4th ed T2K

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Southernap

SNIP


*******************************************
To me there are ways to try and make a new TL work for Tw2k post 1991. That would be exploiting Yugoslavia. To drag Sweden, like what FL wants to do into the game it isn't that hard and I really think that you can take the 1991 coup and make it work. You can work the "Peace Dividend" in and still make the whole idea of the Twilight war work.

Not that it matters much but take this:

• 1991 - Coup occurs and Gorby is disposed. Hardliners come into play
• 1991 - Even with the hardliners in power the need to feed folks and get the economy that Gorby destroyed back up causes USSR to go internal for a while. PACT collapses and the Eastern Europe tries to come up to speed fast with democracy and capitalism. The cracks start to falter
  
  —Gorbachev didn’t wreck the Soviet economy, communism did. Eastern Europe can’t reform quickly because their industries are outdated and run down. It would take time and the Hardliners would never allow the West to move in and get economic control.
  
• 1992 - Clinton comes to power. With the collapse of Soviet Union. High off win in Iraq in 1991. Peace Dividend comes into effect in the west. Yet, the needs for the US to be the Hegemonic power starts to play. The US has troops in Somalia, Arabia, Korea, and the American Hemisphere. All while NATO scales back.
  
  —Clinton gets elected in late 1992 but doesn’t “come to power” until January 20, 1993. I’m not so sure about what NATO does. The Coup brings Hardliners to power...so what are these Hardliners hardline about? Most likely economic reform will be reversed and sabres will be rattled concerning the status of Eastern Europe. Some European nations might reduce military spending but in many ways tensions will actually increase, especially as Jugoslavia falls apart. Either way no bailout money will be going into the Soviet Union from the West and the US economy can afford to be a hegemonic power as the USSR withers.
  
• 1992 - Bosina war starts. the USSR pledges military and financial aid to keep the Yugoslavia states together or at least to defend the Slavic peoples.
  
  —This will be another Afghanistan/Vietnam for the USSR at a time when they completely can’t afford it. It’s actually likely to occur given historical ties and Russian pride, but it won’t end well for them even if the West stays completely hands off.
  
• At this point I think have the incident at Pristina Airport occur earlier, this starts to give a cause belli for the war in the west. Have the ChiComs decide that going after the Kamchatka Peninsula and its bases along with the traditional 1969 border crisis creep up again. Introduce an economic collapse of some sort that throws everyone into the doldrums, whether it is the 2008 Great Recession or not. So some see the rising Soviets at this point fat and flush with cash making communism work and capitalists go count trees.
  
  —There is no Great Recession in the works for the early or mid-1990s. The groundwork has already been laid for the economic boom of the 90s while the internet and housing bubbles were each 6-to-10 years away. That can’t really be changed by a POD of mid-1991. Added to this the crime wave of the 1980s was abating. Global economic growth might be slower with a belligerent Soviet Union still around but it’s on its way. The Pacific Rim, where Soviet influence is minor will see its historical boom. Very quickly a stagnant Soviet Union will be left behind, even more than the Russia of our history.
  
• 1994 - The PACT comes back into play after the economy in the east falters. With the New Soviets promising to share their oil wealth.
  
  The economy in Eastern Europe was well past “falters” prior to the 1989 events. The Soviet Union has nothing to offer but oppression and Poland et.al know that. There is no oil windfall for the Soviet Union. Their infrastructure was a mess and without Western assistance and trade deals it gets worse. The Gulf War oil price spike lasted less than a year. After that OPEC moved up production quotas and the Soviet Union’s oil industry would never keep up.
  
• 1995 - The PACT goes west after "reports" of NATO atrocities in Yugoslavia when IFOR fails to protect Slavs from genocide.
  
  If the Soviet Union moves into Jugoslavia there is probably no UN/NATO presence beyond Slovenia and maybe Macedonia. The Soviet Union still has a veto on the security council and at this point they would be loath to loose even more regional influence to the West.
  
