Twilight 2000 for T20

[Eamon]

When I use a plauge in my games I did some basic
research using a world alamanac. I then set the basic death percentage at 60% (double the worst
plauge in history). Then using different factors
such as GNP(or GDP),per capita income,type of
government, what their Health Care system was
like,the local conditions(war,organized,disputed)
the final population of each country would be
determined. The United States might have 70% original population, other countries might have disappered. You could use this system before,
during or after the war.

 

[savage]

Interesting and similar concept. I like it and considered some of it.
I believe that the US would be severely damaged but not collapse from a 30% loss of its people. Unless entire industries were gone.
If we look at any work group what does it take to stop making it function properly. An old disaster recovery concept.
And the powers would be the hardest hit, at first. No one would nuke Kenya but they're must be a few aimed at the San Francisco Bay area. The Kenyans start straving when food relief never shows as the weather becomes extreme. The population would rightsize for the resources...

Also interesting thing in the news about the Russians, Germans and French meeting to discuss Iraq. Could be the grounds for future meetings eventually leading to an event "in our game world".

Savage

 

[Eamon]

In one of my T2K possibilities I considered a possible sneak attack by North Korea using their SSBN and MRBM to attack the United States and Japan. The US targets would be Pearl Harbor and the West Coast. The Japanese targets would be several of their largest cities including Toyko.
This might be within their present capabilities. Their leadership has always been stupid and delusional.
This would lead to a nuclear attack by the US,followed by a conventional attack by US and Japanese conventional forces.
NATO led by France would refuse to provide military forces.
China wanting to take advantage of preceived US weakness would launch an invasion of Taiwan.
US with convential forces spread thin would then launch a nuclear attack on China.
China would respond with what nuclear forces they had left, but more important using their student agents in the US start several biological attacks. These attacks would get out of hand and spread around the world. Thereby reducing the world population and causing further conflicts over diminshing resources.

 

[savage]

I like it. Its similar to what I'm saying.
But France would lead the EU more than NATO.
A Russian-China alliance against US aggression would push it a bit farther.
Germany would split from EU and go up against
Russia with part of Nato....etc..etc.
China would probably extend against all oftheir
original borders. aka most of south asia. India
would respond followed by a Pakastan response.

With the US stretched, the Syrians lead the middle east in an assault against Israel.

Anything left.

Savage

 

[Greylond]

I don't think it is plausible that North Korea could get their missles close enough to the U.S. to threaten Pearl or the West Coast.


Greylond

 

[Eamon]

NATO has the obligation to come to the defense of the US not the European Union. But by France causing NATO not to honor its treaty obligations, this would mean the end of NATO. The European Union (maybe without the United Kingdom) would then assume the defense of Europe becoming a second superpower in the process.
The North Koreans are supposed to be close to a single warhead ICBM that could reach the west coast of the US.
The PRC has 2? subs that could launch an attack after a US attack.
One idea I had was for the NK load the warheads on several merchant ships to detonate in the harbors of several west coast cities. This would give the players a chance to get together in the first session by gaming an attempt to discover and/or disarm the bomb. Since this a surprise attack, the US reponse team could be mix of Federal or local law enforcement, military personal from several different services or units.
Almost any charather type could be used either as assault members ,aid workers (fireman,doctor etc) or civilian bystanders.
This could give a common history and reason for your player group to be together.
You are right about the rest of Asia going up.
I could see China trying to protect its Strategic flank by making a mutural defense agreement with Pakistan. So even if China lost its nukes in the fight with the US, there would be the Pakistan nukes in reserve. With a technology transfer the Pakistan missiles could be as long and effective as the PRC.

 

[Eamon]

After I made my post I thought about a low key Russian-Chinese alliance. The PRC would use the promise of trade and aid to Russia, so Russia would use it influence or threats to keep Europe neutral. Russia thinking it has squeezed all the aid it has ever will from Europe agreeds to this. They began to sell their military weapons to China in any amount they want,including nuclear weapons. Just because they cannot afford to update their military does not their equipment is of poor quality.
France and their German allies would be want US influence gone so they could take over the leadership of the European Union.
A lot of the former Warsaw Pact members had joined NATO but not the EU. So they are left out in cold between a more agressive Russia and a newly belligent EU. The US and UK decide to send what military forces they can to Poland ,Czech Republic and Romania.
The Baltic States (Norway,Sweden,Denmark,Finland,Lithurania,Estonia,Lativa) try to stay neutral by forming their own alliance.

 

[savage]

France and their German allies would be want US influence gone so they could take over the leadership of the European Union.

Huh. France and German call the shots in the EU. Oh sure Belgium, Britian, etc have voices but they seem to have significantly less influence. US influence is on NATO, not the EU.
Otherwise it is similar to what we had in mind. Economic collapse and Terrorism are the keys to starting the 3rd war in todays society.

