Thinking a bit about the USN...

[Olefin]

Having Guam be intact actually makes sense in a lot of ways - there are a lot of USN bases that werent hit by nukes - the most glaring example is seen in Last Submarine. (i.e. the sub base in CT)

And a lot of targets that should have been vaporized werent in the game - for one San Antonio shouldnt have Russians sitting in it unless they are glowing. That ring of air bases and supply depots around it basically screams NUKE ME!! and yet the city is intact.

I totally buy into the breakdown of their C3 system leading to targets that either got overlooked or missed or the missile shot down not being engaged again.

With their satellites gone, most of their communications shot and Moscow gone they may have just had to rely on stuff like "Do we have a record of the sub acknowledging the attack order against Guam? It did, well then it must have been destroyed. Confirmation of the launch and that we hit the target? Heck I cant confirm anything past line of sight with how screwed up our communications are. if the sub got the message then its been taken care of. Ivan, mark Guam down as destroyed."

And thus Guam survives the war.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

And a lot of targets that should have been vaporized werent in the game - for one San Antonio shouldnt have Russians sitting in it unless they are glowing. That ring of air bases and supply depots around it basically screams NUKE ME!! and yet the city is intact.

I totally buy into the breakdown of their C3 system leading to targets that either got overlooked or missed or the missile shot down not being engaged again..

You don't even need to go that far. We're not talking about a general strategic exchange here. We're talking about a fairly selective tit-for-tat exchange starting with battlefield use of tactical nukes followed by a limited exchange of strategic nukes. This gives the creative GM a decent amount of leeway in deciding what gets hit, why, and how hard. I think the relatively spotty nature of the canonical target lists was probably intentional. Perhaps not, but either way, there's some creative leeway there.

As for San Antonio, if the Soviets (and Cubans) had designs on it, why would they nuke it first?

[Olefin]

When the nuke exchange happened the Russians who now occupy it were still in Cuba - the Mexican invasion happened after the nuke exchange.

So with that why is San Antonio even still there? You dont leave those air bases untouched if you nuke several others in Texas.

Again it goes to a total breakdown of the Soviet C3 capabilities and why Guam probably was never hit - i.e. some important bases never got nailed because of multiple events and with their satellites and communications wiped out they never knew they had missed

Most likely the first time the Soviets who invaded Texas knew that San Antonio and its surrounding air bases were still intact was when their attack helicopters scouting ahead during the invasion reported back that the city was still there.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

So with that why is San Antonio even still there? You dont leave those air bases untouched if you nuke several others in Texas.

Because it's not a general exchange/global thermonuclear war. If the Soviets hit every American base, America would retaliate in kind, leading to general strategic nuclear exchange. T2K is quite clear that this did not happen. Instead, you had a ragged, piecemeal, ad-hoc exchange, leaving some strategic targets untouched while reducing others to ash. It's not terribly logical, but neither is MAD.

[Olefin]

Agree with you totally on the nature of the exchange - and thats why having Guam survive, with its depots of torpedoes and other parts, is not only logical but also very likely.

I think people have been too hung up on how some of the modules treated the USN to basically say it was destroyed or almost wiped out. The picture that Last Submarine and Satellite Down painted of a wiped out USN just doesnt hold up. And you can see that from articles in Challenge Magazine that showed that there were still four operational destroyers left between Cape May and Norfolk (counting the Hancock) along with other ships - i.e. later authors tried to correct the totally wiped out impression of some of the modules.

Frankly Last Submarine is not realistic as to what kind of sub losses the US would have taken - especially to where they couldnt even get a full crew for supposedly the last submarine they had left. With all the ex USN submariners out there and how important this mission is (remember they flew one guy out from Colorado Springs for it to tend the reactor) they would have been able to find a full crew - heck the Omega fleet had to have a lot of stranded USN crewmen in it - certainly some of them would have served in submarines. Even old diesel sub crewmen would have been used.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Frankly Last Submarine is not realistic as to what kind of sub losses the US would have taken - especially to where they couldnt even get a full crew for supposedly the last submarine they had left. With all the ex USN submariners out there and how important this mission is (remember they flew one guy out from Colorado Springs for it to tend the reactor) they would have been able to find a full crew - heck the Omega fleet had to have a lot of stranded USN crewmen in it - certainly some of them would have served in submarines. Even old diesel sub crewmen would have been used.

