rae:

Originally Posted by Twilight: 2000 Play Manual (1st Edition)

Twilight: 2000 is Game Designers' Workshop's trademark for its role-playing game of survival in a devastated world.

A character is more than a battle rifle and an 18 on a random vehicle table. A story is more than a set of combat results. The foremost objective of any RPG setting design process should be an interesting environment in which the player characters have the freedom to act and the capability to evoke meaningful change on some scale.

- C.

[Legbreaker]

There are definite....problems. We've been trying to tell them that for months, but...
Believe me though, this is MUCH better than it was in earlier versions!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

This is an Alpha, and if enough folks offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of certain problematic aspects of the project, they might get fixed

Didn't happen when they were actually asking for input. Played around the edges a bit and threw some lace on to pretty it up....

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Believe me though, this is MUCH better than it was in earlier versions!

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Played around the edges a bit and threw some lace on to pretty it up....

They've made significant changes from earlier versions, and then toned it down again, so now it's set in stone? I don't quite follow that line of reasoning.

Plus, this time, they're soliciting feedback from all of the KS backers, not just a select few. Might that have a little more weight than small group that got an exclusive sneak peek?

-

[raketenjagdpanzer]

This honestly sounds worse than the mangling Twilight 2013 created.

Congratulations, Free League, you managed to make a game that somehow made Twilight 2013 seem better. That's...quite an accomplishment.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Although I too have some issues with the new backstory, I don't think hyperbole and name-calling is helpful or even merited. This is an Alpha, and if enough folks offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism of certain problematic aspects of the project, they might get fixed.

IMHO, some folks are reading a bit much into the bit of the backstory regarding the failure of NATO's Operation Reset offensive (unless I'm missing a more detailed description of said op somewhere else in the Alpha). It seems to me that the authors were deliberately vague in order to leave room for Ref interpretation. One is free to interpret it as "NATO is effectively destroyed and running for the hills", OR one can interpret it more conservatively (closer to what happens to the Summer 2000 offensive described in v's 1 & 2).

Also, I think some people miss the entire point of the game- that player parties are supposed to be cut off and on their own. T2k is not a wargame. It's a military ROLE PLAYING GAME.

-

It specifically says that all the NATO units assigned to RESET were overrun and the troops running for the hills.

They assigned EIGHT FULL CORPS to RESET - this isnt just the 5th Division - this is every division that was assigned in the SECRET document

So that means 3 Polish Corps, One German, One British, One Belgian, One US and One Netherlands Corps all overrun and destroyed

SOVIETS UBER ALLES

I read the entire Alpha player manual for the background and the war.

So unless you are a Soviet Fan Boy the 4th edition isnt for you as far as timeline and background

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

I'm just going to pretend this never happened, and keep playing 1e Twilight 2000.

Maybe this spring I'll put together a T2k on Discord or Roll20.

But I won't be playing this.

Same here but in my case I will accept V1 or V2.2 - the timeline is an abdomination and basically fails on multiple levels

And the Soviets are either armed with unobtanium weapons or are using zombies or the US Military and government were all infected with stupdity to the point of being brain dead to the way the timeline and background are written

And a game that has a crappy half ass antifa/Soviet fan boy background where the US military and government act like complete morons and the Soviet Army is all conquering is the last thing I want to play

My suggestion - keep the mechanics, trash the entire campaign background, timeline, and war events including RESET and start over

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Olefin

And a game that has a crappy half ass antifa/Soviet fan boy background where the US military and government act like complete morons and the Soviet Army is all conquering is the last thing I want to play

Ok, Olefin. No more political stuff. I get you're mad. We're all a bit put off by this. But let's not bring RW stupidity into it. And that also applies to anyone else commenting. This is my last freindly warning.

[Olefin]

I am not being political - the person who was one of the main writers is a pro-Soviet writer who on his FB page loves all things Soviet. So given that, this an accurate description of what we are seeing here in the background/timeline/war events - the Soviets act intelligently, the Americans act stupidly, the US govt acts even more stupidly and the Soviets somehow beat a coalition of the US, NATO and Warsaw Pact (with the French fighting in the war on the NATO side) and do it in a way that crushes basically half or more of NATO in Operation Reset - eight full Corps

This isnt right wing or left wing - I would feel the same way if they made a Democrat President do something stupid or portrayed a Democratic goverment as being stupid and war mongering. I am not interjecting politics in any way and there was no intention of doing so.

[Jason Weiser]

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.

