4th ed T2K

[Raellus]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that aggression vs. NATO will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

they are using the wrong ship and sending her in harms way where she doesnt need to be - deploying her to the Norwegian Sea sends the exact same message - her planes have more than enough range to hit any target from there - and if you want to saber rattle that is what battleships are for - i.e. dont mess with us - and 32 Tomahawks and Harpoons and 16 inch shells send a pretty potent message

Or look at it this way - sending in an asset to where she literally doesnt have enough time to turn around planes if she needs to use them before the enemy is all over her like white on rice - its like sending in one cop to take down a gang of 20 armed guys and have him face them down basically at point blank range

If he gets his gun out in time he might take a bunch down - but there is no way he gets to reload and that bullet proof vest can only take so many hits

[Raellus]

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

and a beached battleship using her guns can take a lot of pounding before she is totally knocked out - FYI that is exactly what the Japanese had planned for Yamato

and carriers make for crappy "beach her and use the crew for infantry" ideas - besides a small USMC contingent (in the 90's) about the only other armed crew are the pilots who have sidearms

the battleship crew doesnt have a lot of small arms either but they are a self contained artillery battalion until all the guns get knocked out

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-

That sounds like Alpha edition. The paragraph in the actual published edition goes like this:

"On June 6, US and Soviet ground forces engage in combat for the first time, west of Poznań in western Poland. Shortly after this clash, Soviet forces cross the borders of Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, and fighting erupts all along the new frontline through Eastern Europe.

The USS Harry S. Truman and its supporting squadrons spar with the Soviet Baltic Fleet out of Kaliningrad. The US asks Sweden to allow US troops and air defenses on the strategically located island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic."

So it's 1) full invasion and land-warfare along borders of the USSR with its former Warsaw Pact allies with US forces already in place to defend these nations (paragraph immediately prior to the first quoted here), then 2) CSG sails into the Baltic Sea and dukes it out with the Baltic Fleet, then 3) the US ask Sweden to join their war against the USSR.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

That sounds like Alpha edition.

Nope. I pulled it from the T2K4_Referees_Manual PDF released/downloaded just the other day. It's the watermarked version with my name and order number imprinted on it. Look at the top of p. 7.

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a strong statement to the Kremlin."

The quote you posted is 4-5 paragraphs down the page. The USS Truman is sent before the Soviets invade Poland, but it's still there when the shooting war with the US starts not long after.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Nope. I pulled it from the T2K4_Referees_Manual PDF released/downloaded just the other day.

My apologies, I overlooked that passage last evening; found it now.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-

This is an important point. Google 'tons of diplomacy' and what you get are lots of pictures of U.S. Aircraft Carriers (and the occasional Imperial Star Destroyer ).

We benefit from knowing that the timeline will result in a shooting war. So obviously we can look back and can easily criticize every non-optimal choice. But... in the real world, the calculations are not so easy.

Had the Soviets backed down after a carrier strike group entered the Baltic, it would be hailed as a brilliant diplomatic move. Of course we'd probably be playing a very different RPG from such a timeline... Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past age 2000.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

This is an important point. Google 'tons of diplomacy' and what you get are lots of pictures of U.S. Aircraft Carriers [...].

We benefit from knowing that the timeline will result in a shooting war. So obviously we can look back and can easily criticize every non-optimal choice. But... in the real world, the calculations are not so easy.

That is, of course, true. There are, however, reasons the USN never sent a carrier into the Baltic, not during the Cold War, not during the 2014 Crimean invasion of Russia, not for diplomatic visits or tourist attractions such as Kiel Week (German: Kieler Woche) and not even for BATLOPS exercises. As far as I know, that pond never saw a carrier from afar.

Yes, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) participated in BALTOPS in June 2018 (https://www.wtkr.com/2018/06/11/uss-...ltops-exercise), but only a part of its wing supported the exercise, the ship proper remained in the Mediterranean, where it took a break from bombing ISIS. Naval warfare in the Baltic Sea is the equivalent to a knifefight in a phonebox.

[unipus]

I think we can all agree that probably the only reason for this inclusion is that FL had or has some notion of releasing an adventure where you probably go crawling around the ruins of an aircraft carrier that is beached in the Baltic.

