Forum

The 1st ed background was .... a mess, and frankly ridiculous in some aspects (the Germans invading Poland, France sitting it out .....), so I fully support the current rewrite. Small tweaks on the main issues raised (Soviet dominance on the battlefield - now explained by tac nukes / the UK situation, for which one can find fixes, same for the Middle East) should be enough.

The work done on the atmospherics is great, the rule system looks very promising .... Let's GO!

Raellus,

Soviet Nuclear doctrine is not very clear, or, more aptly, it has not been explained clearly enough. The apparent reliance on battlefield nuclear weapons developed under Khrushchev. You see the NBC proof tanks, and APC, and the development of the BMP series as a way to cross a nuclear battlefield with infantry and still be combat capable. On the debit side the Commander of Ground Forces, and then Minister of Defense Rodion Malinovsky opposed them. He got on record that as battlefield weapons nukes were useless. His main issue for their offensive uses on the battlefield were that they would create rubble, force troops to operate buttoned up, and destroy infrastructure the Soviet Army would then need. He pointed out that if the tanks and APCs were proofed the supply trucks were not. He also said that it would be impossible to control escalation either on the battlefield and beyond.

If you think Soviet operational doctrine favors concentration and shock action, large part of their artillery was until now still towed. Once you let the genie out of the bottle you need to disperse (otherwise you are vulnerable to retaliation), you lose in shock effect (always on MOPP, always buttoned up), and in a centrally controlled organization like the Soviet army (I am not buying Suvorov 'automata' theory, but the Soviet Army had more centralized decision making and support than NATO armies) it will dilute and reduce combat power. Yes you can get some tactical advantage by using tactical nukes first, but in the offense they will be largely outweighed by the disadvantages. In the 1se Edition the first use was in response to NATO Crossing into Soviet Union from Poland, I see this kind of use as plausible. Just hammering your way forward with nukes very fictional.

Soviet dominance on the battlefield - now explained by tac nukes

Nicholas, you are much more optimist than me. I see several issue that requires more than quick fix. And the Tactical nuclear solution is, as in reality, more a problem than a solution. I do not feel the atmospheric so good as you... remind me of Mark Walker initial WW3 approach... you remember the one with Vampires? (BTW he has a new platoon level game on KS on WW3... with vampires and werewolves... )

Arrigo74, your points on offensive tactical nuclear warfare are well taken. If not first use offensively, then I think the Soviets should be the first to use them defensively. In either case, limited nuclear warfare is a central feature of all iterations of Twilight 2000. My main interest is to help reconcile Soviet success with the correlation of forces presented by Free League. The effective use of tactical nuclear weapons is the simplest way to achieve this end.

Raellus,

I understand where you are trying to go. I never said that nukes should not be used in the setting... otherwise it would not be t2k at all, just that the issue with setting is too deep rooted for quick fixes.

Hello Arrigo,

well, I am ALWAYS optimistic

I do lower my usually exacting standards a bit for an RPG, as long as the crazier stuff, which belies basic logistical, economic or military logic (like the "Soviet armada" invading the UK from the Swedish coast.... sorry FL - I have proposed an alternative reason why you have some Soviet troops there) is taken care of and replaced with something that is at least a bit plausible. Some crazy stuff happens in war, and, to an extent, I'm willing to suspend disbelief .... just like I hope players suspend disbelief when they try games I've had a hand in designing

And this product is guaranteed 100 % vampire-free! That, or we provide a wooden stake and a crucifix FREE OF CHARGE

I do remember talking to Mark H Walker on the phone to try to get him to remove some of the whackiest aspects of this initial WaW series (that's why the French don't fight NATO - except in one scenario, due to a case of mistaken identity). But I much prefer the current series (your DDR scenarios rock, BTW). And the upcoming French volume will be much, much more realistic.

Best,

Nicolas

I'll join the chorus as one of those that always found the 1E backstory to be at least as wacky and implausible as this one, probably more so. Maybe some of you are recalling it with a bit of nostalgia. But the basic setup was always fairly ludicrous in several key details, and many of the adventure supplements ranged from "weird" to "utterly absurd."

But, for a game, it was good enough. It's fantasy, after all. Our access to historical knowledge has raised the bar on what we consider plausible fantasy, of course.

It seems the expectation here is that every detail of world history be outlined. I, on the other hand, found that the entire backstory is in the Player's manual to be a bit of a surprise! The goal of the backstory should be to have a plausible, internally consistent, knowable-to-the-PCs setting. As far as I'm concerned, what China is up to doesn't enter into that. If I need to know, then the GM will figure it out. But as it is I think anyone who reads the player's manual will have access to far more information the most PCs would about what had actually happened and where they are. A great deal of what they know over the past two years is likely to be more based on rumor than reality.

