US 43rd MP Brigade Mutiny

[schnickelfritz]

To mutiny and disperse into nothing, or not?

Has anyone else not bought the fate presented in Howling Wilderness of the US 43rd MP Brigade? After reading The Last Submarine and the story of the 43rd, including the failed mutiny and how the power players basically seemed to disappear afterward, I just don't agree. I can see some casualties due to the fighting, but not a wholesale disintegration. With electrcity at hand and the prepared positions available to them (not to mention armor and artillery), it just doesn't make sense to me. I can see some disaffected troops deserting, but I would expect that by now, most the the unit members would believe in the safety in numbers.

I had a medium size group of players walk in the front door and get caught in the middle of the failed coup. From there I developed a timeline where some of the PC's assumed command from the dying Col. Fort and were able to rally the troops. By providing security and electricity to the local authorities (and some earnest good faith negotiation), what was left of the 43rd was able to help rebuild the local area.

The key here was Holyoke Dam, the reservoir of fish, and the electrical power. The locals were able to supply a pool of skilled and unskilled labor to help bring the other generators online and bring some amount of normal life back to the Boston area.

The 43rd was also able to begin training raw refugee recruits into a viable militia and salvage what armor/transport it could.

The gangs of Boston fought amongst themselves until the survivors struck out in numbers into the countryside, where they met a hail of lead and shrapnel.

Any thoughts?

[Legbreaker]

Anything is possible, but in a situation such as faces the 43rd, there is a "critical mass" of soldiers. Drop below the minimum level required (which I believe they were VERY close to at the beginning of the scenario) and they're unable to hold what they have. This would force them to concentrate within a smaller area, thereby reducing access to resources, thereby reducing the number of soldiers they can support and so on.

Given even a 10% casualty rate to the 43rd, and their prior record of oppressing the dispossessed, I can see the 43rd falling apart very quickly into small marauder bands or isolated pockets.

HOWEVER, if a strong leader could be found to quickly (as in within 24 hours) take over and impose order and discipline, the 43rd could potentially be held together a bit longer. Without reinforcements though it's fate is sealed.

[HorseSoldier]

I never had a problem buying it -- the bigger suspension of disbelief for me was that similar munities and disintegrations did not happen more frequently, especially CONUS and other places where troop densities relative to starving and desperate civilian populations were so extremely low.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

I never had a problem buying it -- the bigger suspension of disbelief for me was that similar munities and disintegrations did not happen more frequently, especially CONUS and other places where troop densities relative to starving and desperate civilian populations were so extremely low.

HS,

I would agree, but I think odds of are far less important than the arms and organisation of the opposition. That is, being starving and desperate does little to make a population an effective force in taking on military units, even if the odds are 100 or 1000-1. We're familiar with police lines getting broken and riot police being overwhelmed, but those are police and not soldiers with a completely different mindset, rules of engagement, tactical doctrine and even mindset.

Tony

[sglancy12]

Yeah, I was never too sure about this total disintegration thing... after all, in The Last Submarine it sounded like the mutiny failed utterly.

The only real explanation seems to be the drought/famine introduced in Howling Wilderness. That would drive human waves of starving Boston Megapunks at the MPs (and all the other communities) which might grind the unit down to nothing, leaving the survivors to do do what? Desert?

How do you desert a unit that has ceased to exist? I guess the survivors would have to hump it to a community that doesn't hate them or just turn into a band of brigands. Maybe the 78th ID will take them in? Maybe New America up in Maine? Maybe even the Coast Guard or the RI Isolationists. After all isn't the 43rd mostly drawn from RI?

Actually, that was one big reason the 43rd's decision to pull out never made sense. They were from RI. They have local ties. A unit called up from TX would be more likely to pull out and decide to look after themselves first and &*@% the locals.

If they were going to abandon their duty in MA, why wouldn't they retreat to RI and hole up with the Isolationists? I can think of plenty of reasons, but none of them are presented in the original material. I mean, I like the part in The Last Submarine where the unit had turned Warlord, but it seems unlikely... UNLESS part of the pullout involved rescuing their family members!

Holy crap! Maybe that's the retcon fix I've been looking for? It's not in the book, but if they got their families out with them, its FAR more likely that they would pull out and look after themselves.