• 1996 - To assist in securing the Northern Flank with war against NATO. The PACT invades Sweden to either allow for breakout of the Soviet Naval Forces in the Baltics or to attack Norway.
  
  —Sweden does little to secure the Northern Flank. They need control of the Northern half of Norway which might call for crossing Finnish territory but bringing the well armed Swedes into the war makes no sense for either side. Occasional illegal overflights might be a go but nothing too provocative.
  
• At which we take everything else in either V1 or V2 timeline to have occurred at some point after 1996 with the course of the war.
  
  —-This the general problem. The post Coup V2 timeline never made much sense but may have been reasonable given our understanding at the time of its writing. The V4 timeline on the other hand is crap.
  

MORE SNIPE

No offense is intended here; your ideas are far better than what I’ve seen with V4.

I’ve just gotten tired of the authors of “historical” RPGs where the background setting makes no sense. It’s one thing if your doing a Cold War setting with Vampires, magic or Cthulhu but T2K is “hard alternate history” and should be written as such. The V4 timeline is a mishmash of teenage “moar cool!”, political axe grinding and downright ignorance of the Cold War era.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

I'll upload it to Youtube probably tomorrow; I am playing AD&D right now.

Bill, I watched your Facebook video yesterday but couldn’t comment. My IPad has issues with the Facebook video player.

I too like Stålenhag’s “Tales From the Loop” setting, but I thought you were a bit too kind when you said it wasn’t political. I found the follow up, “Things From the Flood”, to have very strong and pervasive political undertones. To me it seemed very anti-capitalism. The entire Flood setting centers around consumerism and the high-tech wonders it spawned falling apart and leaving decay. There are also strong environmental overtones as well. Stålenhag is a wonderful artist be he and his setting are very steeped in euro-left political ideology. This doesn’t mean I dislike the setting but I found “Things From the Flood” overly pessimistic and out of touch with the economic realities of the 1990s. Perhaps Sweden, still recovering from its socialist experience of the 1970s and early 80s was doing poorly in the 1990s but the rest of the West were doing quite well in the 1990s.

[It turns out Sweden had its worse economic crisis in over 50s starting in 1990. Banks failed and unemployment skyrocketed due to over lending. This obviously shaped the “Things From the Flood.” but historically would not have held true for the US and elsewhere.]

As for the V4 TL I agree it’s garbage and I feared this would be the case from early on. That’s a major reason why I dropped out of the Kickstarter. Chris Lites has no filter on his strong political biases and the team at Free League were certainly not the ones who would be able or willing to reign him in. Either way it is what it is. Another version of T2K to strongly avoid.

[Olefin]

Good to see that I am not alone in thinking that the background, timeline and war events are garbage. And you are right about the political leanings of those who wrote the game. And you can see that Tomas has already posted on the FL FB page that there are no large scale US forces left in Europe and no "lines" to get back to

In other words this atrocity of a V4 release is 100% NOT TWILIGHT 2000 as we knew it and loved it

And the Free League fan boys, almost none of them actual T2K players, clearly are only looking at this as a game to spend a couple of evenings on and then go to the next game.

And yes I have had the Chris Lites experience - and he is everything that Legbreaker said and worse - and has a very definite political viewpoint

And Tomas told us that the Alpha would be changed form the original drafts we saw about the the total destruction of NATO and the US Armed forces that he said was just a draft, wait for the Alpha - and then out comes the Alpha and if anything its worse - and whats even worse is that comments that Tomas has made make it clear that his own writers arent keeping him in the loop on the Alpha - he just told me that only the 5th was supposed to be destroyed - I pointed out that Secret Handout said eight full Corps were assigned to Reset and the Players Manual clearly said they were all overrun and survivors running for the woods

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by Olefin

And Tomas told us that the Alpha would be changed form the original drafts we saw about the the total destruction of NATO and the US Armed forces that he said was just a draft, wait for the Alpha - and then out comes the Alpha and if anything its worse - and whats even worse is that comments that Tomas has made make it clear that his own writers arent keeping him in the loop on the Alpha - he just told me that only the 5th was supposed to be destroyed - I pointed out that Secret Handout said eight full Corps were assigned to Reset and the Players Manual clearly said they were all overrun and survivors running for the woods

If that is the case, then maybe Tomas will reign the idiots in and get a decent backstory in place. But then those pesky mechanics are a pile of poop also.

