What was the plot-arc of Return to Europe?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Was there an overall plot arc or was it just "Hey, assuming your players didn't go home, here's some stuff that can happen in Europe."

I always thought that given the series of modules' subtitle of "Return to Europe" that it was in a sense for whatever reason US troops being sent back into action in Europe, which considering the state of the world at large a really, really weird thing to do. Even setting aside the logistical problems of moving anything other than a tiny handful of troops and whatever stuff they could carry, back across the Atlantic.

[Legbreaker]

"Plot arc" What plot arc
It was weak at best I'd have to say....

It's probably best to approach it using characters from units which didn't evacuate, or better yet, characters who a) didn't hear about the evacuation, and/or b) didn't care to return to organised military command and stayed well away from Germany.

The various "RTE" modules were little more than rewrites of the originals, using much of the same material, and recycling many of the same scenarios and plots. Return to Warsaw for example uses basically the same conflict and characters as Ruins of Warsaw. Even the Baron's forces are a close mirror with little real reduction from the events of 12 months prior.

[helbent4]

Was there an overall plot arc or was it just "Hey, assuming your players didn't go home, here's some stuff that can happen in Europe."

I always thought that given the series of modules' subtitle of "Return to Europe" that it was in a sense for whatever reason US troops being sent back into action in Europe, which considering the state of the world at large a really, really weird thing to do. Even setting aside the logistical problems of moving anything other than a tiny handful of troops and whatever stuff they could carry, back across the Atlantic.

RakJpz,

It's not so strange when you read in White Eagle that the primary reason is that there was demand for more adventures in Poland.

"Return to Warsaw" and "White Eagle" essentially go back to the well, reprising "Ruins of Warsaw" and "Black Madonna" are second go-rounds with their respective villains (the Black Baron and Markgraf of Silesia). "Bear's Den" has a new villain, a bad-ass Soviet General, Chelkov.

On one hand there is no real strong connecting narrative arc for the adventures. That is, no one suggested agency or mechanism for involving the players in all three adventures, and they seem more or less independent. There are suggestions as to how involve the CIA and DIA in "Bear's Den" and "White Eagle" or if the players are operating independently. There's almost no set entry for "Return to Warsaw", just suggestions on how they get to Europe or if they would have stayed.

This is kind of weak on one hand, but on the other the GM can tailor the rationale for his particular group, which is probably for the best. In a way, these actually look like great adventures to run now, because many players will have done some or all of the first four Polish adventures (Madonna, Krakow, Vistula and/or Warsaw). It would be nice to revisit situations and people from "way back".

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

RakJpz,

It's not so strange when you read in White Eagle that the primary reason is that there was demand for more adventures in Poland.

"Return to Warsaw" and "White Eagle" essentially go back to the well, reprising "Ruins of Warsaw" and "Black Madonna" are second go-rounds with their respective villains (the Black Baron and Markgraf of Silesia). "Bear's Den" has a new villain, a bad-ass Soviet General, Chelkov.

On one hand there is no real strong connecting narrative arc for the adventures. That is, no one suggested agency or mechanism for involving the players in all three adventures, and they seem more or less independent. There are suggestions as to how involve the CIA and DIA in "Bear's Den" and "White Eagle" or if the players are operating independently. There's almost no set entry for "Return to Warsaw", just suggestions on how they get to Europe or if they would have stayed.

This is kind of weak on one hand, but on the other the GM can tailor the rationale for his particular group, which is probably for the best. In a way, these actually look like great adventures to run now, because many players will have done some or all of the first four Polish adventures (Madonna, Krakow, Vistula and/or Warsaw). It would be nice to revisit situations and people from "way back".

Tony

The best word to describe the Return to Europe...is confused. The lack of any connecting arc was a major drawback IMO. On the other hand, playing the modules as part of the initial story line and then ending with Operation Omega always made more sense.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The best word to describe the Return to Europe...is confused. The lack of any connecting arc was a major drawback IMO. On the other hand, playing the modules as part of the initial story line and then ending with Operation Omega always made more sense.

Yeah, I remember leafing through the modules at the FLGS and going "whuh" at the "Return to Europe" subtitle...but it not having any real discussion on how Europe was being returned to!

Even the title was misleading; it wasn't like CivGov/MilGov was going to go "Oh hey lets put on a REFORGER exercise."

[Adm.Lee]

I quickly figured out there wasn't a plot-arc, it was mostly stuff "if your group skipped OMEGA." I've never gotten to run them, myself, but they just whetted my appetite for "what happened to Poland after"

What I've thought about doing is inserting them in pre-Omega timeline-- move the action in "Bear's Den" up to the previous winter, for instance. Or having the protagonists in "White Eagle" be British/French/German agents after the Americans left. Or telling the PCs beforehand about the Markgraf of Silesia, and by the time they get there, find out he's a King, instead.

[kato13]

My group did the polish adventures, going home, armies of the night, last submarine series which dropped them off in Europe for the Return to Europe series.

[James Langham]

Was there an overall plot arc or was it just "Hey, assuming your players didn't go home, here's some stuff that can happen in Europe."

I always thought that given the series of modules' subtitle of "Return to Europe" that it was in a sense for whatever reason US troops being sent back into action in Europe, which considering the state of the world at large a really, really weird thing to do. Even setting aside the logistical problems of moving anything other than a tiny handful of troops and whatever stuff they could carry, back across the Atlantic.

I always saw them as GDW's attempt to put a conclusion on what had happened in the initial series showing the way Europe was going. They let players try and deal once and for all with threats they had held off previously.

To be honest they weren't the way I would have developed them but then again I would have been far more pessimistic in outcome...

[pmulcahy11b]

It seemed to me to be "Do it again, but in v2 with a little more detail."

[Raellus]

It seemed to me to be "Do it again, but in v2 with a little more detail."

Exactly. They were essentially dressed up reissues of the original Poland modules for the "new" v2.0 edition of T2K.

[Abbott Shaull]

I see them as attempt to rewrite certain parts as they upgraded to v2. On the other hand, one could play these modules in almost any order with a creative GM. Especially if the group didn't go through the Going Home and it Operation Omega, or if the Operation was delayed like year or two.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Would any of you guys see a feasibility to "Okay, boys, we've tidied up at home, secured the Mexican border, sent those Cubans and Sovs packing, time to return the favor in Europe for the big win"

I can't, I mean, not terribly realistically so, but what are y'all's thoughts

[Tegyrius]

Going back in force No. Sending back small groups of irregular operators with personal ties to foreign leadership, with missions supporting mid- to long-term political goals Sounds like a job for PCs...

- C.

[Rainbow Six]

Would any of you guys see a feasibility to "Okay, boys, we've tidied up at home, secured the Mexican border, sent those Cubans and Sovs packing, time to return the favor in Europe for the big win"

I can't, I mean, not terribly realistically so, but what are y'all's thoughts

Absolutey not.

In my opinion (others may vary!), I think it would take a number of years (perhaps even decades!) before the situation inside the US was deemed stable enough to consider sending troops overseas.

The only exception I could see might be to reinforce CENTCOM to protect potential oil supplies. And of course special forces missions by small groups of less than a dozen men (e.g. Operation Prometheus in Mediterranean Cruise).

[Legbreaker]

Absolutey not.

I'm right with you on this one. Not going to happen for decades excet for individual small groups on specific missions.