Howling Wilderness

[Olefin]

love the idea of a mission for a reformed 28th - that matches closes to my timeline that was based on how my GM saw the history going forward as to MilGov going to attack NA including the lead up to Kidnapped - if the scouts find all those supplies there you know that they would be a major target - and that combined with what they would see as Civgov "stealing" supplies that are by all rights for the people of PA would make for a couple of very fun adventures

[Webstral]

There are aspects of Howling Wilderness that characterize a creative venture circling the drain. Theres a very strong Mad Max-ification of the North American campaign. Someone from the GDW team wrote that they were trying to address the perception among the fan base that things were getting back to normal. For whatever reason, they chose a rather severe overreaction to an unfounded perception. Chaos is better for game play than law and order, to be sure. Perhaps GDW felt that the players had to believe they were the only force between the remnants of the nation and utter ruin. I dont know. I do agree with everyone else who has noted the change in tone from Europe and North American modules like Armies of the Night and Allegheny Uprising.

[Raellus]

It's So Obvious, We Missed It!

Perhaps there's no mention of all of previous modules in HW because, as a writer trying to sell product, Wiseman had to assume that purchasers' gaming groups hadn't completed those module missions yet I mean, otherwise, he's essentially ruining all those other products with spoilers (i.e. how their successful completion would influence the game world)- including, most significantly, Going Home!

It's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario. By failing to account for the outcomes of those modules, it seems like he's being careless or super absent-minded. By including all that stuff, he's basically screwing GDW/FFE over by giving away the major plot points of many of the previously-published, still-for-sale, adventure modules for the low, low price of a single sourcebook- HW. Why would you buy module X when you already know how it's supposed to end!

So, the lesser of evils may have been to ignore anything covered previous canonical works. That's why the ETO units are not mentioned at all in HW.

What would be really helpful to Ref's then is an official addendum to HW, with the results of earlier modules factored in- kind of like a flow-chart. For example, "If the players successfully completed module X, then Y would be affected in the following ways. If they failed to obtain [insert Macguffin], the situation will be as described."

[Olefin]

There is only one issue with that Raellus - HW mentions that there are troops that came home on Omega that were sent as reinforcements to other US based divisions - now that doesnt cover Satellite Down and Last Submarine

Also Kidnapped is referred to in Howling Wilderness in the NA area of the module

so that means those units did get home and Loren either forgot about them or didnt know what to do with them except parcel out a couple thousand men from the nearly 40,000 plus that got home

[Raellus]

For someone who hates the module so much, you know it really well! (Better than I do, that's for sure.)

[Olefin]

That is why my issues with the module were so informed - for one I own it so I read it cover to cover. For another I am still looking to write more modules and as Marc Miller told me I had to consider HW as canon - thus if I am going to release modules set in the US I need to see how I can proceed with that as the basis.

Also while much of it has a lot of issues it does offer valuable information on the situation in the US during the run up to Kidnapped - and while I dont agree with what it does to the US units I have to use that as what the situation was in April of 2001 - however that doesnt mean after that date I have to see it as gospel. The rest of the year isnt set in stone as the canon releases basically died at that point. Thus I see those as more projections of what might happen not what really happened.

But up to the actual canon date mentioned for the situation in the US - that I have to take as canon whether I agree with it or not - at least as a writer whose material has to be approved by Marc for publication.

[Enfield]

There is mention of the dwindling enclave at Norfolk in the Virginia entry in HW. When I originally ran "Going Home" I had the stragglers assigned to units which were reinforced. In my case I had them sent to join the forces invading Arkansas anyway.

The issue I had was with the entire units being evacuated, which are never mentioned again. While they did not have their heavy equipment, they nevertheless were led, organized and should have been deployed in some manner instead of the impression you get which is that they're sitting on their butts doing nothing.

Perhaps that is the greatest issue people had with it. Unlike the US Army Vehicle Guide, which provides a basis for how units were orgnized and equipment stats, prices and illustrations, it feels half done, not really fleshed out and requires more work on the part of the GM.

