Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by kato13 View Post
    I think we all agree the 1990 Real life Soviet Union should be considered a Version 2.0 minus. Very different from a Version 1 USSR. Everyone this may just be a difference in perspective or a poor choice of words.

    Due to NATO Forces being tied Europe in V1 I suspect the V1 and V2 Desert Storm would use a vastly different force base. This is why "canon" arguments are often contradictory even within the confines of fully established canon.

    However I think we all can say that Saddam made some very bad decisions in real life and could have made just as many ill thought out ones in any gaming scenario.
    Very well put Kato.

    Comment


    • #17
      Personally I think the 1990-91 middle eastern events fit nicely into the leadup to the Twilight war.
      It's quite concievable that even though the USSR still existed IRL, they stayed out of participating in any real way due to the imminent breakup of the "empire". Although officially this disolution didn't happen until later, it's unlikely that those in power didn't see the writing on the wall beforehand.

      Involving themselves in conflict with those troubles on horizon wouldn't have been in anyones interests on the Soviet side of things.
      If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

      Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

      Mors ante pudorem

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by kato13 View Post
        Due to NATO Forces being tied Europe in V1 I suspect the V1 and V2 Desert Storm would use a vastly different force base.
        Good point. I never really thought about that before.
        sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

        Comment


        • #19
          Does anyone know roughly what percentage of the available forces of the involved nations were used in 91
          And what percentage were occupied elsewhere (particularly Europe)
          If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

          Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

          Mors ante pudorem

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by kato13 View Post
            Due to NATO Forces being tied Europe in V1 I suspect the V1 and V2 Desert Storm would use a vastly different force base. This is why "canon" arguments are often contradictory even within the confines of fully established canon.

            Figuring out how NATO juggles forces would be a very interesting exercise. Perhaps a REFORGER run would be in order. Certainly, the weakness of having a Regular Army division hobbled by a National Guard roundout brigade would be exposed by a 1990 REFORGER.

            Webstral
            “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Raellus
              The Soviet Union of v1.0 canon and the Soviet Union of 1990 (IRL) are not one in the same, at least not in my book
              I'm not trying to say that. But I am willing to argue that the Soviet Union of v1 canon isn't going to be any more successful at reining in Saddam than anyone else.

              Originally posted by Raellus
              As to Saddam not backing down, IRL, he did not have the full weight of the [former] Eastern Bloc leaning on him. The "Soviet Union's" response to Saddam's aggression in 1991 was fairly ambivalent. If a more powerful Soviet Union- like the one in the v1.0 canon- and its satellites (i.e. the Warsaw Pact) were actively pressing him, he may have behaved more prudently.
              I'm not saying the canon v1 USSR wouldn't have an interest in stopping Saddam from creating a situation that will get them embroiled in a conflict with the West. I'm just saying they wouldn't be able to stop him.

              Originally posted by Raellus
              True. This is why the Soviets tried to prevent Egypt from attacking Israel in '73
              How, exactly, do you see this pressure being applied What leverage does this canon v1 USSR have that the USSR in 1973 did not when they were dealing with Egypt

              You do have to admit that the Soviets didn't prevent the Egyptians from attacking Israel. All they succeeded in doing wad getting their advisers kicked out of Egypt. Ultimately that helped move Egypt from the Soviet camp to the US camp. It is an example of Soviet inability to control their clients.

              Furthermore, the avowed policy of Egypt was to win back the Sinai Peninsula by military force. From 1970-1973 the Soviets, under Brezhnev, knew this was coming. They participated directly with the Egyptians in the so-called War of Attrition over the Sinai Peninsula and even lost fighter pilots who were piloting Egyptian aircraft. They didn't want to sell Egypt their most advanced SAM missiles but Sadat threatened to resign and bring in someone more US-oriented and Brezhnev relented and sold them the SAMs.

