ChalkLine's Desiderata

[ChalkLine]

So, you've got yourself a settlement but the nasty OPFOR are monitoring your hand-helds? No worries, here's something to string between your bunkers.

Field Telephones.

Battery-powered hand sets appeared to all be able to run of external power, usually in the 3 volt range. Most phones seem to have a hand crank to enable ringing at the other end if not used with a switchboard. Nearly all these phones, you can probably assume it is all of them, are sound-powered. The only reason you need to use power is to ring the buzzer. If you don't have a dedicated switchboard, and let's be honest you won't, a simple task will be to rig up a series of switches that exclude or include lines for multiple use. In this case it's possible to have "party lines" of multiple phones.

German

FF OB/ZB (Introduced late 1950s)
Requires 2x D-Batteries
5.0kg

SFT800 (Introduced early 1980s)
3.6kg

USA

TA-1
Sound-powered
1.2kg

TA-43
Requires 2x D-Batteries
5.0kg

TA-312 (Introduced late 1960s)
Requires 2x D-Batteries
4.35 Kg

USSR

TA-57 (Introduced 1957)
Requires 1x 1.5v Battery
2.5kg

[ChalkLine]

Chemical and Biological Warfare

HAZMAT Suits and Endurance

Many people here have been in the military and understand the destructive effect HAZMAT suits have on endurance and functionality. However it's difficult to represent anecdotal information in a game environment so I thought I'd post the two primary systems that cause that degradation of ability.

First and probably the most notable is heat build up.
Not being able to escape the heat your body generates is an incredible and unpleasant experience but the effects are not only overheating but the actual composition of your muscles change. They become less elastic and lose the ability to flex. This is not a linear progression but rather a bell curve as the effects rapidly degrade after a steady decline. I can't over-emphasis how dangerous this is. Not only can the victim's organs shut down and brain damage occur but in extreme cases the muscles can actually stop being elastic strands and become just masses of jelly-like tissue. In a twilight 2000 environment there's probably no possible recovery from this and a lingering death is almost certain.

The other one is exhalation of carbon dioxide. Both these two are linked. Carbon dioxide build up occurs because HAZMAT filters cannot pass nearly enough air through them to both give the lungs the required oxygen and expel enough carbon dioxide. Physical exertion builds up lactic acid in the bloodstream that is broken down in the organs and then expelled as carbon dioxide. If this can't be done at the correct rate a logjam occurs in the body and the lactic acid is not broken down. The upshot of this is the body fatigues very quickly.

So there's three primary systems working here; heat build up, oxygen intake restriction and carbon dioxide expulsion restriction.

The effects tend to snowball and also create feed-back loops which increases the snowball effect.

In game terms what happens is the character is in the three work states given in the rules; rest, light work and hard work. The saves are harder for each work state as the work gets harder.

An important thing about this mechanism is it's very unlikely the PC will notice the effect happening before other, watchful PCs do due to the disruption of brain activity. This isn't like ordinary heat-stroke, it's much faster occurring and more damaging, especially as the usual methods of relieving heat stroke cannot be maintained in a HAZMAT environment. So the GM should apply Observation checks for team mates to see the effects occurring and the victim has a much higher save on the roll.
Contaminated Environments in the Game

I'm a big believer in the MOPP suit. I think at least once in each campaign a hazardous environment should be encountered to bring home that this was a Nuclear, Chemical and Biological War. This is not a summer Sunday afternoon in the woods.
As it's a bit unfair to inflict this sort of nightmare on unprepared PCs it's best to use the universal "I Show, You Do" approach where the PCs can see someone else go down with this, how it occurs and what the effects are.

On a game note to varying effects even just gas masks do this with less but still some heat build up.
Now, having the OPFOR dump some VX on your PCs as they drive along is probably going to get you some hard stares from across the table. Harsh campaigns might have this, my campaigns are very harsh and I wouldn't, but normally it's best to give the PCs both a bit of reaction/preparation time and access to at least normal protective gear. This means you'll need a significant carrot and/or stick to send them into the environment about which the players probably have few illusions about.

There are two main differences in the situation apart from environmental factors; Attacks and Contaminations.

