Twilight 2020

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Back on Topic.

I think a 'Twilight 20x0' set on China's eastern seaboard might be an idea. An international coalition gets cut off after taking a large swathe of the area. This would have the flat terrain of China's coastal plain and the urban terrain of the various mega-cities

But how does said coalition get there? Or does that matter?

The Chinese navy isn't quite up to par with the USN, but it also doesn't need to operate in both oceans, so the USN's dwindling numerical advantage is even smaller, in practice. By 2020, the naval parity gap will be even narrower, as the Chinese navy is currently growing faster than the USN is. Even if you add in naval forces from U.S. allies in the region, landing a large ground force on China's eastern seaboard is a monumental task.

You'd need an armada comparable to the ones employed by the Allies on D-Day or by the USN at Okinawa in WW2. You'd need to contend with Chinese surface and submarine forces, and land-based air. The "Allies" would need to cross oceans/seas to resupply their ground forces in China; the Chinese have internal lines of supply.

And then there's these...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...istic-missiles

Then, IF you somehow manage to get a large ground force ashore, you've got to to stop the massive weight of the steadily-modernizing PLA from pushing your bridgehead into the sea.

IMHO, all of this makes a significant Coalition ground force in China c.2050 a pretty unrealistic scenario.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In view of what you've just mentioned Raellus (and similar thoughts others have raised), it's plain to see that the typical "war" approach to creating a T:20x0 is not going to be particularly satisfying and not particularly easy to achieve.
I'm tending towards the idea of some natural or man-made disaster as the trigger for breakdown of societies etc. etc. - along the lines of some of the scenarios outlined in the survey GDW did way back in the 1990s.

[ChalkLine]

This is a very good point. As I was reading last night it may be that peer-to-peer warfighting is as outdated as trench fighting in WW1.

In that case there may well be more fighting as in Merc:2000; PMCs and varying amounts of regulars with massive aircover fighting asymmetrical wars against irregular proxies. Turkey seems to have taken over from Saudi Arabia as the main exporter of jihadism while China and Russia seem more content to act as the unaligned world's armouries

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

In that case there may well be more fighting as in Merc:2000; PMCs and varying amounts of regulars with massive aircover fighting asymmetrical wars against irregular proxies. Turkey seems to have taken over from Saudi Arabia as the main exporter of jihadism while China and Russia seem more content to act as the unaligned world's armouries

That seems to be the trend over the past 20 years or so. Africa seems like the next battleground in this sort of asymmetrical, low-intensity, proxy war.

China is investing heavily in the continent and, IIRC, just opened up its first military base there. Russia has PMCs in Central African Republic (where they may have murdered some Russian journos), and the U.S. has SOF all over the place, due to multiple Islamic insurgencies. Oil and mineral companies employ PMCs to guard their operations, and as leverage during mineral rights negotiations with the local rulers. And, as the recent election in Congo demonstrates, many African nations are a crisis away from a coup or oppressive dictatorship.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That seems to be the trend over the past 20 years or so. Africa seems like the next battleground in this sort of asymmetrical, low-intensity, proxy war.

China is investing heavily in the continent and, IIRC, just opened up its first military base there. Russia has PMCs in Central African Republic (where they may have murdered some Russian journos), and the U.S. has SOF all over the place, due to multiple Islamic insurgencies. Oil and mineral companies employ PMCs to guard their operations, and as leverage during mineral rights negotiations with the local rulers. And, as the recent election in Congo demonstrates, many African nations are a crisis away from a coup or oppressive dictatorship.

There are a number of countries including the US, UK, France, Russia, and China as well as PMCs (considered "Mercenaries" by UN forces in Africa) supported by mining and energy companies with vested interests in the region, all of whom are conducting training, counterinsurgency, or nation-building operations in a dozen African nations, add in ISIL, Al Queda, Christian Militants, and various Revolutionary Movements and Africa is a modern-day "Wild West" that can involve both civilian AND military professions. This is why my Merc campaign is set in Africa. If you consider African Union forces, both Kenya AND Uganda are operating armored units in Eastern Africa with everything from T-55s to wheeled APCs. The Algerians and the French are using AFVs in Mali and Nijer as well as on the Libyan border. It will be easy to set up a "low-intensity conflict" involving platoon or even squad level engagements.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

But how does said coalition get there? Or does that matter?

The Chinese navy isn't quite up to par with the USN, but it also doesn't need to operate in both oceans, so the USN's dwindling numerical advantage is even smaller, in practice. By 2020, the naval parity gap will be even narrower, as the Chinese navy is currently growing faster than the USN is. Even if you add in naval forces from U.S. allies in the region, landing a large ground force on China's eastern seaboard is a monumental task.

You'd need an armada comparable to the ones employed by the Allies on D-Day or by the USN at Okinawa in WW2. You'd need to contend with Chinese surface and submarine forces, and land-based air. The "Allies" would need to cross oceans/seas to resupply their ground forces in China; the Chinese have internal lines of supply.

And then there's these...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...istic-missiles

Then, IF you somehow manage to get a large ground force ashore, you've got to to stop the massive weight of the steadily-modernizing PLA from pushing your bridgehead into the sea.

