twilight2000-digest Monday, November 2 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 048 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: German AR Re: Twilight 2k setting problems Re: German AR Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Re: German AR Vs: German AR Re: German AR Re: My web page Re: Vs: German AR PBM Re: Vs: German AR Re: Vs: German AR Questions about character generation and US military careers Re: Questions about character generation and US military careers Re: Questions about character generation and US military careers Re: Questions about character generation and US military career Radio's & Small Arms Re: Questions about character generation and US military career ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:14:56 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: German AR Peter Vieth wrote: > > Reading the beginning of this brings up a gripe I have always had about small > arms in t2k: there is no rating for how reliable they are. Anyone who has > Infantry Weapons of the World, take a look. Most of the weapons are the same or > very similar. Besides name, the picture, and the ammunition used there is very > little distinction. You end up with an AK-47 and an m-16 being almost the same. > However, the AK is more reliable than the m-16. Here and there I have seen > information on how often different weapons jam, but nothing good enough to > implement throughout the game. There is such a system for vehicles-- why not > small arms? Because small arms assumes that you can stop everynow and then and swab the thing out thouroughly...that's one of the big differences between a rifle and a truck. Well carefull here, today-with all the design changes the M-16 has gone through it's gotten over those problems circulated widely in the mid-60's. And if a weapon should jam, those only a handfull of ways to clear them...but in combat it be easier to draw your sidearm than try to unjam your weapon. I T.R. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:52:28 -0500 From: Hound Subject: Re: Twilight 2k setting problems >That has happened to one family in Canada after the ice storms last winter We too were without power during the IceStorm for 21 days (we live in Eastern Ontario - Vankleek Hill - the epicenter of the storm - almost all the news progs showed our small town trying to cope). A local company brought in 40 generators for sale, and the military immediately took 20 of them. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:59:48 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: German AR > From: Rogue09 > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Re: German AR > Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 1:14 PM > > Because small arms assumes that you can stop everynow and then and swab > the thing out thouroughly...that's one of the big differences between a > rifle and a truck. Well carefull here, today-with all the design > changes the M-16 has gone through it's gotten over those problems > circulated widely in the mid-60's. And if a weapon should jam, those > only a handfull of ways to clear them...but in combat it be easier to > draw your sidearm than try to unjam your weapon. I > > T.R. I think too that something like that would gum up the game a bit because that would be something more to keep track of. Well, if you want jamming rules, then if the PC's don't clean out their weapons and/or if they are in a cruddy environment, then you could have them roll a certain percentage for jamming, especially if they are on the ground, keeping low in the muck. Another good way is when a player rolls a catastrophic failure, jamming could be an option to use to illustrate that. Chuck DE KA3WRW *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:10:00 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems > From: Rogue09 > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems > Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 1:07 PM > > I don't think they give exact measurements, but then you don't > nesecarrily need to know exact levels depending on what your using them > for. There's a thing called a Rotegen meter, the one I have is a crude > eye telescope that measure on a bar scale the ammount of "rads" per se > out there... As for the animals, if it was really high levels they'd be > dead...true enough...but I don't think most people would want to eat > meat (etc) that had some background count in it...not unless they had > too. I've also heard them called "Dosimeters." I think you have a base unit where you have to charge them up every so often. I have an old U.S. Army "radiac" geiger counter from the 1950's that I like to get working again. I also have a book called "Electronics Reference Data," first printing, July 1957 from SAM's Photofacts that has about 7 geiger counter circuits from the very basic to the more complex. Hmmm, it also explains how computers work too. B-) Digressing, they all use vacuum tubes though so you do need some heavy duty