But lets finish the puzzle we see the US with wars in Asia, the middle east and supporting britian/germany in europe. Mexico attempts to retake its original territorial border. Mostly because the trade relationship has not adequately benefited them. They sweep into texas and southern california.(Supported by their new Cuban allies)

How about south america. Argentina and Peru ally in an effort to gather resources. They sweep over Chile in 1 month, then onto Bolivia and begin moving north towards Panama. Seeing this Brazil and Venezuela ally (whether oil rich/military poor Venezuela likes it or not) and meet the enemy armies in Columbia. Mexico sees this and crosses Nicaragua with one of the largest single forces in the americas to supports Costa Rica's claim of anexing all of Panama. Brazil attack ARgentina turning central SA into a battleground. The major countries are fighting on two or more fronts.

With war between egypt and israel the Suez traffic grounds to a halt. The Panama Canal also becomes inoperable with fighting taking most of the country and northern columbia. A small tactical nuclear exchange between superpowers and we have complete worldwide economic failure, collapse.

So here ya go...a world war based on an unstoppable enemy, terrorists, and the US/Britians military attempt to stop them translating into unifying 360 million muslums. Closing trade routes and damaging enemy resources gives us global economic collapse and an immediate scramble for more resources.
The War covers the globe and the US finds itself extended by partipating in three theaters of conflict followed my a sustained attack against its homeland. Then a small nuclear exchange.

The nice thing is that the US/Britian are rescueing europe, asian interest, and some of the middle east or fighting off invaders instead of invading the soviets. They're heroes.

The world is harder to keep together than it is to destroy.

Savage

 

[savage]

Eamon: This might be within their present capabilities. Their leadership has always been stupid and delusional.

I did want to stop and chat about North Korea. Their not actually that stupid. They're starving to death. With record losses in crops, the US and China have cut down on food aid. We got tired of bribing them not to use their nuclear power plants. We were supplying them with the oil necesary to run their economy. We cut off the free oil, they turned on the plant. We cut off the food they started building weapons to sell. What 100,000+ starved last year or something... Afterall, they only need 1 or 2 nukes to hit Tokyo. The rest they can sell for economic gain to whomever would pay. Same for scuds, etc....this regime will fall if the fail to provide for the people.

And they might be rutheless, desperate to stay in power, and even evil but their not stupid.

So, they lash out at Japan and South Korea in an attempt to grab SK food resources. We counter attack. China decides to grab Tiawan, Indonesia and the Vietnam, Thialand, etc. And this bit about them not being a superpower. Well ok. They don't have 14 carriers but the army is huge and has more landing craft than any other military. I have to wonder why.

Savage

 

[Eamon]

I served in South Korea and during that time the NK did do many stupid actions, such as murdering two US Army officers during a tree cutting incident in the DMZ.
The reports from the ex-soviets show that during the Korean war, Stalin and Mao could not control the NK. Even though the Soviets were supplying them with most of their weapons and pilots. The were providing most of the troops. They never knew what the North Koreans were going to do next.
Sometimes the NK will do crazy things that only cause them great harm. Public acts of terrorism in other countries has alienated NK from any possible allies in Asia. There is a very long list of stupid things they have done contrary to the own interest.
The PRC has a large army but not a very good one.
The Chinese army has already tried to invade India and Vietnam and in both cases were defeated.
India was in the 60's and not only were they defeated in the field but the PRC had pulled so many trucks out of the agiculutral sector that a famine killed millions of chinese.
Vietnam was invaded in 1979 and the PRC was completly defeated in the field even though the NVA was outnumbered and without the resources of the PRC.
In the 70's and 80's the majority of the military was turned into a labor force to build the chinese economy.In the 90's the communist party is trying to get the generals and the troops out of the factories and back into the field. They don't seem to have a great deal of succes.
The PRC needs many decades to get a professional military on the same level as the US if they ever hope to invade Taiwan.
They know that invasion will never take place as long as there is a US fleet to oppose them.
This not that unusal as most armies of the world are armies in name only. This includes some NATO countries that could only fight outside Europe with US support. Almost all don't have logistical support or manuver skills to send large number of troops out side their own borders.
The Mexican army could not invade the US even in a weaken state even with a so called Soviet divison in support.
A lot of those modules were just silly paticully the ones set in the US.

 

[simontmn]

Originally posted by hunter:
Anyone interested? We're basically considering a Twilight 2000 campaign supplement based on the T20 rules in the Traveller's Handbook.

I'd vote for "Twilight 2020" - possible future apocalypses are generally a lot easier to make fun than alternative-past ones (aside from some great Victorian-pastiches by the likes of Michael Moorcock - 'the Land Leviathan' et al).

