Realism vs Munchkinism

[Olefin]

Even then the writers were very anti-US military in their viewpoint in general. They had US military planners make some very dumb decisions -

bring home 43,000 guys and do nothing with them with the country invaded when they should have stayed in Europe considering the Soviets were finally falling apart and leaving behind thousands of Americans cut off behind Soviet lines in the process?

send forces to Europe after the Mexicans and the Soviets had invaded instead of sending those forces to combat them - no way does the 42nd get sent to Europe for instance in that situation

American divisions refusing orders to drive the Mexicans out of the country and instead defecting to CivGov, who apparently doesnt mind that Mexico has taken over the Southwest?

wasting three US divisions in Yugoslavia - and how did they even get them there in the first place, let alone ever plan on supplying them?

allowing the Germans to cross the Soviet border when every competent US officer I have ever heard of knew that doing that would invite a Soviet nuclear response

plus no Spanish, Portuguese, French, Belgian or Italian troops ever defect and fight for NATO against the Soviets, especially after the war had turned against NATO and the Russians had penetrated into southern Germany?

the US allowing a successful Soviet invasion of Alaska prior to a nuclear war occuring with Pearl and Seattle and San Francisco and San Diego still intact and the naval bases therin?

and then the final insult when they inflict an uber drought on the US that even they had to realize after they released those modules was overkill - that basically such an event would have killed off almost all of the US population

any wonder why some of us have issues with the canon? So if having the US finally act rationally and start to actually use their forces correctly is "America crushes all resistance and the Soviets are just speed bumps" I think we can be forgiven

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Even then the writers were very anti-US military in their viewpoint in general.

So that would be in your opinion then? We've had at least one of the writers make appearances on this board and I'd be interested to see whether he would take offence to that assertion. I personally don't think that the writers of T2K were "very anti-US military". As a matter of fact I think such a suggestion is counter-intuitive. Why would a group of people who were "very anti-US military" sink lots of money and years of their lives into a project in which the US military (in their alternative universe) played a central part? I think that would be cripplingly depressing.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Targan

So that would be in your opinion then?

I dont have a view on if the writers were anti-american or not. But I've always thought both sides (NATO and Soviet) were ground into the ground. And so the fall for USA was further than the Soviets would have experienced. So in that sense America could be seen as loosing more. But i also thought that was deliberate, because most of the gaming community would be USA based, so the USA had to be seen as a post-nuclear wasteland for that target audience to feel "a part of it".

As for an M1 tank being rolled up during character creation or being assigned to a PC party, I dont have a problem with that.

• M1 needs to be maintained, so creates work or breakdowns
• Some PCs need an M1 (driver, loader etc) for their roles
• M1 becomes a high priority target, so its a double edged sword
• The M1 is likely to have only half a tank of fuel, so it might be short term ownership (rental?) at best
• M1 might be low on ammo, making selecting targets a big decision

So i dont see an M1 for example, as being similar to a +5 sword. I think they can create decisions that leads to good role play.

[Tegyrius]

The entire story - whether 1.0, 2.0, 2.2, or 2013 - is a tool to generate a desired result: a post-WWIII world where nobody won. Do we care more about the "present" setting or the "past" that generated it? I don't know about you guys, but my PCs in Raellus' games are far more concerned with 2000 than 1997.

Someday I'm going to write a post-apocalyptic RPG with no canon history, in which you have to make up the timeline of the apocalypse as you build your characters. Then no players will be able to bitch at me for getting the total destruction of the world wrong.

- C.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

The entire story - whether 1.0, 2.0, 2.2, or 2013 - is a tool to generate a desired result: a post-WWIII world where nobody won. Do we care more about the "present" setting or the "past" that generated it? I don't know about you guys, but my PCs in Raellus' games are far more concerned with 2000 than 1997.

Someday I'm going to write a post-apocalyptic RPG with no canon history, in which you have to make up the timeline of the apocalypse as you build your characters. Then no players will be able to bitch at me for getting the total destruction of the world wrong.

- C.

I thought that was FGU's Aftermath!, where you pick the method of destruction, they provide some "generic" background (rules on scarcity, reconstruction, scrounging, disease, various types of WMD effects, etc.).