On its surface that's a fun idea, but definitely one place where the "rule of cool" just doesn't hold water (pardon the pun). I don't think it's inherently any more silly than any number of old v1 adventures, but the fact that it ends up in the core timeline certainly elevates it.

The good news is that you can completely ignore this aspect, if you don't plan to run an adventure set on an aircraft carrier!

[Ursus Maior]

I'm not sure we should expect such an adventure, I have the feeling there will be not a lot coming for this productline. Other than that, I have no better explanation, why the carrier plot-element exists. Getting Sweden into a Cold War gone hot storyline isn't that difficult. Sweden was counting on being attacked by the Soviets, had extensive preparations and direct communications with the USA, UK and NATO for combined operations in that case. Also, the USSR probably had plans for attacks on all three major Scandinavian nations, depending on what general warplan to enact, we can be sure about that.

So, I don't see the need for any rational reason to include the carrier. If the T2K USSR is powerful enough to alone wage war against all of Central and Eastern Europe, attacking Sweden in, e. g. by rushing through it's northern half, in order to take out NATO bases in Northern Norway, endanger Atlantic sealines of communication and occupying the Kiruna mine and its railroads, is hardly out of the question.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

I'm not sure we should expect such an adventure, I have the feeling there will be not a lot coming for this productline.

FL doesn't have a track record of releasing a lot of adventure materials and supplements, but Twilight has been a pretty big success for them so far. The KS did well over half a million in USD, which is double or more what most of their projects have done (although absolutely dwarfed by the success of The One Ring of course, which might draw a lot of their attention and resources).

Personally, and especially given the variety of adventure material already available within the T2K catalog, it would make bad sense not to release at least a few modules. It's already pretty directly stated several times within the core book itself that there will be future materials related to urban operations, boats, and Operation Reset at the very least.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by unipus

FL doesn't have a track record of releasing a lot of adventure materials and supplements, but Twilight has been a pretty big success for them so far. The KS did well over half a million in USD, which is double or more what most of their projects have done (although absolutely dwarfed by the success of The One Ring of course, which might draw a lot of their attention and resources).

Personally, and especially given the variety of adventure material already available within the T2K catalog, it would make bad sense not to release at least a few modules. It's already pretty directly stated several times within the core book itself that there will be future materials related to urban operations, boats, and Operation Reset at the very least.

I think that there should be some consideration given for the fact that the first 2 editions effectively started it out with the 5th ID going kaput. 3rd edition was different, but the timeline was open ended enough that you could still reuse 1e/2e adventures with minimal handwaving. 4e seems to be trying to ignore this aspect to some extent by purposely including "cool" things at the expense of believability. If you want a carrier stranded in the Baltic, you'd be better off having it be a smaller non-US carrier like HMS Ark Royal or a French or Italian carrier, or an amphibious assault ship. Is the goal a stranded ship, or a stranded ship-turned-power station?

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by unipus

It's already pretty directly stated several times within the core book itself that there will be future materials related to urban operations, boats, and Operation Reset at the very least.

That is about what I expect, too. I think it's great we reached the stretch goal to include rules for conversion. Then groups can go back and play the old modules, which need a lot of work, but GMs are used to that. Plus, from what I read, T2K is known for homebrewn campaigns anyway. This will not draw in a lot of new players, but it will keep the IP alive.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by unipus

I think we can all agree that probably the only reason for this inclusion is that FL had or has some notion of releasing an adventure where you probably go crawling around the ruins of an aircraft carrier that is beached in the Baltic.

Could be. Kind of reminds me of Rivet City in Fallout 3. Or this recent web article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...chinese-lagoon

Or maybe they want to introduce a new Swedish hotel/theme park like the Chinese did:

https://www.uniqhotels.com/binhai-aircraft-hotel

Originally Posted by unipus

The good news is that you can completely ignore this aspect, if you don't plan to run an adventure set on an aircraft carrier!

+1 (or convert it to an Iowa-class battleship... )

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by unipus

I think we can all agree that probably the only reason for this inclusion is that FL had or has some notion of releasing an adventure where you probably go crawling around the ruins of an aircraft carrier that is beached in the Baltic.

On its surface that's a fun idea, but definitely one place where the "rule of cool" just doesn't hold water (pardon the pun). I don't think it's inherently any more silly than any number of old v1 adventures, but the fact that it ends up in the core timeline certainly elevates it.