Just out of curiosity, what was the goal? From what I thought many moons ago, they were intending the game to be mostly compatible with the previous editions....at least enough so that only minor tweaking would be needed. This pile of poop seems to want to kick hard core players - you know the guys that will shell out bucks for MANY follow on products for YEARS - in the crotch.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by mpipes

If that is the case, then maybe Tomas will reign the idiots in and get a decent backstory in place. But then those pesky mechanics are a pile of poop also.

Just out of curiosity, what was the goal? From what I thought many moons ago, they were intending the game to be mostly compatible with the previous editions....at least enough so that only minor tweaking would be needed. This pile of poop seems to want to kick hard core players - you know the guys that will shell out bucks for MANY follow on products for YEARS - in the crotch.

Frankly I dont see them putting out any follow on products except Frank's Madonna - this smacks of one and done - and not being there to support a campaign based game - which explains the total lack of the world at war and the lack of being able to play any character that is with NATO or even the other WP members that are clearly mentioned in the game

And you are right - this went from being a V2.2. update to a total rip it up and start over

Notice that the oil war which was a huge part of V1 and V2.2. is completely lacking here - no targeting at all of petroleum sources and refineries which the original game went out of its way detailing

[Jason Weiser]

Just re-read the entire mess of a background to make sure I got what I said right:

Ok, for starters? Iraq and Syria allying to form this 'New United Arab Republic?' Have they literally not studied any of the history of those two countries? They cordially hate each other. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Syrians gleefully cut Iraqi access to the main oil pipeline Iraq used to get its oil to the Mediterranean. This cost the Iraqis billions in lost oil revenue. Moreover, the Syrians were a major arms dealer to Iran. There is no way, not with Hafez Al-Assad and Saddam Hussein still in the picture that these two will ever cooperate on anything.

Next, The Sweden timeline seems like a torturous method to a simple goal: Get Sweden into the war. A little history serves well here too? Whiskey on the Rocks anyone? Considering the Soviets violated Swedish territorial waters and airspace all throughout the Cold War, why couldn't an incident be the catalyst?

Finally, the writing on Page 143 is so vague, that even if Tomas is indeed being honest that he is only referring to the 5th Division being destroyed, then he should have made it clearer, this to me is bad writing and poor sentence structure.

Also, the strange occurrences in Sweden with military units and Parliaments disappearing, one has to wonder if this was a bad attempt at cross-marketing with Tales From the Loop?

[Southernap]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

No offense is intended here; your ideas are far better than what I’ve seen with V4.

No offense taken. I was trying to make something work with the "Coup is successful" timeline and bring in some other major events from the 1990s that occurred. The only other way to make the "Coup is successful" work, is have the 1989 Berlin Wall crisis happen where the East Germans or the Russians go all Tienanmen Square on the protesters in Berlin and Gorby goes to "retire" at his dacha and then has a "medical" incident while on retirement.

I only brought up the great recession, idea was that there was a thread for a while in the early to mid 90s in various media from books to games. That assumed the absorption of Eastern Europe into the common markets might have caused the collapse of some economies due to migration of low income workers. That said, we can quibble about details all day long still we both agree that there are some good options from the real history that can provide points of divergence for the counterfactual.

[Legbreaker]

I am of the opinion we should all let FL crash and burn.

A few years from now another company picks up the title and, hopefully, looks at forums such as this, discord, FB, etc and sees where both FL and 93 went wrong and does better.
Really, it's not THAT hard is it? Just take the 1st & 2.x timelines and clean them up a little, same thing with the 2.2 ruleset (yes, I know there's a lot who prefer 1st, but...) and boom, you've got a viable 5th ed that a) doesn't piss people off, b) is 100% compatible with the early versions and c) actually ADDS to the host of resources already out there.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I am of the opinion we should all let FL crash and burn.

