Howling Wilderness

[Enfield]

There is mention of the dwindling enclave at Norfolk in the Virginia entry in HW. When I originally ran "Going Home" I had the stragglers assigned to units which were reinforced. In my case I had them sent to join the forces invading Arkansas anyway.

The issue I had was with the entire units being evacuated, which are never mentioned again. While they did not have their heavy equipment, they nevertheless were led, organized and should have been deployed in some manner instead of the impression you get which is that they're sitting on their butts doing nothing.

Perhaps that is the greatest issue people had with it. Unlike the US Army Vehicle Guide, which provides a basis for how units were orgnized and equipment stats, prices and illustrations, it feels half done, not really fleshed out and requires more work on the part of the GM.

[Olefin]

I agree with the fact that HW does not feel completely thought out - that it was probably rushed to market before anyone had a chance to look at it - and what gets me is that Loren and Frank Chadwick wrote Going Home - so if anyone would have had the information on what happened to those divisions sent home it would have been Loren

I could see the disorganized units that arrived that had broke up even before they got to the evac point not being much use when they got back - but a bunch of them arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined - sorry but those units dont just fall apart upon arrival if they held together thru four years of hell in Europe - not when the US still has foreign invaders on its soil and has huge areas with no security at all

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I could see the disorganized units that arrived that had broke up even before they got to the evac point not being much use when they got back - but a bunch of them arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined - sorry but those units dont just fall apart upon arrival if they held together thru four years of hell in Europe - not when the US still has foreign invaders on its soil and has huge areas with no security at all

I've said it before, but the above is where I think you are failing to factor in the human element of combat fatigue and homesickness. You're looking at this more than like an accountant, and less like a psychologist/sociologist.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Civil War vets didn't have to fight- away from home- for four or more years. Neither did WWII vets. Even in our longest wars, Vietnam and The War on Terror, the majority of vets didn't have to be away from home continuously for more than 12 or 13 months at a stretch. To expect nearly every returning soldier to stay in uniform, follow orders, and not go home (i.e. desert) at the first or second opportunity, is almost as unrealistic as the disappearance of so much returning NorthAg and CentAg strength.

As I've already mentioned elsewhere, desertion was a big issue for the U.S. military in the ETO during WWII, despite cultural barriers and no realistic way of getting back to the States (don't believe me, check out Charles Glass' The Deserters). It was an even bigger problem during the American Civil War when both sides fought much closer to home. If you haven't already watched it, you should check out the movie, Free State of Jones.

Come on, now. If you hadn't seen your family in [up to] four years, and hadn't heard from them in nearly as long, you would stay in camp and prepare to redeploy to God-knows-where simply because your unit "arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined" and your CO ordered you to? Well, you might answer yes to that question, but I think a lot of people would answer, "Heck no. I've given my country x years of my young adulthood, risked my life, killed, and seen my buddies blown away. The least they can do is let me go see if my family is OK. If they don't, well then, screw 'em. Let somebody else take a turn at the front line. I'm leaving. Let them try to stop me."

Again, I think if MilGov did try to stop large number of returning soldiers from going home, they'd have a large-scale mutiny on their hands. Or some units might declare for CivGov. Their best option is a furlough program. This would avoid a mutiny and increase the odds of retaining troops over the long-run. However, I think a significant percentage of furloughed soldiers would take advantage and not return.

[Olefin]

And I see your point Raellus - but not to the level in the module - its very obvious there was a major oversight - desertion I can see - but the levels in HW would have to be close to 90 percent given how many soldiers are unaccounted for - and as I said I can see the disorganized units going over the hill - but that still leaves 20,000 plus men left in multiple formations - its not plausible - frankly HW has to be looked at as a deeply flawed work - not the least because of the complete and totally overlooking of what happened to the men who came home

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Come on, now. If you hadn't seen your family in [up to] four years, and hadn't heard from them in nearly as long, you would stay in camp and prepare to redeploy to God-knows-where simply because your unit "arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined" and your CO ordered you to? Well, you might answer yes to that question, but I think a lot of people would answer, "Heck no. I've given my country x years of my young adulthood, risked my life, killed, and seen my buddies blown away. The least they can do is let me go see if my family is OK. If they don't, well then, screw 'em. Let somebody else take a turn at the front line. I'm leaving. Let them try to stop me."

