twilight2000-digest Wednesday, June 17 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 028 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Rules Question Re: Rules Question Re: The battle of Kalisz Re: Rules Question Re: Rules Question Re: Cash on start Re: Rules Question Re: Rules Question Re: Rules Question Re: Rules Question Re: Rules Question Heavy Weapons Skills Re: Heavy Weapons Skills Vs: Finns Re: Heavy Weapons Skills Re: Vs: Finns Re: Poland Re: Cash on start Re: Heavy Weapons Skills Re: Cash on start Re: Vs: Finns Re: Cash on start Re: Vs: Finns X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.40 (NDS) Re: Heavy Weapons Skills Vs: Vs: Finns Re: Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start 2000 Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Greetings Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start Re: Cash on start ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:56:01 EDT From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Question In a message dated 98-06-12 18:38:54 EDT, you write: << By looking at the description for Graduate University Education Career, entry required is: Undergraduate degree, Education 7+, Intelligence 7+. Now if this career is worded this way, it is demanding of strict adherence to these conditions. The section for entry into OCS states only that characters with Intelligence and Education of 7+ may enter. Look to the entry for Government Agent (Civilian Career) and examine its wording. Its comparable to that of the Graduate Career, right? So, in my opinion, entry into OCS is based on a combined score of 7+ and not on 7+ needed for both needed attributes. Make Sense? >> Well, that does make sense, but unless I totally misinterpreted Loren Wiseman's comments, it is supposed to be both Intelligence of 7 and Education of 7. His comments are on the following URL: http://www.webrpg.com/?link=townhall/51/index.html Like I said, I may have misinterpreted it, but that's the way it sounds. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:28:22 -0400 From: "RCamp" Subject: Re: Rules Question I suppose you make a good arguement. I really don't want my first debate regarding the game and its mechanics being the subject of who can get into OCS. 8-) I think you overestimate the military's ability to effectively screen the recruits. I personally know some pretty daft farm boys who made into the service, and still serving after 5 years (proud as hell). There are also quite a few individuals who lied about their age and it was overlooked by the screening process. I just thought I'd throw an opinion to see if I could get some hefty responses back. I've been lurking on this list for a little while and it sure has gotten quite still lately.... 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:52:05 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: The battle of Kalisz I rather thought that the original TW2K had the best supplement of the boxed sets on the subject. While we all have differing opinions on which version of the game is the best, I have to admit that V2.2 had sucky source material ('cept for unit locations!). Just my opinion ;-) - -Jeremy M. Semper Fidelis Marcin Segit wrote: > Hi! > > Is there any GDW's supplement on the battle of Kalisz? Could anyone > tell me something more about it? I got only 'pure' rulebook and > supplements for TW2K are impossible to get in Poland. > -- > May the Force be with You > - Luke Skywalker > > Marcin Segit > ICQ# 13274376 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:53:04 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Rules Question Doesn't seem so quiet at the moment! :-) - -Jeremy M Semper Fidelis RCamp wrote: > I suppose you make a good arguement. I really don't want my first debate > regarding the game and its mechanics being the subject of who can get into > OCS. > > 8-) > > I think you overestimate the military's ability to effectively screen the > recruits. I personally know some pretty daft farm boys who made into the > service, and still serving after 5 years (proud as hell). There are also > quite a few individuals who lied about their age and it was overlooked by > the screening process. > > I just thought I'd throw an opinion to see if I could get some hefty > responses back. I've been lurking on this list for a little while and it > sure has gotten quite still lately.... > > 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:55:08 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Rules Question Too bad intelligence rarely has anything to do with common sense... Scott David Orr wrote: > ...because the U.S. military immediately rejects anyone with an IQ in the > lower 30% of the population--they don't like dumb soldiers. > > Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:59:10 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Cash on start I habitually let the characters "fudge" the vehicle rules... if they want an M1A2, so be it. Just try to haul a still around that's large enough to move the tank more than once or twice a month... they usually end up just leaving the durned