A proposed time line

[kato13]

Mohoender 08-18-2008, 11:29 AM This has changed over times and I hope that you will apreciate it. Of course I'm open to critics as I'm sure it's far from being perfect. I'll be happy to improve it.

********************

Law0369 08-18-2008, 06:41 PM Nice fantasy land you live in by the way.I dont even know what to say about your fantasy paper. My mother always told me if you dont have anything good to say dont say it at all. So I wont comment any more.

********************

GOF 08-19-2008, 05:40 AM Nice fantasy land you live in by the way.I dont even know what to say about your fantasy paper. My mother always told me if you dont have anything good to say dont say it at all. So I wont comment any more.

Jesus man, instead o being insulting you coulda just told him what you didnt like and why

********************

Mohoender 08-19-2008, 06:10 AM Nice fantasy land you live in by the way.I dont even know what to say about your fantasy paper. My mother always told me if you dont have anything good to say dont say it at all. So I wont comment any more.


Fantasy of course. I might be mistaken but that is an RPG forum, and the part talking about twilight 2000. May be I'm wrong but this has nothing to do with reality anyway. Except of course if you assume Matrix tale to be true and think oyu backyard is waste land. Still I'll be glad to see some critics or I can't be changing anything.

********************

thefusilier 08-19-2008, 06:30 AM I've always been more interested in the original timeline, more of an alternate history. You put some imagination into this, and thats fair.


I'll put up 3


I think some of the numbers were a little too large. The amount of troops landing in the Iran ampib assault... the distance NATO drove into Russia (NATO can't really make that happen), 500 tanks destroyed from 2 divisions (thats like every tank), etc


No mention of Canada? They are a member of NATO and have been very valuable in Afghanistan.


How do the carriers get sunk? Sure its possible, they get sunk in exercises and simulations, but it'd be more believable if we were told 'how'.


EDIT - Some of the alliances were a little sketchy but who is to say?

********************

TiggerCCW UK 08-19-2008, 07:25 AM I will freely admit that I haven't had time to read your history yet as I have family staying with me and my computer time is limited at the minute. However, at the end of the day, go with what works for you - its your game, your universe. Unlike the majority of the people on here (and I do not mean this as any form of criticism, your work is all good) I don't use a massively detailed background in my games - I prefer to have a basic overview of what an area is like, and base my game around things that I want to put in it, rather than knowing exactly what is exactly where, but thats just the way I play. Go with whatever works for you and makes you happy.

********************

Mohoender 08-19-2008, 07:35 AM I've always been more interested in the original timeline, more of an alternate history. You put some imagination into this, and thats fair.


I'll put up 3


I think some of the numbers were a little too large. The amount of troops landing in the Iran ampib assault... the distance NATO drove into Russia (NATO can't really make that happen), 500 tanks destroyed from 2 divisions (thats like every tank), etc


No mention of Canada? They are a member of NATO and have been very valuable in Afghanistan.


How do the carriers get sunk? Sure its possible, they get sunk in exercises and simulations, but it'd be more believable if we were told 'how'.


EDIT - Some of the alliances were a little sketchy but who is to say?


Thanks


Agree with the original timeline. But I would just like to have more modern elements. Here is the reason. True for the number of troops landing, that should be reduced. I think that the distance could be possible, Russia always needs time to gather its troops and several units are stationed in Siberia. However, it is true that many of these units are currently redeployed to the west. Very true for the number of tanks, but the figures were including Israeli losses as my first idea was inspired by the last event in Lebanon (may be a good solution to get back to this). They are both tanks and APC's but still you right. That went unoticed.


I simply didn't mention Canada because I did not think that necessary for the time line but I don't forget about it. Can try to do something about it.


For the carrier I just didn't want to explain it at this moment.


I agree about the alliances but as you say, who knows? This might need some more thinking but that was already true for the origninal timeline.

********************

thefusilier 08-19-2008, 09:13 AM ThanksI think that the distance could be possible, Russia always needs time to gather its troops and several units are stationed in Siberia.