              Even worse, when Egypt got themselves completely backed into a corner the USSR had to come in and get embroiled in a confrontation with the US which led to the USSR having to back down after the US raised its nuclear defcon level.

              So Egypt manipulated the USSR into arming them. Kicked the Soviet advisers out. Attacked Israel against the Sov's wishes. Completely screwed up and then whined to the USSR which got the Sovs into exactly the kind of situation they were trying to avoid.

              Originally posted by Raellus
              and why the Soviet Union [of canon] might very well exert much stronger diplomatic and economic pressure on Saddam to back down and pull out of Kuwait. In this case, the Soviets would put a lot of pressure on Iraq, in part to demonstrate to the world that they can control their clients and, in part, to try to stabilize the region.
              The problem I have with your analysis is that I just don't understand who you think this Soviet Union of the v1 canon is. What I mean is, if the powerful Soviet union of 1973 (maybe the pinnacle of Soviet power and prestige), under the leadership of an old Bolshevik like Brehznev, couldn't control Egypt when they had three years of warning... then who are these v1 canon Soviets

              With Saddam the USSR gets no warning. No one did. He just acted on his own without consulting anyone... besides some oblique and frankly dissembling questioning of US Abassador Glaspie... how is the USSR going to fare better when they get no advanced warning and are faced with an fait accomple of Kuwaiti annexation


              A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing
              Last edited by sglancy12; 02-05-2010, 01:21 AM. Reason: removed my self-serving apology

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Webstral View Post
                Figuring out how NATO juggles forces would be a very interesting exercise. Perhaps a REFORGER run would be in order. Certainly, the weakness of having a Regular Army division hobbled by a National Guard roundout brigade would be exposed by a 1990 REFORGER.

                Webstral
                Think you already did that Web...to quoth your "Storm In Germany" article:

                Originally posted by From The Persian Gulf War, Chapter 3
                [III US Corps moves to Europe along with 5th ID(M). Two National Guard formations, 35th ID(M) and 116th ACR are called up and deployed to Europe to take over the duties of VII US Corps. 4th ID(M), which is supposed to transit by air to Europe to draw POMCUS equipment, remains on alert at Ft. Carson, CO. 1st CD, 2/2nd AD and 3rd ACR, all of which are slated for deployment to Europe, are replaced by 49th AD (TXNG), 194th Armd Bde (Sep) and 278th ACR (TNNG) as CONUS-based reserves for air deployment and drawing of POMCUS equipment. The USMC activates 4th Marine Division to take the place of 1st Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, which is deploying to Saudi Arabia.]
                Author of "Distant Winds of a Forgotten World" available now as part of the Cannon Publishing Military Sci-Fi / Fantasy Anthology: Spring 2019 (Cannon Publishing Military Anthology Book 1)

                "Red Star, Burning Streets" by Cavalier Books, 2020

                https://epochxp.tumblr.com/ - EpochXperience - Contributing Blogger since October 2020. (A Division of SJR Consulting).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Legbreaker View Post
                  Does anyone know roughly what percentage of the available forces of the involved nations were used in 91
                  And what percentage were occupied elsewhere (particularly Europe)
                  The strength of the Regular British Army at the time was around 137,000. According to Wikipedia, the British Army committed approx 43,000 troops to Operation Granby (the UK name for Operations Desert Shield / Storm), although that included a number of Territorials.

                  In percentage terms, if I've done my sums right you're looking at a figure of somewhere around 30% of the Army being deployed to the Gulf.

                  We sent two Armoured Brigades plus a number of additional units, so if you're looking at the Cold War still going strong at the time I think that would have seriously weakened the BAOR (normal strength of which was eight Armoured Brigades and one Infantry Brigade).
                  Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Webstral View Post
                    Figuring out how NATO juggles forces would be a very interesting exercise. Perhaps a REFORGER run would be in order. Certainly, the weakness of having a Regular Army division hobbled by a National Guard roundout brigade would be exposed by a 1990 REFORGER.