batteries that are in the 22v, 45v, 67.5v, etc range. One of them takes a 300 volt battery. Chuck DE KA3WRW *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:09:43 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) > From: "Randy, Rico & Monifa" > To: > Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Hello all, > > You cant really compare the "Gulf Camping Trip" (no disrespect to those that > were there) to a war with a highly motivated well trained and equiped > military force. The bulk of the Iraqui army had third rate Soviet equipment > that was no match for the rest of the worlds forces. Also, it was one > country against the world, a minor disadvantage here. The T2K war idea is > roughly half the world against the other half with roughly equivelant > military forces. Unfortunately, it's the only recent example we have, and even if the inferiority of the opposing forces made it seem like a dangerous exercise, It is the only way we can see how a modern mechanised army fights. Obviously, the Iraqi's bit off a little more than they could chew, but I think the Gulf is extremely valuable as a source of information on the reality of modern mechanised warfare. Coincidentally, one of the fundamental factors of the "studies" on WWIII do not apply to the Iraqi situation where the allied troops had time for a build up and to bring their training and equipment up to standard. Generally it is assumed that NATO, would not attack, and that an attack by the Russians would be immediate so that they have the advantage of an overweight of numbers and a more war-targetetted industry than NATO does. In the case of a period of preceding escallating tension, NATO would bgin to build like maniacs, and that is one thing the Gulf did show us, that it is possible to modernise very, very quickly if you have to, for instance see all those M1's which were up-gunned to M1A1 standard in the preceding months. I agree that you can't compare Iraq to the Soviet Union, but it is very valuable as an indication as to how a mechanised war is fought. > You have probably never seen the Tank Arsenel in Detroit, Michigan... its > HUGE!!! I'm sure it is, and even assuming that it were missed in the nuclear exchange or assuming that we're talking about a tactical nuclear conflict only, it's probably nothing compared to the comparable Russian facilities, like the one at Nizhni Tagil, and so on. Fact is US armour production is about 350 units/year and the Soviet Union tops 2000 units/year. The Soviet Union does not beat the US in Industry, but in sheer heavy industry production, especially the military branch, that's a different matter. > Vietnam lasted 15 years (officialy 1960-1975) Yes, and it was won by mechanised, conventional war, in the last couple of years of warfare. Everything upto the departure of US forces can be considered a political battle, finding ways to get the US government to leave Vietnam. That's where the North's great victory was. With this achieved, they started a conventional war to take South Vietnam. This, however was accomplished with lightning speed when compared to the leisurely pace they'd been busy fighting foreigners for a good 2000 years. The point stands. Mechanised war is fast. . > Here I agree entirely, though I somewhat modified the nuke exchange to a > strictly limited battlefield delivered version (low yeild artillery only). > It was the only way I could feal cumfortable with the playability of this > scenario > That's rather interesting. It's sort of the same as what I've done seeing as I could not conceive of a situation where the world was run by such total idiots that they would be ready to destroy it to satisfy their political differences. Well, that's it for now. EJ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:21:51 -0800 From: Chris Callahan Subject: Re: German AR Greetings All: > Reading the beginning of this brings up a gripe I have always had about small > arms in t2k: there is no rating for how reliable they are. If you can find them, you may want to pick up either Phoenix Command (a combat resolution system from LEG, another defunct company) or the Top Secret/SI "Commando" supplement. The Phoenix Command weapon listings include ratings in the following categories for each firearm: RELIABILITY CLASS (RC) AND BURST RELIABILITY CLASS (BRC) The RC and BRC give the chance of weapon malfunction in tenths of percent for each single shot fired (RC) or half-second burst of automatic fire (BRC)... <...snip...