twilight2000-digest Friday, September 5 1997 Volume 1996 : Number 053 The following topics are covered in this digest: RE: OK Sorry about my bad english Re: Guns & ammo To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) Re: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) RE: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) RE: Guns & ammo Re: Guns & ammo Re: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) Re: Guns & ammo New Hit-Rules Executive outcomes Re: New Hit-Rules Re: Executive outcomes Re: Executive outcomes Re: Guns & ammo Re: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Guns & ammo Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 VS: Guns & ammo Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 19:13:40 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: RE: OK On Wednesday, September 03, 1997 08:45, Teemu Niemi wrote: > I could use some other hit system, at least in my campaign. I am on, for > sending that system here. (I am quite lazy after all ;) ) Take a look at the Babylon Five system (by Chameleon Eclectic, of Millenium's End fame). I've not tested it, but it looks to be very fluid and elegant (from a rules standpoint). Why not just give PCs a single "hit location"? Roll for damage and location normally, half damage for limbs, normal damage for torso, one and a half damage for head/neck. Add 'em up for totally "trauma". If you want it to be more lethal, then specify center-of-mass as the default impact area, struck by better than average success, with normal success rolling on the hit location table. Calculate initiative penalties normally. (Off the top of my head for a revision of the Traveller 4 system, I'm working up; T4 doesn't have hit locations like T2k.) ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 12:01:38 +0300 From: Mikko Pesonen Subject: Sorry about my bad english I ment that in Tw2000 you can get too much ammo and weapons in start and in the game... That is what I ment on my text... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 12:33:44 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Guns & ammo Mikko Pesonen wrote: > I ment that in Tw2000 you can get too much ammo and weapons in start and > in the game... That is what I ment on my text... ??? But that's all up to the GM. In the beginning you can either change the money the players receive or multiply the prices of weaponry, and during the game it is directly in the domain of the GM what items the players get offered. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 10:33:20 -0700 From: Hale Subject: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) Mikko Pesonen wrote: > I ment that in Tw2000 you can get too much ammo and weapons in start and > in the game... That is what I ment on my text... You are not alone in this, my friend. Groups having to much of everything is a major problem. Here is a suggestion for cutting down on the amount of eq. the groups have, at the start. When the group is buying its begining equipment, make them buy the ammo and fuel for there vehicles instead of giving it to them like the books say. Also, when they roll for their vehicle give them the basic model, and tell them if they want any accessories or a more advanced version they will have to purchase them. Example: Group rolls a D6 and gets a Hummer, they only get a hummer cargo/troop carrier with nothing just a basic hummer. Know they say they want a fording kit, winch, & brush guard, you say ok that will be 1,000 dollars. Or maybe they want the basic weapons carrier version, fine that will be 2,000 dollars plus the cost of the weapon they buy to put on the mount. Also, I put maint., wear value and breakdowns on all equipment, (this will be on the equipment cards when they are finished). This is used very much like the maint., wear value etc., on the vehicle cards. These are some of the ways I deal with the to much equipment problem. How are some ways all of you deal with the problem of groups that need nothing? TTFN Ron Hale ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 15:14:59 -0400 From: Scott Lazzari Subject: Re: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) I usually start them off with a list of equipment I supply to them. That is like the Army issuing thier equipment to them. From there on out it is just a matter of supply and demand - if they want something bad enough, I make them work for it. Say, they want a box of WP grenades. It I feel this will imbalance the game too much, I make them unavailable, or exhobitantly(sp?) expensive. Sometimes they come up with the resources to get these items, but if they do, its because they earned it, not my