IMHO, all of this makes a significant Coalition ground force in China c.2050 a pretty unrealistic scenario.

Consider a global recession that impacts America and Europe followed by a major natural disaster such as a tsunami/large earthquake that devastates the Pacific Rim including the US West Coast. During this "disaster," North Korea gets the idea that now is the time to fire up that War of Reunification before the US can recover from said natural disaster and pose a threat again. NK attacks and the US and A FEW MEMBERS OF NATO respond. Germany, France, and some other members decide to "sit this one out" and this leaves a weakened US, UK, Japan, SK, and some ANZAC forces taking on NK without significant Naval assets. They still manage to stall NK and a disaster-damaged China gets drawn into the conflict (with Iranian support). You now have a conventional armored conflict on SK soil involving several different nations. Due to the low numbers of troops in the various units (because the disaster is preventing a "troop surge" in SK) you will have small unit engagements with one or perhaps two AFVs in support in difficult terrain (which will allow the GM to control the scope of an adventure using impassable terrain). Is this the scenario you'd be looking for?

[ChalkLine]

Actually I think what is more likely is that a diplomacy failure creates a crisis that pushes Russia and China together into a bastard alliance of grievance. They then try and thwart US goals in various places by supplying weapons, advisers and paying for mercenaries. NATO falls apart as Turkey splits the alliance and Europe deploys piecemeal troops to various hotspots.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Is this the scenario you'd be looking for?

Then throw in a barrage of well-coordinated cyber attacks on utilities infrastructure, financial systems, and maybe the "internet of things", which achieves unexpected levels of success, and on the civilian side the US and some allies really feel the sting. Not that that would immediately stop anything on the military side, but it would divert much-needed resources in a protracted conflict.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Consider a global recession that impacts America and Europe followed by a major natural disaster such as a tsunami/large earthquake that devastates the Pacific Rim including the US West Coast. During this "disaster," North Korea gets the idea that now is the time to fire up that War of Reunification before the US can recover from said natural disaster and pose a threat again. NK attacks and the US and A FEW MEMBERS OF NATO respond. Germany, France, and some other members decide to "sit this one out" and this leaves a weakened US, UK, Japan, SK, and some ANZAC forces taking on NK without significant Naval assets. They still manage to stall NK and a disaster-damaged China gets drawn into the conflict (with Iranian support). You now have a conventional armored conflict on SK soil involving several different nations. Due to the low numbers of troops in the various units (because the disaster is preventing a "troop surge" in SK) you will have small unit engagements with one or perhaps two AFVs in support in difficult terrain (which will allow the GM to control the scope of an adventure using impassable terrain). Is this the scenario you'd be looking for?

Another variant is that the leader of North Korea leans towards the U.S. for aid, assistance and snubs China, like Vietnam did going USSR in 1973-75.If the response is fast, all you have to mention was a promise of social reforms that NK never gets to implement, so it's only a mild stretch of belief.

[.45cultist]

BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules? If we treat it as an attack and assign a CON/HP stat to electronics, there are still a lot of things to figure out. The "AV of a ground wire to the removal of batteries, static bags, Farraday cages, etc.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules? If we treat it as an attack and assign a CON/HP stat to electronics, there are still a lot of things to figure out. The "AV of a ground wire to the removal of batteries, static bags, Farraday cages, etc.

That's a great point. The T2k 'electronics=dead' rule doesn't really reflect the science does it?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

That's a great point. The T2k 'electronics=dead' rule doesn't really reflect the science does it?

Neither does radiation half life of months instead of years and centuries.
It's a game. There were specific, deliberate changes to real world physics such as these to make it more playable and a much more interesting world to play in.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Neither does radiation half life of months instead of years and centuries.
It's a game. There were specific, deliberate changes to real world physics such as these to make it more playable and a much more interesting world to play in.

A new EMP section would be good though seeing how there's so much more electronics in the world now.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules?

I've had a look and there doesn't appear to be.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

Another variant is that the leader of North Korea leans towards the U.S. for aid, assistance and snubs China, like Vietnam did going USSR in 1973-75.If the response is fast, all you have to mention was a promise of social reforms that NK never gets to implement, so it's only a mild stretch of belief.

That's an interesting idea, and not outside the realm of possibility.

Let's say KJU orders one too many generals or high officials killed and there's a coup. Or he dies suddenly and there's a succession crisis. Imagine a situation like we saw in Berlin in 1989 (IRL), but at the DMZ. It could happen. The PRC could very see a reunified Korea as a threat to its regional dominance and use military force to eliminate it.

What if, as the DPRK regime totters and falls, South Korean launches a military expedition to "stabilize" the North and China responds shortly thereafter with its own. In that case, there's a good chance that the region is one minor clash away from a war, a war in which the PRC would have material superiority. Would the U.S. stand by if South Korea's independence was at stake? You could have a Second Korean War pitting the PRC against a reunited Korea and the U.S.A. as the opening round of an expanding WWIII.

Chalk, there's your land war in China.