An attack means the risk is acute. The level of contaminants are high and none have had time to degrade. These are extremely hazardous environments where a failure of the containment systems probably means heavy exposure. Obviously these are rare. To be frank the players are nearly never important enough for the OPFOR to expend precious contaminants purposefully on them, however there are many gas mines used by both sides that might create this situation. Generally I tend to use those as events that happen to other people (they are great for blocking off avenues of exploration) but as it's your game I leave that to you.

Contamination is a far more common situation and this gives the PCs several options an attack does not, not the least of being simply to avoid the contamination. In this case a failure of the protection does not necessarily mean exposure depending on the nature of the contamination. Some contamination are so persistent they can be be considered permanent Attacks. One of the biggest problems in a contamination environment is that the individual goes through cycles of hyper-vigilance, awareness and negligence. Once again other PCs can monitor the player. As a side note hyper-vigilance is fatiguing. This is not a good situation for the player. If the player becomes negligent then the normal risks of an exposure increases dramatically. As this has such severe repercussions I'd suggest the GM let this be based on player attitude rather than arbitrary dice rolls and leave those to NPCs. The Leadership skill can buff rolls here.

There is an enormous amount of literature on the effects of contamination and decontamination which I won't go into here. The GM should take into account the amount of weathering and degradation of the contaminant. Weathering degrades exposed surfaces and leaves unexposed areas less effected. This makes simple things such as going over a fence hazardous because the bottoms of the railings may still be heavily contaminated. Also note that some agents rapidly break down, especially some biological agents, and can cause far less damage. If you really want to give your PCs a heart attack have them become inadvertently exposed to a serious agent that has degraded to the point here it is about the level of an irritant.

[ChalkLine]

Settlements - Party-Driven Settlements

Quite often in the campaign the group decides to settle down and oversee a settlement. I've had immense fun doing this as not only are adventures self-generating but they add a layer of involvement for the players.

Settlements rarely involve starting anew but are usually the characters gathering enough NPCs that an existing position is reconfigured into what Twilight 2000 terms a "Canton".
In my campaigns so far these have taken two forms:
1) An existing civilian settlement is settled in and developed. This has been by far the most common.
2) A military position such as a bunker system or outpost is created or adapted as a settlement.
Both have aspects that impact the balance of features. A civilian settlement is often at a trade point nexus, a resource point or similar where a military outpost usually has a site positioned for its defensive capability.Note the term "balance of features". As GM resist the temptation to make everything perfect, every situation should be a trade-off. Some features will be sub-optimal and thus require a greater expenditure of resources, time and manpower than others. Strangely enough in my experience players actually like this and these become the standout memory of the game at that part.

Civilian Settlements.
Configuring a town or farm and so on is simple. It involves simply adding defensive positions and repairing the infrastructure. Existing infrastructure may or may not have been designed with self sufficiency in mind and usually isn't but can be modified

Military Settlements
These settlements are more difficult in some ways because military positions, especially pre-war ones, are usually not designed with self-sufficiency in mind and as the supply chain is a distant and pleasant memory all the infrastructure must be created from scratch.

Basic Necessities:

Defence.
First and foremost Twilight 2000 is a violent environment and comfy spots the players make others will try and take. The important part of this is that it's easy to skimp the interim defence plans for the advanced plans that will come later. Don't do this. Have the players tested constantly so these defences give a pay-off. Players will get bored doing things they start to consider window-dressing.
The first defence plans are simply guarding existing features. Every soldier I've talked to can tell you exactly how much dirt they've shoveled in their lives and rubble and earthwork positions are the primary positions here. If you don't have a working plan of fighting positions the US field manual of the time has some great information for you:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/.../p.../fm/index.html
After this the troops will strengthen the position and create a continuous perimeter. To foreshadow this have some OPFOR attempt penetrations into the positions by identifying strong-points and trying to infiltrate between them. Two to three man teams sneak in while the strong-points are either unwary, distracted or engaged. This can be a whole adventure right here. The perimeter should contain two primary features that you undoubtedly already know; the free-fire zone and the barrier. A fun adventure can be PCs going off in a truck to salvage barrier and defensive materials such as concertina wire. Note that this stuff is often booby trapped. However the PCs may want to salvage that too. Of course not only the PCs want this stuff.
After the perimeter is established the defences are simply hardened. This can be as involved as PCs like and some of my PCs actually carefully constructed concrete bunker systems. I can post reams of stuff about that. However one of the most important aspects will be mines. Passive and/or command-detonated mines are a massive force multiplier and decent minefield allows the players to reduce the perimeter guard significantly. Note that in some cases you don't even need the actual mines, the warning signs are enough. However this implies they take them from an existing minefield thus leaving it unmarked, a sucky thing to do. Maybe making your own is the way to go.

