RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09-18-2010, 02:33 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull View Post
In V1 there was Soviet unit that was based off there vehicle guide. Maybe someone cut and paste the the wrong things...lol You would of thought the editors would of caught it...
GDW was in many ways a mom & pop operation -- they were based out of a converted town house that was primarily given over to the GDW operation, but they often slept and ate where they worked. I can see a few mistakes slipping through. They also outsourced a lot of work, and I can see them looking at all the stuff from the outsourcers with blurred eyes dreading what mistakes they might have made. Just like our web sites have mistakes and I'm sure we all get email telling us about them, you just do your best and hope things are as accurate as possible before you roll them out, and fix them when they're not. GDW didn't have the advantage of the web and email.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-18-2010, 05:59 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

pmulcahy11b is right. I didn't even get the web until 1998.
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-18-2010, 09:47 PM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Definitely NOT trying to beat up on GDW! Without them I wouldn't have found this awesome game and I might still be playing D&D! :P
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-18-2010, 11:02 PM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Yeah after thinking about it today....there was no such thing as cut and paste like we have today when much of this material was published. Sometimes we tend to forget how much civilization has advance since 1984 when most of this material had been published originally. No I can see some one having several sheet of paper hold various OOBs, being called away and then trying to find their location in their work, finding what they thought was right, copy it and then briefly get called away again and then going back to the correct paper work. If they were like many paper offices, they weren't very organized. I can tell you story of professor whose office looks as if it still in the 1970s-80s with the exception of the computer he works on and mini/dorm fridge he has under his desk where he would sit if he didn't have it being used to collect large piles of papers....

Remember when computers were suppose to turn us into paperless society. We are getting their but still a long ways off.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-18-2010, 11:30 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull View Post
If they were like many paper offices, they weren't very organized.
When I visited them in January of 1990, that's one thing I saw immediately -- several tables and desks with papers and maps all over them. It probably didn't help that a visitor showed out of the blue unannounced, but they were very nice about showing me around and giving me a quick peek (not too much) of what they were working on, and asking me questions about what its like to be a soldier, stuff about Korea (unfortunately, I could only tell them unclassified stuff), and what's it's like to shoot things like automatic weapons and grenade launchers and rocket launchers. I got the impression that they were considering doing something about Korea, and I even gave them a possible sourcebook title: Morning Calm (based on the full name of Korea in Hangul: Land of the Morning Calm). I hope I helped.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-19-2010, 08:40 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Cool you actually when to their shop...Way Cool.

Yeah that is the one of the tricky thing even today.

How much information is too much information. LOL. You know Paul that one of those things I never thought much about either with what would be considered Classified and what wasn't. Especially for troops such as you that had served in Korea and Germany. Being only based at Fort Bragg not one of those things I had given much thought. Then again I am sure with the internet now, most of the beans have been spilled out of the can...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-19-2010, 08:44 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Yeah Korea and Panama and Africa were big holes they had left out...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-19-2010, 03:53 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull View Post
Yeah Korea and Panama and Africa were big holes they had left out...


true, but big holes we can fill in.
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-19-2010, 06:47 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

We've got a skeleton of information. Will take some work but I'm sure we can put some meat on dem bones!
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-31-2012, 08:36 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

ARGH!

Why'd I have to find this thread again and upset all my thoughts of the past couple of months!?

