Announcement from Free League Publishing

[Rainbow Six]

I think this may have been signposted in the sample pages that were posted at the start of the thread

Polish Army
Newly independent, the Polish Army was, until recently, part of the Soviet Bloc. Now operating on their own, they sought to join NATO prior to the breakout of the War.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well, I hope they have a really decent reason for Poland somehow becoming independent considering the resistance the Poles would have had from inside their own government & the communist party.
And the Soviets.
Hungary or Czechoslovakia ring any bells
Otherwise, it's going to be a problem for anyone with even minor knowledge of the Cold War to suspend their disbelief to accept the 4th Ed. timeline.

It's a cause for concern. What's next What about the clash between Indonesia and Australia What about the Soviets turning great patches of China into radioactive slag These are all parts of the timeline that indicate the conflict is global and that the whole world is suffering.
If nothing else, they serve as guidelines, as illustrations of the state of the world.
If they aren't included, how does the GM know what the feel of the gameworld would or could be

There needs to be a believable reason for the war, there needs to be a believable chain of events. The T2k setting requires a breakdown of military command so that the PCs are free to adventure however the GM & Players see fit.
If there's no Europe-wide clash between NATO and WarPac, how do they achieve the destruction of the world so that the PCs are released from military authority

[swaghauler]

Poland's real-world exit

It sounds like they took a page from my alternate history.

In my world, the Pact fell, and the very real-world Visegrad group of Poland, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary formed. They joined the EU and NATO after the year 2000 but... IN MY TIMELINE, Russia instead begins to foment "revolutionary groups" in these countries in order to regain control of them (see modern-day Ukraine for an example of this). The violence in Poland leads the PRO-WESTERN Polish government to seek aid from Germany and the West to counter Russian-backed rebels inside the country. Most of NATO says "no way" because they are involved in operations in Africa, East Timor, The Middle East, and Kosovo. The US, UK, and Germany do come to the Polish Government's aid, however. This causes the now-familiar schism in NATO. This is also the reason why some towns in Poland are pro-West and some are pro-Russian. It should also be noted that in my timeline the rest of the Visegrad powers are also under such a state of Russian-influenced "insurrection" but are primarily pro-Western in outlook as well.

[swaghauler]

Well, I hope they have a really decent reason for Poland somehow becoming independent considering the resistance the Poles would have had from inside their own government & the communist party.
And the Soviets.
Hungary or Czechoslovakia ring any bells
Otherwise, it's going to be a problem for anyone with even minor knowledge of the Cold War to suspend their disbelief to accept the 4th Ed. timeline.

It's a cause for concern. What's next What about the clash between Indonesia and Australia What about the Soviets turning great patches of China into radioactive slag These are all parts of the timeline that indicate the conflict is global and that the whole world is suffering.
If nothing else, they serve as guidelines, as illustrations of the state of the world.
If they aren't included, how does the GM know what the feel of the gameworld would or could be

There needs to be a believable reason for the war, there needs to be a believable chain of events. The T2k setting requires a breakdown of military command so that the PCs are free to adventure however the GM & Players see fit.
If there's no Europe-wide clash between NATO and WarPac, how do they achieve the destruction of the world so that the PCs are released from military authority

By having many SMALL "flashpoints" that require "immediate attention" so that you really don't KNOW it's a WORLD WAR until it's too late.

In my own alternate timeline, I did this by...

1) Having the Soviet Union FALL.

2) The West then draws down its own military strength through 1997.

3) The US NEVER gives Russia the aid package which in real life kept her economy from totally crashing in the early '90s. A desperate Russia begins selling the ONE THING she has in plenty, Military Technology.

4) Russia sells NK, Iran, Iraq, and Africa huge sums of military equipment and tech. She partners with India (a strong economy) trading equipment for resources.

5) The '96 Mexican elections go south and a NARCO-PUPPET state forms there and in Guatemala. Russia trades heavy military tech for cold hard drug money and the cartels gain the power to at least prevent the US from pushing a coup in Mexico.

6) Kosovo, East Timor, and the African incidents help stretch the US thin.

7) Moscow negotiates a loose peace between Iraq and Iran with Syria kind of joining in. This creates a new threat in The Gulf and the US reacts to this (spreading herself even thinner).