If its a raid that makes sense. Not an invasion. Have the invasion be Iceland and it makes sense - they have almost no weapons, no martial background and the island can be held with a single division. But not the UK

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I am not being political - the person who was one of the main writers is a pro-Soviet writer who on his FB page loves all things Soviet. So given that, this an accurate description of what we are seeing here in the background/timeline/war events - the Soviets act intelligently, the Americans act stupidly, the US govt acts even more stupidly and the Soviets somehow beat a coalition of the US, NATO and Warsaw Pact (with the French fighting in the war on the NATO side) and do it in a way that crushes basically half or more of NATO in Operation Reset - eight full Corps

Which designer was it? The lead (Tomas Härenstam) hasn't used his Facebook page in like 9 years.

Not doubting you, but I am genuinely curious, and Mr. Härenstam is the only designer of T2k listed on Free League's webpage.

Not all victories in war are about taking and holding substantial amounts of territory. Just putting your boots on the enemy's homeland would have major psychological effects and impact morale on both sides.

For example, the Doolittle Raid caused only minor physical damage and resulted in the loss of every aircraft. And yet...

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.

Agreed. What's their objective? It feels to me like something that's been included to make the game World more 'interesting' by adding an unexpected element rather than something that has any plausible RL explanation.

I mean, I get the psychological effects, but is that worth throwing away an entire Division? (That's if it was only one Division - there's only one mentioned in the UK Gazetteer section but the timeline is light on info about specific units so there may have been others, at least at the outset).

[FPSlover]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

My wonder about the UK invasion is? What military end does it serve? 1 Soviet airborne division isn't going to be able to subugate a nation of 55 million people, even if it's been reduced a bit by nuke strikes? And how do they supply it if most Soviet shipping is artificial reefs? No, when the Wehrmacht had upwards of 20+ divisions in 1940 and they didn't think they could pull it off? I just cannot for the life of me figure this one out.

Until it's explained, my take is that the division was sacrificed in an attempt to draw home British forces on the continent. Even if it was quickly destroyed, perhaps the Soviets hoped that civilians would panic enough to force at least some British units to be redeployed for home defense. Although even that is a stretch, given their absence would only make a dent in NATO forces there and not be a fatal pull-out. But that "hail-Mary" attempt makes a bit of sense, as otherwise, what is the point?

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I mean, I get the psychological effects, but is that worth throwing away an entire Division? (That's if it was only one Division - there's only one mentioned in the UK Gazetteer section but the timeline is light on info about specific units so there may have been others, at least at the outset).

Reading it closer, it was a much larger force than the Air Division, but it is the Air Division that is the last organized Soviet unit in UK.

[Raellus]

"In the end, the NATO divisions of Operation Reset are overrun, survivors fleeing into the woods. The final order from HQ is short and to the point: “Good luck. You’re on your own now.”"

p. 148 v4 Player's Manual (Alpha Version)

I still think this is vague enough to allow Ref's room for interpretation. It doesn't say "destroyed" or "annihilated" or "wiped out". "Overrun" doesn't necessarily mean any of these things. Several US divisions could be described as having been overrun during the Battle of the Bulge, but organized elements of said continued to fight on. German divisions on the eastern front during the later years of WWII were routinely overrun, but many broke out of Soviet pockets and fought their way back to German lines, sometimes over and over again.

As to the Soviet invasion of the UK, I agree that it doesn't make much sense either on either a strategic or operational level. Yes, it would be a morale blow to the Brits, and yes it might cause the UK to withdraw some of its forces from the continent, but is that worth the sacrificing of an elite division? It's a pyrrhic victory at best. Once the Brits managed to wipe the lone, isolated Soviet division out, the morale effects would flip (better for NATO, worse for the Soviets). Even if the Soviets could get them there (which I find highly unlikely), keeping them supplied and fighting for more than a week or two is going to be nearly impossible without total control of the sea lanes and air corridors between Scandinavia and the UK. In the very next bit of the history, they have the USN wiping out the remains of the Red Fleet.

Iceland makes more sense, but I reckon Free League didn't want to rip off Red Storm Rising and risk a lawsuit from the Clancy estate and Larry Bond.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

Not all victories in war are about taking and holding substantial amounts of territory. Just putting your boots on the enemy's homeland would have major psychological effects and impact morale on both sides.

For example, the Doolittle Raid caused only minor physical damage and resulted in the loss of every aircraft. And yet...

True, but the material and manpower costs of 30 B-25s is a lot less than a Soviet Airborne Division of thousands of men. I mean even in v1 canon we have elements like the Mexican and Alaskan operations...but even those had a lot more force behind it.

[Rainbow Six]

I've read it a few times now and I have no clue how strong the UK invasion force was. My best guess is that it may have been a larger force which was hit heavily by tactical nuclear strikes in the early stages of the invasion and the 7th GAAD is the only part of it that's still a cohesive unit.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I've read it a few times now and I have no clue how strong the UK invasion force was. My best guess is that it may have been a larger force which was hit heavily by tactical nuclear strikes in the early stages of the invasion and the 7th GAAD is the only part of it that's still a cohesive unit.