                    Webstral
                    Yeah Desert Storm did open some eyes in the US Army, but it took Operation Iraqi Freedom to learn the entire lesson that they had learned for the what the 4th time in 20 odd years. Starting with Operation Urgent Fury up to Operation Iraqi Freedom the only three or four Divisions were full Deployed in any of them. The other US Divisions had other units borrowed from other to make whole Divisions. In fact, Desert Storm was the first time in which a whole Division command had been deployed.

                    Even in follow the initial operations of Iraqi Freedom, it was rare that an entire Division is in country. If the entire Division happens to be in country they rarely work as an entirely under the same command. Usually they are split up to make up composite Divisions.

                    I feel 1997 would see Brigades jumbled around, especially during offensive operations. Units would be left in place when depleted while those units of capable of offensive action would be transferred to the next passing Brigade/Battalion. The only Divisions I can see still being whole by 1998 would be 101st and 82nd Airborne Division where they weren't set up to support heavy troops.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jason Weiser View Post
                      Think you already did that Web...to quoth your "Storm In Germany" article:
                      I was hoping I might encourage someone to offer another option. Another pair of eyes might see a possibility I missed. I'm quite pleased that my work is proving of value, though.

                      Webstral
                      “We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        well who knows

                        What really happened and what is the truth of things - what they told us is certainly not half of it and thick layers of balloney added.

                        But I have a question - wouldnt either side (NATO Or USSR ) choose to nuke the oilfields to smitherenes if it looked likely that teh other side was going to make a succesful conventional take over

                        Dirty bombs,other types of nuclear weapons to make the operations there too difficult

                        (I am thinking post TDM wise -before that any of the scenarios mentioned can happen as far as I am concerned )

                        Originally posted by Matt Wiser View Post
                        Actually, it'd likely be Qusay. He was gathering power behind the scenes, and ran not only the Special Security Organization (SSO) but also the Special Republican Guard. More importantly, he was being groomed by his father to be the successor. Uday was more of a playboy and a public danger (his psychopathic tendencies being well known in Baghdad), to the point of having made numerous non-Baathist enemies, who tried numerous times to kill him. I remember a news story on the two before the invasion, and one source remarked this way: "How do you differentate between the brothers Simple: Uday kills for jollies. But when Qusay kills, it's business." And it's no secret that before the invasion, both wanted the other dead. Lots of folks were surprised that the two brothers were found together-and died together.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          We all now know that Iraq had a sub par military, however, with both western and Communist sides locked in combat across the world, would Iraq have been strong enough to bully them Play both sides off against each other
                          Could this possibly explain to some degree why their oilfields and production facilities are still in relatively good order in 2000
                          If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

                          Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

                          Mors ante pudorem

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by sglancy12 View Post
                            How, exactly, do you see this pressure being applied What leverage does this canon v1 USSR have that the USSR in 1973 did not when they were dealing with Egypt
                            Well, perhaps an arms embargo, including spare parts for Saddam's existing stockpiles of Soviet-made weaponry. The Soviets would also force their Eastern European clients to follow suit. A collective refusal on the part of the WTO to purchase fuel from Iraq. I honestly don't know how much economic and military logistical pressure the RL Soviet Union and former WTO nations actually placed on Saddam. My impression was that it was minimal, at best.

                            I do admit that your point about the Soviet's innability to stop their Egyptian clients in 1973 is a good one. IIRC, the Soviets' refusal to allow the Egyptians to use Soviet-supplied SSMs against Irael was a big reason why the Soviet advisors were kicked out.

                            Maybe- and this is a bit of a stretch- Saddam would have learned something about how an isolated Arab/Muslim nation (i.e. Egypt after the Soviets withdrew their support) fared against the U.S.-supplied Israelis and backed down. I concede that, based on his track record, this is fairly unlikely.