8) Turkey becomes more militant and the issue between Turkey and Greece becomes hot again.

9) NK begins rattling her saber as she becomes concerned over "warming relations" between China and the US. The NK war goes hot in early '99 with Russia supporting (goading) her into it.

10) As Iran rearms, the US begins helping Pakistan (already fighting with India) to increase her military strength. This triggers India (afraid of BOTH Pakistan AND China) to turn towards Russia. The border skirmish between India and Pakistan becomes a full-on war.

11) Russia and China have their border dispute in 98 (just like in real life) but this time it goes HOT. This is the Russo-Chinese War in the V2.2 rules for me.

12) PUTIN rises to power in late '98 NOT 2003, and basically makes the waves he made in the real world. He basically tries to seize control of former Pact territories through subversion and insurgency.

13) Late into the hostilities, Spain decides it's a good time to try and take Gibraltar. The UK and the US are forced into a new theater of war.

14) Italy and France are engaged in Africa and Italy supports Greece against "Turkish Aggression" and this goes "hot" in the Med.

15) At Russian urging, Mexico attacks the US in early '99 in response to the US seizing Mexican oil platforms at sea and trying to overthrow the NARCO-PUPPET state. The Russians send "advisors" (division Cuba) and additional equipment to aid the Mexicans.

16) The TWILIGHT WAR from inception to the start of the game (in 2000) begins in LATE '97 as a series of "interventions." It goes full conventional in late '98 and The Exchange occurs on Thanksgiving day of '99. Thus most units have been scavenging for less than a year and are STILL developing those skills JUST LIKE the PCs will be (during play). The short timeframe means that there is NO RAMP-UP to a wartime economy. This will be a "Come as you are war." That's why everyone is looking in their supply depots to scavenge older AFVs and Aircraft. There simply was no major "wartime production."

17) The Exchange consists of only a few large warheads used to "knock out" power and communication grids in Europe, the US, and Russia. The rest of the nukes are "tactical" and fall from planes and Naval vessels so as to NOT trigger a "MAD" response. Thermobaric munitions are used EXTENSIVELY just like Putin did at the Second Battle of Grozny. The loss of the power grid creates sufficient chaos to cause most governments to lose control of their country.

If you look at all of the "small conflicts grown large," you can see that the ENTIRE WORLD is at war and that it just kind of "snuck up on everyone." This is how I envisioned a V2.2 timeline running.

And IF you are actually reading what my alternate timeline looks like, you can see for yourself that "cannon" goes RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW in my world.

[Adm.Lee]

Chris Lites officially stated on facebook about sixteen hours ago Poland is NOT part of the Warsaw Pact in 4th ed.

Thoughts

This feels like a bait & switch to me, one of the reasons I backed it was the assurance that the timeline would match v1's history. Now that they have my money, "Oh, just a few touch-ups..."

It also feels like a needless and spiteful change, such as when the Confederacy re-appeared in the 3rd edition of Space:1889, after being safely dead in the first two editions. A lot of people didn't buy that edition for that reason.

[Raellus]

Fair Warning

This feels like a bait & switch to me, one of the reasons I backed it was the assurance that the timeline would match v1's history. Now that they have my money, "Oh, just a few touch-ups..."

I'm not keen on the idea of T2k Poland being in the NATO camp either but, to be fair, AFAIK, FL never said v4 would align with the v1 timeline. They were pretty clear from pretty early on (pre-KS launch, at least) that v4 would lean closer to the v2 timeline (of which I am not a fan).

[mpipes]

There is nothing that requires the characters to be operating independent of military authority. Its easy enough to have them operating as part of a larger squad or company. It all depends on the type of campaign you want and/or players desire.

In my world, I had a bit more military strength existing, but it was no mans land in the devastated Poland or large chunk of the rest of the world. So players could be anything from a M1A1 crew in a badly depleted armored company, a group of survivors of a C-130 crash landing on a mission gone wrong, a small Spec Ops team, to the classic group stragglers from the 5th.

If you don't agree with something; change it to your likes.
I had Italy staying out till a violent coup came about with a change to NATO after TDM.
Texas WAS NEVER independent.
The Soviets managed to get a force as far south as Montana after invading Alaska.
Turkey got aid from an Israeli-Egyptian alliance and a US Corps showed up in late 1997.
France became a totalitarian Socialist regime that invaded Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, with Spain and Portugal invading as a NATO ally response.