UN/not UN. Small/large Australian presence! It's all getting too hard!
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-31-2012, 10:35 AM
simonmark6 simonmark6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Swansea, South Wales, UK
Posts: 374
Default

It's not hard, Leg, if you want lots of Aussies in Korea because you think it'd make a hell of a game, happy days, and if the Aussies are there the Kiwis have to turn out to keep their simpler brethren in check lest the Aussies all die searching for a barby or carry the offensive to the gates of the Kremlin!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-31-2012, 01:22 PM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,623
Default

What Simonmark6 said. You probably know the Aussie Army better than most of us Leg and know how many troops they would be able to send overseas – what you put forward in the Australia thread a couple of weeks ago seems quite plausible to me. I guess the only question would be whether the logistics were in place for the 9th Brigade to be able to relieve the 3rd Brigade...I suppose it depends on when the Indonesians make their move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
There's bound to be some indications of Indonesia's intentions beforehand, so we should be able to justify pushing the reserve call up back about 6 months. Perhaps the official explanation, at least the one given to Indonesia anyway, was that it was a response to Australia's UN obligations in Korea, or to help out in Cyprus letting the British got to war in Europe. A bit thin, but aren't most political statements?

The timeline is important here too. 3rd Brigade probably goes over to Korea first and the reserves are called up at the same time to begin training. Recruiting efforts kick into overdrive and maybe conscription sugar coated as a way of reducing unemployment, kick starting the economy or something like that.

Officially the reserves are only supposed to serve inside Australia as a defence only force, somewhat like the WWII militia were supposed to, however once Indonesia makes it's move, 1st (less 1 Armoured Regiment aka Koalas - protected species not allowed outside Australia ) and 7th Brigades are sent into action, 9th Brigade is sent to relieve 3rd in Korea who are brought back home for predeployment training and reaclimatisation for PNG and to give commanders an airborne option (3 Para battalion).

8th, 11th and 13th Brigades are deployed to the north of the country while 4th and 5th Brigades (plus the Koalas) are kept as "strategic reserve" but sent into disaster relief duties when the nukes hit.

3rd Brigade may not make it to PNG but could be redirected as a "fire brigade" at home.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-02-2012, 11:00 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Well, that's half the problem. A year or so back I was all about minimal Australian presence in Korea, yet lately I've gone the other way. Both approaches seem to have equally valid logic behind them.

Hmm, Might work and publish both options...
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-02-2012, 11:11 AM
simonmark6 simonmark6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Swansea, South Wales, UK
Posts: 374
Default

More choice is always better: I prefer a shopping list to mix and match my scenarios rather than a one size fits all prescription. I would definitely like to see both alternatives.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-02-2012, 11:46 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Well, that's half the problem. A year or so back I was all about minimal Australian presence in Korea, yet lately I've gone the other way. Both approaches seem to have equally valid logic behind them.

Hmm, Might work and publish both options...
WHAT?!
You mean you've changed your ideas! And I thought you were simply stuck forever in your fossilized state of mind...



Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-03-2012, 04:55 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,261
Default

Here's an idea I just had...for good or ill:

You know how the Soviets were calling on their "Socialist brothers" and stripping divisions in Eastern Europe to throw into the meat-grinder of the Siberian front? What if the Chinese were doing the same with the North Koreans? A little tit-for-tat, we-saved-your-bacon-in-'48-now-pony-up action?

Given that the west was using the Sino-Soviet war as a proxy war, providing our Most Favored Nation Trading partner with weapons and ammo, gleefully watching them smash the Soviets (and vice-versa) I'm wondering if the Chinese wouldn't take the heat off of S.Korea by thinning out a potentially ambitious North Korea by "asking" for a few divisions to plug the lines.

Until the nukes fly in '97, this would leave the Korean Peninsula relatively quiet and keep the NKs from getting too ambitious without their Chinese masters keeping them from doing something stupid to S.Korea, which might piss off the west and stop the lend-lease from flowing in.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:39 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,688
Default

I don’t know what things look like in v2 and later, but in the v1 chronology it’s pretty clear that the North Koreans are clients of the Soviets. I have no doubt that the Soviets encouraged the North Koreans to invade the ROK as a means of diverting American resources that might otherwise be sent to Europe or the Middle East.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-04-2012, 10:57 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Yes, in reality, North Korea drifted out of the Chinese sphere of influence and more into the Soviet. The vast majority of NK equipment came from the Soviets, even though the two countries had somewhat of a falling out in the 70's (I think it was).