                            Originally posted by sglancy12 View Post
                            The problem I have with your analysis is that I just don't understand who you think this Soviet Union of the v1 canon is. What I mean is, if the powerful Soviet union of 1973 (maybe the pinnacle of Soviet power and prestige), under the leadership of an old Bolshevik like Brehznev, couldn't control Egypt when they had three years of warning... then who are these v1 canon Soviets
                            Honestly, I haven't made up my mind about who the v1.0 Soviets are but, in my mind, they are closer to the Soviets of RL 1984 than they are to the Soviets of RL 1991. I am somewhat of a Soviet apologist, and an unabashed one at that. You should take a look at my archived In Defense of the Red Army thread (it's listed on the forum thread map) for a better understanding of my thoughts about the Soviet Union in the T2K v1.0 timeline.

                            Originally posted by sglancy12 View Post
                            With Saddam the USSR gets no warning. No one did. He just acted on his own without consulting anyone... besides some oblique and frankly dissembling questioning of US Abassador Glaspie... how is the USSR going to fare better when they get no advanced warning and are faced with an fait accomple of Kuwaiti annexation
                            Scott (do you mind if I call you by your first name), I'm worried that you missed part of my first point.

                            To reitterate, I don't think that the v1.0 Soviets could have prevented the Iraqis from invading Kuwait. I do, however, think that the v1.0 Soviets could have helped compel Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait after the fact but before getting his ass handed to him by the U.S. led coalition. Perhaps, by diplomatic means, the v1.0 Soviets helped Saddam save face- a very important consideration based on his psych profile- which in turn motivated him to pull out. I think that part of the reason he stayed and got spanked IRL was that he didn't want to look like a pussy by backing down without a fight.

                            Perhaps- and this is my effort to compromise- the v1.0 helped compel Saddam to pull out after a few days of his military in Kuwait getting pounded by coalition airstrikes but prior to the kick-off of the ground campaign.

                            I'm kind of thinking out loud here.
                            Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

                            https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
                            https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
                            https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
                            https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
                            https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              Well, perhaps an arms embargo, including spare parts for Saddam's existing stockpiles of Soviet-made weaponry. The Soviets would also force their Eastern European clients to follow suit. A collective refusal on the part of the WTO to purchase fuel from Iraq.
                              The collective refusal to buy their oil might be a pinch to Iraq (and a boon to Soviet and Romanian oil sectors) but it seems that while the Soviets did not diplomatically support Iraq they did not break their military ties to Iraq. Wikipedia has this to say:

                              "The Soviet Union was critical of Saddam Hussein's 2 August 1990 invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and supported a United Nations resolution authorizing the use of military force, if necessary, to enforce an arms embargo against Iraq. But the Soviet Union's military support for Hussein also drew substantial criticism from the United States and other Western countries. In Washington, D.C., the Heritage Foundation foreign policy experts Jay P. Kosminsky and Michael Johns wrote on 30 August 1990 that, "While condemning the Iraqi invasion, Gorbachev continues to assist Saddam militarily. By Moscow's own admission, in an 22 August official press conference with Red Army Colonel Valentin Ogurtsov, 193 Soviet military advisors still are training and assisting Iraq's one million-man armed forces. Privately, Pentagon sources say that between 3,000 and 4,000 Soviet military advisors may be in Iraq."

                              The actual withdrawal of those advisers might have been critical, but since the kinder gentler USSR of RL didn't withdraw them, it's hard to imagine that the more hard-line Stalinist USSR of ver 1 canon would have withdrawn them. In fact, there probably would have been plenty of hard liners who would have pushed for more support of Iraq... not that this would have been a very good idea.