Arriving back in the shattered remains of CONUS, I reckon many soldiers would be desperate to the point of madness to get back to their homes and see who of their loved ones were left.

[Legbreaker]

As I've mentioned many times in the past, neither government in 2000-01 has the resources to adequately supply the small forces they already had in the field. Add another 50,000 or so and you've completely smashed any logistical network they still had.
Honestly, I don't see Milgov had a choice in the matter. Sure, they held onto a few vital or highly skilled personnel, but the rest mostly likely were given a weeks rations, a set of civilian clothes and shown the door. Most would be more than happy to see the back of the military too by that point and gladly taken what was offered.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've said it before, but the above is where I think you are failing to factor in the human element of combat fatigue and homesickness. You're looking at this more than like an accountant, and less like a psychologist/sociologist.

But the human element is not a constant factor, it does not affect everyone the same. From my prospective combat fatigue is vastly over blown, I think mostly due to Hollywood and the media. Based on my personal experience I have served closely with about 1000 or so, and can count on one hand the number that have moderate to severe combat fatigue, and maybe another handful that have minor. So like I said I think it is very over blown, as my personal experience puts it at about 1% (am I am willing to say that it could be higher, but nothing like what you see from media).

Originally Posted by Raellus

As I've already mentioned elsewhere, desertion was a big issue for the U.S. military in the ETO during WWII, despite cultural barriers and no realistic way of getting back to the States (don't believe me, check out Charles Glass' The Deserters). It was an even bigger problem during the American Civil War when both sides fought much closer to home. If you haven't already watched it, you should check out the movie, Free State of Jones.

I am not sure that the cultural barriers were that big in the ETO during WWII, German has been one of the major places that immigrants to the US came from, so for a lot of troops it was not that major of a cultural barrier but the culture of their parents (or grandparents).

Originally Posted by Raellus

Come on, now. If you hadn't seen your family in [up to] four years, and hadn't heard from them in nearly as long, you would stay in camp and prepare to redeploy to God-knows-where simply because your unit "arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined" and your CO ordered you to? Well, you might answer yes to that question, but I think a lot of people would answer, "Heck no. I've given my country x years of my young adulthood, risked my life, killed, and seen my buddies blown away. The least they can do is let me go see if my family is OK. If they don't, well then, screw 'em. Let somebody else take a turn at the front line. I'm leaving. Let them try to stop me."

This is the much more tricky one I think, more so for Guard and Reserve units, who I could see really wanting to go home, but an active duty unit that if still in good spirits more willing to hold to the party line, even more if they are being sent to there pre-deploment home base area.

[Legbreaker]

With active "fronts" (if you can still call them that in 2001) in Alaska and the south west, as well as clashes with Civgov, it would seem very unlikely any unit would be sent anywhere near their prewar base, such as exists post nuke.
With the extremely limited logistics and transportation available, any troops retained would be best used as reinforcements - there's just no way even a single battalion is going to be able to be shifted half way across the continent, but it might be possible to move a few score, perhaps a couple of hundred.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

With active "fronts" (if you can still call them that in 2001) in Alaska and the south west, as well as clashes with Civgov, it would seem very unlikely any unit would be sent anywhere near their prewar base, such as exists post nuke.

Now I have to say first that I do not have the Howling Wilderness expansion so some of the details I do not have. But if I understand it correct these are the troops returning from Europe, I can not see them leaving equipment behind when the left, as they do not know what they are going home to, but do know that the world is not the same as they left it. So if the unit has the cohesion to make it across Europe, get transport back to the states, and are still a viable combat unit. And you want them to go fight in Alaska or the South West, but are not willing to let them do a "drive by" of there old base to pick up families and such. That I agree is going to have mass desertion, but if you have a unit that was stationed at FT Hood TX (I do not remember if it was nuked or not, but for sake of argument we will say it was) and they are reading and willing to head off to the south west, but say they are going to go by FT Hood on the way and pick up what families they can, I see this as a good thing. When so many of the units are being forced to grow there own food, produce there own fuel and such having their families with them makes them more likely to fight to keep the country together and work to stabilize it. So to be clearer on what I meant by being sent to there home base, this is what I am talking about, I am not saying that you need or even would want to send a viable combat unit to Ft Drum when there is no combat any place near there, but letting them swing by and pick up their families on the way, yes.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

With the extremely limited logistics and transportation available, any troops retained would be best used as reinforcements - there's just no way even a single battalion is going to be able to be shifted half way across the continent, but it might be possible to move a few score, perhaps a couple of hundred.