I also think that most criticism of "why would X leader do Y?" is pretty easily undercut by the example of having lived through the last several years in actual human reality. In the real world, leaders are not always logical, informed, or wise! They do not always act in the interest of the public good. Sometimes they don't even act in their own good. I accept that they might make phenomenal mistakes with globe-shattering consequences, especially when nuclear weapons are involved. Those that doubt should study the Cuban Missile Crisis in more detail. Or the various thoughts of Curtis LeMay in general. Or the Hitler guy.

I did think the stuff about the Soviets invading England was way over the line. I could see them maybe having a small beachhead somewhere (perhaps with the goal of establishing airbases?) which a fractured local authority is unable to repel. But in London? Ha.

Remove that and maybe the Soviets feel less all-powerful. They weren't even powerful enough to successfully push through all of Poland, after all. Any minor quibbles are easily hand-waved with the very unpredictable and drastic effects nukes could have on how a war is going, and I think the text suggests all of that very clearly. I have no issue with it.

The background and timeline and war as presented make a farce of what this was supposed to be about - which is two great power blocs fighting to a stalemate that neither side wins - instead what hou have is a Soviets Uber Alles victory that ends up with no large organized US or NATO forces left of any kind for the players to try to get back to - there is no getting back to their lines because the Soviets have destroyed the NATO and US ground armies and won the war. They destroy eight full NATO Corps in Poland alone plus the losses in Sweden - and they do it with overwhelming force while the survivors run for the woods. What kind of garbage timeline is this? And what happened to the hundreds of thousands of US reinforcements that were sent over in 1998- is Tomas trying to say that they all were killed by the Soviet Navy on the way over? Since when did the Soviet Navy get that powerful??? This isnt a suspension of disbelief. This is a total unrealistic background, timeline and war start and it needs to be trashed completely and started over.

Its supposed to be about the Death of a Division - NOT THE DEATH OF NATO. If you want to write a game about a Soviet Victory in WW3 then do us all a favor and write one - but dont write one and then try to use Twilight 2000 for its name. This is flat out bad writing - it is unuseable for those who want to make campaigns or write follow up modules. Frankly I dont see any of those who were excited about writing for Twilight 2000 Version 4 lifting a finger to write one sentence for this edition. And I wrote the East Africa/Kenya module for Version 2.2. and was completely gung ho to write Version 4 material - and after reading this Alpha that is the last thing on my list or on the list of those who were volunteering to write for you.

Trash the timeline, trash the background, trash the war and start over and write one for Twilight 2000 and not for Soviet Victory in WW3.

and FYI - this timeline is one that includes the US kicking the Iraqi's butts in 1991 - which shows the technological edge the US had over the Soviets - and yet you have the Soviets destroying the US Army and Air Force and Navy - which were so far ahead technologically in the 90's that even Putin has admitted they were hopelessly overmatched - Also you have the Soviets beating the US, NATO, the Warsaw Pact and France??? Sorry but no way in hell - having both sides beat each other to a pulp that I can understand - but destroying the entire NATO force of 8 Corps in Poland plus Sweden -thats complete and utter foolishness.

Thats why the original authors had the US and NATO sourcebooks and Going Home - to show that the US and NATO militaries did survive but were not in any condition for further offensives - the war just winds down as the US goes home and the Soviets fall apart - what you have written instead is the US and NATO are destroyed and there are no friendly lines to get back to - there is no needs for a US Army Sourcebook because there is no US Army - ditto NATO because there is no NATO

And what happened to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey - you are telling me the Turks just sat there and never attacked the Soviets? That the French army joins in the fun but the Italians sit it out?

And the invasion of the UK is fanciful - it reads like someone who read too much alt fiction where Operation Sea Lion succeeded - the heroes of Trafalgar Square?? London would have been a nuked destroyed city - there wouldnt be any Trafalgar Square to fit for - and militia armed with shotguns and pistols - which fyi is all that people in England have for civilian weapons - going up against troops and armor???

A note on NBC:
A likely use of chemical weapons is to make life harder for another enemy than the one you intend to fight (where you end up in the mess yourself).

against air bases and suppy depots to hinder operations.
on your flanks or choke points to prevent counter-attacks or enemy movement in general
on enemy positions you do not intend to attack to cause damage and to tie them down.

persistent chemical weapons (e.g. mustard gas) will stay where it's dispersed and not create major problems downwind. The Soviet attackers can fight without MOPP gear (and so can the defenders)

Btw: raincoats against NBC weapons is very Swedish cold war. But also the one exercise where I lost faith in the Swedish army's chances in case of NBC attack.