I agree. I don't think the designers who wrote Las Sub really cared about any of that, though. They were trying to craft an adventure that would allow the gamers who played through it to be a part of something strategically important. If SSBNs were more common, the mission wouldn't feel so special. Also, the module, as it was designed, allows PCs to traverse great distances in the course of the adventure. It's less about coherent world building and more about setting and plot. I don't know Satellite Down very well but I reckon the same things hold true for that module too.

In the same vein, I don't know if most gaming groups playing through these modules knew or cared enough to question the modules' credibility. Most gaming groups focus on the small slice of the T2KU which they occupy while they're playing the game. To those folks, all this macro stuff is either irrelevant or moot.

As always, whether to follow the module to the letter or make changes, minor or significant, for their players, is entirely up to each individual GM.

[Legbreaker]

Something to keep in mind here is that subs are notoriously difficult to find in the first place, especially if the naval forces assigned to do so have already been decimated as is the case in T2K - Last major fleet destroyed in what, June 1997? Strategic exchanges occur in around October 1997....
Seems clear to me that no matter how great the US believes they were at tracking Soviet subs, by that point they'd be lucky to be using guesswork and blind luck.
Same goes for the Soviets.

[schnickelfritz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So the Soviets wouldn't have assigned a follow up strike when the first failed?
Seems a bit far fetched to me given the value of the target...

I have to ask...and not to be inflammatory/confrontational...is there anything mentioned in anything official enough in print to be considered "canon" that Guam was hit and to what extent?

I agree that Andersen AFB most certainly would have had a target on it, but in my book, if it wasn't stated that it was hit, it wasn't hit. Any number of factors could have resulted in whatever subs or missiles not making it to Guam.

If there is some canon materal out there addressing Guam, could someone point me in the right direction?

Vielen Dank!
Dave

[pmulcahy11b]

Despite the fact that San Antonio is my home, I agree that San Antonio would have been nuked (during the Cold war, San Antonio was in fact a secondary target). On the north side is Randolph AFB, which is where most USAF and several other countries' air forces do their initial jet and advanced jet training. In the T2K timeline, there was also a squadron of Air force Reserve F-15s.

On the east side, there was at the time Kelly AFB. (It's now been given over to San Antonio, and several airlines do maintenance and repair at "Kelly City Base.") In the T2K timeline, both Randolph and Kelly were dispersal bases for B-52s and B-1s. Kelly also had depot-level maintenance facilities for the USAF's largest aircraft, and it was a sort of way-station for various USAF aircraft. It also had two squadrons of Air National Guard F-16s.

Kind of on the line between the north side and northeast side is Ft Sam Houston. T2K-wise, it's 8th Army HQ and MEDDAC HQ, and almost all Army medical personnel will either train or or be stationed there at some point, including SF medics (who start their medical training there). It's also home to Brooke Army Medical Center, which was even then one the country's largest hospitals.

Lackland AFB, to the south of Kelly, is where all AF Basic Training starts. Training for CCTs and Pararescue begin there. Virtually all military handlers as well as their dogs are trained there. Again, T2K-wise, AF security police are trained at Lackland, and USMC MP training started there. USAF OTS was there until the early 2000s. There's a large detachment of AFOSI at Lackland. Lackland has always had a reputation for having a number of nondescript buildings on base that are more than what they seem.

Brooks AFB was home to a lot of the scientific end of being a pilot in the T2K timeline. (It belongs to UT Health Science Center.)

Going around Loop 410 from Lackland, you'll pass the South Texas Research Center. In the T2K there was a large habitat there for monkeys, baboons, and chimpanzees; however, as long back as I can remember, there were rumors that biowarfare research was being done there. It definitely had at that time labs ranking just below the standards of the CDC's labs.

Go further around the Loop, get off at Babcock and head outside the Loop, and you will come to the Medical Center area, called that because the UT Health Science Center, Audie Murphy VMC, Methodist Regional Transplant Center, one branch of Santa Rosa Hospital, and a couple of hospitals which for the life of me I can't remember the name of right now are in that area. (Santa Rosa actually has five hospitals, each with a different specialty, in San Antonio.)

IIRC, during the T2K timeline, there were four AF Reserve and two ANG units, ten Army NG units, four Army Reserve units, a Navy Reserve unit, and even a reserve Marine Recon unit. Might be worth shooting at SA just for the blow to morale to US units.