generosity. Scott Lazzari slazzari@tciconsulting.com http://www.beta.com/users/lazzari/ ICQ UIN: 2098756 - ----- 10:33 AM 9/4/97 -0700,Hale you wrote ----- >Mikko Pesonen wrote: >> I ment that in Tw2000 you can get too much ammo and weapons in start and >> in the game... That is what I ment on my text... > >You are not alone in this, my friend. >Groups having to much of everything is a major problem. >Here is a suggestion for cutting down on the amount of eq. the groups >have, at the start. >When the group is buying its begining equipment, make them buy the ammo >and fuel for there vehicles instead of giving it to them like the books >say. Also, when they roll for their vehicle give them the basic model, >and tell them if they want any accessories or a more advanced version >they will have to purchase them. >Example: Group rolls a D6 and gets a Hummer, they only get a hummer >cargo/troop carrier with nothing just a basic hummer. Know they say >they want a fording kit, winch, & brush guard, you say ok that will be >1,000 dollars. Or maybe they want the basic weapons carrier version, >fine that will be 2,000 dollars plus the cost of the weapon they buy to >put on the mount. >Also, I put maint., wear value and breakdowns on all equipment, (this >will be on the equipment cards when they are finished). This is used >very much like the maint., wear value etc., on the vehicle cards. >These are some of the ways I deal with the to much equipment problem. > >How are some ways all of you deal with the problem of groups that need >nothing? >TTFN >Ron Hale > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:45:18 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: RE: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) On Thursday, September 04, 1997 12:33, Hale wrote: > How are some ways all of you deal with the problem of groups that need > nothing? Break something. ;-) That's what those wear values and enemy artillery are for... Even an RPG or two is a nice little surprise which can bring a mobile "force" back into pauper status. In my experience, there isn't a group that "needs" nothing. Even if they have EVERYTHING (which should NOT happen if you're controlling your rewards carefully), they probably still don't have: 1. Gasoline 2. Aircraft 3. English-speaking friends in a communist country 4. Gold 5. Enough ammo 6. Self-propelled arty 7. Battle dress (Powered Body Armor) 8. An FGMP-15 (Fusion Gun, Man-Portable, Tech 15) Oops. Traveller snuck out again in #s 7 and 8, but you get the picture. And according to Murphy's Law, you can never have enough #5... ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 21:38:57 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: RE: Guns & ammo On Thursday, September 04, 1997 11:34, Matt Aistrich wrote: > Mikko Pesonen wrote: > > > I ment that in Tw2000 you can get too much ammo and weapons in start > > and > > in the game... That is what I ment on my text... > > ??? But that's all up to the GM. In the beginning you can either > change > the money the players receive or multiply the prices of weaponry, and > during > the game it is directly in the domain of the GM what items the players > get > offered. There's an even easier way to do it than algebra. Just restrict them to ONLY common equipment (most players want as much of the exotic stuff as possible), with the occaisional more difficult to find, and NO rare equipment, AND charge them for the vehicle they roll. Heh. Also mention what a nice fireball a vehicle loaded with cases of grenades and ammo can make... You also could always start them right in the middle of the tank battle at Kalisz; this will have the effect of expending mucho ammo, without affe cting play, and demonstrating how lethal getting involved in a firefight can be. (Of course, you don't have to allow a player's first PC in his first firefight to be shot first in the head - AK - high damage roll. Ooops.) ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 22:50:32 -0600 (CST) From: GRIEVER@APSU01.APSU.EDU Subject: Re: Guns & ammo Or you can simply have the vehicles where all the equipment was stored stolen as the group members explore the sewer system of Krakow without leaving a guard. Worked pretty well for me.... - --Rick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:17:38 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) David Reed wrote: > 7. Battle dress (Powered Body Armor) > 8. An FGMP-15 (Fusion Gun, Man-Portable, Tech 15) > > Oops. Traveller snuck out again in #s 7 and 8, but you get the picture. And I almost yelled out... > And according to Murphy's Law, you can never have enough #5... Only too much weighing you down and too little for a normal firefight! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:15:13 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Guns & ammo David Reed wrote: > equipment, AND charge them for the vehicle they roll. Heh. Also mention > what a nice fireball a vehicle loaded with cases of grenades and ammo can > make... Yes, I can vouch for that, after seeing what happened to our M113 after a WP grenade hit... here goes the ammo... and there go the piles of gold amassed from half a dozen PCs... Thanks Jysky... at least my character made it out alive... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 08:48:21 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: New Hit-Rules Ok, here comes new hit rules. For Twilight v2.2 ( Or Traveller The New Era ) By Pasi Parviainen and our Twisted Player Group. We use this system aswell on Quick Shot as normal fire, but not on auto-fire or if the target is not in visibility ( in dark, fog, etc...). Generally, hitting is one task-level more difficult than normal (as normal Aiming Action ), thus Aimed Shot for short range ( normally Average ) becomes Difficult, etc... First you have tell which hit-location you want to hit ( to GM, of course ). Then you make a normal task roll ( But one level harder as mentioned above... ) and check if you hit. If so, you have hit that point where you aimed. Thats so simple. But if you miss the target ( ie. rolled higher than needed ) there are still possibility to hit. And that's were tables are used. Now, look how "far" you shot. As if you must get under 6 to hit, and you get 8 from dice, you shot 2 points "over". Now look right body-part-table and find your aim-point there ( Leg, Chest ... ) and look number at that row where your shot miss. At that row you can see possibilities to hit another location. Roll d8 and see where your shot hit. If there are no hit-location for your d8 roll, you just have sadly still missed your target. The idea behind these rules were that, as we seek realistic combat system to produce accurate fire in close combat as yet fast to play. In real life ( as I see it ) shooter allways tries to hit some specific bodypart ( okay, not in somesort of panic or so ;) but usually misses that part, BUT have still some possibilty to hit somewhere ELSE. So shootining is one level harder, but if you are accurate enough you allways hit where you wanted, otherways its is hoples shooting as before. In original rules if you just happened to aim at specific part and missed your roll, its miss alltogether. For someone who wants to know how I made these tables: First I draw human body on paper. Then I draw some kind of darts-board on plastic sheet with eight sectors and ten cricles on it. Then I placed that 'aiming circle' on various body places and noted down how many sectors was on head at one circle from 'bulls-eye', how many at two circles, etc. And so I repeated on other bodyparts. I tought to use that 'aiming circle' on game, but I believed it would be too slow to check all those sectors and circles any time you shoot ( althought it brings possibility to aim very specific bodyparts as forehead, heart, and so on). Use if you want ;). Note on tables : Hitting on leg or arm, even roll ( from d8 ) is left, and odd is right side, unless Same or Other Side is mentioned. Trying to hit for example Left Arm and you miss "over" one, and rolled from d8 two, table says Same Arm, you have hit where you aimed! If you missed "over" three and rolled from d8 four, table says Same Side Leg, you have hit Left Leg, simple? Final note : Someone with keen eye, might notice, that shooting with skill-levels low enough brings higher possibility to hit ( ie. you have skill-level 4 and with Aiming you may roll 13 on head-table and still hit, altough leg ). So I have used special rule, that denies hits with rolls 'over' higher than character's hit-chance ( ie. with skill-level four you cannot hit unless you roll eight or lower, anything else is automatically miss, even if table have more rows ). HEAD Over d8 1 1-5: Head, 6-7: Arm, 8: Chest 2-3 1-2: Arm, 3: Chest 4-5 1-2: Arm, 3: Abdomen 6-9 1-2: Leg CHEST Over d8 1 1: Head, 2-3: Arm, 4-8: Chest 2 1: Head, 2-3: Arm, 4-6: Chest 3 1-2: Arm, 3: Abdomen 4-7 1-2: Leg ARM Over d8 1 1-2: Same Arm, 3: Chest, 4: Abdomen 2 1-2: Chest, 3: Abdomen, 4: Same Arm 3 1-2: Chest, 3: Abdomen, 4: Same Side Leg 4 1: Head, 2: Chest, 3: Same Side Leg 5 1: Head, 2: Same Side Leg, 3: Other Side Leg, 4: Other Arm 6-7 1: Other Side Leg, 2: Same Side Leg 8 1: Other Side Leg ABDOMEN Over d8 1-2 1-3: Chest, 4-5: Arm, 6-7: Leg 3 1: Chest, 2-3: Leg 4 1: Head, 2-3: Leg LEG Over d8 1 1-3: Same Leg 2 