A few years from now another company picks up the title and, hopefully, looks at forums such as this, discord, FB, etc and sees where both FL and 93 went wrong and does better.
Really, it's not THAT hard is it? Just take the 1st & 2.x timelines and clean them up a little, same thing with the 2.2 ruleset (yes, I know there's a lot who prefer 1st, but...) and boom, you've got a viable 5th ed that a) doesn't piss people off, b) is 100% compatible with the early versions and c) actually ADDS to the host of resources already out there.

And d) let’s us build off the work of the past and honor it and go forward with the timeline but with improvements like an actual decent UK Sourcebook

[raketenjagdpanzer]

This is kind of how I felt when 4e D&D came out, insisting that things like Tieflings and Eladrin were "always" in various settings, including Greyhawk, etc.

[Raellus]

Although it's nice to have a place to vent, a lot of the discussion in this thread has been in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of our forum guidelines. Some of it has been downright nasty. I've let this go on for too long.

A little refresher is probably in order.

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 inflammatory posts. In interweb parlance, please don't be a troll.

Keep It Constructive

Folks post a lot of original T2K material here, most of it of the highest quality. Many contributors invite and welcome constructive criticism. If, however, they do not solicit feedback, then it's poor form to pipe in give it anyway. And please, don't post just to tear down the hard work of others. If you really don't like something that someone else has posted, and can't express this respectfully and with the intention of creating a constructive dialogue with the poster, then you should probably just keep it to yourself.

Keep it Apolitical

Partisan politics tend to lead to nastiness, so please don't drag political opinions into this forum. We don't tolerate hate speech or of any kind. Slurs pertaining to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation will result in a permanent ban from this forum.

If You Refuse To Follow These Guidelines…

Failure to follow these forum guidelines will result in administrative action. This could be a warning, a temporary ban, or even permanent banishment from the forum community.

-

So, to sum up, constructive criticism of v4 is appropriate and allowable in this thread. However, name-calling and trashing are NOT.

-

[Legbreaker]

Pretty hard to be constructive when the foundation material is just soooo bad and the company responsible has so far shown very little inclination to actually listen to those of us who've already spoken up directly to them.

But, you're right. Insults, etc aren't going to help anyone.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Pretty hard to be constructive when the foundation material is just soooo bad and the company responsible has so far shown very little inclination to actually listen to those of us who've already spoken up directly to them.

This comment is kind of what I'm talking about. Fair or not, this point has been made, ad nauseum, here and elsewhere. How is repeating it constructive?

We've all had time to vent. Enough is enough. Let's try to move on.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

But, you're right. Insults, etc aren't going to help anyone.

I'm glad that we agree on that, at least.

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

This comment is kind of what I'm talking about. Fair or not, this point has been made, ad nauseum, here and elsewhere. How is repeating it constructive?

Hence my earlier comment about just letting FL crash and burn.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Hence my earlier comment about just letting FL crash and burn.

Again, what's the point (of this comment)? You said it once before. That's enough. Ad nauseum.

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Again, what's the point (of this comment)?

-

its called constructive criticism and debate - which is what the board is for - and he has a point unfortunately - and he is not alone in his point - but I really dont want to see V4 crash and burn. Hopefully Tomas is going to listen to the rising tide of criticism and realize that its time to start listening to the fans who love this game with a passion and joy and deep abiding committment to it - the ones who kept it alive all these years when many other games would have disappeared entirely.

V4 could be and can be so much more - but he needs to swallow his pride and realize that Twilight 2000 was never just about basic survival - it was also a great military simulation game that gave us a bunch of fantastic modules where you didnt just have to survive but as a character actually make a difference in the world

go stop a madman in the Ukraine and Warsaw

take out a bunch of generals in a hotel in Iran and in the process maybe derail the Soviet plans in Iran for good

find a way to somehow keep your the forces in Kenya going on a shoe string and a prayer

Stop the last Boomer from turning what was left of the US into radioactive ruin

Or save two kids from a bunch of pirates using a replica of a 200 year old ship

That is Twilight 2000 as well - and someone needs to remind Tomas and Marc of that

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

its called constructive criticism and debate - which is what the board is for

Wait, now you're a defender of free speech?!? The following is NOT constructive criticism:

Originally Posted by Olefin

IT SUCKS

Originally Posted by Olefin

And a game that has a crappy half ass antifa/Soviet fan boy background where the US military and government act like complete morons and the Soviet Army is all conquering is the last thing I want to play

My suggestion - keep the mechanics, trash the entire campaign background, timeline, and war events including RESET and start over

Originally Posted by Olefin

Oh I havent yet begun to fight this abomination - and frankly I would agree with you on the Russian internet trolls - or Soviet fanboys

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry but that is utter BS -

Originally Posted by Olefin

Frankly this timeline and background is a goat screw.

Originally Posted by Olefin

- and frankly people crowing about the "artwork" five minutes after it was out and not even reading the rules and the actual game background show that they werent serious potential players

Originally Posted by Olefin

In other words this atrocity of a V4 release is 100% NOT TWILIGHT 2000 as we knew it and loved it

These are all from different posts in this thread. No emphasis added. Those are your words, every quote arguably a violation of forum guidelines, definitely in spirit, if not in the letter.

Cease and desist or be banned.

-

[Olefin]

Nothing that I posted tonight in any way violate the guidelines of this board. That is called listening to you Raellus and posting accordingly.

[Jason Weiser]

Gentlemen, in the interests of easing tensions and giving us all a chance to calm down, I propose strongly that we lock the thread for 24 hours.

[Raellus]

Unlocked.

It's totally acceptable to criticize v4, as long as the criticism is constructive (i.e. offers alternatives, solutions, fixes, etc.) and the tone of said is civil (i.e. no name-calling and insults). If those guidelines aren't followed, this thread will be relocked.

-

[mpipes]

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don’t just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

2) You can’t have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don’t believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won’t risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL’s scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitzs are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

4) Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you’ll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

5) Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

6) Put Sweden’s spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they?

7) You can’t have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

8) This can’t be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

9) Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel’s side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly?

10) Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by mpipes

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don’t just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

2) You can’t have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don’t believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won’t risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL’s scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitzs are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

4) Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you’ll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

5) Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

6) Put Sweden’s spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they?

7) You can’t have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

8) This can’t be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

9) Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel’s side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly?

10) Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Pretty much everything you said.

If you want realistic timeline events, all you gotta do is look at headlines over the last 10 years. China muscling it's way through the Pacific with man-made islands, resulting in confrontation with it's neighbors. Instead of the Spratley's or the ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, maybe the 2008 Russia-China border agreement results in a later dispute that'll draw Russia in conflict with China?

Despite some misgiving about the timeline, I really like TW2013s mechanics - skill points have a definite effect on the randomness of dice rolls rather than just affecting the target number, which reflects the randomness of the real world where even experts can be wrong sometimes.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

If you want realistic timeline events, all you gotta do is look at headlines over the last 10 years. China muscling it's way through the Pacific with man-made islands, resulting in confrontation with it's neighbors. Instead of the Spratley's or the ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, maybe the 2008 Russia-China border agreement results in a later dispute that'll draw Russia in conflict with China?

Absolutely. It wasn't difficult to create a timeline for a T2030. The biggest challenge was narrowing down the list of current conflict zones that contributed to the beginning of WWIII to only two or three major ones. There are just so many conflict zones and potential flashpoints in our world today.

The problem with creating a Twilight 2000 timeline that includes the fall of the Iron Curtain and collapse of the Soviet Union c.1991 (i.e. v4) is plausibly explaining how the rump Soviet state recovers by '97 or so, and manages to wage a fairly successful offensive war against most of NATO and the former WTO. I'm not sure it's possible to do this realistically. This is why I think the v1 alternative, No Collapse, timeline is really, IMHO, the only viable way to go to get to 2000 as campaign starting point.

