RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-11-2021, 02:49 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 687
Default The Long War

Imagine a slightly modified Twilight 2000 timeline which involves a vanilla NATO vs WTO engagement.

That doesn't end.

In 2020, twenty years after the nuclear strikes, the war still rages on.

What would the world look like?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-11-2021, 03:41 AM
CraigD6er CraigD6er is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: England
Posts: 22
Default

I would visualise it as a slightly more modern version of James Rouch's The Zone series. From memory both sides were quite worn down and assaults were more localised than across the whole front.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-11-2021, 02:16 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,384
Default

That's difficult to imagine, Chalk. 20 years? That would be a generational conflict, like the Afghanistan war. 20 years for even more [than a standard, 3-5 year Twilight War] ammunition stocks to run dry, high-tech gear (radios, NVGs, etc.) to break, batteries to die, body armor to wear out, etc.

Is that T2k at all, or is it 30 Year's War redux?

-
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, and campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, available-

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-12-2021, 03:34 AM
Ursus Maior Ursus Maior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ruhr Area, Germany
Posts: 116
Default

I, too, have difficulties imagining such a long conflict between the two power blocks. Essentially, it would have to come down to a frozen conflict like today's war in Ukraine. The problem with that is that these conflicts need three things: 1) external pressure by a superior power against a local, yet smaller, power, 2) neglect or a "don't care attitude" by those backing the smaller party and 3) the determination of the more powerful party to keep the conflict going.

In the end, all conflicts are fought over something. Participating parties have something to gain from not ending a conflict. What's the gain for NATO and WARPAC members in that scenario?
__________________
Liber et infractus
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.