Water:
Water supplies are integral to any settlement. Most people seriously underestimate settlement water requirements that are usually about ten times field requirements. Water needs a few things, firstly being the water source itself. After that a pump, piping (which may already exist) and a holding facility that is usually elevated and most importantly armoured. Enemies seeing an elevated structure assume it's an observation point, the players may indeed use it as one, and direct fire at it. Perhaps they learn about this the hard way 🙂
Pumps should be dug in both to protect them and to stop their noise alerting enemies. Waterwheels and windmills are very effective although vulnerable structures and of course use no fuel. Their structures make good defensive points. Piping may be below ground or above ground. Water-points do not have to be a tap in every house, having running water is an unimaginable luxury as it is and a central water-point is fine. Note that if the players neglect to both armour and link the water-point to the defensive positions they can get very thirsty with water just a few metres away if it can be swept by hostile fire.

Food:
This is an amazing subject considering the situation. A lot of food is actually capable of being created inside the defensive perimeter and the players should think to to so. Pigs especially need little room and can turn a large amount of waste into food. Livestock raids by post-nuclear soldiers drive home the environment the players live in. Note that in nearly all cases livestock is very vulnerable to enemy fire even if inside the perimeter, as are glasshouses and food gardens. Chemical contaminants can wipe out the player's food production in one strike as it kills livestock and contaminates the ground and even irritant gasses can do this.
Actual broad acre farming is problematic. If you model climate damage in your game it might not be even possible. As there are no longer industrial fertlisers the rewards are much smaller as well. Also note that it requires about 0.4 hectares (1.0 acres) of grain production to support one cavalry horse. Broad acre farming is normally outside the perimeter and liable to being overrun by the enemy or burnt/contaminated in an effort to deny the players resources. Defending this ground can be extraordinarily hard but the payoff should be equal to the effort.

Non Player Characters.

It is tempting and easy to have the NPCs simply as robots but you are doing your players and yourself a disservice if you do so. Having complex personalities as your NPCs brings a richness to the game and makes the players live in the world. Some NPCs might not be all that helpful, some can be very much so, some can have good qualities offset by drawbacks and finally some can be treacherous. Every game should have some treachery.
The key I think in developing NPCs in a settlement is to introduce them slowly. If you you dump fifteen squabbling NPCs on the PCs their eyes will cross and they'll ignore them. Then when something happens the NPC could have helped with will lead them to feeling cheated. NPCs are obvioulsy the way you introduce outlier skills into the game. As T2K is in most editions very lean on skills the player who takes "Civil Engineer 6" is taking a big risk in combat should their lack of skills let them down.
In the dark ages before the internet GMs were recommended to have index cards for each NPC. These days a simple word file for the NPCs is enough and as you play leave yourself a bit of time to update the NPC's entry. I have a file the PCs can access that briefly notes the NPC, their wound state and skills as well as the weapons and equipment they have. As players can never know what sort of skills an NPC really has you can have a previously boring NPC in the settlement turn out to be a plumber before the war and suddenly you can make a focus of a session that NPC.
NPCs are living, breathing people with wants and desires. This may mean many things. Some NPCs may bargain to some extent before using their skills. Keep in mind the PCs are generally offering a big thing in the intrinsic safety and stability of the settlement and the NPC would be very aware of that. Make the bargaining only for certain characters or for when the NPC is being taken advantage of. Note that NPCs often have strong solidarity and if one NPC is treated badly the whole lot start to show negative effects.
NPCs are going to want to have a say in the direction of things the players do. This will cause conflict as players resent infringement on their agency and so has to be handled carefully. It's best if you can make the players understand the NPC's viewpoint, it makes perfect sense if they want a bandit they caught to be strung up over the gate but perhaps the player's promised not to do so. Have the NPCs say clearly why they want things and not simply what they want.