I was more thinking of the vast distance in terms of logistics and manpower. The amount of manpower just to keep an army big enough to travel that far (and also defend the supply lines) would be enormous.

********************

Mohoender 08-19-2008, 09:53 AM I was more thinking of the vast distance in terms of logistics and manpower. The amount of manpower just to keep an army big enough to travel that far (and also defend the supply lines) would be enormous.


Good point but NATO can use many civillian trucks (why not) and we have plenty of these to enlist. That was done several time in WWII and I don't see a reason why it wouldn't be done today in the event of such a mess. May be the original twilight timelight oversaw this and may be I should reduce the first push (because of the time needed to enlist these trucks, they might well be available only for the second one). What do you think?

********************

Raellus 08-19-2008, 12:08 PM First of all, I applaud you for your creativity.


Secondly, I echo Tigger's sentiments. If your timeline works for you and your players, go with it.


Like Fusilier, I like the alternative history feel of the original v1.0 timeline.


Now, here are a couple of observations/suggestions.


Choose a new VP for Obama. Edwards just confessed to cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and his political career is all but finished. Perhaps, though, this detail of your timeline was an attempt at irony or humor. In that case, well done.


Your timeline is essentially a post Cold War one. When the Cold War ended, there was a significant reduction in the size and strength of conventional forces across the board. That said, I think that you've overstated the strength of both NATO and, to a lesser extent, the Russian Federation. I don't think that the NATO of 2008 could conduct simultaneous large scale operations in the Middle East, Europe, and Korea, especially given how the U.S. military is currently overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.


It just seems that things get too big, too fast in your timeline. Perhaps if you expanded it a bit to give the combatants more time to mobilize reserves, institute the draft, build more tanks and aircraft, etc.


That said, you've come up with some interesting scenarios.

********************

Mohoender 08-19-2008, 12:53 PM First of all, I applaud you for your creativity.


Secondly, I echo Tigger's sentiments. If your timeline works for you and your players, go with it.


Like Fusilier, I like the alternative history feel of the original v1.0 timeline.


Now, here are a couple of observations/suggestions.


Choose a new VP for Obama. Edwards just confessed to cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and his political career is all but finished. Perhaps, though, this detail of your timeline was an attempt at irony or humor. In that case, well done.


Your timeline is essentially a post Cold War one. When the Cold War ended, there was a significant reduction in the size and strength of conventional forces across the board. That said, I think that you've overstated the strength of both NATO and, to a lesser extent, the Russian Federation. I don't think that the NATO of 2008 could conduct simultaneous large scale operations in the Middle East, Europe, and Korea, especially given how the U.S. military is currently overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.


It just seems that things get too big, too fast in your timeline. Perhaps if you expanded it a bit to give the combatants more time to mobilize reserves, institute the draft, build more tanks and aircraft, etc.


That said, you've come up with some interesting scenarios.


Thanks also


I don't know very well the v1.0 timeline, I'll be interested in seeing it as writen in the sourcebook. I always had the v2.0 and all the books of v1.0 (except the sourcebook). I found them thanks to one of you talking about the DribeThruRPG site some times ago.


Edwards was only the name I got at the time but I haven't checked on it again. Obama was simply chosen because I don't like the french overall idea that asumes that only republicans go to war (irony is toward the french being ignorent about US). Lets say that when I was living in the US, someone asked me if we had washing machines but don't worry, many french still imagines americans as cowboys riding with a colt on there sidebelt (actually it's more like everyone has a pickup and a gun next to him; except cops who are driving ferrary or old cars from the 80's).


I'll take the time issue into account. I had thought of it but I still wasn't sure. However, if you know were to find informations on reserves and arm stocks I'll be intersted. Most publications I have seen rated the SA-13 as being out of service but I spoted one earlier today on a news report about Georgia. Except of course if the press used some film from elsewhere to illustrate their comment.

********************