But, v4 is trying, so the best thing that disgruntled folks can do is give their constructive feedback on the Alpha directly to Free League and hope that it sinks in. It's too much to hope for a RETCON- I just don't see them redoing their entire timeline. However, if they make it just a little more realistic/plausible, that, for me, would be a win.

-

[pansarskott]

Good writeup!

Originally Posted by mpipes

11) The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

The weird thing is that the French military does a coup because the civilan government does not retaliate. And then the coup-makers does not retaliate.

Originally Posted by player's manual

The following day, the French President announced that France would not retaliate, provoking major riots throughout the country. In reaction, a group of generals, the Three Consuls, instigated a coup and overturned the government, seizing Paris and other major cities.

It's not really clear if they have missile subs, or attack subs left. Both types are nuclear powered.

Originally Posted by player's manual

For now, the government keeps its coastline under the surveillance of the last three French nuclear submarines

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by mpipes

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don’t just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

To quote Bill Slivey - "Twilight: 2000 is the lore."

Originally Posted by mpipes

2) You can’t have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don’t believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

Moreover? Except for the French, much of NATO's nuclear capable assets had SIOP taskings. I mean, we gave the FRG Pershings? I don't think we did that out of sheer kindness. We did it because we wanted nuclear buy-in from the rest of the alliance.

Originally Posted by mpipes

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won’t risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL’s scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitz's are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

The first skipper of a carrier that does this in waters like the Baltic is the first skipper to get relieved of command for cause in the Third World War. And pulling into a potentially hostile harbor with a nuclear-capable asset? Um, no. See the USS Cole for what a bad idea this is in RL. And that was just a DDG. A TLAM-capable DDG. Nope, they might have some lighter units pull into Stockholm, but it's too far forward for friendly assets.

Originally Posted by mpipes

4)Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you’ll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

Even this is a bit of a stretch. The RAF is no slouch, and most of that airborne unit isn't going to make it to the DZs. The Spetsnaz should already be operating in the UK before the outbreak of war in a clandestine mode? But against the UK's formidable internal apparatus plus SAS let off the leash? I won't even talk about what most military installations in the UK were going to be like in case of war. There's a reason the RAF Regiment exists. I give most Spetsnaz teams about 3-6 months. That's assuming they're just doing SR work. If they're doing DA work? Dead as doornails much sooner.

5)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

Without allies, the Soviets are toast. They just don't have any strategic depth to hold off NATO before you're playing Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo, now with more ATGM! Considering the Soviets consider that sort of thing a national security goal to avoid it ever happening again, I expect Soviet pre-war diplomacy to be a bit more...adroit?

6)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Put Sweden’s spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they?

One does wonder. At the very least, raising hell in the invader's rear area?

7)

Originally Posted by mpipes

You can’t have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

mpipes is on the money. The Soviets would have used first in this situation precisely to support an advance by their forces. They would have hit first with overwhelming use of tactical and theatre nuclear weapons. The Soviets for years vacillated in their planning on whether or not they would go nuclear from the outset (depended on who was in power).

8)

Originally Posted by mpipes

This can’t be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

That's the thing, v1 and v2 were world wars. There was stuff going on all over! You had Iowa sinking a Kirov with her 16" guns off of Grenada. You had fighting in Alaska and Texas. You had a sourcebook on Thailand! This version is sadly a bit myopic in it's focus. Even v1, while it's focus was Europe, gave lip service to the rest of the world.

9)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel’s side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly?

It's not just anti-Semitic. It's laughably naïve about middle eastern politics ca. 1991. First, Syria and Iraq hated each other. A lot. Syria took every opportunity during the Iran-Iraq war to screw Iraq. They shut down pipelines Iraq needed for oil revenue to buy arms and they sold the Iranians everything they could afford, and helped others ship arms to Iran as well. Then there's the not so small fact that Syria sent troops to participate in Desert Storm in 1991. Granted, they didn't do much, but they were there. So no, Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad are not going to do anything in cooperation.