This has gotten way too long to add industry, crafts, trading and all the other stuff I wanted to talk about.

[ChalkLine]

Has anyone had a look at the Romanian Cold War military?

It's interesting because Romania wasn't really a very enthusiastic member of the Warsaw Pact and it's army wasn't all that thrilled by the way the country was going and with the Patriot Guards, Romania's territorial defence, even less so. In 1989 the Guards were turned out to repress the people and they promptly made the people's uprising an armed uprising.

The reason I go into this is that Romania had some really nifty kit. It was variants of the Soviet stuff but with a unique twist and some of this stuff actually suits T2K a little bit better in some respects because it's really functional yet robust even for Warsaw Pact standards.

The one I've really been enjoying reading is the ABC-79M, a little recon-APC. The Romanians were already making the BTR-80 and when they saw they needed something like a BDRM recon vehicle they simply cut the BTR-80 down into a four wheeler rather than get stuff from outside the country. These purpose-built variants had a short chassis and the BTR's turret. In retrospect it's amazing no one else thought of it (and it makes you wonder what other vehicles would be like if someone did that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...lic_of_Romania
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_People%27s_Army)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Guards_(Romania))
(https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Equipment_of_the_Romanian...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Pu%C8%99c%C4%83_Automat%C4...
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC-79M)

[ChalkLine]

Tank Riding

Tank riding, or "Infantry Tank Desant" is the practice of riding atop a tank into combat rather than merely for transport. While on the surface this might seem stupid it actually has some slight advantages as it allows the tankers to have more eyes and weapons scanning for threats. However tanks draw fire and the practice of "scrubbing" infantry off tanks rapidly becomes standard.

Now, while most people assume this is purely an eastern Bloc practice this is not the case. The USA for instance has not totally disavowed the practice and reading some field manuals shows that there's actually instructions given on things to keep in mind when adopting this practice.
Of course with things like an M1 series MBT the gas turbine makes riding on the engine deck dangerous in the extreme however there are images of US vehicles carrying infantry on the turret and even the front deck (which doesn't seem wise). This must be either an emergency or a doctrinal shift because the M551 manual strictly bans infantry from riding forward of or in close proximity to the smoke/grenade launchers.

How many troops can you get on your ride?
Luckily, there's actually a table for this:

- Heavy tank, 10-12 soldiers
- Medium tank, 8-10 soldiers
- Light tank, 5-6 soldiers
It should be easy to extrapolate from this how many PCs you can get to cling onto a fast moving vehicle as it smashes through urban wreckage and trees that do their best to wipe them off.

[ChalkLine]

BMP-1M, probably the Twilight War standard.

During the 80s we thought the BMP-1 would stay as it is and would be thrown into depots before being issued to third-echelon troops. It seems the Russians, knowing they didn't have the rubles to make the BMP-3 in sufficient numbers, decided to have a hard look at the old war horse.

The big complaint among the many of the BMP-1 was that it was built with another role to the one it now occupies (although that role didn't exist when it was designed). It was only designed to stop shell fragments and rifle calibre rounds, not even having enough armour to defeat the 12.7mm on the sides. This is the vehicle in the rules.

Obviously, this had to change. I could go on about soviet battle concepts, they're quite different to what they led us to believe, but the main thing is that the soviets moved from a "well, we're going to lose men, let's make sure the objective is achieved so it doesn't turn into a slugging match where we'll lose lots of men" theory to a theory where they needed to stop attritional warfare grinding down their troops. This occurred during their Afghan commitment and went fairly unnoticed by the west.

Thus we get the first modernisation; the BMP-1 Afghanka package. This is a survivability package to minimise crew losses. It is a 6mm applique armour package that brings the sides of the vehicle up to a level where it's resistant to 12.7mm armour piercing rounds. They also developed a system where the troops could remove the ATGM from the roof (already upgraded to those used by the latest vehicles) and replace it with a carried Plamya 30mm AGL in a remote mount. If you really want the old 73mm-armed BMP in your game you should be using this one.