The good news is that you can completely ignore this aspect, if you don't plan to run an adventure set on an aircraft carrier!

it actually in many people's minds called into question the whole timeline and background - it really needs to be removed from the game - it is non-sensical - and considering all releases to dates have been pdf's it can be done easily - i.e. I have done updates to pdf releases - but once those books get published then its a lot harder

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

100 percent correct - and I wonder if Tomas missed the part about the Harry S. Truman never entering the Baltic - anyone want to take a guess he saw that it participatedin BALTOPS and never read the part about the ship remaining in the Med?

Could be. I wonder if anyone has pointed this out to him. IIRC, quite a few people who commented on the Alpha complained about the Truman in the Baltic. If FL decided not to change that bit then, they're probably not going change it now. Either the FL team doesn't think it's that implausible or, as Unipus posited, they've got future plans for it.

Originally Posted by Olefin

it actually in many people's minds called into question the whole timeline and background - it really needs to be removed from the game - it is non-sensical - and considering all releases to dates have been pdf's it can be done easily - i.e. I have done updates to pdf releases - but once those books get published then its a lot harder

Have you suggested this to Free League? Posting about it here isn't likely to do any good. It's essentially crying over spilled milk, and that's not particularly constructive.

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Could be. I wonder if anyone has pointed this out to him. IIRC, quite a few people who commented on the Alpha complained about the Truman in the Baltic. If FL decided not to change that bit then, they're probably not going change it now. Either the FL team doesn't think it's that implausible or, as Unipus posited, they've got future plans for it.



Have you suggested this to Free League? Posting about it here isn't likely to do any good. It's essentially crying over spilled milk, and that's not particularly constructive.

-

Or used bad information - i.e. its in a BALTOPS so they must have sent it into the Baltic - but never did the research to find out that the only thing that was part of it was its planes flown from the Med - or are embarrassed they might have made that kind of mistake - its easy to do - heck I had to change my East Africa Sourcebook to remove a unit I originally had in it that later on I found out was not possible to have been there - it happens

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

That is, of course, true. There are, however, reasons the USN never sent a carrier into the Baltic, not during the Cold War, not during the 2014 Crimean invasion of Russia, not for diplomatic visits or tourist attractions such as Kiel Week (German: Kieler Woche) and not even for BATLOPS exercises. As far as I know, that pond never saw a carrier from afar.

Yes, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) participated in BALTOPS in June 2018 (https://www.wtkr.com/2018/06/11/uss-...ltops-exercise), but only a part of its wing supported the exercise, the ship proper remained in the Mediterranean, where it took a break from bombing ISIS. Naval warfare in the Baltic Sea is the equivalent to a knifefight in a phonebox.

100 percent correct - and I wonder if Tomas missed the part about the Harry S. Truman never entering the Baltic - anyone want to take a guess he saw that it participatedin BALTOPS and never read the part about the ship remaining in the Med?

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Olefin

[...] anyone want to take a guess he saw that it participatedin BALTOPS and never read the part about the ship remaining in the Med?

That is exactly what I was thinking, when doing light research for my posting. Google -> "Oh, BALTOPS saw Truman participating?" -> Click -> "Nope, just the airwing..."

The best about USS Harry S. Truman I only realized right now: It was only commissioned on 25 July 1998, so about a year after her ride into the Baltic Sea in the T2K timeline. This begins to look more and more like a copy-and-paste-thing.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

That is exactly what I was thinking, when doing light research for my posting. Google -> "Oh, BALTOPS saw Truman participating?" -> Click -> "Nope, just the airwing..."

The best about USS Harry S. Truman I only realized right now: It was only commissioned on 25 July 1998, so about a year after her ride into the Baltic Sea in the T2K timeline. This begins to look more and more like a copy-and-paste-thing.

Those are both good catches. I don't recall seeing the first point made in the Alpha comments (although I really didn't follow them that closely), so AFAIK, you were the first person to discover this.

The second point is easily reconciled, though. If the Cold War had continued, the construction of the USS Truman likely would have occurred earlier/faster than it did IRL.

-

[Ursus Maior]

That would be possible. Skimming off one year from a five year building period or a two year outfitting period is a major change though. It could influence her capabilities, making her shakedown cruise in the Baltic Sea even more off a reckless idea by the president.