Forum

Please remember this isn't a war or board game where setting is easily ignored in favor of the mechanics but a ROLEPLAYING game and the setting in an rpg is pretty damn important for giving the gm a necessary background to paint his canvas with.

While I agree with Mallear, as a wargame designer and reviewer I would say that for serious wargames the setting is extremely important, actually it is the setting that determines the mechanics. I have panned several games in my blog or Battles magazine for that sin. And in the original version of World at War from LnL, that I created several scenarios for, I had plenty of discussions with the original designer, Mark Walker on the awful setting (he lost me when he had vampires... and he is a Naval War college graduate!). I also remember some heated discussion on CSW on Red Tide West with the designer making some weird assumptions on NATO (like the Denmark was neutral... or that the Warsaw Pact Allies would not have done anything in a war...) or claiming his OoB was ultra accurate and then discovering giant errors... like a whole missing US division... the 3rd Mech none the less! Or Compass Fulda Gap where the designer made a lot of mistakes, and then tried to concoct a an alternate history to claim they were not mistakes but design decisions...

You end up loving the gaming world...

I strongly recommend that the disparity in the correlation of forces be addressed to give the description of the World At War lead up to 2000 a reasonable degree of plausibility. As-is, it is very difficult to suspend disbelief that the Soviet Union, only a few years removed from near economic collapse, completely on its own, could nearly defeat NATO, the former Warsaw Pact nations, and formerly neutral Sweden in a European sea-air-land war.

I think this could be addressed most simply by the Soviets being the first to use tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and at sea. We now know that offensive use of NBC weapons was part of Cold War Soviet strategic and operational land warfare doctrine (I don't know if it was also part of their naval warfare doctrine as well).

Also, I may have missed it, but is the real world Balkans conflicts of the real-world 1990s included in the World At War? If not, making Serbia a Soviet ally would help a little by opening up a Balkan front.

Lastly, if North Korea uses the distraction of war in Europe as an opportunity to re-unify the peninsula by force, this will draw away several US division that otherwise could be used to reinforce Europe and/or the Middle East.

I think this could be addressed most simply by the Soviets being the first to use tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and at sea. We now know that offensive use of NBC weapons was part of Cold War Soviet strategic and operational land warfare doctrine (I don't know if it was also part of their naval warfare doctrine as well)

Be careful for what you wishes... actually use of nuclear weapons at sea would help NATO quite a lot, basically making ASW job much easier, it would also allow the use of nuclear armed Tomahawk in attacking the soviet SSBN bastions... something that the Soviets would not really want.

On land... well NBC weapons usually hamper rather than help an attacker.

There is also the whole issue of soviet NBC doctrine, that is often misrepresented. NBC weapons were to be used on the offensive under the perception that they would be kept to the tactical battlefield. A strategic exchange was anathema. To a certain extent this was generated by the perception that Eisenhower's massive retaliation concept was a bluff (could have been, could have been not, but as strategic doctrine it was flawed), and it was also something pushed down from the top, especially Stalin and Khrushchev (for different reasons) to the military leadership. When in the 70s it dawned that NATO has a very blurred line between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, and Massive Retaliation was a bluff up to a point, the NBC environment was toned down. Also prevailing winds in central Europe are west to east, thus blowing back toward the soviet and pact forces... the military, who had always been opposed to over reliance on tactical and operational nukes slowly shed the nukes from planning. To a certain extent the strategic rocket forces was a war controlling tool, rather than a war fighting tool.

As for practical purposes... chemical war did not really help neither the Iraqi nor the Iranians on the battlefield, it just added another level of discomfort to the troops. Tactical nuclear weapons, would have done the same (need to keep in MOPP 4), and also made battlefield movement more difficult creating rubble. IF you are attacking you want clear roads. This is one of the reason why NATO planned tac nukes as defensive measures, beside destroying enemy formations it would have degrades the road network.

An extensive geographical first strike also flies in the face of Clausewitz various dictums (plus attracts a retaliation in kind, that is not really helping you...) . I can see nuclear weapons used later on, but at start? Also it would make the whole war a moot point...

I will make a short comment here for now - there will be plenty of opportunities to talk specifics later.

The main point: Any alternate history scenario that sees the Soviet Union bouncing back to invade Poland and mount a war across Europe against NATO, and having US troops scattered "on their own" in Poland by the year 2000, will be unrealistic. Of course it will - it didn't happen in the real world, after all.

Agreed, Twilight: 2000 is a game that requires more authenticity than other RPGs, but you cannot get around the main point above. No matter what backstory we write, there will be complaints about how unrealistic it is. And those complaints will of course be valid - because the core premise of the game is unrealistic. This is not the real world - it's an imaginary, fictional setting, created to be an interesting world to roleplay in.

That said, we are happy to take constructive feedback on specifics elements in the timeline. It's not perfect. It's an Alpha.

Realistic or unrealistic is not an argument for or against when it comes to alternate history for a game
The scenario does not have to be realistic but it does need to be plausible.
So far I haven't read anything in the alpha that gives a plausible reason for the Soviet Union to be the unstoppable juggernaut that it appears to be in game.
And what happened to the Soviets age old enemy China?
It's not simply unrealistic that China does not take advantage of the situation, it too is implausible.
The Chinese would love to take back the various chunks of territory that not only the Soviet Union took from them, but also the previous Russian Empire grabbed as well.

Actually Mao got back the chunks Stalin took when I offered help for Kim senior southward adventure (mainly Port Arthur and Sinkiang province) there were some border issues, but not huge chunks.

The main issue was the ideological split and the Soviet Union web of alliances surrounding China (namely India and Vietnam) that led old comrade Mao to shake hand with LtC Nixon (old Vulcan adage... only Nixon could have gone to China... ). Certainly US-PRC cooperation stepped up under Deng, and even Tien an men had no real bad long term effect. What made Beijing and Washington falling apart was, ironically, the fall of the Soviet Union. It removed the main common enemy. With a powerful Soviet Union still around, you can see Peace Pearl probably going to fruition, the Lavi/J-10 program not being slowed down (and the PLAAF forced to found a new engine), and probably more cooperation (the PLAAF tried several time to buy A-10 license production). Certainly A soviet agression in the west in this scenario would have elicited Washington to ask PRC help. Furthermore, you can even argue that with Manchuria so close to soviet border, a pre-emptive strike on Soviet part would make sense, at the time the bulk of PRC heavy military industries (Harbin, Shenyang) was there, as the bulk of PLA modernized heavy formations (okay there are still there... just to show Beijing concerns...).

Soviet military also shown a growing concern on China in the 80s, with more new equipment coming to the Far East Military District and also increase in strength there. So yes China should be involved in some way... also because well... they had industry and shipping capacity to provide help and relief after the war if left untouched...

I have to say that the more I read this kind of discussion, the more I wonder whether the RPG shouldn't just instead to revert to the timeline as described in 1E. We could still have the rules etc reboot, but then we wouldn't have the very thorny issue of trying to have a new setting which contains enough contradictions and plot uncertainties that could potentially hobble future material output. It would be pretty bad to have a nice new working version of T:2K, only to have it fizzle out a number of years later simply because it's killed off by it's own setting.

And the reason I mention the original timeline is that, by and large, it worked. I don't how or why it would be difficult to dress the game in a timeline which branches from the 1990s to 2000 in a way that's different to our own. The Alpha timeline is already doing that, but with quite a lot more 'bodging'. Keeping a version of the world where the Warsaw Pact and the SU was still intact in the 1990s, as presumed by GDW in the 1980s, it's not really a stretch of the believability or credulity. And as believability or credulity are causing certain issues right now, and could possibly be an Achilles heel for the future of the rpg, it might be an idea to go with something which is less, as it seems right now, perhaps a bit less problematic. Remember also that original timeline wasn't trying to retroactively 'fix' or rewrite history in order to make it's future work. Also, the internal logic of that timeline made the setting work, imaginary or not, whereas the current reboot contains enough question marks to potentially scupper it further down the line. And after all, one of the reasons the rpg still has a following and thus a new Kickstarted version is because of the internal history of 1E, IMHO. Other versions didn't have such long legs because they started to move away from that.

Is there a worry somewhere that the original timeline would be less easy to process for new players? If so, why? What decisions drove the need for a timeline rewrite?

I have to say that the more I read this kind of discussion, the more I wonder whether the RPG shouldn't just instead to revert to the timeline as described in 1E. <>

Nothing stops you from using any other setting you want with these rules.

I really don't think FL will ditch all this work they and other have done just because a few people don't like it. Small changes and adjustments may be made and don't underestimate small changes. You can change a lot with just small changes.

Nothing stops you from using any other setting you want with these rules.

I really don't think FL will ditch all this work they and other have done just because a few people don't like it. Small changes and adjustments may be made and don't underestimate small changes. You can change a lot with just small changes.

True for your first point, of course, but one wonders why FL chose to do a rewrite when they already had a setting that worked - and was the main draw of the interest in the reboot, I'll wager I think FL will have to do more than small changes to the internal logic of the setting in order for it have long legs. I guess it depends on what plans they have to support this version once it's released in terms of content, scenarios, sourcebooks, etc. If this is a one-off, then I guess it makes sense not to worry about the setting too much as it'll then just be left to whoever plays it.

<>
I guess it depends on what plans they have to support this version once it's released in terms of content, scenarios, sourcebooks, etc. If this is a one-off, then I guess it makes sense not to worry about the setting too much as it'll then just be left to whoever plays it.

If I have understood things correctly the idea is to release modules that focus on the setting areas (Poland and Sweden). Other areas can be developed through the Free League Workshop by anyone who likes to. The first three modules (outside kickstarter things) will be about boats, cities and large battles.

On land... well NBC weapons usually hamper rather than help an attacker.

Persistent agents, yes. Non-persistent, not so much. I was using NBC as shorthand for tactical nuclear warfare.

An extensive geographical first strike also flies in the face of Clausewitz various dictums (plus attracts a retaliation in kind, that is not really helping you...) . I can see nuclear weapons used later on, but at start? Also it would make the whole war a moot point...

I didn't suggest that tactical nuclear weapons be used at the start of the war, only that the Soviets employ them on the battlefield first. We know that Soviet Cold War doctrine prescribed the offensive use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons, so this is not a stretch of the imagination by any means. And offensive use is proactive, not reactive. It allows the user to prepare for retaliation by dispersing exploitation forces and reserves, reroute traffic, etc. The defender, on the other hand, is forced to respond re-actively and also may be reluctant to nuke allied territory that the enemy occupies.