thing in the woods somewhere, or, more usefull, trading it at a local town for a doc to cure whatever nasty disease I sent them... ;-) - -Jeremy M. Semper Fidelis Who me? wrote: > I started my campaign with the character's possessions consisting of the > basic load, and a specialty item relevant to their background (for example, > a combat engineer usually has 1 kilo of plastic explosive or a couple of > sticks of dynamite as well as a basic engineers demo kit). > > My players and I prefer it that way. They usually find other useful or > valuable things along their travels. If they really want a vehicle, they > plan an ambush in an area that has patrols or troop movements and they try > and steal it. Hasn't worked yet, but they keep trying 8-). > > My players have a real good record of using horses, which are probably a > little better to have anyway. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 23:51:38 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Rules Question At 05:55 PM 6/12/98 -0700, Jeremy Menefee wrote: >Too bad intelligence rarely has anything to do with common sense... > Common sense is what NCO's are paid to do. Officers are expected to do stuff that will surprise the enemy....That's why they train them in different ways. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:49:23 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Rules Question Scott David Orr wrote: > At 05:55 PM 6/12/98 -0700, Jeremy Menefee wrote: > >Too bad intelligence rarely has anything to do with common sense... > > > Common sense is what NCO's are paid to do. Well, we agree on something... > Officers are expected to do > stuff that will surprise the enemy....That's why they train them in > different ways. Too bad they rarely do their job, then... never trust anyone with less than Colonel's marks (officers, that is!), they are still prone to getting their troops slaughtered for no reason. And never trust an officer Colonel or above, either - they are prone to getting troops slaughtered for politics! Now, Orr, that's sarcasm... - -Jeremy M Semper Fidelis > Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 06:18:23 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Rules Question Excellent summation. Wish I'd done it... ;-) - -Jeremy M. Semper Fidelis Scott David Orr wrote: > At 05:26 PM 6/11/98 -0400, Who me? wrote: > > >My argument for the attribute scores is, if such high scores were needed to > >enter OCS (education and intelligence both 7+), why wouldn't the character > just > >enter Military Academy instead of starting off with enlisted rank (and > pay). I > >believe that the intention of OCS was to find and utilize talented personnel > >from the ranks already serving who for one reason or the other didn't qualify > >for entrance into the Military Academy, and therefore should only need 7 or > >better in total education and intelligence scores. > > > I think you've got it completely backward. In the U.S. at least, getting > into college isn't all that difficult--by far the majority of the > population goes to college SOME--and getting into an ROTC program not that > much harder (especially getting in without being on scholarship--some > people do that). > > By contrast, only the smartest and most educable enlisted people are > selected for OCS--yes, these are people who could have gone to college, but > in the U.S., while most of the population gets some college eventually, > poor people can't afford to go without scholarships, and they can't always > get those. In the U.S., people often enlist in the military with the idea > of saving up money to go to college, and in fact we have programs for > exactly that, to help pay veterans' way through college--it's a big > recruiting point. Also, a lot of people feel they're not yet mature enough > for college and that a few years in the military will help teach them > discipline (not coincidentally, these are often the same people who, while > bright, may not have the high school records to get a scholarship to college). > > Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:29:06 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Rules Question Thanks, does help! - -JM Tom Floyd wrote: > Actually Jeremy, I think we're talking about 2 separate programs. The one that I meant > is for more senior NCOs and you only go to school for about 18 months. The program you > mean has a name, but for the life of me, I can't remember what it is! Also,in my > program, the only school you go to is a military school (in the case of AOCS (Aviation > Officer Canidate School), it's in Pensacola, Fla. > > Jeremy Menefee wrote: > > > Hmmm... are you sure? I had presumed that the Navy and USMC operated similarly, and > > I may be mistaken. However, in my case, my CO had already gotten an OCS slot > > available for me... the procedure was something like this; > > > > #1 - Serve two years > > > > #2 - go to college for 4 yrs, paid for by the USMC while being paid my rate > > > > #3 - upon receiving degree, go to Ociffer Skool :) > > > > #4 - Six to seven years in, become an idiot butter-bars. > > > > Obviously, they want you to go career if you do this. I might possibly be thinking > > of some other procedure however, and if so, please help me pull my head out and set > > me straight. :) > > > > -Jeremy M. > > Semper Fidelis > > > > Tom Floyd wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately, no , most do not come out of boot camp. In fact, you must be at > > > least an E-6 and br recommended for E-7 to be considered for OCS (at least in > > > the Navy). > > > > > > Scott David Orr wrote: > > > > > > > At 07:09 AM 6/11/98 -0700, Jeremy Menefee wrote: > > > > > > > > > >bell029@ibm.