Oddball_E8
Topic Author
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 20:13

How are you handling "organized" military units?

Sun 12 Jan 2025, 22:17

Ok, so I'm starting my second T2k campaign (this time in Poland) and I've been thinking about how I want to handle organized (ie. still functioning and coherent) military units in their area of influence.

In my Swedish campaign, my players didn't run into many still functioning military units, and when they did they usually took a long detour since I was playing the military as still very organized and grouped in large groups.

However, with watching a lot of how the current war in Ukraine is playing out, I'm thinking of making the still organized units spread out more to hold the territory.

Operating in smaller groups of maybe 2-10 guys setting up in forward bases and rotating every X number of days, with a slightly larger main force located somewhere more centralized where the troops can come back for R&R and where the command is located.
This could lead to situations where you'd have somewhat regular skirmishes between opposing forces that are near each others areas like the 2nd Armored and 57th guards who are pretty near each other when it comes to their areas of control.
This feels more natural to me than the militaries just holing up in some larger town and staying there.
 
Dendron
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu 23 Dec 2021, 12:37

Re: How are you handling "organized" military units?

Wed 05 Feb 2025, 12:30

When I have an organized military unit in T2K I have a "HQ" but then define an area of control. In the outer parts of this it is more about some pressens and gathering information, not any strong force. I assume the unit want to "controll" as large an area as possibel, partly as the unit will need some type of "support" (food, information, other resources...).

So when the players enter such an area they may be noticed (and informed about to the HQ, main force). They may be talked to, but that depends on who the military force is.
 
phillip mcgregor
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue 01 Oct 2024, 02:51

Re: How are you handling "organized" military units?

Fri 07 Feb 2025, 06:54

I suspect that you will have a mix of a main base where the HQ, Support (REMFs) and HQ Security reside, and where there is at least some sort of 'Ready Reaction Force' (I remember reading quite a while ago a military historian who opined that WW2 lasted at least 12 months longer than it probably would have for the simple reason that the Germans maintained reserve forces almost to the end) plus 'Forward Operating Bases' where large(r) elements of the unit hole up ... and that the latter will generate Patrols who will rove around.

That assumes something like a Battalion level or above (at least 500-1000 men or more rather than the often 'in name only' Battalions and above found in the core books).

Smaller units? Company strength or so (say ~200-400 men) will probably have the equivalent of a FOB with whatever minimal support and maintenance elements they have access to and will then generate Patrols to rove around.

Larger units will need to have a centralised base for logistics if nothing else -- and that almost certainly means either a civilian workforce or a lot of what are nominally 'soldiers' doing things like growing food -- they need to secure either food supplies or have some form of centralised food storage, a clean water supply (which will be much more common than the core books propose, especially for bases which are intended to last for longer than a few hours), shelter (preferably permanent or semi-permanent (something much more than tents), a fuel supply for heating (i.e. firewood, charcoal or coal) and a fuel supply for vehicles and generators.

Having access to a place where they can set up whatever tools and maintenance assets they have will also be a priority ... as will access to a steady supply of raw materials ... abandoned villages or towns (not nuclear targets) where war damaged buildings, vehicles and other infrastructure can be scavenged for materials and parts (which will be FAR more common and easily found than the core rules suggest).

The bigger the civilian settlement (pre- or post- war) the more likely it is to be the base of a military unit ... and the very largest remaining settlements ('cities') will likely be the base of a Divisional, Corps or higher HQ which will have a web of sub-units spread acress the near countryside ...
 
kcdusk
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon 24 Oct 2022, 23:09

Re: How are you handling "organized" military units?

Fri 07 Feb 2025, 08:53

I don't bother keeping track of these things. You can spend a lot of time working this out and plotting it on a map, and then the players go some other direction.

I'd rather spend my time on game items that I/players get more return from.

Also, I don't see a difference between having made up a map with thousands of troops and bases located on it, verse a random die roll that tells me "1D6" or "20+" enemy soldiers are in front of you. To me, the result is the same, but instead of slaving over a map for hours all it took was a random encounter die roll.

This is just my view, everyone is different. I used to detail on a map where every base and vehicle was. But I have other parts of the game I'd rather spend time on now that time is in shorter supply (hello life ....).
 
welsh
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun 29 Nov 2020, 15:53

Re: How are you handling "organized" military units?

Wed 12 Feb 2025, 19:53

I assume that following the nuclear exchange, there was a long "operational pause" in which units focused on regrouping, reorganizing, and recovering. They needed to convert vehicles to run on alcohol, obtain or build stills, convert vehicles to new roles (e.g. air defence vehicles repurposed as troop carriers or recce vehicles), develop improvised mortars and other weapons, and so on. Units are no longer large enough to hold substantial territory and for this reason they now focus on providing for their own needs. And this means, yes, that they are largely holed up in towns.

Military activity after the nukes is confined to what I've dubbed "the Patrolling War," which consists essentially of short-range patrolling by units to protect the essential agricultural areas around the towns they occupy, and longer range patrolling with the aims of gathering information, harassing the enemy, stealing stuff, and so on. Units keep their remaining artillery, improvised mortars, and armour in reserve, and only commit forces when patrols have been able to pinpoint vulnerable enemy forces within their area of operations. So the area near the town is firmly controlled by large forces which can't be challenged, but out in the hinterland it is a small-unit war fought by section or section-plus detachments which seek to avoid contact unless they can gain an advantage -- i.e., adventureland.

For me, the overriding consideration is that no one has the strength to control much more than their own immediate surroundings. No one is interested in sustained offensive operations, for reasons both of capability and morale. Unit commanders are as likely to cooperate with warlords as to pacify them. So I don't need to worry about units moving around and doing things.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest