Forum

Perhaps the collapse of Operation Reset, and multiple NATO divisions, could be soothed over with the mention of a handful of present-day tactical nuke strikes? Weapons that intelligence thought the Soviets no longer had -- but clearly they did?

People seem to be posting here in a panic about the Soviets "handily winning" WW3, but they must be reading something different than I did. They do have the upper hand, in a way that is a bit Red Dawn implausible... but it's not like these divisions overrunning Poland at the onset of play are going to reach the Rhine. They're going to run out of fuel and parts and men (and C3) again well before that and everything will go back to stasis, ruin, and desertion. That picture is made very clear in the rest of the text.

I do think that there should be somewhat more emphasis on how the Soviets are just as battered (If not more so) than NATO. As it stands it's not really clear just what the Soviet situation is, as defined by these contradictory lines in the referee's guide regarding the GRU:

Much as the DIA cleaves to the military government back in the States, the GRU nominally allies with the ruling generals in Moscow. Whether these generals are even still there is not
known, though an underlying command structure still exists.

To this end, the GRU is tasked with intelligence gathering and sabotage of enemy units. Intel is their primary focus, with Moscow hoping to centralize all remaining Soviet forces and mount a final push to take Poland, especially the fertile ground of Silesia.

Is the GRU in Poland still taking orders from Moscow or not? The first paragraph implies they aren't, the second outright stating they are. That's not ideal!

What really needs to be done, in my mind, is make it explicit (At least to the GM—if the players still think there's a Soviet juggernaut out there, that's fine by me ) just how devastated and broken the Soviet forces in Poland are—that they're just as starved for fuel and ammo as NATO, that they're suffering badly from a lack of leadership and desertions, and entire units have begun ignoring orders and splintering off to secure sources of food and shelter to survive the upcoming winter.

Here is the true part though that social media and avid debaters are not talking about, what the vast ammount of player groups mostly likely feel.

1) most of us care little for ultra realism, especially in a backstory
2) most of us care little or none for this appealing to the notion of keeping some odd "but hurhur my country was soOoo good at this, so we could never had x happend" frankly put, If there was aliens, zombies, plantmonsters or soviet vampire cabals its also fine. Plausible is not a word needed here because it is based on hindesight parameters pertaining our timeline.
3) it is a game of an alternative setting, the word is alternative which includes simply changing parameters that does not suit the design goal, this inclused strenght of various factions, ammount of soldiers, political outlook, prepardeness etc.

and lastly

4) the goal of this version is survival, down and gritty technical hexacrawl survival, not military conflict, not armies waging war. It is not a war strategy simulartor, it takes narrative shortcuts everywhere to get a narrative gameplay and this game already borders on to crunchy to be fun.

There is always just using the old setting and the new rules if you like it, i mean the ammount of space it has in the books is minor compare to the rules.

This I disagree with. Part of the appeal of Twilight: 2000 (And the reason why I've always wanted to run it, and why I threw money at the developers to kickstart it) is that it offers a much more realistic view of the apocalypse than pretty much any other system or setting. After all, there are plenty of other flavors of post-apoc RPGs—Gamma World, Apocalypse World, Savage Worlds: Ragnarok, and FL's own Mutant: Year Zero among many. But the realistic view of playing within the World War III that almost really happened is unique to T2K, and it's a flavor that should be emphasized and preserved.

This I disagree with. Part of the appeal of Twilight: 2000 (And the reason why I've always wanted to run it, and why I threw money at the developers to kickstart it) is that it offers a much more realistic view of the apocalypse than pretty much any other system or setting. After all, there are plenty of other flavors of post-apoc RPGs—Gamma World, Apocalypse World, Savage Worlds: Ragnarok, and FL's own Mutant: Year Zero among many. But the realistic view of playing within the World War III that almost really happened is unique to T2K, and it's a flavor that should be emphasized and preserved.

Yet the flavour of a mid-apocalypse game can still be there without minute realism to details that add nothing to the narrative or the setting. The background setting is if anything the simplest thing to change in the books, i mean if you where such a total fan of the original setting you would still play it today. It is if anything the simplest thing to play the new rules and old setting, heck i belive almost all gms will modify the setting to suit their need anyhow (i will add zombies and turn it into weird war 3, because..well fun.)
The act of conserving the narrative of the world if the jobb of the gamemaster, to opt out of facts you do not like or to introduce new ones to suit your world better.

My point here comes down to most critique does not come from a position of realism only it comes from a standpoint of "why did nato not kick ussrs butt directly!" and that sort of critism i tend to be vary of at best, i think of this game more as a nuclear red dawn rather than a highlight reel of archival fotos concerning troop movements and battleplans, hexacrawl survival, not battalion warefare.