Although when I used to run a campaign, San Antonio got totally missed (bad intelligence in Russia, bad launch computers, overshots, etc), it would in truth have been a very juicy target. Then again, an intact SA might make a good home base for invading Mexican and Russian units.

[stilleto69]

I've kept both Guam (the Soviet SSBN was sank shortly before the missile was ready to launch) and San Antonio (the sight of the 2nd Alamo in T2K). I always thought it would fun to leave San Antonio intact and run characters in it as sort of a Texas version of 'Red Dawn'.

[HorseSoldier]

Guam, I think, would have been hit -- unless, as noted, the missile missed.

San Antonio might have drawn a strike, if only to get at the army level HQ there in support of the Mexicans. But maybe by the time the Mexicans were across the border they were moving faster than expected or the Soviet command and control were too disrupted to get that order to a launching unit.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

I have to ask...and not to be inflammatory/confrontational...is there anything mentioned in anything official enough in print to be considered "canon" that Guam was hit and to what extent?

Guam isn't mentioned in any canon material that I'm aware of but even if that part of the world was covered in any of the canon strike lists and Guam wasn't mentioned, it still doesn't necessarily mean Guam wasn't nuked. It just means that it wasn't nuked by a strike of 500kt or bigger.

So Guam is an open slate for each individual GM. There are plausible reasons for and against it being nuked. Therein lies one of the great values of this forum, that it is an excellent place to read the opinions and rationales of a variety of T2Kers. Many of my preconceived views on the T2K universe have been modified in that way.

Is it possible that the Soviets made a conscious decision not to nuke Guam? For instance, is it in any way plausible that the Soviets had a plan at some stage during the war to try and neutralise US forces there by some other means (non-persistant chemical weapons for instance) with the aim of securing materiel or assets there for their own use? If such a plan existed but for whatever reason was never carried out, it might have been too late for the Soviets to fall back to plan B (a nuclear strike).

Perhaps Guam isn't a very plausible location for such a scenario but other isolated, high value targets that inexplicably avoided nuclear destruction could be.

[HorseSoldier]

Guam was probably logistically involved as a staging base for US/NATO aid going to China to some extent (how significant probably relating to what the US/Filipino relationship looked like in any given T2K timeline -- if Subic Bay and Clark AFB were still in operation it might change things).

Shutting it down to neutralize that aid (or at least complicate it) to the PRC would be a pretty big objective during the war, though once the war goes nuclear and the megatonnage lollapalooza starts erasing most of the Chinese Army, it may have dropped down in priority.

[Olefin]

"megatonnage lollapalooza"

Love that phrase!!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Although when I used to run a campaign, San Antonio got totally missed (bad intelligence in Russia, bad launch computers, overshots, etc), it would in truth have been a very juicy target.

How about this: the first shot is a miss; the warhead fails to detonate. However, the American reply that goes up even while the Soviet ICBM is in flight is not a dud. 0-1. The Soviets decide that it's worthwhile to have another go at it. However, as fortune would have it the boomer that receives the orders is being stalked by a British attack boat. The Soviet boomer takes a torpedo after acknowledging receipt of orders but before launching. The third try has a technical failure coming out of the silo. The Soviets put San Antonio on the back burner to see if their luck will change a bit. Lo and behold, the invasion of the US starts, and their luck does change.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Something to keep in mind here is that subs are notoriously difficult to find in the first place, especially if the naval forces assigned to do so have already been decimated as is the case in T2K - Last major fleet destroyed in what, June 1997? Strategic exchanges occur in around October 1997....
Seems clear to me that no matter how great the US believes they were at tracking Soviet subs, by that point they'd be lucky to be using guesswork and blind luck.
Same goes for the Soviets.

Finding a nuke boat in the deep blue without having a good starting point would be very, very difficult. However, weird things happen in war. USS Houston could trail a sub tender to a juicy target. Alternatively, she might score a coup in the approaches to Vladivostok or Petropavlovsk. If the Soviets are absolutely determined to get Guam, they will take her down. If they aren't especially attached to destroying Guam, there might be room for some story telling.

[Olefin]

How about this instead for Guam

Soviets attack Guam but their plan is not to destroy it but instead to occupy it as a way of cutting off US supplies to China (and get a lot of nice US hardware to use and play with).

So they use a neutron bomb - kills the people but not the stuff thats there.

Unfortunately the amphib group that was supposed to take the island gets taken down by the USN well short of the island, leaving it free for the US to reoccupy.