One of these days, I should start a threat about how much I HATE the drought. I really think Loren Wiseman made a mistake by introducing that element into the campaign background.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

Yeah, I was never too sure about this total disintegration thing... after all, in The Last Submarine it sounded like the mutiny failed utterly.

The only real explanation seems to be the drought/famine introduced in Howling Wilderness. That would drive human waves of starving Boston Megapunks at the MPs (and all the other communities) which might grind the unit down to nothing, leaving the survivors to do do what? Desert?


One of these days, I should start a threat about how much I HATE the drought. I really think Loren Wiseman made a mistake by introducing that element into the campaign background.

Scott,

Human waves of starving and desperate people rushing a military unit and succeeding is a favourite image of post-holocaust fiction and RPGs, but it doesn't make sense.

We're used to human waves as an element of warfare (Russians in WWII, Chinese in Korea, Republican Guard in the Gulf War, etc.) but the conditions that make these attacks possible and give them the outside chance of success don't exist. These attacks are largely (and obviously) suicidal in nature. This urge to preserve one's life is overcome by ideology or religion, and require a command cadre dedicated to motivating and organising a mass of troops to carry it out.

Mobs, even starving mobs, want to live. They have no motivation to personally do anything suicidal. That's actually opposite to the point of the exercise: survival. You could argue some kind of group loyalty or solidarity, but I would imagine starving and desperate people are very disorganised and unlikely to coalesce. I would say it's more likely that there was some kind of organised resistance or marauder force that took advantage of the 43rd's disorganised state to administer a coup de main.

As for climate, that unfortunately is realistic, or at least realistic enough. It does get across the global effect of the war. What I would gripe about is the CIVGOV/MILGOV split and the apparent semi-permanent nature of it (for at least decades). It makes no sense when the US is at its lowest point to hamstring any kind of national organisation and response.

Tony

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Human waves of starving and desperate people rushing a military unit and succeeding is a favourite image of post-holocaust fiction and RPGs, but it doesn't make sense.

Let me rephrase my statement. I said "The only real explanation seems to be the drought/famine." What I meant to say was "The only real explanation offered by GDW seems to be the drought/famine."

I agree 100% that hordes starving refugees are not going to turn into human wave attacks throwing themselves carelessly in front of the guns like something out of 28 Days Later or the Dawn of the Dead remake. But that sure seems to be the message I get from Howling Wilderness.

Okay, sure, these starving mobs are likely to have plenty of fire arms and act in an organized fashion, but Howling Wilderness seems to think that starving refugees will overwhelm just about every organized area east of the Mississippi.

In my opinion, starving mobs machine gunned and shelled will disburse. More likely starving mobs will vote with their feet and try and move to where they think the food is, taking horrific casualties from disease, malnutrition, and bandits along the way.

Originally Posted by helbent4

As for climate, that unfortunately is realistic, or at least realistic enough. It does get across the global effect of the war.

I can't argue the science. I don't know enough about climatology and how it would be affected by the particulate in the atmosphere from the limited nuclear exchange. A good place to start researching might be conditions following the explosion of Krakatoa in the 19th century.

Wikipedia says In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfurous acid (H2SO3) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.

Anyone care to find out how many megatons that accounted for? We sure don't have a complete list of the megatonage expended during the Twilight War, but I bet someone has already added up all the published data.

No, its not the science of the drought that bugs me. It's the philosophy behind it. When I corresponded with Loren Wiseman back in the day he said (and yes I'm quoting from a 23 year old dot-matrix printed letter he mailed me):

"We felt that the adventures in Twilight:2000 were becoming too tame and the letters we had been receiving from our customers reflected this. The most common complaint was that most adventures were too civilized enough (sic), and that most of them were set in places where the plumbing worked and the electricity was just about to be reconnected. The phrase "wild and wooly" which you use in describing adventures was just the phrase one customer used to detail what Twilight:2000 adventures were missing.

"We felt that the solution was to eliminate the upper levels of government, and leave nothing functioning much above the local community level, putting the players in a situation more like the dark ages than the wiild west. In the dark ages, there was a king and a national government, but in most cases their effect upon local affairs was almost non-existent. The king was a nebulous, quasi-mythical figure that people swore loyalty to, but few ever saw. Everybody was expected to lend a hand (and a pitchfork) to defend the community when the time came. There were even mercenary warriors that local communities would hire for protection from bandits and the like (the inspiration for the Seven Samurai story line).