The last time I could honestly say that an Arab coalition realistically threatened the survival of the state of Israel on a level that nuclear weapons release was contemplated was 1973. And even then it was a stretch. Nope, the IDF is going to mop the floor with any realistic combination of Arab armies. To me, a more realistic threat? Egypt goes fundamentalist earlier. It was always possible, and the Soviets cozy up to the new regime. You have Egypt and a rearmed Syria looking for a rematch? Then it gets interesting. But even then, the Gulf Arabs + Iraq ironically aren't going to sit back and say "Gee, we think this is an awesome state of affairs." Will they side with Israel? On a de factobasis, but not de jure.

As for the Balkans? Considering it was a powder keg in the 90s? There should be fighting galore in the former Yugoslavia, with both sides backing various factions.

10)

Originally Posted by mpipes

Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

Big drop of the ball here. This is an European company, I think not doing this is just a non-starter.

11)

Originally Posted by mpipes

If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

The Force De Frappe was there to make sure any nuclear aggressor against France suffered as badly as France did. The idea of France not launching is just plain not realistic. They had an independent force, not subject to the US SIOP, and they would have executed that plan, no matter what we or anyone else said to them, especially if the Soviets are dropping warheads on French foreheads. Forget Paris. If Lille or Le Havre catch a nuke, it's on.

12)

Originally Posted by mpipes

I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Resource management is part of the game. It can be tedious, and I will admit I fudge it, but then again, I at least pay it lip service. Logistics is a bitch, and in T2K, like in RL, failing to pay attention can and will kill you in a variety of un-fun ways.

[Black Vulmea]

Originally Posted by Southernap

To me there are ways to try and make a new TL work for Tw2k post 1991. That would be exploiting Yugoslavia.

Yes! It's not like we don't have precedent for strife in the Balkans precipitating a world war . . .

I admit I was never fond of the geopolitics and timeline in v1, either, to be honest, and house ruled it as an Able Archer scenario that went tragically wrong.

If I ever run v4, I will as well: a Balkans crisis with NATO and PACT intervention, a Pakistan-India-China kerfuffle, and Iraq flexing in the Middle East.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

To quote Bill Slivey - "Twilight: 2000 is the lore."

12)

Resource management is part of the game. It can be tedious, and I will admit I fudge it, but then again, I at least pay it lip service. Logistics is a bitch, and in T2K, like in RL, failing to pay attention can and will kill you in a variety of un-fun ways.

If 2000 is the lore, will it be given sufficient attention to detail? Part of the resource management is knowing what kit you have and what you need to keep it working.

That race through the countryside dodging an evemy tank? You absolutely need to keep track of fuel burned and bullets fired because the quest for resources drives the way a campaign unfolds. If resource management, encumbrance, and tending to the injured are hand-waved, what else is there to focus the players? This isn't the D&D dungeon crawl mindset...

In other words, how hard is it to develop ammo cards, weapon cards, vehicle cards, etc.? Or is the thinking that the rules set won't support that level of granularity?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by mpipes

OK. I’ll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.
<snip>

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France’s citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined? I don’t care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don’t think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

France sent agents to sink a Greenpeace ship in the harbour of a friendly nation to prevent the ship from protesting nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific - and this reboot timeline wants us to believe France would sit back and do nothing if someone dropped an actual nuclear warhead on them?
Ah yeah, NO!

Originally Posted by mpipes

12) I’m not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Unfortunately that will not happen. None of the things you suggest fit with their other Year Zero games and because this reboot is very firmly based on the Year Zero rules, it will not be changed.
The Year Zero rules suit the dungeon crawl style of the FL games philosophy so they are not going to change the design to suit the more sandbox style that 1st & 2nd and 2013 have.

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

If 2000 is the lore, will it be given sufficient attention to detail? Part of the resource management is knowing what kit you have and what you need to keep it working.

