The 173rd in Romania, a 1.0 Timeline Option

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

So looks like the Herd should be pro Civgov, notwithstanding any skullduggery initiated in Med Cruise.

In the context of Spartan's proposal, that may imply some prewar covert shenanigans on the part of the U.S. State Department and CIA. With the 173rd deploying to Romania before the Thanksgiving Massacre, we can assume a presidential policy decision in the Tanner administration to support the country's split from the Warsaw Pact.

If the 173rd remains loyal to the Tanner administration's successor in Omaha, that opens up the opportunity for collaborative shenanigans with the divisions in Yugoslavia - if not a small-scale Pax Americana, then at least a regional alliance with nascent governments that might someday be allies. That suggests a very interesting intrigue-driven mode of play, especially if the Corpus Christi's mission was the Joint Chiefs' attempt to meddle in the remaining State Department's international affairs.

- C.

[Rainbow Six]

I find myself drawn to the idea of DIA and CIA teams both operating in Romania, each competing against the other. How far do things go? I could see each side using proxies for sure, but at what point might they openly engage in armed conflict with each other?

[Tegyrius]

That's a hard call. I think I'd rather see them competing for Romania and Yugoslavia's favor than openly warring with one another. Games of brinksmanship and one-upsmanship, with an unwritten rule that you don't kill other Americans, and both sides will drop their arguments to cooperate against the Soviets when Ivan acts up.

It's a quiet gentleman's war that's otherwise absent in the canon. It may not be entirely thematic for the main thrust of T2k, but I think it has potential in a "wilderness of mirrors" sort of way.

- C.

[Rainbow Six]

Don't you think there could be a hard core faction though? I see it as more of a thing within DIA if I'm being honest, small direct action teams going after specific 'targets' amongst Civgov loyalists, e.g. the CIA Station Chief for Yugoslavia gets convicted of treason in absentia by Milgov hardliners.

Or maybe I've been binge watching too much Homeland...

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

In the context of Spartan's proposal, that may imply some prewar covert shenanigans on the part of the U.S. State Department and CIA. With the 173rd deploying to Romania before the Thanksgiving Massacre, we can assume a presidential policy decision in the Tanner administration to support the country's split from the Warsaw Pact.

Is a fait accompli even necessary? I mean, couldn't the 173rd simply declare for CivGov after the schism like everybody else?

To Rainbow's point, although I can see the attraction of adding another adversary/competitor to the Romanian sandbox, NATO-aligned characters are going to have sundry OPFOR as it is (Soviets, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Italians, pro-Soviet Romanians, and marauders, to name a few). Adding internecine conflict might be piling on a bit.

-

[Rainbow Six]

I'm not thinking full on internecine warfare so much as one small group, acting as a group within a group. Say you've got a DIA operation going on in Romania and somewhere within that is a three person team. Call it an Orion Team (Orion being the hunter in Greek mythology iirc). They're essentially ultra black ops, boss level opponents. Run into them and it's a serious challenge for a PC group. and if you like to give your players moral dilemmas, there are all sorts of shades of gray in a Milgov / Civgov conflict. And if it's a group within a group, the regular DIA might not even know that they exist.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I'm not thinking full on internecine warfare so much as one small group, acting as a group within a group. Say you've got a DIA operation going on in Romania and somewhere within that is a three person team. Call it an Orion Team (Orion being the hunter in Greek mythology iirc). They're essentially ultra black ops, boss level opponents. Run into them and it's a serious challenge for a PC group. and if you like to give your players moral dilemmas, there are all sorts of shades of gray in a Milgov / Civgov conflict. And if it's a group within a group, the regular DIA might not even know that they exist.

Oh definitely. A little skulduggery is a must. I meant that I didn't think that the 173rd, if that's the only major NATO in Romania, should be aligned with MilGov with the the US forces in neighboring Yugoslavia loyal to CivGov. That just adds one more major adversary to the mix. Cooperation still adds mission possibilities (courier carrying top secret correspondence, that sort of thing) without creating an us-against-the-world situation.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Is a fait accompli even necessary? I mean, couldn't the 173rd simply declare for CivGov after the schism like everybody else?