The North Korean invasion of South Korea in December 1996 could have been prompted and encouraged by the Soviets to help stem the build up of Nato forces in Europe where the Pact forces were a little light on the ground at the time.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-04-2012, 01:52 PM
boogiedowndonovan's Avatar
boogiedowndonovan boogiedowndonovan is offline
Activist Rules Lawyer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: norcal
Posts: 309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
I don’t know what things look like in v2 and later, but in the v1 chronology it’s pretty clear that the North Koreans are clients of the Soviets. I have no doubt that the Soviets encouraged the North Koreans to invade the ROK as a means of diverting American resources that might otherwise be sent to Europe or the Middle East.
well, V2.2 BYB says that the newly reunified Republic of Korea came to the assistance of the Chinese early in the war and suffered accordingly.

It does not mention how the reunification occured, but I would assume that it was peaceful.

I don't remember what V2.0 says, my copy is buried away under some boxes.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-04-2012, 02:11 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

V2.0 BYB says exactly the same thing, word for word.
However, I'm of a mind to simply ignore that single paragraph and take note of the information given in the various vehicle guides. Korea might be unified in 2000, but it seems near impossible for it to happen in time for them to do much to help China.
South Korea on the other hand with it's strong and vital military industry is well positioned to supply China with equipment. Makes sense really as they've then got a "testing ground" right next door so to speak to see how their weaponry stands up to Soviet/North Korean gear and make adjustments accordingly.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:56 AM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,381
Default

Korean unification in the v2 timeline is interesting, I don't think I've ever noticed that before. Does it have to be a DPRK attack on the South?

"What if" when NATO took advantage of the Soviets' distraction on the Chinese Front, the RoK then did the same, and used that (with Chinese & American approval) to smash the North?
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:45 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

It is very vague as to who attacked who, however it's more logical for the North to attack given there was only one US Division in Korea at the time and reinforcements took months to arrive. Added to that, the US probably wasn't keen on starting an additional front if they really didn't have to.
Whoever attacked, it happened on the exact same date as US troops entered combat in Europe. It's almost a certainty NATO, particularly the US and Britain would have "telegraphed" their intentions to the world by sending troops into Germany - as if the Germans hadn't already done that weeks and months before....
It wouldn't take much for a supposedly combat ready North Korea to spend a couple of days calling soldiers back from leave, etc and launching their own offensive.

Of course there's nothing to say the South Koreans went on the offensive first, however that doesn't seem all that likely.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-05-2012, 03:50 PM
James Langham James Langham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
It is very vague as to who attacked who, however it's more logical for the North to attack given there was only one US Division in Korea at the time and reinforcements took months to arrive. Added to that, the US probably wasn't keen on starting an additional front if they really didn't have to.
Whoever attacked, it happened on the exact same date as US troops entered combat in Europe. It's almost a certainty NATO, particularly the US and Britain would have "telegraphed" their intentions to the world by sending troops into Germany - as if the Germans hadn't already done that weeks and months before....
It wouldn't take much for a supposedly combat ready North Korea to spend a couple of days calling soldiers back from leave, etc and launching their own offensive.

Of course there's nothing to say the South Koreans went on the offensive first, however that doesn't seem all that likely.
Given that everyone will be VERY jumpy it wouldn't take much for the war to start by accident. I've avoided that in my history as that's how I've started the Sino-Soviet fighting.

I like the idea of the South starting the war but I can't see what they hope to gain from it. It would also make the Australian and Canadian decision to send troops odd.

The most logical candidate is the North probably in an attempt to avoid famine and hoping the US isn't able to intervene before they achieve their aims.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-05-2012, 05:03 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,688
Default

I don’t think we have to work very hard to come up with an explanation for how the fighting spread to Korea. Provided one is using a v1 timeline, it seems fairly clear that the North Koreans initiated the fighting.