1-2: Same Leg, 3: Same Side Arm 3 1: Abdomen, 2: Same Side Arm 4 1: Abdomen, 2: Same Side Arm, 3: Other Side Leg 5 1: Chest, 2: Same Side Arm, 3: Other Side Leg 6 1: Chest 7-8 1: Head Any suggestions, comments and anything you may have to say are welcome. You may send them to himberg.peter@hkol.fi " Mr. Nobody " ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:19:52 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: Executive outcomes If anybody wants to know something about Executive Outcomes-mercenary group, you can find it here: http://www.elvikingo.com/eos.html " Mr. Nobody " ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 02:27:09 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: New Hit-Rules Pietu wrote: > For someone who wants to know how I made these tables: First I draw human > body on paper. Then I draw some kind of darts-board on plastic sheet with > eight sectors and ten cricles on it. Then I placed that 'aiming circle' on > various body places and noted down how many sectors was on head at one > circle from 'bulls-eye', how many at two circles, etc. And so I repeated on > other bodyparts. > > I tought to use that 'aiming circle' on game, but I believed it would be > too slow to check all those sectors and circles any time you shoot ( > althought it brings possibility to aim very specific bodyparts as forehead, > heart, and so on). Use if you want ;). This is actually the way it's done in Merc. Not Merc:2000, just Merc. I think it's from FGU, although I'm not sure (don't have all my games here). The game comes with with plastic sheets which you use when sniping. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:39:14 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Executive outcomes Pietu wrote: > > If anybody wants to know something about Executive Outcomes-mercenary group, > you can find it here: http://www.elvikingo.com/eos.html > > " Mr. Nobody " The more things change the more they stay the same. It looks like European/South African mercenaries are finally back on track after some sort of hiatus during the 80s (or at least where mercs didn't get into the headlines sans Soldier of Fortune). Of course instead of political beliefs now it seems purely for profit.... I must hate to see how the hell do they do maintenance on the Sov built Hips and Hinds- most Ivan a/c depend largely on factory/corps level depots to revamp their aircraft (necessary considering the short term conscript nature of their military). Hell I bet there's a bunch of ex-Legionaires and possibly Serb vets of the current round of fighting in the Balkans that was beefing up Mobutu's forces (until he decided Switzerland looks better and not even France wanted to send in troops to prop regime; lack of importance of Zaire went down the proverbial toilet after the Soviets collapsed and maybe before since they opted to stop giving aid to Angola's MPLA and Mozambique about '89 or so). Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:05:36 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Executive outcomes In a message dated 97-09-05 03:26:57 EDT, you write: > > If anybody wants to know something about Executive Outcomes-mercenary group, oh yeah.................... that's exactly what i wanted to know about................................ excuse me, but............... what the hell are you talking about? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:04:34 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Guns & ammo In a message dated 97-09-05 03:08:26 EDT, you write: > Or you can simply have the vehicles where all the equipment was stored > stolen > as the group members explore the sewer system of Krakow without leaving a > guard. > Worked pretty well for me.... > or............................. for those that like a little more "realism"............ I use the 1st edition vehicular combat, where a round can enter a vehicle, do all kinds of damage, and exit out the other side. It really tears up PCs when they find out all their neat stuff in the cargo section was riddled by 20mm rounds......................................... Another favorite of mine is...... "I lock up the vehicle, and leave" ok.........how? military vehicles (US anyway) use a padlock and chain, and it doesn't guarantee anything (I had 2 hmmvs stolen during maneuvers without unlocking them.............but that's another story) Chris does this list have some traffic now or what? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 01:32:44 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) As one of my players noticed: You can't have enough ammo never... (This was at the time, when he had access to few boxes of 9mmPara for Uzi) >Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:17:38 -0400 >From: Matt Aistrich >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Subject: Re: To much (was Re: Sorry about my bad english) > >David Reed wrote: > >> 7. Battle dress (Powered Body Armor) >> 8. An FGMP-15 (Fusion Gun, Man-Portable, Tech 15) >> >> Oops. Traveller snuck out again in #s 7 and 8, but you get the picture. > >And I almost yelled out... > >> And according to Murphy's Law, you can never have enough #5... > >Only too much weighing you down and too little for a normal firefight! > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:31:24 +0300 From: Mikko Pesonen Subject: Tw2000 v.1.1 I played Tw2000 couple years ago and I and my friends enjoyed it very much... Why doesn't anyone play it anymore? I play in diffrend playgroup nowadays and we don't play either :( I had a PC which lived for three years in game time and then I had to retire it because it was too good( that's what GM said ;) ) Trust No One! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 03:30:54 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Guns & ammo KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > or............................. > for those that like a little more "realism"............ > I use the 1st edition vehicular combat, where a round can enter a vehicle, do > all kinds of damage, and exit out the other side. > It really tears up PCs when they find out all their neat stuff in the cargo > section was riddled by 20mm rounds......................................... Then still make it happen. Those Doritos and the Gatorade your PCs were saving up gets turned into mulch thanks to some spall or the sleeping bags that were tossed in the turret bustle is now mostly shredded... Especially with tanks and IFVs where internal space is such a premium- the more detailed GMs is probably going to go over with his players vehicle stowage. Where the rucks go, where do to keep the five gallon cans of water, MRE boxes that are secured to the sides by bungie straps, whatever... Not very exciting I suppose unless the GM decides the last firefight somebody just blew apart all the characters' food ^_-. > military vehicles (US anyway) use a padlock and chain, and it doesn't > guarantee anything (I had 2 hmmvs stolen during maneuvers without unlocking > them.............but that's another story) Most armies use padlocks and chain to secure their vehicles. With AFVs a number of padlocks to secure the external stowage boxes and to lock down the hatches. You take the good and the bad- military equipment doesn't have a GM Viper alarm and kill switch. On the other hand a Camaro Z28 doesn't have the crosscountry mobility let alone armament as something as humble as a deuce and a half ^_-. Another favorite past time among doggies and jarheads is stealing Hummer doors (a lot of their are nylon and plastic thingies but they keep rain and dust out). It happens- usually when a guy finds out somebody's jacked his ride he improvises and overcome and adapt to the situation (a steal another Hummer- without getting caught). Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 10:19:27 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 In a message dated 97-09-05 06:50:25 EDT, you write: > Why doesn't anyone play it anymore? Hmmmmmm....................................................... I ask myself that constantly. The following are my opinions on why T2000 isn't played as often as it was. The original Twilight was written in the early-mid '80's during the Regan era. The threat and thought of a WWIII and nuclear devestation had been with us for 30 years. The outcomes and setting at the time was somewhat feasable. What twilight versions 2 & 2.2 didn't do well was try to create a rational & realistic reasoning for having a limited nuclear war. The backgrounds now don't mesh with reality which is changing hour by hour. Lack of adequete adventures? Version 1 had throngs of modules produced that could be played out in many gaming sessions. Versions 2+ didn't. Their modules were short and to the point (for better or worse), where the PCs only had to come up with a simple plan and execute it. The older modules allowed one to play in a setting for months (game time) at a time, gathering Intell, recruiting troops, finding allies, etc....... 2.0+ also seemed a bit tooo holywoodish. Many of my PCs straight out of the rules started out as Majors and above.........Version 1, captains were hard enough to attain, and a major was a high freaking rank. Also it's too easy to be Ranger, SEAL, Green Beret, etc......in Version 2.0+ after a while of all that, you