> CLEAR JAM TIME (CJT) AND % CLEAR JAM (%CJ) The CJT gives the time...required to attempt to fix a weapon which has malfunctioned. After every CJT spent attempting to fix the weapon, the player has a % Clear Jam (%CJ) chance of fixing the weapon. The Top Secret/SI Commando supplement introduces the concept of "friction". The referee secretly rolls a specified number of dice to determine how many "friction points" are accumulated throughout a mission. A chart prescribes the number/type of dice to be rolled for various events/conditions such as "Change of plan -> roll 1d8", "Improper gun maintenance -> accumulate 2 points per day", having a "Complex plan -> roll 3d6", having "poor intelligence", going forth with an unusually large team, etc. Once a certain number of friction points are accumulated, Murphy kicks in (defective fuse on a demo charge, adverse weather sets in, random piece of vital equipment fails, etc.). It is slightly reminiscent of the 'outstanding success/catastrophic failure' rule from T2k v1.0, though obviously more quantitative (and accounting-intensive) in nature. In any event, certain weapons bring with them a number of friction points, e.g. "...since it is still in pre-production stage, it has a Friction Point rating of 8". Hope this helps, - -C - -- #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# Chris Callahan: hector@gamepla.net Arclight: http://www.gamepla.net/arclight/ #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." --Robert Maynard Hutchins *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:09:47 +0200 From: "Peter Himberg" Subject: Vs: German AR - -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Peter Vieth Vastaanottaja: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Päivä: 30. lokakuuta 1998 8:19 Aihe: Re: German AR >Reading the beginning of this brings up a gripe I have always had about small >arms in t2k: there is no rating for how reliable they are. Anyone who has >Infantry Weapons of the World, take a look. Most of the weapons are the same or >very similar. Besides name, the picture, and the ammunition used there is very >little distinction. You end up with an AK-47 and an m-16 being almost the same. >However, the AK is more reliable than the m-16. Here and there I have seen >information on how often different weapons jam, but nothing good enough to >implement throughout the game. There is such a system for vehicles-- why not >small arms? I have think is one too. And off course, I have been make a rule about it (I constantly make new rules...). First, roll a dice as normal and if you get result 20, then make a task-roll Small Arms:Difficult. If the shooter fail, then the gun is jammed and must be fixed (one turn). This is little nonrealistic rule because it is possible that other guns are more jamming that others. Maybe I must give separely "Gun jamming number"(1-20) for any gun in TW:2000 and then roll against it, forgiving that skill-roll. (Ex. AK-47 has "Gun jamming number" 6, which says that it its reliable gun, but some other gun like that French MG AAT-52 could get a number 15) Comments? Pietu Helsinki, Finland *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:44:31 -0800 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: German AR Rogue09 wrote: > > Let's see if I recall this correctly, the G50 monicker is used for > weapons sold outside of Germany, The HK 50 is the project model number but the G36 is the official military designation > and the G36 is used as the official > German designation...same weapons though...They have a Carbine model, The G36K although muzzle flash must take the shooter's eyebrows off. > standard Assault Rifle model, and a SAW...the things can take Beta > C-Mag's (100 rounds) but not the standard US 30 round magazine... Note to the Heer buy the M249- a fire team/squad weapon should be a real machinegun- i.e. belt fed, quick change barrel, and a bipod with lateral movement. Again the proprietary mags don't fit with STANAG 4179. There's debate about the decision of adopting M16 mags but with regards to .223 weapons the M16 came first and all other 5.56mm weapons want to emulate it or try to surpass it. Grunts can get sloppy and toss away mags in a firefight and its always nice to grab new ones when you get a case of ammo or two (although it's still a major thumb busting chore to put rounds into stripper clips and taking these clips and loading thirty round mags). > Well in a strict Twilight scenario it gets worse...this came out in the > fall of 97...in small batches. Big time production is still on-going. > So in Twilgiht you would only have a handfull of these weapons > available, and talk about being rare! While I like the "playability" of the 2nd ed I prefer the 1st Ed background for the most part. If the Cold war would have continued as envisioned NATO armies would have quickly jumped on the banmdwagon for 5.556mm weapons to replace their G3s and FALs in addition the US could have twisted arms and have the Germans abandon the G11 project (or put it on the backburner for the ACR project) and go with a gas operated .223 assault rifle. In the end countries within NATO would have a handful of 5.56mm rifles to choose from- the FNC, M16A2/C7, the AUG, and the G36... 