"A massive drought-induced famine was the method we chose to accomplish this."

Later in that same letter, he wrote:

"I totally disagree that the only way a player can survive is to become part of the problem by turning marauder. Players will still be fighting for the good guys . . . its just that the good guys are now locals rather than some nebulous group in Colorado Springs or Omaha. Your particular town can hang on by the skin of its teeth. Your particular town can be the exception to the rule that everybody has turned marauder. There are still plenty of foreign invaders and home-grown bad guys around to keep the characters on their toes."

Rather than reprint everything here from the four letters I have, let me just say that I got the impression from Loren that the philosophy at GDW was "the more chaos, the more opportunity for adventure, the more fun." Certainly that was the design philosophy behind Howling Wilderness, MegaTraveller and Traveller: The New Era.

Apparently having the country nuked, with 95% of the power out, two rival governments, two foreign invasions, two armies trapped overseas, and a neo-fascist insurgency just wasn't chaotic enough to provide a fun gaming environment. So they threw in the drought.

THAT is why I hate the drought. It's a deus ex machina to promote a game philosophy that I just don't like and don't believe is true.

I have yet to meet a TW2K player who told me that they would have liked the game better if only there had been less societal and economic recovery depicted and more chaos and barbarism.

Originally Posted by helbent4

What I would gripe about is the CIVGOV/MILGOV split and the apparent semi-permanent nature of it (for at least decades). It makes no sense when the US is at its lowest point to hamstring any kind of national organisation and response.

I would have thought the same thing too... and then there was Katrina. If we ever wanted a snapshot of our tax dollars at work on doomsday, that was it. People are very likely to do very dumb things in a crisis. So human folly isn't unbelievable to me. However, I think that it wouldn't go on for the decades mentioned in the Traveller: 2300 books. The split starts in 1999 so I wouldn't be surprised to see it last (particularly seeing as how shabby the communications net is) until 2003.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Abbott Shaull]

What amaze me was the way the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor LA seemed to be playing pissing contest to see if they could turn New Orleans much more lawless than it had already gotten.

One problem that both of them and President Bush fail to note was that at the time as the laws were written. Mr. Brown hands were tied until both the Mayor and Governor has asked the Federal Government directly for help. Yes Mr. Brown made mistakes too for his part, but at the time to move any faster would have overstepped the limit of his office. He just happen to be the lowest man on the totem pole that could be blamed for the lack of the response.

Then I would also point out that the wide path of destruction and having certain Nation Guard units out of place didn't help the situation much either. Really, sending troop just getting home from overseas tours to conduct their civil relieve mission here in the States wasn't the brightest idea either. Nor was the Governors reply when she order these troops mobilized and to be sent.

What many people fail to remember is that Amtrak and Greyhound had offer to take as many out of New Orleans as they could, but the offers were turned down by the good Mayor and Governor since Katrina was being downgraded and no one believed it would actually pick back up in strength before glancing by New Orleans.

Now just think if it had actually struck New Orleans head on. Would there even have been a debate to rebuild a town that is still below Sea Level?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

THAT is why I hate the drought. It's a deus ex machina to promote a game philosophy that I just don't like and don't believe is true.

I have yet to meet a TW2K player who told me that they would have liked the game better if only there had been less societal and economic recovery depicted and more chaos and barbarism.

I don't like the drought because of the science. It seems to me that the designers could have achieved the same ends by using "nuclear winter", a theory that was widely accepted during the late Cold War and for which some scientific evidence supports. Why they went the other direction and made it a drought, I don't know. My guess is that a hot, dry desert wasteland is more fun to adventure in than a frozen desert wasteland.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

Apparently having the country nuked, with 95% of the power out, two rival governments, two foreign invasions, two armies trapped overseas, and a neo-fascist insurgency just wasn't chaotic enough to provide a fun gaming environment. So they threw in the drought.

THAT is why I hate the drought. It's a deus ex machina to promote a game philosophy that I just don't like and don't believe is true.