Of course I could be misremembering it.

[Olefin]

Just because you write about WWIII and have American troops in it doesnt make you pro-US military. And the US military, while playing a central part, except in a few modules that Frank Frey wrote (who by the way is not one of those I would consider anti-US military in any way of the writers) plays a very inept part of the story.

With the exception of the performance in the RDF area and possibly Alaska the US military has one long string of failures in Twilight 2000. Their offensives in Europe all ended in defeat and reverse, usually major ones. And while the individual soldiers are portrayed quite well, their commanders are not.

And you can be pro-individual US soldier while being anti-US military - Democrats have managed that for a long time here in the US, supporting the individual soldier while tearing down US military decisions left and right.

And frankly any US division commander that refused an order to be sent to support the drive to drive the Mexicans out of Texas like the 84th Infantry did in August of 1999 would be court martialed and shot by any US govt, be it MilGov or CivGov. Thats basically cowardice in the face of the enemy. And CivGov didnt sign a peace treaty with Mexico or the Soviets.

Reality - CivGov would have replaced the commander immediately and told him to get his division to Arkansas immediately and do its job.

And having military commanders writeoff a whole Corps and choose to go home and do nothing with those men - no US commander would ever give that order.

So are the individual stories pro-US soldier when it gets down to that level - yes.

The overall timeline however and pattern of behavior of the US military and government in Twilight 2000 with how the majority of the game's writers deal with them is definitely anti-American in many ways.

Frank Frey, however, does a very good job of showing that the US military command structure actually knows what its doing.

[Olefin]

When the story begins you have the Soviets knocking the US Army back on its heels again, the Soviets still occupying much of Germany, and the US having lost the Southwest and a good sized piece of Alaska. Thats hardly no one won - the Soviets won their war with China, are still in possession of the areas they took and are still deep in enemy territory everywhere.

The return to Europe and Last Submarine arcs still show Soviet command and control to some extent still working and that their control of Romania and their forces in the north is still good enough to launch an invasion of Norway in the winter of 2000 and to keep a very iron grip on Romania.

Its pretty obvious that the US lost and the Soviets won - i.e. in the end there are no US or NATO forces that can threaten the Soviet Union. Their country may be falling apart but it wont be under foreign occupation.

The US cant say the same thing.

[Raellus]

Really? Again?

Guys, I'm about to lock and/or delete this thread. This horse has been dead for a long time and I'm really not sure why some people feel the need to dig it back up and start beating it again.

Leg and Olefin, if you guys want to continue to rehash the what is or what should never be canon debate or discuss the pro and/or anti-American bias of the T2K writers (or particular forum members) please do so via PM.

From the forum guidelines:

Originally Posted by Raellus

T2K Forum Guidelines

Keep It Civil

We can all agree to disagree but let's make sure to do so respectfully. No name-calling, sarcasm, or other childishness is appropriate or welcome here. If you are upset with someone and want them to know about it, send them a PM and try to work it out privately. If another member is really getting on your nerves, you can use the forum tools to place that person on your ignore list. We don't tolerate flame wars here.

Please don't attempt to incite internecine forum conflict with deliberately provocative and/or inflamatory posts. In interweb parlance, please don't be a troll.

[Olefin]

I am being extremely civil - and keep in mind who posted the thread first, Raellus. Actually I was about to send you an email about locking the thread anyway - you are right, its a bomb waiting to go off as it basically right from the beginning was a thrown down gauntlet instead of a civil thread.

[Raellus]

Point taken, Olefin, but it takes two to tango.

Thread Locked.

[Legbreaker]

This thread was not created as an attack. It's a simple statement which should, and so far has, generated a response and dialogue.
It was prompted by a very similar thread Headquarters posted a few years ago http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=595

Perhaps those who are reacting strongly to this thread might tone down a bit themselves and stop believing everything is a personal attack?

My position is often misrepresented as a "canon nazi". The truth is far different. I am more than happy with differing points of view and interpretations. I'm not happy with attempts to convince the community as a whole that a particular view point is the one and only "truth".