Yep. That was my point. Their deployment was a policy decision of the prewar elected government, not a Milgov order or a Broward administration move (like the divisions that went to Yugoslavia). So they had to make that choice - it's not preordained by the canon OOBs or timeline.

Originally Posted by Raellus

To Rainbow's point, although I can see the attraction of adding another adversary/competitor to the Romanian sandbox, NATO-aligned characters are going to have sundry OPFOR as it is (Soviets, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Italians, pro-Soviet Romanians, and marauders, to name a few). Adding internecine conflict might be piling on a bit.

Ah. But if you design it as an espionage/intrigue-heavy setting, then you have the option of writing multiple playable factions that most players will still consider "the good guys." This also opens up the possibility of joint operations and shifting alliances, in which yesterday's friends are tomorrow's objectives. Those betrayals and uncertainties are the heart of espionage fiction because they make for good storytelling and human drama - something that I think is all too easy to lose track of in this game's focus on hardware and tactics.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I'm not thinking full on internecine warfare so much as one small group, acting as a group within a group. Say you've got a DIA operation going on in Romania and somewhere within that is a three person team. Call it an Orion Team (Orion being the hunter in Greek mythology iirc). They're essentially ultra black ops, boss level opponents. Run into them and it's a serious challenge for a PC group. and if you like to give your players moral dilemmas, there are all sorts of shades of gray in a Milgov / Civgov conflict. And if it's a group within a group, the regular DIA might not even know that they exist.

I like this very much. It could be a hardcore band of survivors from 10th Group who were originally deployed in support of the 173rd but have since started pursuing their own agendas.

- C.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Yep. That was my point. Their deployment was a policy decision of the prewar elected government, not a Milgov order or a Broward administration move (like the divisions that went to Yugoslavia). So they had to make that choice - it's not preordained by the canon OOBs or timeline.

Sorry I missed it. We're on the same page now.

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Ah. But if you design it as an espionage/intrigue-heavy setting, then you have the option of writing multiple playable factions that most players will still consider "the good guys." This also opens up the possibility of joint operations and shifting alliances, in which yesterday's friends are tomorrow's objectives. Those betrayals and uncertainties are the heart of espionage fiction because they make for good storytelling and human drama - something that I think is all too easy to lose track of in this game's focus on hardware and tactics.

I hear you, and I don't disagree stridently. But with both factions present in large numbers, then whichever side the PCs pick, there'll be one more major potential adversary to factor in. IMO, there are enough bad guys in the region already. I very much like the idea of small, covert groups representing the "other" faction pursuing opposing agendas in the AO, though.

-

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I very much like the idea of small, covert groups representing the "other" faction pursuing opposing agendas in the AO.

I concur. What I had in mind was the 173rd being loyal to Civgov, which fits with what's established in the ref's manual, namely that the Romanian partisan command had declared for Civgov, but that the DIA would have small units operating on the ground covertly.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I hear you, and I don't disagree stridently. But with both factions present in large numbers, then whichever side the PCs pick, there'll be one more major potential adversary to factor in. IMO, there are enough bad guys in the region already. I very much like the idea of small, covert groups representing the "other" faction pursuing opposing agendas in the AO, though. -

I think we're on the same page here too. That's why I'd rather see competition and rivalry than outright warfare between American factions in the region. I'm trying to think of an appropriate espionage frenemy fictional equivalent and coming up blank, but... oh, hell, Locke versus Sabetha in the third Gentleman Bastards novel is the first thing that comes to mind.

(Part of that mix is also the Milgov guys trying to convince the Broward loyalists to abandon their sham of a Constitution-violating government, and vice versa. There's probably a bar in Belgrade or somewhere that's the designated neutral territory for those conversations.)

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I concur. What I had in mind was the 173rd being loyal to Civgov, which fits with what's established in the ref's manual, namely that the Romanian partisan command had declared for Civgov, but that the DIA would have small units operating on the ground covertly.

This makes Milgov's recognition of Vlad all the more interesting, because they're propping up a potential rival to the partisans that the Broward administration recognizes.

- C.