I have yet to meet a TW2K player who told me that they would have liked the game better if only there had been less societal and economic recovery depicted and more chaos and barbarism.

Funny, I just looked at Howling Wilderness the other night, and had a similar thought. "Oh, yeah, the drought-- that's why I haven't (nearly) memorized this book, like all the others. It sucked the fun out of the setting.

IMO, what separated T2k from every other post-apoc. game that I had contact with, was that it was NOT "everybody but you and the roaches is dead." There were numerous pockets of civilization and the possibility of recovery, there were still soldiers doing their duty to protect the weak. There was hope, in other words-- THAT sold me on the game, vice any other game. I didn't play Aftermath or Gamma World or Morrow Project because I didn't like them, they were too dark for lil' ol' me.

Post-apocalypse fiction and games then and now allow the thought, "What would *I* do in this situation?" with the inherent possibility that it might really BE you in that situation. I was 17 in 1985 and hoped to be an Army officer, so I could count that I would be a 32-year old in 2000, maybe a Major in the wartime Army (assuming I hadn't copped it already, of course). What could I make of my life from there? When they threw a massive drought on top of everything else, the hope seemed to drain away. Again, it sucked the fun out of the setting.

Regarding Traveller:A New Era, I read in many places that the Virus in that setting, that shut down the Imperium, was also a last straw for a lot of Traveller players-- too much chaos on top of the civil war in MegaTraveller. I can't help but think it is similar to Howling Wilderness' drought.

End detour. Schnickelfritz: it sounds like your group really did make the best of a bad situation, and should be applauded. A complete disintegration of the 43rd and its resources seems extreme, but one that sees its remnants reduced to minor players in the area seems possible.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

When they threw a massive drought on top of everything else, the hope seemed to drain away. Again, it sucked the fun out of the setting.

Well, that was my experience. TW2K actually seemed hopeful. Not in the bombastic way that some post-apocalyptic fiction revels in the how REAL Americans (with guns) are going to sort out all the traitors, criminals and commies after the bomb. More like:

Human civilization prevailing despite the folly of mankind.

That was hopeful.

For me, throwing in the drought just killed the small spark of hope.

But back to the Mutiny of the 43rd M.P. Brigade... or maybe we should split off the comments about the drought into another thread titled "Drought: Love it or Loathe it"

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[schnickelfritz]

I could see a mutiny; the 43rd desperately needed a change in leadership to someone that could handle the strategic level planning/interface with the locals and leave a tactical combat genius like Col. Fort to do what he does best.

But not a wholesale disintegration....worst case scenario, the survivors would/could be integrated into the Isolationist Militia.

It seems that Col. Fort's downfall is his apparent "go it alone" attitude and unwillingness or inability to grasp that his unit is on it's own now and that he NEEDS to work with the local governments (specifically Steven Britt) to survive.

I've never accepted the bleak armageddon that was Howling Wilderness....it was just too dang dark, and given what we know now, I accept the drought even less.

I feel that with a timely change to the right leader, the 43rd could use the advantages it has...ELECTRICITY, a food supply (fish), and prepared positions with heavy weaponry to be an integral part of the recovery of the Boston-Rhode Island area. You have food, artillery, and something to barter for food. The refugees can provide a manpower pool to rebuilt the Rhode Island State Militia and the 43rd's ranks given time.

Put simply, others seem to survive with less advantages, so why not the 43rd?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't like the drought because of the science. It seems to me that the designers could have achieved the same ends by using "nuclear winter", a theory that was widely accepted during the late Cold War and for which some scientific evidence supports. Why they went the other direction and made it a drought, I don't know. My guess is that a hot, dry desert wasteland is more fun to adventure in than a frozen desert wasteland.

With respect, that wasn't what the designers were saying. Drought does not necessarily mean hot and dry, it means a lack of precipitation. There was a nuclear winter in T2K (actually the designers referred to it as a "nuclear fall", because of the slow, tit-for-tat build up of nuclear strikes a full-blown nuclear winter didn't occur). The winters of 1999 and 2000 were very cold but weather patterns had changed so there was a lack of rain (and I assume lower snow fall than normal) along the US east coast.

