4th ed T2K

[Olefin]

Again, what's the point (of this comment)

-

its called constructive criticism and debate - which is what the board is for - and he has a point unfortunately - and he is not alone in his point - but I really dont want to see V4 crash and burn. Hopefully Tomas is going to listen to the rising tide of criticism and realize that its time to start listening to the fans who love this game with a passion and joy and deep abiding committment to it - the ones who kept it alive all these years when many other games would have disappeared entirely.

V4 could be and can be so much more - but he needs to swallow his pride and realize that Twilight 2000 was never just about basic survival - it was also a great military simulation game that gave us a bunch of fantastic modules where you didnt just have to survive but as a character actually make a difference in the world

go stop a madman in the Ukraine and Warsaw

take out a bunch of generals in a hotel in Iran and in the process maybe derail the Soviet plans in Iran for good

find a way to somehow keep your the forces in Kenya going on a shoe string and a prayer

Stop the last Boomer from turning what was left of the US into radioactive ruin

Or save two kids from a bunch of pirates using a replica of a 200 year old ship

That is Twilight 2000 as well - and someone needs to remind Tomas and Marc of that

[Raellus]

Pot, Meet Kettle

its called constructive criticism and debate - which is what the board is for

Wait, now you're a defender of free speech! The following is NOT constructive criticism:

IT SUCKS

And a game that has a crappy half ass antifa/Soviet fan boy background where the US military and government act like complete morons and the Soviet Army is all conquering is the last thing I want to play

My suggestion - keep the mechanics, trash the entire campaign background, timeline, and war events including RESET and start over

Oh I havent yet begun to fight this abomination - and frankly I would agree with you on the Russian internet trolls - or Soviet fanboys

Sorry but that is utter BS -

Frankly this timeline and background is a goat screw.

- and frankly people crowing about the "artwork" five minutes after it was out and not even reading the rules and the actual game background show that they werent serious potential players

In other words this atrocity of a V4 release is 100% NOT TWILIGHT 2000 as we knew it and loved it

These are all from different posts in this thread. No emphasis added. Those are your words, every quote arguably a violation of forum guidelines, definitely in spirit, if not in the letter.

Cease and desist or be banned.

-

[Olefin]

Nothing that I posted tonight in any way violate the guidelines of this board. That is called listening to you Raellus and posting accordingly.

[Jason Weiser]

Gentlemen, in the interests of easing tensions and giving us all a chance to calm down, I propose strongly that we lock the thread for 24 hours.

[Raellus]

Thread Unlocked

Unlocked.

It's totally acceptable to criticize v4, as long as the criticism is constructive (i.e. offers alternatives, solutions, fixes, etc.) and the tone of said is civil (i.e. no name-calling and insults). If those guidelines aren't followed, this thread will be relocked.

-

[mpipes]

OK. I'll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don't just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

2) You can't have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don't believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won't risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL's scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitzs are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

4) Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you'll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

5) Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

6) Put Sweden's spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they

7) You can't have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

8) This can't be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

9) Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel's side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly

10) Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France's citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined I don't care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don't think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

12) I'm not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

[3catcircus]

OK. I'll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don't just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

2) You can't have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don't believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won't risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL's scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitzs are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

4) Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you'll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

5) Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

6) Put Sweden's spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they

7) You can't have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

8) This can't be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

9) Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel's side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly

10) Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France's citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined I don't care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don't think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

12) I'm not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Pretty much everything you said.

If you want realistic timeline events, all you gotta do is look at headlines over the last 10 years. China muscling it's way through the Pacific with man-made islands, resulting in confrontation with it's neighbors. Instead of the Spratley's or the ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, maybe the 2008 Russia-China border agreement results in a later dispute that'll draw Russia in conflict with China

Despite some misgiving about the timeline, I really like TW2013s mechanics - skill points have a definite effect on the randomness of dice rolls rather than just affecting the target number, which reflects the randomness of the real world where even experts can be wrong sometimes.

[Raellus]

Too Many Flashpoints

If you want realistic timeline events, all you gotta do is look at headlines over the last 10 years. China muscling it's way through the Pacific with man-made islands, resulting in confrontation with it's neighbors. Instead of the Spratley's or the ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, maybe the 2008 Russia-China border agreement results in a later dispute that'll draw Russia in conflict with China

Absolutely. It wasn't difficult to create a timeline for a T2030. The biggest challenge was narrowing down the list of current conflict zones that contributed to the beginning of WWIII to only two or three major ones. There are just so many conflict zones and potential flashpoints in our world today.

The problem with creating a Twilight 2000 timeline that includes the fall of the Iron Curtain and collapse of the Soviet Union c.1991 (i.e. v4) is plausibly explaining how the rump Soviet state recovers by '97 or so, and manages to wage a fairly successful offensive war against most of NATO and the former WTO. I'm not sure it's possible to do this realistically. This is why I think the v1 alternative, No Collapse, timeline is really, IMHO, the only viable way to go to get to 2000 as campaign starting point.

But, v4 is trying, so the best thing that disgruntled folks can do is give their constructive feedback on the Alpha directly to Free League and hope that it sinks in. It's too much to hope for a RETCON- I just don't see them redoing their entire timeline. However, if they make it just a little more realistic/plausible, that, for me, would be a win.

-

[pansarskott]

Good writeup!

11) The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

The weird thing is that the French military does a coup because the civilan government does not retaliate. And then the coup-makers does not retaliate.

The following day, the French President announced that France would not retaliate, provoking major riots throughout the country. In reaction, a group of generals, the Three Consuls, instigated a coup and overturned the government, seizing Paris and other major cities.

It's not really clear if they have missile subs, or attack subs left. Both types are nuclear powered.

For now, the government keeps its coastline under the surveillance of the last three French nuclear submarines

[Jason Weiser]

OK. I'll bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.

1) Find someone that is actually knowledgeable about NATO and PACT/Soviet forces and doctrine and LISTEN to them. Don't just sagely nod your collective heads and run off with ideas based on fantasies – some of which are patently offensive. You need your background to rest on solid realistic actions.

To quote Bill Slivey - "Twilight: 2000 is the lore."

2) You can't have NATO invading every neutral country you want. NATO acts as an alliance. Despite whatever internal biases you have, the US will not act unilaterally without at least some NATO support. Get over it and accept that is reality. If the US were to invade Sweden, there would be UK and Danish forces leading the way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the way things actually work in NATO. Don't believe that, look at what happened in the invasion of Afghanistan and the Libyan intervention; the US may have led the way but NATO forces were right there. That is what an invasion of Sweden would look like – all of NATO - so get over it. The ONE exception would be the use of nukes on Russia to retaliate for its use of nukes on US troops. If that happens, then yes, the US will tell everyone else to either stand with the US, and they will, or the US will retaliate unilaterally. That means German and UK Tornados armed with B61s attacking Russian targets.

Moreover Except for the French, much of NATO's nuclear capable assets had SIOP taskings. I mean, we gave the FRG Pershings I don't think we did that out of sheer kindness. We did it because we wanted nuclear buy-in from the rest of the alliance.

3) Forget the supercarrier in the Baltic. The USN won't risk a Nimitz Class in the Baltic. If you want a major USN force in the Baltic, then use a Marine Expeditionary Brigade backed up by a battleship Surface Action Group with quite a few anti-sub and anti-air assets. You might put the Coral Sea in then as a carrier, as it is possible the USN might risk a carrier to mount a major amphibious op on Poland or one of the Baltic states. But FL's scenario just never would happen. All the Nimitz's are going to be busy blowing away Soviet fleets (Northern, 5th Squadron, and Pacific). The Black Sea and Baltic fleets will be kept bottled up using mines and torn apart by land-based aviation.

The first skipper of a carrier that does this in waters like the Baltic is the first skipper to get relieved of command for cause in the Third World War. And pulling into a potentially hostile harbor with a nuclear-capable asset Um, no. See the USS Cole for what a bad idea this is in RL. And that was just a DDG. A TLAM-capable DDG. Nope, they might have some lighter units pull into Stockholm, but it's too far forward for friendly assets.

4)Accept that after 6 months, there will be no Northern Banner fleet to invade the UK. The Soviets knew their fleets were dead from the start of any war with NATO by the end of the first year. The whole strategy was to support the submarines in their effort to break the maritime supply lines from the US. If they did not win quickly, then they were not going to win. If the war dragged on past 6 months, the surface units were toast. You want to mount a super Deppe raid to pull off units of the BAOR before the nukes fly, use an Airborne Division and know it is dead and maybe a Spetsnaz Brigade to raise hell in the countryside. Its not like British civilians own any guns after all. Make them pay with a terror campaign your Viking forefathers would envy. After a few torched towns and 10,000 massacred civilians, you'll get something pulled back from the Polish front; guaranteed.