However after Chechnya, Afghanistan and watching the west in Iraq the Russians decided that the standard BMP-1 was going to be a rolling coffin in modern combat and embarked on a widespread upgrade to give these vehicles some effective firepower to hold western IFVs at bay.

Here we get the BMP-1M, a very different beast and probably quite a surprise to many people. They turfed out the old turret because they'd come to believe that IFVs were unavoidably going to be involved in urban combat. In its place was put a remote mount, here's the blurb:

"It is fitted with a TKB-799 "Kliver" one-man weapons station armed with a missile pod, a 30 mm 2A72 multipurpose autocannon (it can be used against both ground and air targets) and a 7.62 mm PKTM coaxial machine gun. The missile pod is mounted on the right side of the weapons station and normally holds four 9M133 Kornet (AT-14 Spriggan) or 9M133F "Kornet" ATGMs with a laser jam-resistant fire control system, but these can be removed and replaced by a pod of 9K38 Igla (SA-18 Grouse) surface-to-air missiles. It carries 300 rounds for the main gun, 2000 rounds for the machine gun and 4 ATGMs. It also has a modern computerized fire control system with a two-plane stabilizer and a 1K13-2 telescopic sight with distance measurement/thermal/laser channels and ballistic calculator with external sensors.
Computer simulations proved that the BMP-1M can outperform the American M2/M3 Bradley at firepower efficiency (the tested aspects included ATGM power, the effective range of the ATGM and the autocannon during day and night conditions and launching the ATGM while on the move). In these simulations the BMP-1M won a combat engagement with the M2 Bradley 1.3 times more often."

This beastie was available in 1998 but you can bet your bottom ruble it'd be turning up a lot earlier during the Twilight War.

[ChalkLine]

Do you still have East Germany in your campaign?

I've had reunification but before it was made the East Germans shifted stocks of all their gear to other communist nations. This leaves all sorts of NVA kit turning up in odd places.

This causes problems. Also in my game the Germans created several emergency units using residue NVA stocks for service elsewhere. Sometimes these units end up encountering units using old NVA equipment. However the Germans only use Bundeswehr body armour and webbing.

(I also ditched the "French Stab In The Back" gimmick as it's frankly offensive. Instead there's Warsaw pact troops all over Germany and in France)

I always liked how The Morrow Project bit the bullet and created vehicle's load-outs for their vehicles. I get the sneaking feeling that the standard Twilight 2000 'all the stuff on the vehicles has been lost' was just a cop-out.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by karannsharmaa2

I always liked how The Morrow Project bit the bullet and created vehicle's load-outs for their vehicles. I get the sneaking feeling that the standard Twilight 2000 'all the stuff on the vehicles has been lost' was just a cop-out.

Sneaky sneaky spammer

https://forum.juhlin.com/showpost.ph...81&postcount=8

They take an older post and copy it to make it look like it belongs. Then later they alter their sig and profile to add links (cross links used to be really important to google rankings)

Saw the poster register from Pakistan (know spammer source) but for a second I thought we might actually have a user from there.

[ChalkLine]

A note for gamers.

The load weight given for trucks are the loads allowable for good sealed roads.
Usually an off-road truck can carry nowhere near what it is capable of carrying on a modern road. The standard formula is:

Truck Off-Road Load Limit
Maximum Load: (0.7 x Road Load Limit)

Thus a 5,000kg truck is only capable of shifting 3,500kg off-road. Even then you are making your tasks harder, I think anything over half that weight should increase tasks by one level and also increase risks by a level by which I mean obstructions or obstacles that wouldn't bother a lightly-laden truck suddenly become a problem.

Note that is applies to High Mobility trucks, normal road trucks probably can't take any load off-road and probably can't take themselves off-road. Their suspension is set up wrong, they don't have the ground clearance or ramp break-over clearance.