The US Army Vehicle Guide tells us that 2nd ID was engaged against North Korean commando units on 12/19/96 and was engaged against NK mech units by 1/3/97. This supports the idea that the NKs launched strong probes with SOF prior to launching their main offensive. I will grant that this item could be interpreted as having ROK forces invade the DPRK; the US would stay behind, as it did in West Germany, which would account for the first contact between 2nd ID and the NKs being defending against commando actions. I’m not inclined to think that the ROK attempts to reunify Korea by force of arms, though. The US has plenty to do in Europe in December 1996. Still, there is room for discussion as to whether the US is willing to be so adventurous as to allow/encourage a client to repeat West Germany’s trick while the fighting in Europe is still raging.

The US Army Vehicle Guide tells us that 7th ID arrives in the ROK in January 1997. The division participates in holding actions along the 38th Parallel throughout the first half of 1997, then moves north as part of a general offensive. The description for 25th ID reads about the same. Except for the fact that 26th ID arrives in Korea in February, its story reads about the same, too. 41st and 45th ID also participate in holding actions during the first half of 1997, then move north. 163rd ACR has pretty much the same story. The Marines mostly come to the show later, although 4th Marine Division’s history reads like that of the Army divisions.

So what we get is a single US division in Korea at the time the fighting starts. The first contact between 2nd ID and the NKs involves NK commandos. Later actions involve NK regulars. Everyone who arrives before the main Eighth US Army offensive at mid-year participates in holding actions along the 38th Parallel until the offensive kicks off. The most obvious explanation is that the North Koreans invaded South Korea, quite possibly at the urging of the USSR, in an attempt to unify Korea by force of arms while the US was engaged in Europe. The US slowly reinforced until the correlation of forces was such that offensive operations were possible. This fits nicely with pre-existing plans for war and what we know about the North Koreans in real life.

The other possibility seems to be that the ROK invades North Korea in an attempted repeat of the West German invasion of the DDR. If we go with this, then the South Koreans fare even worse than the West Germans: they don’t appear to get off the 38th Parallel on their own. Of course, it’s possible that the Americans man defensive positions along one part of the line while the ROK forces are pushing forward someplace else. Either way, it takes US forces to push deep into North Korea.

In the case of the second scenario, we must believe that the South Koreans believe there has been a significant change in the correlation of forces such that the ROK has a chance to pursue offensive operations in the North to a successful conclusion. In order for the South Koreans to believe this, they would have to believe that they could meet and defeat the larger North Korean Army inside North Korea. Granted, it’s quite possible that given the Sino-Soviet War and the fighting in Europe the South Koreans would be counting on the North Koreans being cut off from resupply and reinforcement by the Soviets and the Chinese. This is probably a reasonable assumption. However, the fact remains that moving north and digging the North Koreans out of their defensive positions is a completely different task than defending South Korea against invasion. All of the defensive advantages that might accrue to the ROK in the latter case would be turned around on invading South Korean forces.

It’s also hard to believe (though not impossible to believe) that the US would have been kept in the dark regarding this possibility. Would the US really have given permission for this? In geopolitical terms, the risk to the US would be very, very real. A US client state invades a Soviet client state in 1996; when the going gets tough for the West Germans, the US intervenes. A repeat of this process someplace else in the world can’t help but agitate the Soviets to the highest degree. It would be very hard to imagine that the Kremlin would not see US actions in Europe and Korea as an attempt to redraw the map of Eurasia by means of exploiting Soviet reverses of fortune in China. In short, a ROK invasion of North Korea might push the Soviets over the edge. The only reason to risk it would be if the South Koreans had a very good chance of pulling it off. This does not seem likely; nor do events as portrayed in the US Army Vehicle Guide seem to support this thesis.