 

[simontmn]

Originally posted by Tzeentch:
With the Russians as well. We know a lot about modern Russian equipment now because they sell it to anyone Some of the stuff in the Russian vehicle guides just makes me laugh now

Russian/USSR export equipment was never the same as the non-export version. They deliberately exported cheap, poor quality knock-offs of their equipment to their client states who believed they were getting 'the latest Soviet equipment', when in fact they were getting nothing of the sort. While I'm sure real Russian T-72s (or even T-80s) would not compare well to a modern M1A2 or Challenger-2, they are not the same crappy 'T-72' tank as was fielded by eg the Iraqi Republican guard. Same box, different contents.

Source: 'Inside the Soviet Army' by Victor Sukharov, an ex-Captain in the Soviet military.

 

[Eamon]

A d20 version could be workable since d20 Ultramodern Firearms would cover most of the small arms. Urban Arcana is coming out and might cover some of the basic vehicles such as trucks.
The rest of the non combat equipment could from the books themselves or other modern game systems such as Milliemum End. After all a generator is still a generator in any game system as long as you have the basic data on it (wieght,fuel use).
The only new books needed would be the stats on tanks, artillery and other purely military equipment.

 

[savage]

Eamon sorry to hear about the US soldiers. This isn't stupid, in the strictest sense it is terrorism. They're trying to rule and create power through fear. I would completely agree on Crazy or Insane. Where I really think they're good is rhetoric...they have that Sadaam verbal crude down pat.

To discuss the scenarios:
There is no doubt in my mind that the Chinese army is inferior. 25 years ago they attacked for 29 days and successfully explosed the weakness of the Soviet/Vietnam relationship. The Soviets were not going to help Vietnam. They're plans were no better than ours when we were there.
In 88' they claimed the the Spracy and Paracel Is. because of the wealth of resources in the the South China Sea. Here is the the 2nd largest trade route and would be an economic impact if it were stopped. The India-China Border War in 62 was jockeying for position. They both used their forces as bargaining points at the negotiation table. Earlier they went against the soviets in border disputes that helped Nixon get a peace treaty. I think they've learned a lot since then. If they marched 1.5million troops into Vietnam today (with Vietnam not getting foreign aid) what would the outcome be....

The mexican army also does not require to be good to attack the US (We're fighting 3 theaters). They don't have to win a decisive victory only hurt us.
From what I've read we're very capable of fighting in 3 theaters of conflict but stretching beyond that could be difficult. So if you throw in a limited nuclear assault after an invasion we would have an economic collapse.

Things to remember, since we are TRYING to define a near future war.
1. We need multiple massive conflicts to overwhelm NATO.
2. The armies do not have to be good. Just numerous and they do not need to win. Only fight until the nuclear war breakdown of ruling gov't occurs. (I would generally agree on the state of the US modules. That is why I changed the activities significantly.)
3. By not specifying an exact timeline after the first few events they could occur seperately and over a period of time. Say the US/UK never can leave Irag and the region erupts in several years.
Followed by terrorist attack and the NK war.(we don't even have to specify that we're fighting this NK govt, could have collapsed and rebuilt without invasion) A couple years pass and europe explodes followed by the rest of asia. Finally, central/south america. The world war might take 10 years to occur. Hey it could be WWIV and Terrorism
(IRAQ/NK) are WWIII.

GDW did a good job but the best point is that it is a war for resources. And if the worlds resources cannot trade or are damaged, countries will look closer to home.

Terrorism and Resources are the keys.

Savage

 

[Eamon]

Savage you know more then I do about the wars in Asia then I do. So just a couple more points then on to the rest of the war.
1.Crazy or stupid the results are the same.
2.The Chinese army may improve their equipment but they still face all the problems of a communist dictatorship. Corruption,rigid command structure, putting the party welfare above the people or the army. After all the ability to invade Vietnam is the ability to overthrow the party and China has been plagued by warlords.
3.One of those silly modules proposed that Milgov and Civgov were competing to reinforce Europe at the same time the Mexican army was in Texas. What a better way to gain the support of the American people than liberating the SW US.Then as long as Mexico is your enemy you might as well continue on to occupy the Mexican oil fields and save yourselve all that trouble in the Middle East.