want to turn the movie off...................... Don't get me wrong, I do like 2.0's combat system (for the most part). It ain't Vampire. ..................Many youths today like that kind of Role Playing Game better........and most gamers (average age being 16-18) donb't really remember the Cold war, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, or even desert storm...... so what have they to identify with? Your best bet IMO is to hook up with a GM who either wrote some of the old modules, is ex-military (but not overbearing), or who is older and can remember what growing up in that era was like. I'd like to play and run still, If only I could find a group, so why doesn't everyone who's been adding traffic to the list recently pipe up and say what city and state (and country) they're from? Chris Dallas, TX ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:56:11 +-300 From: Jyrki Paajanen Subject: VS: Guns & ammo David Reed wrote: > equipment, AND charge them for the vehicle they roll. Heh. Also mention > what a nice fireball a vehicle loaded with cases of grenades and ammo can > make... Yes, I can vouch for that, after seeing what happened to our M113 after a WP grenade hit... here goes the ammo... and there go the piles of gold amassed from half a dozen PCs... Thanks Jysky... at least my character made it out alive... And maybe learnt that M113 is not a fighting vehicle 8-) Jyrki Paajanen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:50:56 -0400 From: Scott Lazzari Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 I'd love to find a group - I haven't ever played v2+, however, only v1. I used to run games back in the late 80's, took a haitus from playing while I was in the Army, got back into it for a while, but it fizzled out. I'm in Central Massachusetts, if anyone else is. Scott Lazzari slazzari@tciconsulting.com http://www.beta.com/users/lazzari/ ICQ UIN: 2098756 - ----- 10:19 AM 9/5/97 -0400,KAPPAABZ@aol.com you wrote ----- >In a message dated 97-09-05 06:50:25 EDT, you write: > >> Why doesn't anyone play it anymore? > >Hmmmmmm....................................................... > >I ask myself that constantly. >The following are my opinions on why T2000 isn't played as often as it was. > >The original Twilight was written in the early-mid '80's during the Regan >era. The threat and thought of a WWIII and nuclear devestation had been with >us for 30 years. The outcomes and setting at the time was somewhat feasable. >What twilight versions 2 & 2.2 didn't do well was try to create a rational & >realistic reasoning for having a limited nuclear war. The backgrounds now >don't mesh with reality which is changing hour by hour. > >Lack of adequete adventures? Version 1 had throngs of modules produced that >could be played out in many gaming sessions. Versions 2+ didn't. Their >modules were short and to the point (for better or worse), where the PCs only >had to come up with a simple plan and execute it. The older modules allowed >one to play in a setting for months (game time) at a time, gathering Intell, >recruiting troops, finding allies, etc....... > >2.0+ also seemed a bit tooo holywoodish. Many of my PCs straight out of the >rules started out as Majors and above.........Version 1, captains were hard >enough to attain, and a major was a high freaking rank. Also it's too easy >to be Ranger, SEAL, Green Beret, etc......in Version 2.0+ after a while of >all that, you want to turn the movie off...................... >Don't get me wrong, I do like 2.0's combat system (for the most part). > >It ain't Vampire. ..................Many youths today like that kind of Role >Playing Game better........and most gamers (average age being 16-18) donb't >really remember the Cold war, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, or even desert >storm...... >so what have they to identify with? > >Your best bet IMO is to hook up with a GM who either wrote some of the old >modules, is ex-military (but not overbearing), or who is older and can >remember what growing up in that era was like. > > >I'd like to play and run still, If only I could find a group, >so why doesn't everyone who's been adding traffic to the list recently pipe >up and say what city and state (and country) they're from? > >Chris >Dallas, TX > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:16:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Douglas Hayden Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 On Fri, 5 Sep 1997 KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > The original Twilight was written in the early-mid '80's during the Regan > era. The threat and thought of a WWIII and