[Raellus]

The Essence of T2k

There is nothing that requires the characters to be operating independent of military authority. Its easy enough to have them operating as part of a larger squad or company. It all depends on the type of campaign you want and/or players design.

True, but "good luck, you're on your own" is a central tenet of T2k, and what makes it different than other military-based RPGs. I've played in a few campaigns where military authority and the chain of command were given more emphasis, and all but one of them sucked. Most RPG'ers aren't interested in being bossed around by other RPG'ers based on rolled (or, more likely, self-assigned) ranks (which in this context, are purely make-believe). Operating as part of a larger military organization removes a considerable amount of player agency. There are ways around this off course- being part of a small LRRP team far behind enemy lines, for example- but the essence of T2k is being part of a small unit cut off from its parent organization, and essentially free to make its own decisions.

-

[Legbreaker]

It sounds like they took a page from my alternate history.

I think I can safely say without breaking the NDA I signed, they haven't. It's very different to what you've described.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

True, but "good luck, you're on your own" is a central tenet of T2k, and what makes it different than other military-based RPGs. I've played in a few campaigns where military authority and the chain of command were given more emphasis, and all but one of them sucked. Most RPG'ers aren't interested in being bossed around by other RPG'ers based on rolled (or, more likely, self-assigned) ranks (which in this context, are purely make-believe). Operating as part of a larger military organization removes a considerable amount of player agency. There are ways around this off course- being part of a small LRRP team far behind enemy lines, for example- but the essence of T2k is being part of a small unit cut off from its parent organization, and essentially free to make its own decisions.

-

This +1
This is exactly why GDW designed the game the way they did.
There is an article (I believe it's included with some of the Far Future publications) that states they specifically wanted the military command structure to be severely weakened or almost gone so that the PCs would be free of military control.
The aim was to allow a PC group to have the freedom to adventure like they do in games like D&D.

As stated by several people on this forum (including me), everyone is free to make their game follow whatever rules and gameworld logic that they desire but "Good luck, you're on your own" completely negates the idea that the PCs have to operate under military authority.

[Legbreaker]

By having many SMALL "flashpoints" that require "immediate attention" so that you really don't KNOW it's a WORLD WAR until it's too late.

In my own alternate timeline, I did this by...

Not bad at all.

None of that's in 4th though, not a single bit.

[Rainbow Six]

True, but "good luck, you're on your own" is a central tenet of T2k, and what makes it different than other military-based RPGs. I've played in a few campaigns where military authority and the chain of command were given more emphasis, and all but one of them sucked. Most RPG'ers aren't interested in being bossed around by other RPG'ers based on rolled (or, more likely, self-assigned) ranks (which in this context, are purely make-believe). Operating as part of a larger military organization removes a considerable amount of player agency. There are ways around this off course- being part of a small LRRP team far behind enemy lines, for example- but the essence of T2k is being part of a small unit cut off from its parent organization, and essentially free to make its own decisions.

-

Oh yeah, this, very much this. I have also played in campaigns that tried to adhere to a strict chain of command and by and large haven't found it to be an enjoyable experience.

[hell-fish]

By having many SMALL "flashpoints" that require "immediate attention" so that you really don't KNOW it's a WORLD WAR until it's too late.

In my own alternate timeline, I did this by...

I like this a lot. Good job.

[Olefin]

Oh yeah, this, very much this. I have also played in campaigns that tried to adhere to a strict chain of command and by and large haven't found it to be an enjoyable experience.

The strict chain of command can be good game as well - I personally loved the campaign we did in Iran - got to take out the Soviet commanders at the hotel in Kings Ransom and other fun missions - and in no mans land between the two armies there was plenty of the right vibe for those who wanted a broken down world - basically the command structure went right out the door once you were there

and we got sent to what was left of Pakistan to get parts for the F-16's that were still left - and take it from me it made Poland look like a walk thru the park as far as game and campaign play

[Raellus]

Sir, yes sir!

The strict chain of command can be good game as well

Sure. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste. You do you. That said, I don't think it's any accident that the vast majority of T2k adventure modules explicitly release the player party from the military chain of command.

-