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Are you referring to situations during wartime, such as NCO's receiving > > > > >>commissions to occupy vacnacies at the platoon and company level? Such > > > > >>practices wre QUite common in WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Audie Murphy is > > > > >>one case in point. > > > > > > > > > >Yes and no. That is a field promotion. There have been *rare* cases where > > > > >enlisted personnel are sent to OCS during peacetime. > > > > > > > > It's certainly an honor, but I don't think it's "rare", and there are > > > > regular procedures for doing it, usually in the case of young individuals > > > > just starting their careers--indeed, turning enlisted personnel into > > > > officers is probably the main purpose of having OCS (though I suppose what > > > > you're referring to is that most of the people in OCS will come straight > > > > out of boot camp?). > > > > > > > > Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:23:22 PDT From: "Kenth Eriksson" Subject: Re: Rules Question Who me? wrote: >>The rules state that a character with intelligence and education of 7+ MAY >>enter OCS. >> >>So, I believe that even if a character had the prerequisites (which I still >>question), the choice to become an officer is ultimately the character's own >>(or rather the player that is creating the character, hehe). >> >>By looking at the description for Graduate University Education Career, >>entry required is: Undergraduate degree, Education 7+, Intelligence 7+. Now >>if this career is worded this way, it is demanding of strict adherence to >>these conditions. >>The section for entry into OCS states only that characters with Intelligence >>and Education of 7+ may enter. >>Look to the entry for Government Agent (Civilian Career) and examine its >>wording. Its comparable to that of the Graduate Career, right? >>So, in my opinion, entry into OCS is based on a combined score of 7+ and not >>on 7+ needed for both needed attributes. Make Sense? >> Scott Orr wrote: >No. You're relying far too much on consistent wording and proofreading on >the part of GDW. Given GDW's track record in that area, that's not a very >wise thing to do. > >From the standpoint of realism, as several people have pointed you have to >be a very bright soldier to get into OCS. If we assume that a score of 5-6 >is about average, obviously someone wtih a 3 or 4 is NOT a very bright >soldier. Moreover, if we assume that the 1-10 scale is something like a >percentile ranking (that is, someone with a 1 is in the lower 10% of the >population, a 2 is the 11-20% range, and so on), which I don't think is an >unreasonable assumption, then the "combined 7+" _really_ doens't work, >because the U.S. military immediately rejects anyone with an IQ in the >lower 30% of the population--they don't like dumb soldiers. Besides...IMO it's already too easy to become an officer if you're supposed to both attributes at 7+. What does the relism say about a group of characters outside Kalisz, where there are; 3 Captains, 2 Majors and 2 Lieutenant Colonels, this sound very odd to me. Are the officers really that much better soldiers than the grunts. Because they never seem to survive. See what I'm driving at??? I've actually made it a bit harder to become promoted in time of peace. I usually let the players roll 1d20 under their Intelligence score. This is to me more realistic. Besides...I think there would be a whole lot of other issues to fuss about if there where tha many officers in a group. Kenth ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 10:03:16 +1200 From: "NaT" Subject: Heavy Weapons Skills Iam uncomfortable with having Heavy Artillery and Grenade Launcher etc as different and I am tempted to change this so they all fall under the origional Heavy Weapons, but as subskills, much like Small Arms. Where abouts would Autogun fit into such a scheme, as Small Arms Or HW or both? NaT percival@ihug.co.nz Nathaniel Bacchus http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~percival ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 05:21:38 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Heavy Weapons Skills I'd be interested in knowing how many of us play with the "separate skills" rule - I personally do, as I find using the M203 to be a lot different than, say, a mortar. Both are indirect fire weapons, yet have very little in common as far as what's required to use them. However, I could see how an intimate knowledge of the principles