nuclear devestation had been with > us for 30 years. The outcomes and setting at the time was somewhat feasable. > What twilight versions 2 & 2.2 didn't do well was try to create a rational & > realistic reasoning for having a limited nuclear war. The backgrounds now > don't mesh with reality which is changing hour by hour. I thought this was fixed in v2.2 which made Tw2k an 'alternate reality' where Yeltsin's revolution didn't succeed. BTW, according to the 2.2 timeline, we'd be digging ourselves out of the rubble right about now... > Lack of adequete adventures? Version 1 had throngs of modules produced that > could be played out in many gaming sessions. Versions 2+ didn't. Their > modules were short and to the point (for better or worse), where the PCs only > had to come up with a simple plan and execute it. The older modules allowed > one to play in a setting for months (game time) at a time, gathering Intell, > recruiting troops, finding allies, etc....... Unfortunately for version 2, Bangkok was a waste (nice background, but where exactly do the Americans come in?) and the Eastern Europe sourcebook was not enough too late. I just wish they had spent their time on a 'Warsaw' sourcebook covering Poland rather than the couple pages in EES. > 2.0+ also seemed a bit tooo holywoodish. Many of my PCs straight out of the > rules started out as Majors and above.........Version 1, captains were hard > enough to attain, and a major was a high freaking rank. Also it's too easy > to be Ranger, SEAL, Green Beret, etc......in Version 2.0+ after a while of > all that, you want to turn the movie off...................... IMO, there was a minor bug in the CG system - the youngest you could be was 25 and the average was around 33 to 37. My fix is switching the 'Welcome to Hell' roll from the end to the beginning of the term (rolling equal to or under the current term starts the war.) As for being too Hollywoodish, that depends on a.) how you determine attributes (I prefer the 2d6-2 method) and b.) whether or not you want a realistic or a larger-than-life campaign. > Don't get me wrong, I do like 2.0's combat system (for the most part). Version 2's saving grace. Version 1 had the Vehicle Combat System from Hell ("OK, I hit the T-72. Now what?" "Let me get out my scientific calculator and I'll get back to you in a half-hour...") plus some questionable ratings ("Whaddya mean my 120 is no better than their 125!?"). Admittedly, Version 2 is a lot more painless ("I hit him in the head with my M9 point blank." "He winces, twas only a flesh wound.") although that can be fixed by dragging over version 1's damage system (i.e. 4*damage rating + 4d6 for short range) and using the quick kills. > Your best bet IMO is to hook up with a GM who either wrote some of the old > modules, is ex-military (but not overbearing), or who is older and can > remember what growing up in that era was like. Or someone like me who can tell the difference between an M2 Bradley and an M177, has a good imagination, and a flair for the dramatic. :) > I'd like to play and run still, If only I could find a group, > so why doesn't everyone who's been adding traffic to the list recently pipe > up and say what city and state (and country) they're from? Cleveland, OH, USA - ---------- Doug Hayden grimlock@multiverse.com - ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 14:51:48 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Great idea. I live in Henry, Virginia. About 40 miles south of Roanoake on highway 220. Anyone near me? Mark H. Walker ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:14:37 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 > Lack of adequete adventures? Version 1 had throngs of modules produced that > could be played out in many gaming sessions. Versions 2+ didn't. Their > modules were short and to the point (for better or worse), where the PCs only > had to come up with a simple plan and execute it. The older modules allowed > one to play in a setting for months (game time) at a time, gathering Intell, > recruiting troops, finding allies, etc....... Version 2+ didn't really have a lot of modules to begin with, compared to the amount for version 1. And while those created for version 1 were still highly usable, I think that some newcomers to the game may have shied away from purchasing them. Also, there is a considerable difference in the approach of version 2 rules and version 1 modules. Version 1 required a lot more work from the GM and in many ways was oriented towards experienced gamers. Version 2 was trying to make the game more approachable to new gamers, but the support material wasn't there. Into his beard: "Goddamit, the new generation just isn't willing to work as hard as we did, I remember when I had to walk to school without shoes, uphill, in the snow..." mutter mutter. > 2.0+ also seemed a bit tooo holywoodish. Many of my PCs straight out of the > rules started out as Majors and above.........Version 1, captains were hard > enough to attain, and a major was a high freaking rank. Also it's too easy > to be Ranger, SEAL, Green Beret, etc......in Version 2.0+ after a while of > all that, you want to turn the movie off...................... I totally agree with you, but on the other had those facts, once again, seem to show a definite orientation to "less mature audiences"... it's a lot easier to get a 11-year-old to play a Green Beret than a supply clerk... > so why doesn't everyone who's been adding traffic to the list recently pipe > up and say what city and state (and country) they're from? Matt Boston, MA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:22:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Hruggek@aol.com Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Well I am "young" at 17 and still rember the cold war, but it is just little things like Regan coming on the TV when I was 6 and saying if there was a nuclear strike the EBS (that siren and blue screen that the TV stations test during soap time) would be the citizen's only warning. As well as a few other things like the fall of the Berlin wall and those damn "Cuban Missles" my dad was always telling me about. - -John Tampa,FL ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 20:16:29 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Douglas Hayden wrote: > I thought this was fixed in v2.2 which made Tw2k an 'alternate reality' > where Yeltsin's revolution didn't succeed. > > BTW, according to the 2.2 timeline, we'd be digging ourselves out of the > rubble right about now... What I really thought was cheeseball was the musical chairs alliance switching. Italy and Greece decided to join up with Sov-like causes and Romania and Yugoslavia decided to go with the West... Realpolitik time- those that are in the Western sphere of influence stay there or at least not bother pissing off SACEUR in Belgium (it's a good bet the Greeks and Turks in Brussels don't share enighboring offices at SHAEF and the French not doubt weren't very welcome after what de Gaulle did in '67). At best the Greeks and Turks may feud with themselves but only in the context over Cyprus and any attempts to shaft US/NATO operations in the Southern flank will be looked upon as an "unfriendly" act. The Italians beleive it or not are probably the backbone of Med and their armor would be needed to help kick the Soviets should their T-64s try and make their way into Austria. Of course as with all things GMs should use one's discretion and common sense (or soemthing closely resembling thereof) > Unfortunately for version 2, Bangkok was a waste (nice background, but > where exactly do the Americans come in?) and the Eastern Europe sourcebook > was not enough too late. I just wish they had spent their time on a > 'Warsaw' sourcebook covering Poland rather than the couple pages in EES. Bangkok works for a Merc 2000 campaign where PCs are either Company guys, DEA or even freelancer doing advisory work for the Thai military. OTOH I've yet to take a good look at the Eastern European sourcebook for Twilight second ed. > Version 2's saving grace. Version 1 had the Vehicle Combat System from > Hell ("OK, I hit the T-72. Now what?" "Let me get out my scientific > calculator and I'll get back to you in a half-hour...") plus some > questionable ratings ("Whaddya mean my 120 is no better than their > 125!?"). Admittedly, Version 2 is a lot more painless ("I hit him in the > head with my M9 point blank." "He winces, twas only a flesh wound.") > although that can be fixed by dragging over version 1's damage system > (i.e. 4*damage rating + 4d6 for short range) and using the quick kills. The small arms damage system in the first ed TW2K is better in the sense at close range (ie under 50 meters for most rifles- I like to crank the ranges out and the damage even more) it will hurt... Or just roll more dice. 5.56mm NATO- 5d6, 7.62mm NATO 6d6+2, 9mm 2d6+1, etc. > Or someone like me who can tell the difference between an M2 Bradley and > an M177, has a good imagination, and a flair for the dramatic. :) No M177s any more. Not since Vietnam. Nowadays M4 and M4A1 carbines (in reality a cut down rifle and not a traditional carbine) replacing the Model 653s of the post Vietnam War era... Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #53 ************************************