As for the logistics and transportation I would see it for the most part being what they returned to the States with be that just the simple LPC up to the mighty tanks and anything in between they were able to get across Europe now if they have some spare parts and stuff to help them, that would be good. But yes I agree that is going to be very limited, and even if they did just tell them you are out now, here is a weeks food have a nice day. If I have been working/fighting and just staying alive with the same bunch of guys for the last several years, unless we are all form very different parts of the nation I do not see them splitting up, if you have a group of guys from say a Midwest state or two, Colorado, Washington and Oregon, I would expect them to head out as a group at least to the closest home on the way, there if it is nice and they still have family there I could see the group start to break up, but if it is not nice and/or they no longer have living family there I would not be surprised to see them stick together to the next and so on.

[Legbreaker]

The troops brought back had nothing but their personal weapons and little else. There were virtually no vehicles and even the heavy weapons such as rockets, automatic grenade launchers, machineguns and the like were handed over to the Germans as payment for the crude oil which gets the ships across the Atlantic.
Upon arrival in the US they land at New Norfolk, a port which had been nuked. Virtually all war stores had already been sent to Europe, the Middle East, Korea and Africa (not to mention desperately needed in Texas and Alaska). There's just nothing left to equip them with - any transport of note is very likely to be civilian in nature and "requisitioned" upon landing.
What Milgov have come December 2000 is upwards of 50,000 hungry mouths, no practical way of moving them, almost no capacity to feed them, and even if they could be moved somehow, nothing to re-equip them with. Demobilisation, in the short term at least, is their only feasible option.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by CDAT

But the human element is not a constant factor, it does not affect everyone the same.

That's true. Sociopaths don't seem to suffer from PTSD. And I wasn't claiming that all returning vets would be suffering from psychological trauma. Most long-serving combat vets (see StainlessSteelCynic's reiteration of an earlier point), however, very likely would. See my next point for scholarly support.

Originally Posted by CDAT

From my prospective combat fatigue is vastly over blown, I think mostly due to Hollywood and the media. Based on my personal experience I have served closely with about 1000 or so, and can count on one hand the number that have moderate to severe combat fatigue, and maybe another handful that have minor. So like I said I think it is very over blown, as my personal experience puts it at about 1% (am I am willing to say that it could be higher, but nothing like what you see from media).

First off, serious military historians have documented the prevalence of Shell Shock/Combat Fatigue/PTSD. Read Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers (WWII) and Grossman's On Killing (Vietnam) for just a couple of well-respected authors' reserach on its prevalence.

Second, statistically speaking, 1000 is a very small sample size. Did you know each one of those 1000 vets personally? Did you conduct a longitudinal study (over time) on all 1000 of those vets? Are you a trained counselor or psychologist? If you can honestly answer yes to all three questions, then your observations may have scientific merit. With all due respect, your personal experience is not conclusive evidence of an media-orchestrated exaggeration in the impact of Combat Fatigue/PTSD in long-serving combat vets.

Originally Posted by CDAT

I am not sure that the cultural barriers were that big in the ETO during WWII, German has been one of the major places that immigrants to the US came from, so for a lot of troops it was not that major of a cultural barrier but the culture of their parents (or grandparents).

Um, most GI's didn't speak French, or Dutch, or German, so yeah, there was a big cultural barrier. Again, I would encourage you to read The Deserters, by Glass, if you're interested in learning about this topic.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's true. Sociopaths don't seem to suffer from PTSD. And I wasn't claiming that all returning vets would be suffering from psychological trauma. Most long-serving combat vets (see StainlessSteelCynic's reiteration of an earlier point), however, very likely would. See my next point for scholarly support.

I am saying that I think it would be a small amount, but I am see (maybe I am missing something) most saying it is going to be the majority, and that is what I am saying I do not think would be the case. Some yes, large percentage no.