Part of the appeal of Twilight: 2000 (And the reason why I've always wanted to run it, and why I threw money at the developers to kickstart it) is that it offers a much more realistic view of the apocalypse than pretty much any other system or setting. After all, there are plenty of other flavors of post-apoc RPGs—Gamma World, Apocalypse World, Savage Worlds: Ragnarok, and FL's own Mutant: Year Zero among many. But the realistic view of playing within the World War III that almost really happened is unique to T2K, and it's a flavor that should be emphasized and preserved.

I totally agree with this.

My point here comes down to most critique does not come from a position of realism only it comes from a standpoint of "why did nato not kick ussrs butt directly!" and that sort of critism i tend to be vary of at best, i think of this game more as a nuclear red dawn rather than a highlight reel of archival fotos concerning troop movements and battleplans, hexacrawl survival, not battalion warefare.

I don’t see anyone here arguing for that. Personally I would have been equally critical of a scenario that had NATO sweeping aside the Soviet Union, which would have been just as unrealistic. One of the key tenets of T2K is that the War has become a stalemate, with each side having worn the other down over years of fighting. Nobody wins.

What is happening inside the URSS in this case? They would surely have their own problems, and probably fighting their own internal quagmires. Why going to fight the great satan in Iraq, when you can fight the little satan at home? Funnily enough it would probably creates some common ground between NATO and Moscow, and possibly even Beijing (they have their own problems there too).

Plus China invading Taiwan as long Soviet Union is still a threat is again silly.

After the US hostage crisis with the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979) the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and fought an insurgency against Islamic “freedom fighters”. Did the US and USSR join forces to fight Jihadist?
No... the US took advantage of the situation to give the Soviets a “Vietnam” experience.

Do you honestly think that if US forces start fighting Jihadist in Iran, they would help the Americans?
No... the USSR would take advantage of the situation to give the US an “Afghanistan” experience.

With regard to China invading Taiwan, there could easily be coup in Taiwan, where a pro mainland regime takes over and INVITE Chinese troops to protect it from a counter coup. This could realistically happen and it could easily escalate to at least keeping a large portion of the US Navy busy blockading Taiwan.

Well .. this is the Alpha phase, right?

And so, a golden opportunity for the vast majority of player groups to pipe up and drown the small minority of dissenting voices that seem to think plausibility actually does have an important part to play even in this setting, right?

A bit of a shoddy turnout so far, though...


As I see it there are four alternatives:

1. Plausibility is fundamentally impossible to achieve in this type of setting. Any attempts at it would be doomed to failure, and are therefore a waste of time.
2. Plausibility, whether possible or impossible to achieve, is irrelevant to the game. This is a fantasy setting, nothing more, and factual history has no bearing whatsoever on it.
3. Plausibility is achievable and may have relevance to the setting, but would make the setting boring and/or unplayable for everyone except perhaps a handful of military nuts.
4. Plausibility is not only possible to achieve — it would enrich the gaming experience for those who care, while detracting nothing from those who think they don't.

Personally, I'm a firm proponent of (4).

Well .. this is the Alpha phase, right?

And so, a golden opportunity for the vast majority of player groups to pipe up and drown the small minority of dissenting voices that seem to think plausibility actually does have an important part to play even in this setting, right?

A bit of a shoddy turnout so far, though...


As I see it there are four alternatives:

1. Plausibility is fundamentally impossible to achieve in this type of setting. Any attempts at it would be doomed to failure, and are therefore a waste of time.
2. Plausibility, whether possible or impossible to achieve, is irrelevant to the game. This is a fantasy setting, nothing more, and factual history has no bearing whatsoever on it.
3. Plausibility is achievable and may have relevance to the setting, but would make the setting boring and/or unplayable for everyone except perhaps a handful of military nuts.
4. Plausibility is not only possible to achieve — it would enrich the gaming experience for those who care, while detracting nothing from those who think they don't.

Personally, I'm a firm proponent of (4).

I doubt the validity of counting forum members in this day and age, i mean we here are more likely to be considered the oddballs for using such a antiquated form of social engagment and not only that but if you check all the other FL games forums are pretty much quiet and the number of posters (just like this one) is verry low regardless of how important may think our issues are, people simply do not care deeply enough to engage in this way (unfortunatly, i love forums!)

I liked the options and i think they if anything are a pretty realistic standpoints to cover most the groups you will find that invested in the kickstarter. I think i will land on #2 with slight leanings towards #3.

With regard to China invading Taiwan, there could easily be coup in Taiwan

Do you have Taiwanese friends? Including in the military?