Even this is a bit of a stretch. The RAF is no slouch, and most of that airborne unit isn't going to make it to the DZs. The Spetsnaz should already be operating in the UK before the outbreak of war in a clandestine mode But against the UK's formidable internal apparatus plus SAS let off the leash I won't even talk about what most military installations in the UK were going to be like in case of war. There's a reason the RAF Regiment exists. I give most Spetsnaz teams about 3-6 months. That's assuming they're just doing SR work. If they're doing DA work Dead as doornails much sooner.

5)

Give Russia an ally or two. Maybe the Ukraine and Belarus and Czech/Slovakia.

Without allies, the Soviets are toast. They just don't have any strategic depth to hold off NATO before you're playing Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo, now with more ATGM! Considering the Soviets consider that sort of thing a national security goal to avoid it ever happening again, I expect Soviet pre-war diplomacy to be a bit more...adroit

6)

Put Sweden's spec ops guys to work. Sweden had great special operations forces during the Cold War. Where are they

One does wonder. At the very least, raising hell in the invader's rear area

7)

You can't have Russia bottled up in Sweden and Poland after 2+ years at war. Russia would negotiate a peace long before then if that were the case. The only way NATO will use nukes is if it is losing, and if Russia is bogged down in Poland and Sweden after 2 years, NATO decidedly is not losing. If anything in that case, then Soviet doctrine was to use tactical nukes first to support/force a decisive break through. NATO will not use nukes first unless Russian forces penetrate deeply into NATO and pushing forward (e.g. into Germany toward Denmark or France); i.e. NATO is losing.

mpipes is on the money. The Soviets would have used first in this situation precisely to support an advance by their forces. They would have hit first with overwhelming use of tactical and theatre nuclear weapons. The Soviets for years vacillated in their planning on whether or not they would go nuclear from the outset (depended on who was in power).

8)

This can't be a regional war if you want to destroy civilization. So Russia has to be at war in Asia and/or the Persian Gulf. That means China, Japan, Iran, and whatever others you want to throw in the mix. So far, all your background presents is a war in Sweden and Poland and around Israel. Hate to disappoint you, BUT no one is going to start throwing nukes around over Sweden and Poland, because they simply are not important enough to either side, or even the UK, to go nuclear over.

That's the thing, v1 and v2 were world wars. There was stuff going on all over! You had Iowa sinking a Kirov with her 16" guns off of Grenada. You had fighting in Alaska and Texas. You had a sourcebook on Thailand! This version is sadly a bit myopic in it's focus. Even v1, while it's focus was Europe, gave lip service to the rest of the world.

9)

Stop with the Israel bashing. Israel is not going to use nukes on anyone unless its survival is at stake. That part of the background, frankly, I find patently offensive as borderline anti-Semitic – something based in neo-Nazi fantasy. If you want nukes in that area of the world, you are going to have to make it Syria and Iraq going after Israel likely with Soviet help. That means Jordan, Egypt, and, yes, Saudi Arabia probably fighting on Israel's side. You must understand that the LAST thing the Arabs in those three countries wanted to see was a Russia dominated government in their back yard, and they would not be keen on Saddam or Assad expanding their power either. Also, Turkey and Greece are either fighting as NATO allies or what exactly

It's not just anti-Semitic. It's laughably na-ve about middle eastern politics ca. 1991. First, Syria and Iraq hated each other. A lot. Syria took every opportunity during the Iran-Iraq war to screw Iraq. They shut down pipelines Iraq needed for oil revenue to buy arms and they sold the Iranians everything they could afford, and helped others ship arms to Iran as well. Then there's the not so small fact that Syria sent troops to participate in Desert Storm in 1991. Granted, they didn't do much, but they were there. So no, Iraq under Saddam and Syria under Assad are not going to do anything in cooperation.

The last time I could honestly say that an Arab coalition realistically threatened the survival of the state of Israel on a level that nuclear weapons release was contemplated was 1973. And even then it was a stretch. Nope, the IDF is going to mop the floor with any realistic combination of Arab armies. To me, a more realistic threat Egypt goes fundamentalist earlier. It was always possible, and the Soviets cozy up to the new regime. You have Egypt and a rearmed Syria looking for a rematch Then it gets interesting. But even then, the Gulf Arabs + Iraq ironically aren't going to sit back and say "Gee, we think this is an awesome state of affairs." Will they side with Israel On a de factobasis, but not de jure.