behind IF could be of use with other IF weapons. What's the concensus? Now, just for fun, how would that apply to the 'beaten zone' with small arms? :) (just to drive ya nuts!) - -Jeremy M Semper Fidelis NaT wrote: > Iam uncomfortable with having Heavy Artillery and Grenade Launcher etc as > different and I am tempted to change this so they all fall under the > origional Heavy Weapons, but as subskills, much like Small Arms. > Where abouts would Autogun fit into such a scheme, as Small Arms Or HW or > both? > NaT > percival@ihug.co.nz > Nathaniel Bacchus > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~percival ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:03:12 +0300 From: "Jyrki Paajanen" Subject: Vs: Finns >Finns, where are the Finns? > >are you Finnish guys still on the list? I'm lurking here. Job and real life takes too much time. Jyrki Paajanen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:49:42 EDT From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Heavy Weapons Skills In a message dated 98-06-14 08:32:06 EDT, you write: << I'd be interested in knowing how many of us play with the "separate skills" rule - I personally do, as I find using the M203 to be a lot different than, say, a mortar. Both are indirect fire weapons, yet have very little in common as far as what's required to use them. However, I could see how an intimate knowledge of the principles behind IF could be of use with other IF weapons. What's the concensus? Now, just for fun, how would that apply to the 'beaten zone' with small arms? :) (just to drive ya nuts!) -Jeremy M Semper Fidelis >> I use the skills seperately. I've got a friend that was in Artillery, and he claims that while they are similar, there is a big difference between them. The Heavy Artillery skill also goes into the aspect of powder charges (for the 155mm) and fuse delays. Or at least that's what I would imagine. And as far as your "beaten zone", I think any grunt with an in depth knowledge of his weapon would soon be able to "range it in", but I doubt the typical grunt could fire Heavy Artillery. Overall, I think there is enough difference between mortars and the Heavies to make it a different skill. Yes, they are similar, but not the same. That's why they should fall under the same attribute, but not same skill. (At least I HOPE they fall under the same attribute...don't have my book handy...) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:57:11 EDT From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: Vs: Finns here's something for you Finns what are the names of the ranks in the Finnish Army? They don't have the Finnish name for private, sergeant, lieutenant, etc in the Twilight 2000 rulebook. thanks orrin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:07:29 EDT From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Poland In a message dated 98-06-11 12:16:02 EDT, you write: << I'm from Poland and I wonder how much you know about my country which is TW2K main theatre /at least in the rulebook/. I'm talking about town maps, geography more detailed than in usual geography atlas and similar things. I'm just curious... >> Next to nothing. And there isn't a whole lot of visual aid out there on the internet. Or maybe I am looking in the wrong places. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:07:33 EDT From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Cash on start In a message dated 98-06-12 06:40:58 EDT, you write: << Hi! Maybe it's old subject but... how much cash your players get on start? The numbers in the rulebook are too high IMO. Marcin >> Actually you don't get any "cash" to start play with. In Twilight, anyway. You do recieve an equipment allowance, which gives you access to a certain amount of gear that your particular character may have been exposed to and retained. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:07:33 EDT From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Heavy Weapons Skills In a message dated 98-06-13 23:06:17 EDT, you write: << Where abouts would Autogun fit into such a scheme, as Small Arms Or HW or both? >> Or Indirect Fire? or Large Caliber Gun? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:51:05 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Cash on start At 11:07 PM 6/14/98 EDT, KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 98-06-12 06:40:58 EDT, you write: > >Actually you don't get any "cash" to start play with. In Twilight, anyway. >You do recieve an equipment allowance, which gives you access to a certain >amount of gear that your particular character may have been exposed to and >retained. > Unless they changed it in the 2nd edition rules, you can also take part of your starting allowance as gold coins. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:26:09 PDT From: "Kenth Eriksson" Subject: Re: Vs: Finns Orrin Ladd wrote: >here's something for you Finns > >what are the names of the ranks in the Finnish Army? They don't have the >Finnish name for private, sergeant, lieutenant, etc in the Twilight 2000 >rulebook. They don't have the Swedish equivalents either. But that's to be expected. You guys are always forgeting about poor little Sweden. *sob* No seriously. I could post them to if there's interest. Is there? Kenth ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:29:54 PDT From: "Kenth Eriksson" Subject: Re: Cash on start KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: >>Actually you don't get any "cash" to start play with. In Twilight, anyway. >>You do recieve an equipment allowance, which gives you access to a certain >>amount of gear that your particular character may have been exposed to and >>retained. >> Scott Orr wrote: >Unless they changed it in the 2nd edition rules, you can also take part of >your starting allowance as gold coins. Yees you can, unless I'm mistaken you can turn 10% of your equipment allowance into gold coins. Kenth ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 03:43:20 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Vs: Finns At 11:26 PM 6/14/98 PDT, Kenth Eriksson wrote: >Orrin Ladd wrote: >>here's something for you Finns >> >>what are the names of the ranks in the Finnish Army? They don't have >the >>Finnish name for private, sergeant, lieutenant, etc in the Twilight >2000 >>rulebook. > >They don't have the Swedish equivalents either. But that's to be >expected. You guys are always forgeting about poor little Sweden. *sob* > >No seriously. I could post them to if there's interest. > >Is there? > Sure. :) Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:44:43 +0100 From: qWsb@vill.stud.pmmfk.jpte.hu Subject: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.40 (NDS) unsubsribe twilight2000 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 05:55:42 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Heavy Weapons Skills Jeeze, Grimey, you need to get a sense of humor :) For those literal-minded of you out there, it really doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of your weapon... just lots of ammo and a dusty field, 'cause that's the most accurate you are likely to ever get it. Not particularly useful most of the time. Also, one generally does not use the beaten zone as an attack method with small arms, as at that range cover is usually available. It is, however, something troops need to keep in mind, especially in flanking maneuvers; it can be a nasty bite in the behind or a 'perk' depending on if you take it into account or not. - -Jeremy M. Semper Fidelis Grimace997@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 98-06-14 08:32:06 EDT, you write: > > << > > Now, just for fun, how would that apply to the 'beaten zone' with small > arms? :) > (just to drive ya nuts!) > > -Jeremy M > Semper Fidelis > > >> > > > And as far as your "beaten zone", I think any grunt with an in depth knowledge > of his weapon would soon be able to "range it in", but I doubt the typical > grunt could fire Heavy Artillery. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 16:42:40 +0300 From: "Jyrki Paajanen" Subject: Vs: Vs: Finns >what are the names of the ranks in the Finnish Army? They don't have the >Finnish name for private, sergeant, lieutenant, etc in the Twilight 2000 >rulebook. > >thanks >orrin Privates: Tykkimies (artillery), jääkäri (infantry), pioneeri (engineer), viestimies (communications), lääkintämies (medic), panssarijääkäri (armor), lentosotamies (aviation), sissi (ranger) Korpraali NCOs: Alikersantti Kersantti Ylikersantti Vääpeli Ylivääpeli Sotilasmestari Officers: Vänrikki Luutnantti Yliluutnantti Kapteeni Majuri Everstiluutnantti Eversti Kenraalimajuri Kenraaliluutnantti Kenraali Marsalkka Jyrki Paajanen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:03:09 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: not again qWsb@vill.stud.pmmfk.jpte.hu wrote: > unsubsribe twilight2000 - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 05:57:00 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Cash on start Ya can keep 10% as gold, tho... gotta carry it however! ;-) - -Jeremy M. KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 98-06-12 06:40:58 EDT, you write: > > << Hi! > > Maybe it's old subject but... > how much cash your players get on start? The numbers in the rulebook are > too high IMO. > > Marcin >> > > Actually you don't get any "cash" to start play with. In Twilight, anyway. > You do recieve an equipment allowance, which gives you access to a certain > amount of gear that your particular character may have been exposed to and > retained. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:12:11 +1200 From: "NaT" Subject: Re: Cash on start What do 1000 twilight 2000 gold dollars weigh? NaT percival@ihug.co.nz Nathaniel Bacchus http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~percival - -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Menefee To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Tuesday, 16 June 1998 10:38 Subject: Re: Cash on start >Ya can keep 10% as gold, tho... gotta carry it however! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:40:41 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Cash on start 1000 ounces? NaT wrote: > What do 1000 twilight 2000 gold dollars weigh? > NaT > percival@ihug.co.nz > Nathaniel Bacchus > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~percival > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Menefee > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Date: Tuesday, 16 June 1998 10:38 > Subject: Re: Cash on start > > >Ya can keep 10% as gold, tho... gotta carry it however! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:55:10 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Cash on start http://www.kitconet.com/gold.live.html has current and past gold prices. NaT wrote: > What do 1000 twilight 2000 gold dollars weigh? > NaT > percival@ihug.co.nz > Nathaniel Bacchus > http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~percival > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Menefee > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Date: Tuesday, 16 June 1998 10:38 > Subject: Re: Cash on start > > >Ya can keep 10% as gold, tho... gotta carry it however! ;-) - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:24:04 EDT From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Cash on start In a message dated 98-06-15 20:04:58 EDT, you write: << What do 1000 twilight 2000 gold dollars weigh? >> all the references I've seen point to a $20 us gold coin. and I am no expert on those coins, so 50 coins would probably equal, I dunno 10 kg? any metalurgists out there? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:24:00 EDT From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Cash on start In a message dated 98-06-15 08:57:14 EDT, you write: << Unless they changed it in the 2nd edition rules, you can also take part of your starting allowance as gold coins. >> right, at a conversion rate of 10% So............my 10 term General only started with $10,000 worth of gold coins. and I blew it buying a Hummer off a Spec4 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:22:08 +0200 From: Marcin Segit Subject: Re: Cash on start HI all! > > Actually you don't get any "cash" to start play with. In Twilight, anyway. > > You do recieve an equipment allowance, which gives you access to a certain > > amount of gear that your particular character may have been exposed to and > > retained. Thanks for all answers. But I see I've given a wrong question. I should ask how much money you gave players to get eguipment on start. My foult. Some of you understood what I meant . Thanks! Marcin - -- May the Force be with You - Luke Skywalker http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dungeon/3787/ Under Constructio...Under Construstion...Under Construction... Marcin Segit ICQ# 13274376 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 01:36:49 -0400 From: Hill S SSgt 93CSS/SCW Subject: 2000 unsubscribe twilight2000 Download Attachment: winmail.dat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:35:03 PDT From: "Kenth Eriksson" Subject: Re: Cash on start Jeremy wrote: >Ya can keep 10% as gold, tho... gotta carry it however! ;-) Ahh! Now you see the meaning of the vehicles list. It's not for the characters themselfes, not for thier equipment. It's there so they can carry their gold. ;-) Kenth ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 04:29:10 EDT From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Cash on start In a message dated 98-06-15 20:04:58 EDT, you write: << What do 1000 twilight 2000 gold dollars weigh? NaT >> I've always gone on the premise that 1 kg is equal to $1000. It's easiest to figure this way, as you don't need to know the exchange rates for each country. Therefore, $100 is .1kg $500 is .5kg $2345 is 2.345kg and so forth. Easy enough. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Curran Subject: Greetings Greetings and Salutations everyone. I have been lurking for a while and I thought that I should introduced myself. I am Michael Curran of Massachusetts USA. I would play Twilight 2000 a lot if anyone in my area played it, or if anyone in my area sold the Rulebook! Fortunately I will soon be undergoing a change in location and I should be able to get some games started. I also play GURPS and AD&D. While I am not in the armed forces, or have any plans of joining in the near future, my father was in the US Army so I have heard stories about every thing that could ever possibly happen in it. - -S. B. Burzmali (bet no one recognizes this name!) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:57:47 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Cash on start At 04:29 AM 6/16/98 EDT, Grimace997@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 98-06-15 20:04:58 EDT, you write: > ><< > What do 1000 twilight 2000 gold dollars weigh? > NaT >> > >I've always gone on the premise that 1 kg is equal to $1000. It's easiest to >figure this way, as you don't need to know the exchange rates for each >country. > >Therefore, $100 is .1kg >$500 is .5kg >$2345 is 2.345kg >and so forth. > >Easy enough. > Right now, gold is worth a few hundred dollars per troy ounce (a troy ounce isn't hte same size as a regular ounce, but you get the general idea). If all the paper money in the world were to disappear, as happens in TW2000, and all the gold mines in the world stopped functioning (which is exactly what would happen given the way gold is mined today, crunching up tons of rock and dirt to get a little bit of gold), gold would be worth a LOT more than it is now, because now it's essentially just a trinket. (Of course, keep in mind that a TW2000 economy wouldn't need _nearly_ as much money as a modern economy, and with all those people dying a lot of gold jewelry is going to be available, but still, the important point is that gold would be used as money, which isn't happening in the real modern world.) It might not be as valuable as it was in the Middle Ages, but I'm sure that $1,000 of it would be no more than a few coins at most; indeed, for the most part you'd probably carry silver rather than gold. In effect, you can treat cash in TW2000 as weightless. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:37:57 +1200 From: "NaT" Subject: Re: Cash on start You argument makes a lot of sense. Thanks NaT percival@ihug.co.nz Nathaniel Bacchus http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~percival In effect, you can treat cash in TW2000 as weightless. > >Scott Orr > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 05:42:43 -0700 From: Jeremy Menefee Subject: Re: Cash on start Interesting. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what an ounce of gold was worth in the goldrush areas (during the goldrush, of course:)? - -Jeremy M Semper Fidelis Scott David Orr wrote: > Right now, gold is worth a few hundred dollars per troy ounce (a troy ounce > isn't hte same size as a regular ounce, but you get the general idea). If > all the paper money in the world were to disappear, as happens in TW2000, > and all the gold mines in the world stopped functioning (which is exactly > what would happen given the way gold is mined today, crunching up tons of > rock and dirt to get a little bit of gold), gold would be worth a LOT more > than it is now, because now it's essentially just a trinket. (Of course, > keep in mind that a TW2000 economy wouldn't need _nearly_ as much money as > a modern economy, and with all those people dying a lot of gold jewelry is > going to be available, but still, the important point is that gold would be > used as money, which isn't happening in the real modern world.) > > It might not be as valuable as it was in the Middle Ages, but I'm sure that > $1,000 of it would be no more than a few coins at most; indeed, for the > most part you'd probably carry silver rather than gold. In effect, you can > treat cash in TW2000 as weightless. > > Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 17:38:42 +0200 From: "Ronald Aas" Subject: Re: Cash on start I have never given my players more than 10-20% of what the rules say. This stops them from becoming walking depots (buying everything they could possibly need). It also stops new players from resupplying the group. My players are quite happy with this, as it gives the rigth feel for playing in t2k (you know, 2 mags pr weapon, singel handgrenade, 2 radios for the team, and a support weapon with little ammo). If someone want to exchange some of this money for gold i allow 10% to be changed. Ronald ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:47:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Curran Subject: Re: Cash on start - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > > Right now, gold is worth a few hundred dollars per troy ounce (a troy ounce > isn't the same size as a regular ounce, but you get the general idea). If > all the paper money in the world were to disappear, as happens in TW2000, > and all the gold mines in the world stopped functioning (which is exactly > what would happen given the way gold is mined today, crunching up tons of > rock and dirt to get a little bit of gold), gold would be worth a LOT more > than it is now, because now it's essentially just a trinket. (Of course, > keep in mind that a TW2000 economy wouldn't need _nearly_ as much money as > a modern economy, and with all those people dying a lot of gold jewelry is > going to be available, but still, the important point is that gold would be > used as money, which isn't happening in the real modern world.) > > It might not be as valuable as it was in the Middle Ages, but I'm sure that > $1,000 of it would be no more than a few coins at most; indeed, for the > most part you'd probably carry silver rather than gold. In effect, you can > treat cash in TW2000 as weightless. > > Scott Orr > While this this is true, you must also consider what happened due to the Twilight War. Billions of people have died this means that all the gold in the world now belongs to a smaller group of people, driving the value of gold down. I also doubt that the gold would be in coin form. What country still possesses the ability to mint coins, and is willing to devote resources to it? None, therefore gold would probably be in bar or nugget form. Just my thoughts. - -S. B. Burzmali _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #28 ************************************