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 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; Good Soldier Schweik, Jaroslav Hasek *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 01:19:16 +1100 From: Damian Robinson Subject: Re: My web page I've managed to figure out how to get the geoguides in the page. It was a problem before cause I use Nutscape Composer. Notepag works just as well when you know what to put down! there is a bit more stuff there as well. thanks all. Roger Stenning wrote: > At 12:11 27/10/98 +1100, you wrote: > >Greetings all, from a lurker. > >FYI: > >I now have a T2K webpage up and running. > > > >If you care to take a look its at > >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/4808/ > > Primary comments: > > Fer cryin' out loud, impement the geoguide across the ENTIRE site, would > you? Those pop-up's are a pain in the butt (check out my geocities site - > all pages - indluding the index page - have the geoguide present)! > > >Its got a few new vehicles and a bit of info on australia > > So far, so good. Just a thought, though - how about sticking the Geocities > counter on the welcome page - it'll give you an idea of the traffic levels. > > Good luck! > > _____________________________________________________________ > Cheers, > > Roger ICQ UIN: 7742586 > (Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW; Ex-Corporal, Royal Military > Police, British Territorial Army) > MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It ALWAYS goes wrong. > ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! > > Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ > INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: > http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html > _____________________________________________________________ > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:51:59 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Vs: German AR Peter Himberg wrote: > Aihe: Re: German AR > > I have think is one too. And off course, I have been make a rule about it (I constantly make new rules...). First, roll a dice as normal and if you get result 20, then make a task-roll Small Arms:Difficult. If the shooter fail, then the gun is jammed and must be fixed (one turn). This is little nonrealistic rule because it is possible that other guns are more jamming that others. Maybe I must give separely "Gun jamming number"(1-20) for any gun in TW:2000 and then roll against it, forgiving that skill-roll. (Ex. AK-47 has "Gun jamming number" 6, which says that it its reliable gun, but some other gun like that French MG AAT-52 could get a number 15) > > Comments? > > Pietu > Helsinki, > Finland Yes, I was thinking something along those lines would work. You would have to use the 1st edition dice system. Perhaps weapons could have that reliability rating-- the lower the number the better. If it was 5 then if you roll a 95 or above the gun jams. This system would make it easier than rolling once to hit, then again for a jam. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:33:28 EST From: SGustin231@aol.com Subject: PBM Hey everyone, does anyone know if there are any PBM games going on. Thx. Gustin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:35:46 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: Vs: German AR > > Yes, I was thinking something along those lines would work. You would have to use the 1st edition dice system. Perhaps weapons could have that reliability rating-- the lower the number the better. If it was 5 then if you roll a 95 or above the gun jams. This system would make it easier than rolling once to hit, then again for a jam. > Unfortunatly there's more than just than a reliablity number to take into account, if the weapons been drug through, mud, water, dirt, dust, etc you might have a greater chance of a jam if you don't stop to clean it or at least drain the barrel. And if the powder used in the bullet is below par (what happened with the M-16A1's in Nam) than your going to face a higher chance of jam, especially if you fail to clean out the weapon. Stoner 63A MG is a prime example of this, the SEAL's loved it...but the only to keep it from jamming on you was to clean it out after every mission... Until later T.R. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 16:07:23 -0600 From: "Randy, Rico & Monifa" Subject: Re: Vs: German AR >Unfortunatly there's more than just than a reliablity number to take >into account, if the weapons been drug through, mud, water, dirt, dust, >etc you might have a greater chance of a jam if you don't stop to clean >it or at least drain the barrel. And if the powder used in the bullet >is below par (what happened with the M-16A1's in Nam) than your going to >face a higher chance of jam, especially if you fail to clean out the >weapon. Stoner 63A MG is a prime example of this, the SEAL's loved >it...but the only to keep it from jamming on you was to clean it out >after every mission... > I assigned a maintenance number, much like that of the vehicles, a character spends X amount of time cleaning the weapon based uppon the maint#, though a jam is still possible. Unfortunately, most if not all of the maint#'s are purely based on my opinion as I have no real data on the respective weapon reliabilities :( Anyone else try this? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 16:46:16 +0100 From: Pedro Arnal Puente Subject: Questions about character generation and US military careers Hello everybody After a long time of using 1st edition character generation, we have changed to 2/2.2, and some questions have arisen about US Military Careers and other term options. * US Military How long are the normal service terms in the US Military? * Marine Corps Has the MC a equivalent of the National Military Academy (Army, Navy and Air Force)? Can a character do his national guard service in a MC career? * Undergraduate and Graduate School Has somebody tried to do 3 years undergraduate and 2 years graduate terms? Those lengths are the normal time for european universities (in spain they are, at least). 8 years seems too much for a university career. Many Thanks ...por la destruccion de todo lo que es. *Saludos Mercenarios. Pedro Arnal Puente*** *ICQ: 10335335 * Correo-e: parnal@lander.es* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:02:57 -0500 From: negril@mindspring.com (C. Webb) Subject: Re: Questions about character generation and US military careers >* US Military > >How long are the normal service terms in the US Military? Generally speaking four years, but it varies depending on branch of service, MOS. >Has the MC a equivalent of the National Military Academy (Army, Navy and >Air Force)? The Marine Corps gets its academy grads from Annapolis (Naval Academy). >Can a character do his national guard service in a MC career? The Corps does not have a National Gaurd element. The Marine Corps has a Reserve which one can enlist for directly or may be transferred to after having served active duty. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 23:16:15 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Questions about character generation and US military careers At 04:46 PM 11/1/98 +0100, Pedro Arnal Puente wrote: >* Undergraduate and Graduate School > >Has somebody tried to do 3 years undergraduate and 2 years graduate terms? > >Those lengths are the normal time for european universities (in spain they >are, at least). 8 years seems too much for a university career. > A "normal" undergraduate course is 4 years. However, many people take longer, for a wide variety of reasons: they may have trouble getting places in the classes they need (class choice is much more flexible in American universities), they may take a few quarters or semesters off to work and save money for further study, some take a special "cooperative education" program that lets them study and work for practical experience in alternate quarters or semesters, they may earn two undergraduate degrees instead of one, and so on. Also, many people drop out and then finish later, at the same school or another one. Note that the first year of U.S. undergraduate education is often considered equivalent to the last year of secondary school for someone with a baccaulereat or the equivalent in Europe; on the other hand, U.S. university education is generally considered to be much superior to the European equivalent. Graduate school can be many different lengths. Some master's degrees are little as 1 1/2 years (or even less, though most are 2 to 2 1/2 (a Master of Business Administration is 2, I think). A law degree (called a "Juris Doctor" but essentially a master's degree--you MUST get this degree to be a lawyer in the U.S.--most universities don't even have an undergraduate degree called "law") is 3 years. Most doctoral degrees take 4 to 6 years (sometimes they include a master's degree). There are a few other specialized degrees, like an Ed.S. (Education Specialist--something less than a master's degree). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:05:51 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Re: Questions about character generation and US military career I agree on on thing there is definitely aproblem as far as the university careers go, because it's really only designed for US universities. > At 04:46 PM 11/1/98 +0100, Pedro Arnal Puente wrote: > > >* Undergraduate and Graduate School > > > >Has somebody tried to do 3 years undergraduate and 2 years graduate terms? > > > >Those lengths are the normal time for european universities (in spain they > >are, at least). 