twilight2000-digest Monday, March 30 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 017 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Civgov vs Milgov Civ vs Mil givs INFO Re: INFO Re: Civ vs Mil givs Re: History update Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Loren has spoken Web page update-- Creating vehicles Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Loren has spoken Re: Loren has spoken Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Loren has spoken anyone got any NeTo GuNs? Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Loren has spoken Re: Loren has spoken Conversion and File size bmp Re: Conversion and File size Re: Conversion and File size Re: Loren has spoken Re: Conversion and File size Re: Conversion and File size Re: Conversion and File size Re: Conversion and File size Re: Conversion and File size Re: Conversion and File size Character Sheet Re: Loren has spoken Re: anyone got any NeTo GuNs? Re: Conversion and File size Re: Conversion and File size Re: Character Sheet newbie questions Re: newbie questions Re: anyone got any NeTo GuNs? Re: Conversion and File size Re: newbie questions Re: newbie questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:45:35 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 10:55 PM 3/27/98 -0400, wardlow wrote: >True you can learn some basics from the books and in theory the military >protect the civilians but when in wartime operations in your own country >or in a country engaged in civil war the distinctions between good guy >bad guy gets blurry for the average grunt because foe and friend speak >the same language and wear the same face, soon the standard operating >proceedure becomes "Kill them all...... let god >sort them out" eg: the My Lai syndrome. I realize that that's likely to be the perspective of the grunts (even the NCO's) and many junior officers, but I think the senior officers may;be have the civil/military disctinction and "big picture" drilled into them more over time, which is why I think it would take extraordinary circumstances (though those in TW2000 quite possibly qualify) for them to disobey civilian authority. Of course it is relevant what the grunts and JO's would do in response if one of the senior officers tried such a thing.... >p.s. sorry if I sounded a little harsh in the last message but some times I >still am a little bit aggressive, paranoid. Comes with the mileage. I >apologize if I offended. > No, it was fine. :) Scott Orr >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> At 01:18 PM 3/27/98 -0400, wardlow wrote: >> >All the books in the world cannot prepare you for the reality of the >> Military. >> >> I don't wnat to be prepared for the reality of the military; rather, I want >> to understand what military officers will likely do in situation X. >> >> And in fact, all the service in the world in the real military won't >> prepare me to answer that question--I would have a good idea of what _I_ >> would do, and the people I've worked with, and perhaps a decent guess about >> the whole armed service or even the whole military, but I'd probably have >> less understanding than an actual expert on the subject in question. >> >> In fact, if it's impossible to learn from other people--including from >> books--we might as well not be talking or otherwise using language. After >> all, if I can't possibly understand the military without having been in it, >> then it must logically be true that there is absolutely no purpose for >> telling me about it. Right? And of course, there would be no point to >> your instructors at boot camp actually giving your instructions either.... >> >> >The marines have a saying "unit, corp, God, and Country". If you're >> >military... you're family if not.... you're meat for the tiger! Even a >> soldier >> >from a rival army will get more respect that a civilian. The military will >> >protect the civilian but they know that without the baptism of fire the >> >civilian isn't worth much and is considered inferior. People who have never >> >been under fire don't understand that the only person that you can truly >> trust >> >is your brother in steel. He's the one that will watch over you when you >> >sleep. He's the one that takes the bullet meant for you or pulls you to >> safety >> >if you take one. He's the one that, although he or she is so scared that >> he or >> >she will puke for hours after the fight, will charge beside you to kill the >> >enemy and face death in the process. Your fellow warrior is the one who'll >> >hear your confessions of fear and past misdeads, yet still risk his life >> with >> >you and for you tomorrow. He or she is the one who will mourn you and carry >> >your memory into the future and sing your praise at the bar and raise their >> >glass in your honour. Books don't prepare you for the nightmares you have for >> >the rest of your life and the paranoia you will live with for ever. They >> don't >> >prepare you for not being able to sleep more than 15 - 30 minutes at a >> stretch >> >for the rest of your life. They don't prepare you for the fact that after >> only >> >your fellow soldiers will ever consider you normal or be able to understand >> >you. You will always be alone unless your with fellow warriors. Only they >> >count. Perhaps this can explain why not siding with a disputed civilian >> >authority as in T2K over your own commander is such a believable