After the US hostage crisis with the Islamic Revolution in Iran (1979) the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and fought an insurgency against Islamic “freedom fighters”. Did the US and USSR join forces to fight Jihadist

Apples and oranges. Afghanistan was not seen at the time as a jihadist threat, probably rightly so... or maybe not. IT was seen by both sides as a localized phenomenon. Yes, Moscow was afraid of instability spilling across the border, but more in term of raiding. They mainly intervened because the local, communist, leadership was killing itself. Also at first the opposition was a broad coalition of different local interest supported by US, UK, France, China, and some Arab states. Also western and Chinese support was directed at more 'secular' groups. Problems on a higher scale developed later. When the jihadists were seen as a large problem, almost everyone was on the same side (initially even Iran, Beijing, and Moscow supported Enduring freedom).

If you want to laugh, during operation Praying Mantis a Sovremenny class destroyer approached one of the USN task groups during the attack, and the Soviet CO asked if the USN needed more firepower... still Cold War. But the Iranian were the pariahs. Well both US and Soviet Union were basically supporting the mustached man against Khomeini...

Also there are very few examples of GRU/KGB actively supporting anything approaching a jihadist movement. Remember that the Soviet Union at its inception had to deal with these problem, first with the Ottoman invasion, in the last months of WW2, then with a series of religious based uprisings that required time, blood, and money to be put down. If you also look at the post Moscow coup situation, the threat of Islamist organization usually was sufficient to deploy the collapsing Soviet Army.

Said that I think that avoiding opening that can of worms is better from a lot of standpoints. T2K 4E is not a game about current political problems first, it could create issues that are not really necessary. Furthermore the setting is about the big two-superpowers world clashing and coming to a standstill, so adding jihadists will probably not really appropriate in a narrative sense. I also think it would not be appropriate from an 'historical' standpoint , as these issues, while existing, had moved into the background due to the Superpower confrontation. It is like Mao shaking hands with Nixon, and the CIA and the PRC intelligence setting up joint listening posts on the PRC-SU border. You will be surprised by the amount of cooperation these two countries had in the last bit of the Cold War.

Plausibility is not only possible to achieve — it would enrich the gaming experience for those who care, while detracting nothing from those who think they don't.

Personally, I'm a firm proponent of (4).

Maybe it is because I am playing an empire character in SWTOR these days... but I fund myself in full agreement with lord Vader!

I certainly didn't say anything about adding jihadists to the game, other than in a remote backstory way that many players will probably find highly relatable, if they served at all. I was quite clear in other comments that I am fine with excluding eg China from the backstory because how does that affect our players in central Europe? But if you're looking for ways to splinter/distract NATO and preserve the relative power of the Soviets, you kind of have to start looking in one of those very likely places...

Apples/oranges is comparing a world where the USSR collapsed, to one where it didn't. Even if the internal facts of the empire remain the same, that is a gigantic difference that in itself justifies a very wide range of outcomes.

But where I land on it is this. The PCs will want knowledge of the world. But they are not entitled to it as an absolute. As far as I'm concerned, anything that happens after '97-98 may well be totally unknowable to them, or can be morseled out in whatever small portions of rumor/hearsay/actual evidence they might happen upon from time to time. Unless their backstories involve them fighting in some of these prior conflicts, or being particularly educated in foreign affairs for some reason or another, then I'd argue it's pretty unlikely they have a good grasp on half of what happened even well before that. Most people really don't closely follow the news to the level of detail even the player's book presents.

T2k is fiction, but not in the same way as fantasy or sci-fi. It's realistic fiction. Therefore, plausibility matters. The game world needs to at least have an internal logic or it falls apart, and ceases to be realistic fiction. If Free League wants to distinguish between T2k and other, less realistic survival games, then plausibility is important.

T2k campaigns start off in a setting of strategic stalemate (neither side is winning, but the Soviets have a distinct operational advantage in the AO). We don't need a particularly detailed description of how that starting point is reached, but the explanation given must be plausible and follow an internal logic. The disparity of forces involved is the biggest issue reducing plausibility. It could be addressed with a few relatively minor tweaks to the World At War.

Here's a collection of suggestions from this thread for how to better explain the Soviet Union's ability to at least force a stalemate with the combined forces of NATO, the former Warsaw Pact, and formerly Neutral Sweden, c.2000.

1. The US invades Iraq in '91 and get's mired down there like it did in 2003. This would tie down some US forces in the Middle East when the European war kicks off.
2. Have North Korea use the European war as an opportunity to launch a bit to reunify with the ROK by force. This would also tie down/draw away a few US divisions.
3. By the same token, Chinese could make a play to retake Taiwan. The US would likely try to help, occupying at least part of the US PacFleet.
4. Have the Soviets start the tactical nuclear exchange in Europe (whether offensively or defensively probably doesn't matter much). Decimate a few NATO divisions and take the initiative.

With these adjustments, the situation as described in 2000 is considerably more plausible; none would require a complete rewrite of the World At War.

I really hope Free League listens. No, hundreds of posters haven't complained about the campaign history, but a large percentage of those that have commented at all are practically begging for it to be revised a bit. That should mean something.