That race through the countryside dodging an evemy tank? You absolutely need to keep track of fuel burned and bullets fired because the quest for resources drives the way a campaign unfolds. If resource management, encumbrance, and tending to the injured are hand-waved, what else is there to focus the players? This isn't the D&D dungeon crawl mindset...

In other words, how hard is it to develop ammo cards, weapon cards, vehicle cards, etc.? Or is the thinking that the rules set won't support that level of granularity?

As I mentioned above, the Year Zero games all appear to me, to be based around dungeon crawling and the most minimal book-keeping that they can get away with.
You could be forgiven for calling FL's reboot as "Twilight: 2000 lite" but I think even that fails to recognise just how stripped back the Year Zero system is compared to what we expect from a game that has a central theme of surviving & rebuilding in the post-apocalypse of a global war.

The Year Zero rules seem to work well for Tales From The Loop but your characters in that game are children and adolescents. They haven't had the life experience to accumulate special skills and training so the generalized approach to handling Skill tasks works. But for a game where the characters are adults or older adolescents? Characters who have had years of schooling or time in the workplace and have years of acquired experience & knowledge?
The Year Zero rules are basic and to paraphrase one of the designers of the T2k reboot, they want to replicate the thrill of gunfights & car chases you see in movies - the Year Zero rules will work for this purpose. They don't want rules that are more sophisticated because they seem to view that as bogging down the gameplay.
The Year Zero rules are for all intents and purposes here, pulp action rules and just like I do not believe Savage Worlds rules work for Twilight: 2000, I don't believe any other pulp action rules set will work either.

And FL do actually have weapon cards but they seem to have no clear direction on how and what to produce. To illustrate what I mean, they devote several pages to weapons cards but some could be easily combined. There is no functional or physical difference between the Soviet manufactured SVD and the Polish manufactured SWD.
The SWD is a Polish made SVD, the names are different because one is in Russian and the other is in Polish... so why have two different weapons cards, one for each?

This is true for a number of the Polish weapons because they choose to have Soviet weapons cards, Swedish weapons cards, Polish weapons cards, US weapons cards and so on.
This seems like a good idea but in reality it's unnecessary duplication of information and a total waste of page space & development time - but it does give the impression on first glance that they have a lot of weapons in the book.

[Silent Hunter UK]

They also missed out the OT-64.

[Raellus]

StainlessSteelCynic shared an interesting find in another thread, but it seems particularly germane to the v4 T2kU, so I'm reposting the link here. I encourage y'all to read it. It's worth your time. The author's strategic analysis is quite illuminating, and particularly germane to the v4 World At War controversy/debate. A particularly eye-opening quote follows:

"[The Soviet Union] Launching a conventional war with limited aims in Northern Europe (Seven Days to the Rhine) with an openly declared promise not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, would produce such a shock to our system it would have been economically catastrophic.

"Recovery from that would have put Russia and the USA on more equal financial terms as much of the Dollar economy is based on confidence and communication, while the Russian economy was captive. It may not be a plan to take over the world, but quite possibly enough coercion to get the world to pay them off - give them Germany, Denmark, Holland and back off from China to stop them [the Soviets] slapping us about.

"It was unlikely, but many historical pivots only needed a gentle push off the cliff. In August 1991 I sat in a tank shed in Hohne listing to the BBC news tell us about the Soviet coup in Moscow . Gorbachev was rumoured to have been killed, the Tamanskya Guards Division were rolling around the Kremlin, shady generals were in charge and unhappy with the imminent end of Soviet power. There were still millions of WarPac soldiers and tons of equipment within a day’s drive from our position.

It was genuinely the scariest couple of days of my career."

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Soviet...-War-1945-1991

So perhaps the Soviet attack on Eastern Europe in the v4 timeline was a result of two pieces of Soviet strategic thinking. One, to bring some of its errant former republics and WTO members back into the Soviet fold, recreating the territorial buffer between Mother Russia and NATO (a top Soviet priority since its national inception). Two, to take control of some NATO territory to hold hostage, as it were, to be ransomed for massive financial compensation in hard currency (or gold, or energy), thereby resuscitating the moribund Soviet economy.

-