As for the Balkans Considering it was a powder keg in the 90s There should be fighting galore in the former Yugoslavia, with both sides backing various factions.

10)

Your character generation rules have got to be a lot more diverse. You need ALL the European belligerents involved as PCs.

Big drop of the ball here. This is an European company, I think not doing this is just a non-starter.

11)

If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of France's citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined I don't care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Don't think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die – period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

The Force De Frappe was there to make sure any nuclear aggressor against France suffered as badly as France did. The idea of France not launching is just plain not realistic. They had an independent force, not subject to the US SIOP, and they would have executed that plan, no matter what we or anyone else said to them, especially if the Soviets are dropping warheads on French foreheads. Forget Paris. If Lille or Le Havre catch a nuke, it's on.

12)

I'm not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Resource management is part of the game. It can be tedious, and I will admit I fudge it, but then again, I at least pay it lip service. Logistics is a bitch, and in T2K, like in RL, failing to pay attention can and will kill you in a variety of un-fun ways.

[Black Vulmea]

To me there are ways to try and make a new TL work for Tw2k post 1991. That would be exploiting Yugoslavia.

Yes! It's not like we don't have precedent for strife in the Balkans precipitating a world war . . .

I admit I was never fond of the geopolitics and timeline in v1, either, to be honest, and house ruled it as an Able Archer scenario that went tragically wrong.

If I ever run v4, I will as well: a Balkans crisis with NATO and PACT intervention, a Pakistan-India-China kerfuffle, and Iraq flexing in the Middle East.

[3catcircus]

To quote Bill Slivey - "Twilight: 2000 is the lore."

12)

Resource management is part of the game. It can be tedious, and I will admit I fudge it, but then again, I at least pay it lip service. Logistics is a bitch, and in T2K, like in RL, failing to pay attention can and will kill you in a variety of un-fun ways.

If 2000 is the lore, will it be given sufficient attention to detail Part of the resource management is knowing what kit you have and what you need to keep it working.

That race through the countryside dodging an evemy tank You absolutely need to keep track of fuel burned and bullets fired because the quest for resources drives the way a campaign unfolds. If resource management, encumbrance, and tending to the injured are hand-waved, what else is there to focus the players This isn't the D&D dungeon crawl mindset...

In other words, how hard is it to develop ammo cards, weapon cards, vehicle cards, etc. Or is the thinking that the rules set won't support that level of granularity

[StainlessSteelCynic]

OK. Ill bite and offer some constructive criticisms for FL.
<snip>

11) If you have France in NATO, then France is GOING to be present and playing a prominent role. 25% of Frances citizens nuked and the Force de Dissuasion sidelined I dont care what the civilian government says, EVERY nuke France owns is going someplace east. Dont think for a second that France does not have the stomach for using nukes to retaliate for that level of carnage. As any Frenchman will tell you; France is Paris, and Paris is France. You destroy Paris; you die period. The military will go rogue and either mutiny and launch or execute a coup and launch.

France sent agents to sink a Greenpeace ship in the harbour of a friendly nation to prevent the ship from protesting nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific - and this reboot timeline wants us to believe France would sit back and do nothing if someone dropped an actual nuclear warhead on them
Ah yeah, NO!

12) Im not fan of the mechanics at all. There is a reason why D6 was abandoned in the 80s. I think you would be well served to go to a percentile system (rolled with 2xD20) or D20. Your combat system looks too coarse; maybe over simplified is an accurate way to say it. Weapon and armor ratings appear to be wildly off in a lot of cases. You should stick with tracking ammo also as well as fuel and food. The WHOLE POINT of the campaign is resource management. The PCs need to be at least somewhat concerned with where they are going to get fuel, water, food, and ammo from the start. This drives them to having to deal with the devils in the area. This is WWIII and these guys are behind the lines on their own with little real chance of making it. The PC need to be painfully aware and motivated by that reality. Otherwise, this is just playing modern soldier lite in the wild with ruined cities here and there. Also, stick with kilos for weights. There is just no point making things that abstract.

Unfortunately that will not happen. None of the things you suggest fit with their other Year Zero games and because this reboot is very firmly based on the Year Zero rules, it will not be changed.
The Year Zero rules suit the dungeon crawl style of the FL games philosophy so they are not going to change the design to suit the more sandbox style that 1st & 2nd and 2013 have.