possibility. >> >> Presumably, wouldn't all that pale in comparison to your honor-bould >> commitment to defend the civilians? I mean, the Corps doesn't exist for >> its own sake. >> >> Scott Orr > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:54:22 EST From: GDW GAMES Subject: Civ vs Mil givs In all the years Twilight was out, we got exactly one (1) letter complaining about this, and it was not from anyone in the military. I think we handled the whole thing with considerable tact. It was _intended_ to provoke a moral response, and it was _intended_ to provoke emotion. PCs have to make some spooky moral decisions in Twilight, which referees sometimes miss. Loren Wiseman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:22:43 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: INFO I don't know if this has been posted before but I just stumbled across this. Lots of stuff here. http://www.atsc-army.org/atdls.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:10:18 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: INFO Pablo Escoverra wrote: > > I don't know if this has been posted before but I just stumbled across > this. Lots of stuff here. > > http://www.atsc-army.org/atdls.html Interesting site but those "locks" get annoying. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:21:31 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Civ vs Mil givs Personally, I think that GDW made one fine game. I still play it often, especially in conjunction wiith GDW other board games such as Battlefield Europe and Sands of War (not to mention Assault 1985). I still collect what module and games come though the local gaming club Auctions and second hand games that appear at the local gaming suppliers ( I have them reserved for me.... so I get first choice). Vlad GDW GAMES wrote: > In all the years Twilight was out, we got exactly one (1) letter complaining > about this, and it was not from anyone in the military. > > I think we handled the whole thing with considerable tact. It was _intended_ > to provoke a moral response, and it was _intended_ to provoke emotion. PCs > have to make some spooky moral decisions in Twilight, which referees sometimes > miss. > > Loren Wiseman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:47:55 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: History update In a message dated 98-03-27 14:51:47 EST, you write: > Please let me know what you think, what >should be added, taken out, ect. It's pretty good. Personally...........and since the whols game is real a matter of personal choice.......... I prefer the first edition timeline and history...... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:47:57 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov In a message dated 98-03-27 18:26:30 EST, you write: > >I don't wnat to be prepared for the reality of the military; rather, I want >to understand what military officers will likely do in situation X. That doesn't make sense to me. Please explain it again You want to understand what the fantasy officer will do in situation X? To understand those things, you must understand the reality of the military. Or, maybe not this tirade is moot. I'll just go read a book or something........ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:47:59 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov In a message dated 98-03-26 23:37:26 EST, you write: >I think you guys should trade E-mail adds or ICQ numbers and battle out this >dispute in a personal forum. I have grown tired of your argument, as I am >sure >others on this list have also. > > Gee sorry to offend you and all the others on the list. I'll shut up about milgov vs. civgov. anyone got any NeTo GuNs? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:47:54 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov In a message dated 98-03-27 12:32:25 EST, you write: > People who have never >been under fire don't understand that the only person that you can truly >trust is your brother in steel. Thank you. My sentiments excatly ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:47:58 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Loren has spoken In a message dated 98-03-28 00:04:11 EST, you write: > >In all the years Twilight was out, we got exactly one (1) letter complaining >about this, and it was not from anyone in the military. > >I think we handled the whole thing with considerable tact. It was _intended_ >to provoke a moral response, and it was _intended_ to provoke emotion. PCs >have to make some spooky moral decisions in Twilight, which referees >sometimes >miss. > >Loren Wiseman > > Yeah, but Loren................ All the books I read didn't say anything abou............................... everyone, Loren has spoken. issue is now at rest. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 16:02:29 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Web page update-- Creating vehicles Now that I have finally gotten around to filling out the vehicle sheets on my web page I realize that I don't remember how second edition armor values work (how many millimeters = 1 point of armour). Can anyone help me out? - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:22:22 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 09:47 AM 3/28/98 EST, KAPPAABZ wrote: >In a message dated 98-03-27 18:26:30 EST, you write: > >> >>I don't wnat to be prepared for the reality of the military; rather, I want >>to understand what military officers will likely do in situation X. > >That doesn't make sense to me. Please explain it again >You want to understand what the fantasy officer will do in situation X? > Yes. >To understand those things, you must understand the reality of the military. > Possibly. I don't actually need to understand the _entire_ reality of the military; things like the procedure for field-stripping an M-16 may bear on the the question peripherally; things like the emotions that result from military training may be _very_ important. But I'm not interested in experiencing them myself--what I want is as decent model of how someone who has expereiced them is going to react in a certain situation. That is NOT the same thing as "being prepared for the reality of the military"; indeed it's something _very_ different, because being prepared (or experiencing it myself) is a very individual thing, and I don't want a unique individual's perspective, because what I'm really interested in is how the range of officers with different personalities and different experiences will be likely to react. It is of course impossible for one person to have all of those experiences, and therein lies the value of communication. >Or, maybe not this tirade is moot. I'll just go read a book or >something........ > I understand the military is very big on that. That's why they spend all that time and money fielding history units and dissecting old battles, so that new soldiers can learn from the experiences of old ones, by reading books, right? Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:24:39 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Loren has spoken At 09:47 AM 3/28/98 EST, KAPPAABZ wrote: >In a message dated 98-03-28 00:04:11 EST, you write: > >> >>In all the years Twilight was out, we got exactly one (1) letter complaining >>about this, and it was not from anyone in the military. >> >>I think we handled the whole thing with considerable tact. It was _intended_ >>to provoke a moral response, and it was _intended_ to provoke emotion. PCs >>have to make some spooky moral decisions in Twilight, which referees >>sometimes >>miss. >> >>Loren Wiseman >> >> > > >Yeah, >but Loren................ > >All the books I read didn't say anything abou............................... > >everyone, Loren has spoken. >issue is now at rest. > No it's not. Loren spoke about why they created the moral conflicts that they created--that doesn't resolve the moral conflicts themselves, or really address how different people might react to them. :) Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 11:13:06 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: Loren has spoken In a message dated 98-03-28 20:36:20 EST, you write: >No it's not. Loren spoke about why they created the moral conflicts that >they created--that doesn't resolve the moral conflicts themselves, or >really address how different people might react to them. :) Ok. Here's the deal. to know how given officer (since enlisted men appearantly don't count) will react in a given situation, there is no real way you'll get an accurate answer. Since everyone is different, they will react accordingly. The only constant would be the training doctrine. "In my book, it says to react this way to this situation, therefore I reacted like it said in the book." But I have a pretty good feeling a Ranger Officer in the 75th,would react differently than Captain Honeycut from the 4077th MASH. Then there's the issue with 2 officers in the same unit with the same training reacting differently to the same situation. Why? Hmmmm..............because everyone is basically different. Perhaps officer z hesitated longer because he was wondering if his wife would soon be a widow, while officer y hesitated because he was wondering if his men were gonna frag him for this descision.............. Without understanding the psychology of each individual person, then you'll never really unserstand why that person (and officer) made a descision. Or you can hang out at the local ROTC detachment and ask them all kinds of questions...... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 11:13:07 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov In a message dated 98-03-28 20:34:17 EST, you write: > That is NOT >the same thing as "being prepared for the reality of the military" I guess. Of course if you ask 5 different people what the textbook definition of that statement is, you'd get 5 different answers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:45:54 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov KAPPAABZ wrote: > In a message dated 98-03-26 23:37:26 EST, you write: > > >I think you guys should trade E-mail adds or ICQ numbers and battle out this > >dispute in a personal forum. I have grown tired of your argument, as I am > >sure > >others on this list have also. > > > > > > Gee sorry to offend you and all the others on the list. > > I'll shut up about milgov vs. civgov. > > anyone got any NeTo GuNs? I was overruled on this, so go ahead and voice your opinion on whatever you like. I have decided not to try and stop discussions on this list in the future. It was a bad idea to try and do so in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 12:44:32 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Loren has spoken However perhaps what the person is looking for is the recommended