Any way I agree with you about the timing of the war and the multiple areas the US at least would be fighting in.
What we are looking for is a background that explains what we are trying to do in our game.
You have several problems you need to deal with
Too many people
Too many nuclear weapons
Too much industial capacity
The strength of NATO compared to
rest of the world
A European Union
The United States
Too many people:
A nuclear war would solve three of your problems. But create so many other problems that could make the world unlivable.
A plague might be better it would reduce the population while leaving the structures intact.
A situation where the wealthy countries could better survive than the poorer ones.
This would also take nuclear weapons out of equation since any country that would be saving to compensate for the loss of military effectiness. This is why Russia did not want a large nuclear reduction so the nucs could serve in place of the army.
This way while the factories may be intact new workers would have to be retrain in order to rebuild the civilian economy, defense, and the world trade network. If the United States needed a resource, that could only be found in a country that did not exist anymore, the US would need to send workers there protected by US troops. Perhaps American colonies could be found around the world.
They could come into conflict with other nations trying to do the same thing.
Instead of Milgov/Civgov I always thought a US civil war could start with a botched election such as the 2000 election.
Even with a fair and honest election the is the possibilty of one canidate winning the popular vote. The other the Electoral vote. In a normal time this would be handled in the prescribed manner. But the social disruption would not lead to a peaceful solution. You could end up with as many as three people claiming to be president (the sitting term limit President plus the two canidates).
Europe (NATO and EU) break up over which US government to recognize.

 

[Uncle Bob]

2005 US moves NATO troops to new bases in Poland and Hungary. The new labour government in Britain mothballs their "boomers".
2008 New French government is elected. Heavy handed policies immediately alienate the European Union members of South and East Europe by saying that you can't be a member of the EU and NATO.
2010 Civil War breaks out in the European Union. Former Warsaw Pact states in South and East Europe are fighting for their rights as free and independant countries to associate with who they please, France, Belgium and Germany are fighting to preseve the Union. Germany, Poland and the Czech republic is the battleground.

Remember, the American forces are small and isolated and the French have the only nukes...

Until the Russians take a hand, and they will be on the Franco-German side. At first.

 

[Ellros]

Larry Bond's "Cauldron" would make a good background start for some of Uncle Bob's ideas. France and Germany form an economic union and virtually force the rest of Europe to join.

 

[Uncle Bob]

It is cleverer than that: they invited everyone to join an economic union, and next they tell them who is really in charge.

Chirac tipped his hand prematurely when he blasted the East European nations. They are suspicious of him now and the plan has been set back for a couple of years.

Paranoia or prescience? It works, either way.

 

[savage]

Wow. What a wonderful controversy...well not really because we're making it all up and since we have no way of providing statistical probablities....

Eamon. Good points all. I agree with 1-3 for the most part. China's govt does not need to be good or have a good military. It only needs to think it can win. Since, we're all in agreement that this takes a few years to brew up. Let me point out something.
We want a multi-front war. T2k-T20 can then be played by europeans, asians, middle easterns, americans (north, south and central). Gamers can place it in their own backyard its more interesting. Or Games can occur anywere. The NK and Middle East modules were very popular.
Also, your right. The US is big and powerful. It really needs to be overburdened with problems. I'm assuming Mexico starts it after the US is stretched very thin.

Don't think Frank was all that dumb with milgov and civgov. He based it on a weakness in the formation of the Joint Chiefs that no longer exists. But if we want to modernize it I would suggest a collapsed govt where a fight breaks out for control between two surviving leaders (perhaps senators). Perhaps we should borrow form Shadowrun and allow corporations to prop up part of the state govts.

Yah! That Russian ballistic missile system really sucks. US efforts to help them dismantle it have determined that the guidance systems are some kind of hardwiring (as I understand it. I'm not a rocket scientist). Many would probably never make their targets, if they went anywhere. Hence, I stuck with tactical weapons like the original game.

Uncle Bob. Good ideas for breaking up europe. Drag in Russia and the 5th division lives on. But what are the ramifications of bringing the french into the war with Germany? It would become a very, very unbalanced game. And why would the US ever side against German/France in Europe. What do we have to gain? We could protect Britian without being in Poland... Also why do we care about British boomers? But I like the EU power struggles...bound to happen one day.

Remember these three things;
1. It must be a Complex War of Attrition. It cannot get fixed in a summit. Hence, several alliances and a stretched superpower.
2. the US/UK remains good guys, not conquerors.
3. the T2300 future needs to be a possible outcome.

Savage

 

[TKalbfus]

Remember these three things;
1. It must be a Complex War of Attrition. It cannot get fixed in a summit. Hence, several alliances and a stretched superpower.
2. the US/UK remains good guys, not conquerors.
3. the T2300 future needs to be a possible outcome.

To satisfy condition 1, we need to put an idiot in the White House. The military as its constituted now won't let a war of attrition occur. We need a very liberal President of the United States who deeply slashes defense spending after prematurely declaring victory in some conflict. This president emerged from the Vietnam Anti-war movement, and he deeply believes that War is not the answer no matter what. Of course some dictators catch wind of this and they begin rattling their sabers and threatening war unless the US grants some concessions to avoid war, this the US does because the President believes War is not the Answer and for a time he does this successfully. We should give Dictator "Uno" about 10 to 15 years to build his empire. The U.S. carefully avoids tangling with dictator "Uno" because he detests war but is otherwise a successful president, after serving two terms in office, his vice-president is elected president for another two term