[Olefin]

I agree with the fact that HW does not feel completely thought out - that it was probably rushed to market before anyone had a chance to look at it - and what gets me is that Loren and Frank Chadwick wrote Going Home - so if anyone would have had the information on what happened to those divisions sent home it would have been Loren

I could see the disorganized units that arrived that had broke up even before they got to the evac point not being much use when they got back - but a bunch of them arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined - sorry but those units dont just fall apart upon arrival if they held together thru four years of hell in Europe - not when the US still has foreign invaders on its soil and has huge areas with no security at all

[Raellus]

Heart v. Head

I could see the disorganized units that arrived that had broke up even before they got to the evac point not being much use when they got back - but a bunch of them arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined - sorry but those units dont just fall apart upon arrival if they held together thru four years of hell in Europe - not when the US still has foreign invaders on its soil and has huge areas with no security at all

I've said it before, but the above is where I think you are failing to factor in the human element of combat fatigue and homesickness. You're looking at this more than like an accountant, and less like a psychologist/sociologist.

Civil War vets didn't have to fight- away from home- for four or more years. Neither did WWII vets. Even in our longest wars, Vietnam and The War on Terror, the majority of vets didn't have to be away from home continuously for more than 12 or 13 months at a stretch. To expect nearly every returning soldier to stay in uniform, follow orders, and not go home (i.e. desert) at the first or second opportunity, is almost as unrealistic as the disappearance of so much returning NorthAg and CentAg strength.

As I've already mentioned elsewhere, desertion was a big issue for the U.S. military in the ETO during WWII, despite cultural barriers and no realistic way of getting back to the States (don't believe me, check out Charles Glass' The Deserters). It was an even bigger problem during the American Civil War when both sides fought much closer to home. If you haven't already watched it, you should check out the movie, Free State of Jones.

Come on, now. If you hadn't seen your family in [up to] four years, and hadn't heard from them in nearly as long, you would stay in camp and prepare to redeploy to God-knows-where simply because your unit "arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined" and your CO ordered you to Well, you might answer yes to that question, but I think a lot of people would answer, "Heck no. I've given my country x years of my young adulthood, risked my life, killed, and seen my buddies blown away. The least they can do is let me go see if my family is OK. If they don't, well then, screw 'em. Let somebody else take a turn at the front line. I'm leaving. Let them try to stop me."

Again, I think if MilGov did try to stop large number of returning soldiers from going home, they'd have a large-scale mutiny on their hands. Or some units might declare for CivGov. Their best option is a furlough program. This would avoid a mutiny and increase the odds of retaining troops over the long-run. However, I think a significant percentage of furloughed soldiers would take advantage and not return.

[Olefin]

And I see your point Raellus - but not to the level in the module - its very obvious there was a major oversight - desertion I can see - but the levels in HW would have to be close to 90 percent given how many soldiers are unaccounted for - and as I said I can see the disorganized units going over the hill - but that still leaves 20,000 plus men left in multiple formations - its not plausible - frankly HW has to be looked at as a deeply flawed work - not the least because of the complete and totally overlooking of what happened to the men who came home

[Targan]

Come on, now. If you hadn't seen your family in [up to] four years, and hadn't heard from them in nearly as long, you would stay in camp and prepare to redeploy to God-knows-where simply because your unit "arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined" and your CO ordered you to Well, you might answer yes to that question, but I think a lot of people would answer, "Heck no. I've given my country x years of my young adulthood, risked my life, killed, and seen my buddies blown away. The least they can do is let me go see if my family is OK. If they don't, well then, screw 'em. Let somebody else take a turn at the front line. I'm leaving. Let them try to stop me."

Arriving back in the shattered remains of CONUS, I reckon many soldiers would be desperate to the point of madness to get back to their homes and see who of their loved ones were left.

[Legbreaker]

As I've mentioned many times in the past, neither government in 2000-01 has the resources to adequately supply the small forces they already had in the field. Add another 50,000 or so and you've completely smashed any logistical network they still had.
Honestly, I don't see Milgov had a choice in the matter. Sure, they held onto a few vital or highly skilled personnel, but the rest mostly likely were given a weeks rations, a set of civilian clothes and shown the door. Most would be more than happy to see the back of the military too by that point and gladly taken what was offered.

[CDAT]

I've said it before, but the above is where I think you are failing to factor in the human element of combat fatigue and homesickness. You're looking at this more than like an accountant, and less like a psychologist/sociologist.