There are lots of places IRL where there are "cold deserts". Large parts of Antarctica are technically deserts because of the very low rates of precipitation. In fact from my (limited) understanding of climatology, cold can definitely equal less rain. One of the concerns about global warming is that higher temperatures mean greater evaporation from bodies of water resulting in more rain.

Then there is the Gulf Stream. I'm pretty sure we've discussed on this forum or its predecessor the possible effects of the Gulf Stream being disrupted or altered. It may well be that in the T2K universe the rains will return to the US east coast as the Gulf Stream returns to its "normal" configuration.

I completely understand that some people may not like the US east coast drought posited in Howling Wilderness and that is fine, to each their own. But the drought is not an entirely unreasonable scenario when you look at the science.

[Raellus]

That's what happens when I assume. Sorry.

In the past, I've just been so turned off by the things I've read about H.W. on this board that I've never bothered to take a close look at it myself.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Targan

In fact from my (limited) understanding of climatology, cold can definitely equal less rain. One of the concerns about global warming is that higher temperatures mean greater evaporation from bodies of water resulting in more rain.

Very correct. And in addition in less evaporation, colder air has less holding capacity than warm air preventing condensation. These are the two factors of exactly why Antarctica is a dersert.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Raellus

My guess is that a hot, dry desert wasteland is more fun to adventure in than a frozen desert wasteland.

(emphasis added)

I just wanted to point out that I am not a total dunderhead.

[Webstral]

I've always been adamantly opposed to the idea of the 43rd disintegrating because I perceived the MPs to perceive cohesion as being in their best interest. However, I could accept the MPs breaking apart if a reasonable thesis were advanced to describe how and why MPs might feel that they would get a better deal by going their own way. I'm not saying I'd be open to any "Well, that's the way they feel. Duh," sort of explanation. However, if someone (not me--I don't believe in the breakup of the 43rd) were to go into some detail about conditions in the 43rd and why large numbers of the MPs might believe their chances were better elsewhere, I'd be willing to read.


Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

I don't picture the issue being so much waves of starving people as facing the operational impossibilities of being stretched past the breaking point with a dwindling logisitics base. At a certain point, you've either got to face the impossibility of the situation and just write off most or all of your AOR, or face a death of a thousand cuts sort of thing.

Actually, that was one big reason the 43rd's decision to pull out never made sense. They were from RI. They have local ties. A unit called up from TX would be more likely to pull out and decide to look after themselves first and &*@% the locals.

Actually a unit of outsiders would have better cohesion in that sort of situation, I think -- operating in close proximity to family and friends (most of whom you couldn't do a damn thing for) would destroy a unit in pretty short order. Desertion would be a huge problem and then divided loyalties and redlined stress and compassion-fatigue would destroy morale among those who didn't run for home. I could see a unit under those circumstances imploding.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

Let me rephrase my statement. I said "The only real explanation seems to be the drought/famine." What I meant to say was "The only real explanation offered by GDW seems to be the drought/famine."

I agree 100% that hordes starving refugees are not going to turn into human wave attacks throwing themselves carelessly in front of the guns like something out of 28 Days Later or the Dawn of the Dead remake. But that sure seems to be the message I get from Howling Wilderness.

Scott,

Please accept my apologies, I should have better understood you were stating GDW's rationale, not that you agreed with it.

I agree, their rationale for the drought and continuing civil collapse stink on ice, even if there's a scientific evidence to back the former. Their "Return to Europe" series betrayed a similar motivation. Wanting to make a profit is perfectly fine, releasing poorly thought-out material to this end is not.

To a degree, I can see some players chafing under the constraints and rules of civilisation. Many players of that era (especially those who played Traveller) were freebooters at heart, or at least quite liked being the cocks o' the walk and running roughshod over the civvies as it suits them. Reviews of T2K scoffed that one of the game's main pleasures was roaming the wasteland in your personal tank, with no damned commanding officers yappin' at ya' and tellin' ya what ta do!

My campaign is set in Canada, where a civilian government has taken control by 2001 and is busy unifying the country (even Quebec, of 2300AD is considered accurate) so I and my players don't have to suffer through pointless post-apocalypse mayhem. The whole point is to see their AO slowly improve over time as they restore order and bring security to the population. Further, I really think the yanks could get their act together even sooner than 2003.

Tony