tactics to be used in the particular situation. There are as many books on tactics as there are armchair generals and commanders combined, but the two urls that were recently posted are a good place to start for recommended troop deployment. Plus you just may do a net search on tactics and learn it from the ground up (starting with Sun Tzu's "Art of War" to the "Tengu Geijitsu ron" of Chossan Shissai). Vlad KAPPAABZ wrote: > In a message dated 98-03-28 20:36:20 EST, you write: > > >No it's not. Loren spoke about why they created the moral conflicts that > >they created--that doesn't resolve the moral conflicts themselves, or > >really address how different people might react to them. :) > > Ok. > Here's the deal. to know how given officer (since enlisted men appearantly > don't count) will react in a given situation, there is no real way you'll get > an accurate answer. Since everyone is different, they will react accordingly. > The only constant would be the training doctrine. "In my book, it says to > react this way to this situation, therefore I reacted like it said in the > book." > But I have a pretty good feeling a Ranger Officer in the 75th,would react > differently than Captain Honeycut from the 4077th MASH. > Then there's the issue with 2 officers in the same unit with the same training > reacting differently to the same situation. Why? Hmmmm..............because > everyone is basically different. Perhaps officer z hesitated longer because > he was wondering if his wife would soon be a widow, while officer y hesitated > because he was wondering if his men were gonna frag him for this > descision.............. > Without understanding the psychology of each individual person, then you'll > never really unserstand why that person (and officer) made a descision. > > Or you can hang out at the local ROTC detachment and ask them all kinds of > questions...... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 09:14:19 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: anyone got any NeTo GuNs? anyone got any NeTo GuNs? Please explain. I must have missed something here. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:48:43 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 11:13 AM 3/29/98 EST, KAPPAABZ wrote: >In a message dated 98-03-28 20:34:17 EST, you write: > >> That is NOT >>the same thing as "being prepared for the reality of the military" > >I guess. >Of course if you ask 5 different people what the textbook definition of that >statement is, you'd get 5 different answers. > That's why I took special care to define it in my last post :). Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:59:29 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Loren has spoken At 11:13 AM 3/29/98 EST, KAPPAABZ wrote: >In a message dated 98-03-28 20:36:20 EST, you write: > >>No it's not. Loren spoke about why they created the moral conflicts that >>they created--that doesn't resolve the moral conflicts themselves, or >>really address how different people might react to them. :) > >Ok. >Here's the deal. to know how given officer (since enlisted men appearantly >don't count) will react in a given situation, there is no real way you'll get >an accurate answer. Since everyone is different, they will react accordingly. >The only constant would be the training doctrine. "In my book, it says to >react this way to this situation, therefore I reacted like it said in the >book." No, that's not true. The military attracts different personality types than civilian life, and different brances and units in the military attract differet ones too; in addition, different unit types gives their members different experiences. In short everything is _not_ different--there are a lot of similarities, and you've already pointed them out in your previous posts. I'm not trying to predict what any individual would do; rather, if I want to know what the military as a whole would do, I need to predict the _range_ of officer (and, as I said earlier) enlisted responses. I'm fully cognizant that this prediction is only a model, and that I can't possibly know what any individual would do. But then, under the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I can't ever know where any electron will be, either--but that doesn't stop me from being able to say useful things about nuclear physics. >But I have a pretty good feeling a Ranger Officer in the 75th,would react >differently than Captain Honeycut from the 4077th MASH. >Then there's the issue with 2 officers in the same unit with the same training >reacting differently to the same situation. Why? Hmmmm..............because >everyone is basically different. Perhaps officer z hesitated longer because >he was wondering if his wife would soon be a widow, while officer y hesitated >because he was wondering if his men were gonna frag him for this >descision.............. >Without understanding the psychology of each individual person, then you'll >never really unserstand why that person (and officer) made a descision. > And I don't want to. What I want to know is, if I have 100 officers of similar training and experiences, about how many will do X, and how many will do Y. Or you could express it probabilitically: if I have an officer, what's the percentage chance he'll do X, and the percentage chance he'll do Y, given all the information I have? What you're saying is sort of like saying that if I drive my car off a cliff, I