Originally Posted by Raellus

First off, serious military historians have documented the prevalence of Shell Shock/Combat Fatigue/PTSD. Read Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers (WWII) and Grossman's On Killing (Vietnam) for just a couple of well-respected authors' reserach on its prevalence.

I have read those and other of Grossman's books as well as attended his lectures and talked with him in person some about this issue, and I am coming up with very different results in what I am reading. Now maybe it is because Shell Shock/Combat Fatigue/PTSD are used today interchangeably when not all think that they are the same thing. Some see it like heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Related but not the exact same thing and there is not a defined term for each level, someone who has been in combat for any length of time will be exhausted, but that is not the same as combat fatigue. Some one who has been in battle every day for some time, and/or has been under fire will likely have some combat fatigue/shell shock, but if they are taken out of that situation for a bit of time they go back to normal, if keep there it may (but not always) become permanent, to have full blown PTSD they have to experience something traumatic and here is the problem what is traumatic to one, is not to the next. There are people who get it from seeing an auto accident, and others watching a close friend/family member do not, and then there again is the level of impact it has on the person varies.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Second, statistically speaking, 1000 is a very small sample size. Did you know each one of those 1000 vets personally? Did you conduct a longitudinal study (over time) on all 1000 of those vets? Are you a trained counselor or psychologist? If you can honestly answer yes to all three questions, then your observations may have scientific merit. With all due respect, your personal experience is not conclusive evidence of an media-orchestrated exaggeration in the impact of Combat Fatigue/PTSD in long-serving combat vets.

And I did not say that it was conclusive evidence, I did say that to me it suggests. Yes I did know all of them personally, most were from a guard unit I was in for several years before/after we deployed and I have some training in counseling, but no I did not do a case study of them, that is one of the reasons I was willing to admit it could be higher. I have seen some media reports saying that every vet has PTSD and so can not be trusted, so once again I am just saying I do believe some will have it, but I believe it is a small percentage I would guess (and it is just that a guess) it would be 10% or less, but would not say maybe a high as 25%, not the 50% to 100% that I have seen in different things from the media.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Um, most GI's didn't speak French, or Dutch, or German, so yeah, there was a big cultural barrier. Again, I would encourage you to read The Deserters, by Glass, if you're interested in learning about this topic.

Two things here and then I am done with the topic, first maybe I am the outlier but almost every person of that age and almost every WWII Vet that I have had the opportunity to spend much time around did speak at least some of their ancestral language. Second when I was in Germany (and I do not speak German) I was able to get around OK, as it was amazing to me how much I understood because English is descended from German.

And with that I am out, it is your game play how you want, I may be the outlier, or I may not. It is a game lets all just have fun and enjoy it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

EDIT: Rereading what CDAT had added to the thread, I do actually agree with some points he made. I do believe the media has grossly exaggerated the accounts of combat fatigue and I also know from some personal contact that some people claiming to suffer PTSD have been attention seekers at best or at worst, some of them have been scammers seeking to get the sympathy (and sometimes the medication) that comes with acknowledgement of suffering.

ORIGINAL POST: I don't think anyone said the majority of troops would be suffering combat fatigue. It seemed to me that people were saying that it was a serious consideration to take into account and should not be readily dismissed as a minor concern.

People who have constantly been at war (and this is world-wide, total war with the use of nuclear weapons), for several years are going to be under a lot more stress than those people who are fighting in the current conflicts we see in the real world at the moment. I really don't believe a comparison can be made between the two.

Plus in the real world, modern Western militaries have access to psychological and other counseling services that helps mitigate the problem, this obviously would not exist in the Twilight War.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Two things here and then I am done with the topic, first maybe I am the outlier but almost every person of that age and almost every WWII Vet that I have had the opportunity to spend much time around did speak at least some of their ancestral language. Second when I was in Germany (and I do not speak German) I was able to get around OK, as it was amazing to me how much I understood because English is descended from German.

I visited Germany in the late 1980's (West Germany) and in the 1990's and I had very little problem communicating or understanding signs due to the fact that (1) most West Germans under the age of 50 had either some knowledge of or could speak English very well, and (2) reading and understanding most written German worlds is not that difficult for an English speaker because as CDAT pointed out English is descended from German.