                              Of course the wild card here would be Red China. If the WTO, NATO and the Arab world are all leaning on Iraq to get out of Kuwait, would China will willing to take up the slack as far as diplomatic of military support. Clearly the RL PRC didn't, but who are these guys running the various canon PRCs

                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              I honestly don't know how much economic and military logistical pressure the RL Soviet Union and former WTO nations actually placed on Saddam. My impression was that it was minimal, at best.
                              I agree it was probably pretty minimal. Many of the former WTO nations were still reeling from the economic shock of independence. However, IIRC the Czechs in RL send some 200 chemical warfare decontamination troops to the Gulf as part of the Coalition Forces. Apparently the Hungarians sent a handful and the Poles sent some 300 as part of a "naval and medical deployment."

                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              I do admit that your point about the Soviet's innability to stop their Egyptian clients in 1973 is a good one. IIRC, the Soviets' refusal to allow the Egyptians to use Soviet-supplied SSMs against Irael was a big reason why the Soviet advisors were kicked out.
                              What I read recently (on the admittedly often flawed wikipedia) is the USSR was cajoled into selling the SAMs to Sadat, only to try and head off the invasion by leaking news of Egypt's plans. That, the article claimed, was the reason Sadat expelled his Soviet military advisers.

                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              Maybe- and this is a bit of a stretch- Saddam would have learned something about how an isolated Arab/Muslim nation (i.e. Egypt after the Soviets withdrew their support) fared against the U.S.-supplied Israelis and backed down. I concede that, based on his track record, this is fairly unlikely.
                              Agreed.

                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              Honestly, I haven't made up my mind about who the v1.0 Soviets are but, in my mind, they are closer to the Soviets of RL 1984 than they are to the Soviets of RL 1991.
                              I agree that the alternative timeline Kremlin, whether ver1, ver2 or homebrew, needs to be made up of old-line communists who remember fondly the days of Brezhnev. Maybe even some neo-Stalinists who want the extreme police state without the cult of personality centered around one man. They want the USSR to be like it was during WWII, untied, strong, moving in one direction with one purpose.

                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              I am somewhat of a Soviet apologist, and an unabashed one at that. You should take a look at my archived In Defense of the Red Army thread (it's listed on the forum thread map) for a better understanding of my thoughts about the Soviet Union in the T2K v1.0 timeline.
                              I have and I'm not sure that is what I would call being a Soviet apologist. To be a Soviet apologist you'd have to claim something like "All those Poles at Katyn Forrest clearly had it coming."

                              No, you see the USSR's military capacity as being closer to it's advertised ability. Closer to what we thought it was in 1984 when the Red Army was staring across the Fulda Gap, rather than how it turned out to be in 1991 when they were humiliated in Chechnyia.

                              I think the truth of any alternative timeline should rest somewhere between the two. I think the US forces would far better than we expected in many cases, but the USSR wouldn't be brushed aside like Iraq. In my own timeline I have the USSR and China allied and fighting the USA because I think that the USSR couldn't fight a two front war the way the canon describes. I think for civilization to be ground down in a war of attrition, it should be the USA who has to fight on two fronts, forces stretched to the limits. Otherwise the USA would be too successful in the European, Persian Gulf and Korean Theatres and the USSR would go nuclear too soon. And commit more nukes to more targets than the canon states.

                              I'm not marred to any of the canon, but I'd really prefer to change the absolute minimum number of events for my homebrew.

                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              Scott, I'm worried that you missed part of my first point.

                              To reiterate, I don't think that the v1.0 Soviets could have prevented the Iraqis from invading Kuwait. I do, however, think that the v1.0 Soviets could have helped compel Saddam to withdraw from Kuwait after the fact but before getting his ass handed to him by the U.S. led coalition. Perhaps, by diplomatic means, the v1.0 Soviets helped Saddam save face- a very important consideration based on his psych profile- which in turn motivated him to pull out. I think that part of the reason he stayed and got spanked IRL was that he didn't want to look like a pussy by backing down without a fight.
                              My only point about preventing the invasion was that preventing it from happening seems like it would be easier than forcing a withdrawal after blood, gold, and reputation had already been invested and the deed was done.