can't possible know the results of what's going to happen, because I don't know the exact velocity of the car, the exact shape of the cliff, the composition of the dirt making up the cliff, and all the atmospheric conditions. That's true: I can't possible predict all the bumps and rolls that are going to happen to the car. However, I do know to a reasonably degree of certainty that I'm going to die or be badly hurt, and that's useful information. >Or you can hang out at the local ROTC detachment and ask them all kinds of >questions...... > That would be useful for finding out how ROTC members would respond. I'd rather survey and interview serving soldiers, since they're probably more typical of the individuals who made the important decisions in the TW2000 timeline. If I could find soldiers who'd actually been in situations like the one I'm interested, that would be even better. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:53:37 EST From: Hruggek Subject: Re: Loren has spoken In a message dated 98-03-29 11:33:08 EST, you write: << Hmmmm..............because everyone is basically different. Perhaps officer z hesitated longer because he was wondering if his wife would soon be a widow, while officer y hesitated because he was wondering if his men were gonna frag him for this descision.............. Without understanding the psychology of each individual person, then you'll never really unserstand why that person (and officer) made a descision. Or you can hang out at the local ROTC detachment and ask them all kinds of questions...... >> Have you lost it? Its still just a game, no need to get into the deep deep stuff such as well my npc reacted this way because he lost his tonka truck at the age of seven and those spent the rest of his life going through a dark secret past which was his lost tonka truck. Dude you are making it to big, K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid) if you get to into it then it becomes to cold. And don't do that because then people want sweaters and such. Just rember no need to get into the psychology of the whole thing just say it happens because well it did, oops to bad. Oh yeah wider is better Monkey Boy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 15:40:53 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Conversion and File size File size: I scanned most of FMC's little booklet on the XM8 last night at my friends house and used StuffIt on it. It came out to a little less than 1 meg for like 7 pages. Does anyone know of any way to get the size down (besides changes the size of the picture, which would make the text unreadable). Conversion: Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer BMP-3 info into t2k values... - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 15:46:18 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: bmp http://www.conveyor.com/kurgan/ Web pages of the people who made the BMP series of vehicles. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:21:09 EST From: Grimace997 Subject: Re: Conversion and File size In a message dated 98-03-29 18:50:38 EST, you write: << Conversion: Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer BMP-3 info into t2k values... >> I believe the BMP-3 has already been done for Twilight 2000. It's in the Twilight 2000 Version 2.2 rulebook. As for the XM8, I could tinker with it a little and get back to you. I know it doesn't have very substantial armor; only capable of stopping up to 12.7mm rounds, and not much else. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:34:52 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: Conversion and File size If you saved it as a gif file through a photo editing program such as photoshop 4 ( go to export/ gif89a in the File column) and then play with the number of colors used ( probably only need 72 or so) , and the picture quality / file size, you should trim off some of the k's. Peter Vieth wrote: > File size: > I scanned most of FMC's little booklet on the XM8 last night at my > friends house and used StuffIt on it. It came out to a little less than > 1 meg for like 7 pages. Does anyone know of any way to get the size down > (besides changes the size of the picture, which would make the text > unreadable). > > Conversion: > Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer > BMP-3 info into t2k values... > > -- > Peter Vieth > Fitek@ix.netcom.com > IGZ Handle: Fitek > ICQ UIN: 3660410 > Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 16:40:08 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: Loren has spoken Hruggek wrote: > In a message dated 98-03-29 11:33:08 EST, you write: > > << Hmmmm..............because > everyone is basically different. Perhaps officer z hesitated longer because > he was wondering if his wife would soon be a widow, while officer y hesitated > because he was wondering if his men were gonna frag him for this > descision.............. > Without understanding the psychology of each individual person, then you'll > never really unserstand why that person (and officer) made a descision. > > Or you can hang out at the local ROTC detachment and ask them all kinds of > questions...... > >> > > Have you lost it? Its still just a game, no need to get into the deep deep > stuff such as well my npc reacted this way because he lost his tonka truck at > the age of seven and those spent the rest of his life going through a dark > secret past which was his lost tonka truck. Dude you are making it to big, > K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid) if you get to into it then it becomes to > cold. And don't do that because then people want sweaters and such. > Just rember no need to get into the psychology of the whole thing just say it > happens because well it did, oops to bad. > > Oh yeah wider is better > Monkey Boy I agree - -Pablo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:18:17 EST From: Orrin Ladd Subject: Re: Conversion and File size In a message dated 98-03-29 18:50:40 EST, Peter Vieth writes: << Conversion: Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer BMP-3 info into t2k values... >> Both those vehicles are in the TW2k 2.2 rulebook and in the East Europe sourcebook. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:56:17 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Conversion and File size Grimace997 wrote: > > In a message dated 98-03-29 18:50:38 EST, you write: > > << > Conversion: > Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer > BMP-3 info into t2k values... > >> > I believe the BMP-3 has already been done for Twilight 2000. It's in the > Twilight 2000 Version 2.2 rulebook. As for the XM8, I could tinker with it a > little and get back to you. I know it doesn't have very substantial armor; > only capable of stopping up to 12.7mm rounds, and not much else. Well, newer information has come out on it (the BMP-3). - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:58:31 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Conversion and File size Pablo Escoverra wrote: > > If you saved it as a gif file through a photo editing program such as > photoshop 4 ( go to export/ gif89a in the File column) and then play with > the number of colors used ( probably only need 72 or so) , and the picture > quality / file size, you should trim off some of the k's. > > Peter Vieth wrote: > > > File size: > > I scanned most of FMC's little booklet on the XM8 last night at my > > friends house and used StuffIt on it. It came out to a little less than > > 1 meg for like 7 pages. Does anyone know of any way to get the size down > > (besides changes the size of the picture, which would make the text > > unreadable). > > > > Conversion: > > Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer > > BMP-3 info into t2k values... > > > > -- > > Peter Vieth > > Fitek@ix.netcom.com > > IGZ Handle: Fitek > > ICQ UIN: 3660410 > > Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html Good idea. I didn't know how to do that in Photoshop. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 20:59:45 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Conversion and File size Orrin Ladd wrote: > > In a message dated 98-03-29 18:50:40 EST, Peter Vieth writes: > > << > Conversion: > Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer > BMP-3 info into t2k values... > >> > > Both those vehicles are in the TW2k 2.2 rulebook and in the East Europe > sourcebook. When did 2.2 come out anyway? - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:13:38 EST From: Grimace997 Subject: Re: Conversion and File size In a message dated 98-03-30 00:08:17 EST, you write: << Well, newer information has come out on it (the BMP-3). -- Peter Vieth >> What sort of newer information? The one I've got shows everything that matches the latest Jane's Recognition Guide. Something else floating around about the BMP-3? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:15:45 EST From: Grimace997 Subject: Re: Conversion and File size In a message dated 98-03-30 00:10:25 EST, you write: << When did 2.2 come out anyway? >> Version 2.2 was copyright 1993. I didn't actually look through my book too much, but now I see that both are in there. If you have heard of newer information about them, let me know. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:12:30 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Character Sheet Everyone, I've put a JPG image of a character sheet online, hitherto only the first page has been completed. (The second page will be a weapons, equipment, and vehicles sheet) The sheet does not reflect version 2.2 exactly, it has some additions/alterations in a few of the skills. If anyone has problems printing it (it may look large on the screen, but it should print fine on 81/2 x 11), please let me know. Saul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:20:12 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: Loren has spoken In a message dated 98-03-29 18:04:41 EST, you write: >Have you lost it? kiss off you rascist. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:20:11 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: anyone got any NeTo GuNs? In a message dated 98-03-29 12:23:19 EST, you write: > >anyone got any NeTo GuNs? > >Please explain. I must have missed something here. > > sarcasm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:16:33 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Conversion and File size Grimace997 wrote: > > In a message dated 98-03-30 00:08:17 EST, you write: > > << > Well, newer information has come out on it (the BMP-3). > > -- > Peter Vieth >> > > What sort of newer information? The one I've got shows everything that > matches the latest Jane's Recognition Guide. Something else floating around > about the BMP-3? Nothing amazing, just more detailed than that in the t2k manual. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:19:51 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Conversion and File size Grimace997 wrote: > > In a message dated 98-03-30 00:10:25 EST, you write: > > << > When did 2.2 come out anyway? > >> > Version 2.2 was copyright 1993. I didn't actually look through my book too > much, but now I see that both are in there. If you have heard of newer > information about them, let me know. I got the booklet that I scanned in 1992 or '93, so I guess there probably isn't any new information. It is probably a lot more detailed though, and it's not in my T2k rulebook. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:31:40 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Character Sheet Saul Basgen wrote: > > Everyone, > > I've put a JPG image of a character sheet online, hitherto only the first > page has been completed. (The second page will be a weapons, equipment, and > vehicles sheet) > The sheet does not reflect version 2.2 exactly, it has some > additions/alterations in a few of the skills. If anyone has problems > printing it (it may look large on the screen, but it should print fine on > 81/2 x 11), please let me know. > > Saul http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight/Rules/Chapter2/Sheet.html Hehe... the URL is be useful. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:09:14 +0200 From: slo Subject: newbie questions Hi! I'm quite new TW2K referee and I got some questions. 1. IMO ranges of rifle-attached granade lauchers are too long. On short range everything is ok but extreme range is too long. 2. Where could I get some supplements for TW2K? There is no access to any source material in Poland and since GWS has bankrupt there is no way to get any via polish rpg shops. Thanks for help Marcin Segit ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 07:24:01 -0500 From: Andrew Borelli Subject: Re: newbie questions Marcin- Here's a bunch of sources via the 'net. It's fairly comprehensive, though by no means complete. A 'net search for "Twilight 2000" will probably turn up more. http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/9022/ http://www.humanwaredesign.com/t2k/ http://members.aol.com/OrrinLadd/index.html > 2. Where could I get some supplements for TW2K? There is no access to > any source material in Poland and since GWS has bankrupt there is no way ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 06:02:44 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: anyone got any NeTo GuNs? KAPPAABZ wrote: > In a message dated 98-03-29 12:23:19 EST, you write: > > > > >anyone got any NeTo GuNs? > > > >Please explain. I must have missed something here. > > > > > > sarcasm oh - boy are you a funny one ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:02:44 -0500 (EST) From: Toby.Coddington@Citadel.edu Subject: Re: Conversion and File size >In a message dated 98-03-29 18:50:38 EST, you write: ><< > Conversion: > Uh... I could still use some help with converting the XM8 and newer > BMP-3 info into t2k values... > >> >I believe the BMP-3 has already been done for Twilight 2000. It's in the >Twilight 2000 Version 2.2 rulebook. As for the XM8, I could tinker with it a >little and get back to you. I know it doesn't have very substantial armor; >only capable of stopping up to 12.7mm rounds, and not much else. I understand that with the level III armor package it is as strong as a M-60 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:44:06 EST From: DustyLV769 Subject: Re: newbie questions In a message dated 3/30/98 3:22:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, slo@zamosc.ids.edu.pl writes: << I'm quite new TW2K referee and I got some questions. 1. IMO ranges of rifle-attached granade lauchers are too long. On short range everything is ok but extreme range is too long. >> You have to remember that the extreme ranges are a real-world maximum...it is theorettically possible for a grenade to go 1000yds (made-up number), but the chances of a hit anywhere in the same ZIP code are very, very small. My group and I had a similar arguement over the short range of the M-16...I have made many easy shots at 375 yds w/ a basic training M-16 (and if you've done Basic, you KNOW how fuc*ed up the barrels and sights are)...but then again, no one was shooting at me then either! DustyLV769@aol.com PFC, 72nd MP Co. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:00:01 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: newbie questions At 01:09 PM 3/30/98 +0200, slo wrote: >Hi! > >I'm quite new TW2K referee and I got some questions. >1. IMO ranges of rifle-attached granade lauchers are too long. On short >range everything is ok but extreme range is too long. >2. Where could I get some supplements for TW2K? There is no access to >any source material in Poland and since GWS has bankrupt there is no way >to get any via polish rpg shops. > Jak sie masz? I think that for someone in Poland, the best way to get TW2K materials is to buy them from individuals who are selling their old things. You'll probably have to pay mailing costs, but the book rates for surface mail from the U.S. to Europe are very low (if you're willing to wait a few weeks for surface mail to get there). The best place to look for them is the newsgroups news://rec.games.rpg.marketplace Scott Orr ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #17 ************************************