If 2000 is the lore, will it be given sufficient attention to detail Part of the resource management is knowing what kit you have and what you need to keep it working.

That race through the countryside dodging an evemy tank You absolutely need to keep track of fuel burned and bullets fired because the quest for resources drives the way a campaign unfolds. If resource management, encumbrance, and tending to the injured are hand-waved, what else is there to focus the players This isn't the D&D dungeon crawl mindset...

In other words, how hard is it to develop ammo cards, weapon cards, vehicle cards, etc. Or is the thinking that the rules set won't support that level of granularity

As I mentioned above, the Year Zero games all appear to me, to be based around dungeon crawling and the most minimal book-keeping that they can get away with.
You could be forgiven for calling FL's reboot as "Twilight: 2000 lite" but I think even that fails to recognise just how stripped back the Year Zero system is compared to what we expect from a game that has a central theme of surviving & rebuilding in the post-apocalypse of a global war.

The Year Zero rules seem to work well for Tales From The Loop but your characters in that game are children and adolescents. They haven't had the life experience to accumulate special skills and training so the generalized approach to handling Skill tasks works. But for a game where the characters are adults or older adolescents Characters who have had years of schooling or time in the workplace and have years of acquired experience & knowledge
The Year Zero rules are basic and to paraphrase one of the designers of the T2k reboot, they want to replicate the thrill of gunfights & car chases you see in movies - the Year Zero rules will work for this purpose. They don't want rules that are more sophisticated because they seem to view that as bogging down the gameplay.
The Year Zero rules are for all intents and purposes here, pulp action rules and just like I do not believe Savage Worlds rules work for Twilight: 2000, I don't believe any other pulp action rules set will work either.

And FL do actually have weapon cards but they seem to have no clear direction on how and what to produce. To illustrate what I mean, they devote several pages to weapons cards but some could be easily combined. There is no functional or physical difference between the Soviet manufactured SVD and the Polish manufactured SWD.
The SWD is a Polish made SVD, the names are different because one is in Russian and the other is in Polish... so why have two different weapons cards, one for each

This is true for a number of the Polish weapons because they choose to have Soviet weapons cards, Swedish weapons cards, Polish weapons cards, US weapons cards and so on.
This seems like a good idea but in reality it's unnecessary duplication of information and a total waste of page space & development time - but it does give the impression on first glance that they have a lot of weapons in the book.

[Silent Hunter UK]

They also missed out the OT-64.

[Raellus]

Ransom Note

StainlessSteelCynic shared an interesting find in another thread, but it seems particularly germane to the v4 T2kU, so I'm reposting the link here. I encourage y'all to read it. It's worth your time. The author's strategic analysis is quite illuminating, and particularly germane to the v4 World At War controversy/debate. A particularly eye-opening quote follows:

"[The Soviet Union] Launching a conventional war with limited aims in Northern Europe (Seven Days to the Rhine) with an openly declared promise not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, would produce such a shock to our system it would have been economically catastrophic.

"Recovery from that would have put Russia and the USA on more equal financial terms as much of the Dollar economy is based on confidence and communication, while the Russian economy was captive. It may not be a plan to take over the world, but quite possibly enough coercion to get the world to pay them off - give them Germany, Denmark, Holland and back off from China to stop them [the Soviets] slapping us about.

"It was unlikely, but many historical pivots only needed a gentle push off the cliff. In August 1991 I sat in a tank shed in Hohne listing to the BBC news tell us about the Soviet coup in Moscow . Gorbachev was rumoured to have been killed, the Tamanskya Guards Division were rolling around the Kremlin, shady generals were in charge and unhappy with the imminent end of Soviet power. There were still millions of WarPac soldiers and tons of equipment within a day's drive from our position.

It was genuinely the scariest couple of days of my career."

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Soviet-Union-ever-superior-to-the-United-States-in-any-way-during-the-Cold-War-1945-1991

So perhaps the Soviet attack on Eastern Europe in the v4 timeline was a result of two pieces of Soviet strategic thinking. One, to bring some of its errant former republics and WTO members back into the Soviet fold, recreating the territorial buffer between Mother Russia and NATO (a top Soviet priority since its national inception). Two, to take control of some NATO territory to hold hostage, as it were, to be ransomed for massive financial compensation in hard currency (or gold, or energy), thereby resuscitating the moribund Soviet economy.

-