                              I do not deny in any way that the Soviets of any timeline would have an interest in making sure that one of their clients is not militarily humbled by the west. That's just bad P.R... makes the East Bloc look weak.

                              Originally posted by Raellus View Post
                              Perhaps- and this is my effort to compromise- the v1.0 helped compel Saddam to pull out after a few days of his military in Kuwait getting pounded by coalition airstrikes but prior to the kick-off of the ground campaign.
                              For the USSR to reign in Saddam would have taken extra-ordinary efforts... like the USSR participating in the air campaign. Then Saddam would have no illusions about hiding under the USSR's skirt. But air campaigns IMHO only work in concert with action on the ground. By the time the ground forces are moving, its too late for Saddam. His army is toast.

                              But if Saddam could be forced out without a war (air or ground), the near disaster would certainly give the USSR a motive behind their ver 1 coup in The RDF Sourcebook that unseats Saddam in 1991. Saddam is not named but the books says the government of Iraq is replaced.

                              Also, being forced out of Kuwait might teach Saddam a lesson... never attack a western ally. He got away with attacking Iran (at least diplomatically) because Iran was a pariah state allied with no one. Kuwait was too important internationally. The RDF Sourcebook has Iraq and Syria drifting towards war in 1991. Maybe Saddam decided that he should take on a Soviet Client state thinking that the US wouldn't get involved

                              A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I think that there's a danger in predicting what would have happened in the Twilight version of WWIII based on what's happened since the publication of the v1.0 timeline. That's why I'm hestitant to incorporate Desert Storm into my T2K alternate history.

                                For example, I think there's a danger in assuming that the U.S. would have cleaned house in Europe based on its quick and relatively painless defeat of the Iraqi army in '91 and '03. Or assuming that the Soviet Union would have been easily defeated in Europe based on the piss-poor performance of the Russian Federation military during its first go-round in Chechnya.

                                If we've learned anything since 2001, it's that the U.S. is not invincible. We've been in Afghanistan since '01 and Iraq since '03 and there's really no end in sight. With our current all-volunteer force stretched dangerously thin as it is, I'm not sure how one could argue that we could spank the "old"Soviet Union/WTO in Europe, let alone hold our own in a two-theatre war with the Russian Federation/USSR and China. The correlation of forces for the latter is just insanely one sided. But I digress.

                                I think most people here are of the school of thought that the v1.0 timeline can be reconciled with the real-world events of the early '90s. In my mind, that's a justification of the v2.2 timeline. I know that I am in the minority but I think that the divergence needs to occur well before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

                                There's just too much historical gymnastics going on to try to align everything so that v1.0 canon works with historical events that took place after its establishment. Many have tried but, IMO, all of the results are unsatisfactory. A U.S. military with Cold War era funding and Gulf War experience taking on the weak, decrepit, last-legs Soviet military is not a fair fight, at least in the opening stages, and it makes the v1.0 canon seem silly. For v1.0 to remain valid, the USSR must remain solvent and healthy.

                                Someday, when I have the free time to do it right, I am going to do my homework and come up with a plausible scenario that explains/justifies the continued existence of a fairly robust Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact through the nineties. Right now, I don't have the knowledge to do so and do so realistically.

                                Why do I feel the need to defend and preserve the v1.0 timeline Because that's what I grew up with. When I was a kid, the Russians were the bad guys- Red Storm Rising, Red Dawn, Team Yankee, Spies Like Us, If the Russians Love Their Children Too, Rambo III, Rocky IV, James Bond ad infinitum... I don't want a "reimagined" T2K. That's why I despise the v2.2 timeline and why I probably won't ever pick up T2K13 or whatever. I don't hate Russians but they're the iconic T2K enemy. Call me a dinosaur but that's the way I feel about it. If I want an "updated" T2K, I'll buy myself a copy of Modern Warfare 2.

                                Sorry for the rant. I don't know what came over me.
                                Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

                                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
                                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
                                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
                                https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
                                https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X