A little side note, usually we all like to get a winch on game trucks. Really, these aren't always a good idea. A PTO winch really needs to be set low or it simply lifts a load rather than drags it and this means you lose ground clearance. It's up to the individual player or GM if they want to role play that out.

[ChalkLine]

What happens to the Polish Non-Combatants?

In previous posts I've discussed how the Polish People's Party subscribed to the 'people's war' concept so the 'civilians' you see in the standard Twilight 2000 setting really aren't a thing, instead they are either in the disaster relief services or TKO. Essential workers if displaced from their workplaces either join these organisations or are moved away with their industries if possible (more on that below).

This asks the question: what happens to those people who aren't in those categories?

Well, first off, who are we talking about; children, the elderly and their carers are the main group.

These people were in the case of an invasion to be evacuated immediately beyond the Vistula Line, the official WTO red line for nuclear warfare. From what little I've read in the sources they were to be evacuated along the three major rail links, two through the Baltic states and one through Ukraine. Transit camps were to be erected by the OP outside the 'military radius' of these transit hubs. While the idea of this radius is obvious; they were not in danger of being struck by strategic strikes against these hubs, the actual radii weren't given or what the perceived threat was. Perhaps they had a few pre-planned areas depending on how far the war had progressed towards the nuclear stage but really I'm just guessing. Poland, being a communist state, had a plan for everything and school and state busses seem to be the primary method of mobility.

On a simple materiel in/refugee out system the people move through the transit hubs, along the rail lines and out to other states. Now as I only read the CIA Polish civil defence briefings I don't know where they go or what happens when they get there. It's my guess large camps are built by the civil defence of the host states and eastern bloc international support systems were worked out. I'm guessing these camps wouldn't be that far from Poland, probably still within the transit states but really they could be anywhere.

Of course, this is a best case scenario. As we all know those hubs were primary targets. The Poles, not being idiots, had decided on alternate land routes for the above-mentioned busses off the main supply routes. You can only guess what that trip would be like. Of course there'd have to be a fleet of logistics vehicles accompanying them and I'm guessing they'd be sourced from state government but non-combat fleets. No doubt these would get a brisk green paint job and be sent straight back into the war.

Now, the essential workers are really two types and they are simply those who can be relocated and those who can't. This isn't covered in any cursory search of courses but I'm guessing that as the fighting intensified after the initial WTO counter-thrust they'd be pulling up every military factory possible and shipping it as far away from the strike aircraft. GMs can use this hypothetical scenario for two sources; Poles returning home from factories and continued usage of the nifty Polish military equipment.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

What happens to the Polish Non-Combatants?

In previous posts I've discussed how the Polish People's Party subscribed to the 'people's war' concept so the 'civilians' you see in the standard Twilight 2000 setting really aren't a thing, instead they are either in the disaster relief services or TKO. Essential workers if displaced from their workplaces either join these organisations or are moved away with their industries if possible (more on that below).

Interesting musings, as always, Chalkline.

I imagine those plans would fall apart relatively quickly. Many wartime exigencies would interfere with any large scale civilian evac- the use of roads by friendly military units (either heading to or from the front), enemy interdiction by means of airstrikes, long-range artillery, battlefield tactical missiles (with conventional warheads, initially), and or area denial munitions.

Also, I reckon it's likely that resources allocated for evacuations, on paper, would be quickly redirected to service military needs once war breaks out- especially if it doesn't start off so well for the Polish army. No plan survives contact with the enemy.

Lastly, when enemy attackers advance more quickly than expected, the resulting disruption, even carnage, can be severe. This happened to German civilians on both fronts in the final months of WW2. In East Prussia, especially, there are scores of documented reports of T34s machinegunning and even running over columns of civilian evacuees, and Soviet artillery mercilessly shelling same. Sometimes, the identity of the evacuees was unknown to the attacking force- the Germans used the same trains to move troops and civilians back and forth between the front and rear areas- but others it was abundantly clear. This was payback for the way the rampant German military treated civilians in Soviet territory (although this does not justify Soviet vengeance measures, it does explain why they were so callous and widespread).

Lastly, in a country the size of Poland, there's only so many places displaced civilians can go, and really no place that is not within reach of the enemy.

-