Wait, are you suggesting that the UK nuked its own territory (or allowed NATO to do so) to destroy the Soviet invasion force?

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Wait, are you suggesting that the UK nuked its own territory (or allowed NATO to do so) to destroy the Soviet invasion force?

Well, per page 148 of the Player Manual, someone definitely did. Granted, it could have been part of the Soviets' invasion strategy but the reference to the use of tactical nukes comes right after a sentence about UK and US troops staging a desperate defence. Nuking UK territory sounds like a pretty desperate form of defence.

And somehow or other the invasion force has been reduced to a solitary Air Assault Division by 2000.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Nuking UK territory sounds like a pretty desperate form of defence.

Indeed!

To our UK members, does v4 make the UK a more interesting potential campaign setting than earlier versions do?

-

[comped]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Indeed!

To our UK members, does v4 make the UK a more interesting potential campaign setting than earlier versions do?

-

Only when compared to the train-wreck that was the Survivor's Guide To The UK... Which is itself not as horrible as the UK Shadowrun supplements and books.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Indeed!

To our UK members, does v4 make the UK a more interesting potential campaign setting than earlier versions do?

-

Honestly, if you put the Soviet invasion to one side I don't see that much different from V1, it's just been presented in a better written format and got rid of some of the awful cliches (I do sometimes wonder if the writer of the canon Survivor's Guide to the UK based his work on the UK Section of EPCOT).

HMG controlling an area of southern England but out of touch with the rest of the country? Check
Quasi independent Scotland? Check
Quasi independent Wales? Check

The situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different, but not in a good way - it's not plausible as presented without an armed intervention by the Republic of Ireland military

I'm puzzled by the reference to 'the ravages of war' being felt less keenly in the North. I find it hard to believe that the many of the big urban areas of the North - Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, etc - wouldn't be in various stages of anarchy. I'm going to presume that they mean the more rural parts like Cumbria, but that represents a relatively small part of 'the North'.

They give no clue where the British Army is based (other than to say where they're not, which is near the Government in Reading. Oh, and as far as I know the Region Six bunker moved from Reading to Maidenhead in the 60's) so that one is left up to the GM. Ditto the Soviets and the Americans. FWIW the most logical places for the Army would be Aldershot (20 miles from Reading) or Salisbury (60 miles from Reading) or Catterick (240 miles from Reading). So maybe they want the Army in Catterick.

EDIT. Thinking about it more, I'm puzzled as to how the 'King and his Ministers' (I presume they mean His Majesty's Government) can control their area if they're out of touch with the Army. And to be honest, if the Army know the King is in a bunker in Reading they're going to be doing everything they can to get him to safety.

There's also no specific detail at this stage on nuclear targets (or if there is I haven't found it yet) So they're leaving a lot to an individual GM to decide (or, as I said earlier, maybe there's a sourcebook in the pipeline). That's not necessarily a bad thing - V1 filled in much of these sorts of gaps but filled them in with rubbish) but really I don't see V4 bringing anything substantially new to the table, it's just a reboot of V1 with some minor tweaks - even the Russian invasion isn't really new - as I've already mentioned a few times V1 had the Group of Soviet Forces England. I haven't read anything yet which makes me think of the 7th Guards AAD any different (disclaimer - I've really only read Chapter Seven in depth).

So really, the answer to your question is that as far as I can tell, V4 doesn't really change anything unless I was planning to game in Northern Ireland. To be honest, if I was going to run a UK campaign set around the year 2000 I'd use my own background / timeline (which is basically a lightly tweaked V1 timeline).

Really, this is part of the reason why personally I think Free League missed a huge opportunity by trying to reboot the classic timeline. As I've said to you and others in the past, I think it would have been far smarter of them to have advanced the timeline ten years and given us Twilight 2030 rather than go backwards and try and reinvent the wheel.

As far as I can tell, all they've managed to do instead is play around with things to try and achieve the same end result as the original (5th US Division is overrun somewhere in eastern Europe thus creating the 'Good Luck You're On Your Own' scenario) while alienating some people in the process (I've just looked on their own forum and it is not receiving universal love there either). I think the phrase I'm looking for is 'if it's not broken don't fix it'.

[mpipes]

Guys,

Don't necessarily look at what the designers put out as gospel. You can scan it to pdf, convert to Word and then re-write it as you wish.

Essentially, that is what I did. I didn't like the second Dark Ages flavor GDW came up with and rewrote huge swaths of the background. While I did not invade the UK, Japan and Alaska were invaded. The Soviets actually penetrated all the way to Montana. The Airborne and Naval Infantry units in Japan were eventually captured, and the Soviet were so weakened in their Far Eastern forces that Japan backed by US Marines, ANZAC, Filipino, and S. Korean troops capture the Kuriles.

I could go on, but I hope everyone gets the point. If you don't like it, change it. After all, a zombie campaign might be fun.........