But the human element is not a constant factor, it does not affect everyone the same. From my prospective combat fatigue is vastly over blown, I think mostly due to Hollywood and the media. Based on my personal experience I have served closely with about 1000 or so, and can count on one hand the number that have moderate to severe combat fatigue, and maybe another handful that have minor. So like I said I think it is very over blown, as my personal experience puts it at about 1% (am I am willing to say that it could be higher, but nothing like what you see from media).

As I've already mentioned elsewhere, desertion was a big issue for the U.S. military in the ETO during WWII, despite cultural barriers and no realistic way of getting back to the States (don't believe me, check out Charles Glass' The Deserters). It was an even bigger problem during the American Civil War when both sides fought much closer to home. If you haven't already watched it, you should check out the movie, Free State of Jones.

I am not sure that the cultural barriers were that big in the ETO during WWII, German has been one of the major places that immigrants to the US came from, so for a lot of troops it was not that major of a cultural barrier but the culture of their parents (or grandparents).

Come on, now. If you hadn't seen your family in [up to] four years, and hadn't heard from them in nearly as long, you would stay in camp and prepare to redeploy to God-knows-where simply because your unit "arrived intact, under orders and still disciplined" and your CO ordered you to Well, you might answer yes to that question, but I think a lot of people would answer, "Heck no. I've given my country x years of my young adulthood, risked my life, killed, and seen my buddies blown away. The least they can do is let me go see if my family is OK. If they don't, well then, screw 'em. Let somebody else take a turn at the front line. I'm leaving. Let them try to stop me."

This is the much more tricky one I think, more so for Guard and Reserve units, who I could see really wanting to go home, but an active duty unit that if still in good spirits more willing to hold to the party line, even more if they are being sent to there pre-deploment home base area.

[Legbreaker]

With active "fronts" (if you can still call them that in 2001) in Alaska and the south west, as well as clashes with Civgov, it would seem very unlikely any unit would be sent anywhere near their prewar base, such as exists post nuke.
With the extremely limited logistics and transportation available, any troops retained would be best used as reinforcements - there's just no way even a single battalion is going to be able to be shifted half way across the continent, but it might be possible to move a few score, perhaps a couple of hundred.

[CDAT]

With active "fronts" (if you can still call them that in 2001) in Alaska and the south west, as well as clashes with Civgov, it would seem very unlikely any unit would be sent anywhere near their prewar base, such as exists post nuke.

Now I have to say first that I do not have the Howling Wilderness expansion so some of the details I do not have. But if I understand it correct these are the troops returning from Europe, I can not see them leaving equipment behind when the left, as they do not know what they are going home to, but do know that the world is not the same as they left it. So if the unit has the cohesion to make it across Europe, get transport back to the states, and are still a viable combat unit. And you want them to go fight in Alaska or the South West, but are not willing to let them do a "drive by" of there old base to pick up families and such. That I agree is going to have mass desertion, but if you have a unit that was stationed at FT Hood TX (I do not remember if it was nuked or not, but for sake of argument we will say it was) and they are reading and willing to head off to the south west, but say they are going to go by FT Hood on the way and pick up what families they can, I see this as a good thing. When so many of the units are being forced to grow there own food, produce there own fuel and such having their families with them makes them more likely to fight to keep the country together and work to stabilize it. So to be clearer on what I meant by being sent to there home base, this is what I am talking about, I am not saying that you need or even would want to send a viable combat unit to Ft Drum when there is no combat any place near there, but letting them swing by and pick up their families on the way, yes.

With the extremely limited logistics and transportation available, any troops retained would be best used as reinforcements - there's just no way even a single battalion is going to be able to be shifted half way across the continent, but it might be possible to move a few score, perhaps a couple of hundred.

As for the logistics and transportation I would see it for the most part being what they returned to the States with be that just the simple LPC up to the mighty tanks and anything in between they were able to get across Europe now if they have some spare parts and stuff to help them, that would be good. But yes I agree that is going to be very limited, and even if they did just tell them you are out now, here is a weeks food have a nice day. If I have been working/fighting and just staying alive with the same bunch of guys for the last several years, unless we are all form very different parts of the nation I do not see them splitting up, if you have a group of guys from say a Midwest state or two, Colorado, Washington and Oregon, I would expect them to head out as a group at least to the closest home on the way, there if it is nice and they still have family there I could see the group start to break up, but if it is not nice and/or they no longer have living family there I would not be surprised to see them stick together to the next and so on.