By the time the Soviets realize that their amphib group never made it there, they are a little too busy getting nuked by the US to bother with a second attack.

Which leads to a new question - did anyone use neutron bombs in the Twilight War? Dont remember them being mentioned in the canon - but they were available for use - if I remember correctly I think the Soviets and the French had them in reality at that time frame.

[HorseSoldier]

I can't see how the Soviets could credibly project an amphibious battle group to Guam -- coming out of Soviet ports in Siberia means running a gauntlet past the air and sea elements of the Japanese Self Defense Forces plus the USAF and USN assets supporting operations in the ROK. (Hell, the South Koreans would probably be up for taking a bit of time out of their generating sorties against North Korean units to destroy a Soviet amphibious battle group sailing by.

Alternately, they could be coming out of Vietnam, where GDW has a Soviet garrison, but then those guys would have to make it past the Philipines, past the PRC's navy and naval aviation assets, as well as possibly a belligerent Taiwan as well (besides USN and Australian navy vessels in the area).

By comparison, the Alaska invasion at least doesn't require a run past numerous enemy held air and naval bases. (The Alaska operation itself would tend to argue against the Soviets pulling any other major amphibious operations as well -- suspension of belief that they could pull off Alaska is one thing, but Alaska + another major amphibious operation against a very remote target is rougher . . .)

[TrailerParkJawa]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Disclaimer: Nothing of what follows is intended either to initiate or sustain a “canon feud”. Where interpretations of undocumented items, like the number of survivors in California or a specific region of a state, differ I think it’s worthwhile to have a conversation about the thought process leading to the differences of opinion.

Certainly, I would not try to shout down your vision. If “a few hundred thousand” means about 300,000 (often, a few is three), then we’re talking a tenfold difference—rather substantial. I do think that the difference in our numbers is the basis for a conversation.

I'm totally up for a conversation and don't see such a conversation as a canon feud in anyway. Apologies for the late response. I usually browse this site on a mobile device which makes any posts more than a few sentances a real chore.

Originally Posted by Webstral

One of the factors I try to bear in mind when I am doing the creative work of assigning population levels is the total number of survivors as given in Howling Wilderness. The total loss of population through July 2000 is 52%, amounting to 135 million people. The surviving 48% amount to about 125 million. The population will drop even further by early 2001, but I want to focus on the July 2000 population for now.

My personal vision of how things is based on a rejection of the Howling Wilderness numbers. I personally believe that 135 million people is simply too large of a number to be alive given how or economy and agriculture where structured before the war.

When I looked at how America was structured last time the population was 135 million, which was roughly around 1940. Given the state of industry, agriculture, oil resources, etc in 2000 I just dont see that infrastructure being able to feed 135 million.

Originally Posted by Webstral

The San Francisco Bay Area (hereafter referred to as the Bay Area) has a pre-war population of about 10 million. Southern California has a population of about 15 million, leaving 6-7 million more Californians scattered throughout the rest of the state (by 1997 population estimates).

10 million is a little too high I think. The 2000 census if I recall correctly put around 7 million people living in the bay area counties total.

Finally, when it comes to my personal vision, for it to work the way I want I need the South Bay to be largely devoid of life so it can become a starting point for recovery. If there are a million people in Santa Clara Valley that means large numbers of structures are still occupied, structures that aren't have been pillaged for everything thats useful.

I really liked the idea that you and Matt Wiser have of Alameda being alive and still functioning. In some of the work I've done in my head and on paper I have Moffet Field being the center of salvage operations for the South Bay. I modeled my recovery teams kinda like SG-1. Small teams scouting the area looking for good stuff then they call in larger more organized teams to due the real work.

Is that realistic? I dunno, its just something I thought was cool. And for it to work properly I have to kill off lots of people.

So in summary, my vision really comes from two places, first I'm not following the canon number of survivors and second, my personal narrative needs a largely empty Bay Area.

Now, if we are to go by canon. I don't really disagree with the logic you presented and the numbers. I might move a lot more people in California to the Central Valley, but overall if we are going to have 150 or so million survivors California does present some advantages. You dont ever have to heat or cool your home in the Bay Area, you make do with extra sweaters if it gets cold or sleeping in your undies or less if its gets too hot. Nobody is gonna freeze from sub-zero weather in San Jose or Oakland. The key thing is getting population access to water. That dominates everything in California and without power we'd have to rely on gravity and that would in my opinion reshape where people would concentrate.