Far more likely, I think, is a North Korean bid to get a quick victory while the US is involved in Europe. Who knows what the Soviets promised them. A nuclear guarantee, perhaps? The North Koreans invade, push the Allies back, and stall. They lose huge numbers of men and lots and lots of materiel. The US focuses its efforts on Europe and slowly builds strength in Korea until offensive operations appear feasible. In the meantime, the USAF hits strategic targets in North Korea to keep them from replacing their losses in equipment. Then the Allies push forward in an attempt to reach the Yalu and thereby knock a Soviet ally and first-rate headache out of the war for good.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-05-2012, 06:43 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
I don’t think we have to work very hard to come up with an explanation for how the fighting spread to Korea. Provided one is using a v1 timeline, it seems fairly clear that the North Koreans initiated the fighting.

Far more likely, I think, is a North Korean bid to get a quick victory while the US is involved in Europe. Who knows what the Soviets promised them. A nuclear guarantee, perhaps? The North Koreans invade, push the Allies back, and stall. They lose huge numbers of men and lots and lots of materiel. The US focuses its efforts on Europe and slowly builds strength in Korea until offensive operations appear feasible. In the meantime, the USAF hits strategic targets in North Korea to keep them from replacing their losses in equipment. Then the Allies push forward in an attempt to reach the Yalu and thereby knock a Soviet ally and first-rate headache out of the war for good.
+1

As a big v1.0 timeline fan/proponent, I'm apt to favor this interpretation of events.

This scenario also allows for a large Australian (and possibly a New Zealand one too) contingent to be committed as it looks like, echoing the events of the First Korean War, that the ROK/U.S. forces were knocked back on their heels early by the NK offensive. This would be a prime opportunity for the Neo-ANZACs to help their allies in the rapidly expanding global war.

In light of the regional chaos caused by the Soviet invasion of China and the later NK invasion of SK, I wonder if Japan would be willing to circumvent or annul its self-imposed ban on foreign troop deployments and send military forces to help prevent NK conquest of the South. As far as setting up a cool RP'ing environment, the more nationalities present, the merrier, I say.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

Last edited by Raellus; 06-05-2012 at 07:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-06-2012, 06:58 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

I'm in total agreement of that assessment and will be basing my deployment of Australian and possibly NZ troops on that.
Japan however I can't see sending combat troops - remember the uproar at home when they sent a medical unit to Iraq in 2004? It even required a change to Japanese legislation!
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-06-2012, 10:39 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Japan however I can't see sending combat troops - remember the uproar at home when they sent a medical unit to Iraq in 2004? It even required a change to Japanese legislation!
Yes, but that was Iraq, a war that didn't receive a whole lot of international support, and one which in no way pursued Japanese interests. WWIII in East Asia is a totally different proposition. With China on the ropes and NK forces pushing towards Pusan, the national mood in Japan would likely be very different. I think the Japanese would rather fight communist expansionism on foreign soil than on its own island possessions.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-06-2012, 11:15 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

It was also almost ten years after T2K kicks off - almost another generation after WWII and even more time for public opinion to change.
Even now in 2012 the Japanese I know are shocked at just the idea of armed troops serving outside Japan. It just doesn't sit right for Japanese troops to fight in Korea for any reason.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-06-2012, 11:34 AM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,688
Default

I think the way around this is to leave Japan in charge of Japanese territorial defense. All US assets could be assigned to missions directly affecting Korea. Inevitably, the North Koreans would try to use their subs to intercept sea traffic in Japanese sea space. Soviet air reconnaissance would stray into Japanese airspace. Japan would get dragged into the fighting, though deployment of troops outside Japan might be too much to ask for. Still, a robust defense of the air and sea around Japan based on Japanese assets would be very helpful to the other allies.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-06-2012, 11:38 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Agreed. Japan makes for a strong and solid base for the UN troops and that fact will attract attention from the North Koreans and Pact. Attempted naval blockades (varying results), economic "warfare", covert activities and eventually nuclear attacks could all be expected. The Japanese would definitely have their hands full even without sending troops overseas.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
asia, countries, korea, locations


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 03:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.