8 years seems too much for a university career. * years is a bit much. I have changed all terms to three year lengths, because my average player age was unrealistically old. As a matter of fact, with three year terms, it still is, but it's better in any case. > A "normal" undergraduate course is 4 years. However, many people take > longer, for a wide variety of reasons: they may have trouble getting > places in the classes they need (class choice is much more flexible in > American universities), they may take a few quarters or semesters off to > work and save money for further study, some take a special "cooperative > education" program that lets them study and work for practical experience > in alternate quarters or semesters, they may earn two undergraduate degrees > instead of one, and so on. Also, many people drop out and then finish > later, at the same school or another one. The Dutch educational system is different from both the described Sanish and US ones. Essentially, the system starts at secondary school of which there are 3 basic levels. The lowest level, considered equivalent to a US high school diploma (without advanced placement and/or honors courses), does not allow entry into university or higher vocational school. This secondary school diploma in the Netherlands takes four years, meaning you tend to have it at 16 years of age. It is roughly comparable to english GCSE's but not quite. The middle level of secondary school takes five years (finished at 17) probably roughly equivalent to UK O-levels, and allows entry into higher vocational schools (in the US these would be universities which offer only undergraduate degrees), the dutch equivalent to the US bachelor's or undergraduate degree. The highest level of secondary schools (finshed at 18, comparable to UK a-levels allows entry into university, and the university gives you a Master's degree. There is no Bachelor's degree at dutch universities, the english system does have bachelor's degrees, bachelor honors degrees and a number of other confusing titles. > Note that the first year of U.S. undergraduate education is often > considered equivalent to the last year of secondary school for someone with > a baccaulereat or the equivalent in Europe; on the other hand, U.S. > university education is generally considered to be much superior to the > European equivalent. Sorry, not true. First of all, in any case in teh Netherlands, there is not such a wild variation in quality of universities, and ofcourse the universities all supply master's degrees (in a four year program) which are accepted as such by the US as well. I can not speak for the english university system in comparison to the US system but it is highly regarded in the Netherlands. I is also possible to get a Law degree in four years (at the university of Leiden, even in US law), which is accepted in the US. As a general rule I find dutch education to be extremely high in quality, but lacking the flexibility of organisation of the US system. We do have the added benefit of only having to pay tuition once a year to be able to follow any course at any university or higher school in the Netherlands, which greatly expands the possibilities, but presents some practical problems. > Graduate school can be many different lengths. Some master's degrees are > little as 1 1/2 years (or even less, though most are 2 to 2 1/2 (a Master > of Business Administration is 2, I think). A law degree (called a "Juris > Doctor" but essentially a master's degree--you MUST get this degree to be a > lawyer in the U.S.--most universities don't even have an undergraduate > degree called "law") is 3 years. Most doctoral degrees take 4 to 6 years > (sometimes they include a master's degree). There are a few other > specialized degrees, like an Ed.S. (Education Specialist--something less > than a master's degree). So, in the problem of careers, I guess it breaks down as follows. For a Dutch (or English) degree, it is possible to have a master's degree in four years or a single term. It is however neccesary to have a high level of secondary education, so there should probably be career of four years offering a master's degree in four years, with a very high education requirement for entry. (EDU8+ or something) Considering the term length thing however... it might also be an idea to state th term length for each individual term, seeing as each career type has so much specific information anyway, a bit more won't matter. Or perhaps a variable length for some terms? As a matter of fact I think I'm going to incorporate that right now. That's it for now EJ. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 05:15:26 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Radio's & Small Arms Hello all, Hi I was just paging through the twilight 2.2 manual and infantry weapons of the world, and it occured to me that there is an incredible lack of logic in the recoil and range figures. By what logic for instance, does an FN-MAG on tripod/vehicle mount have a range of 125, whereas a M134 Minigun (same caliber, no recoil at all) have a range of 90? The M231 (basically an M16 lacking much in the way of sights has a SS recoil of 1, whereas a M16A2 (better ergonomics, same weight, sights) has a SS recoiI of three. heard there were some people out there who have modified the small arms rules. I am curious what kind of changes you have implemented, and would be much obliged if you could mail me a copy of the rules changes you have made. As for Radio's, I'm no expert on the subject, but having spent more hours operating radios than I care to remember, It seems to me that it ought to be a little less simple than it is prsented in the 2.2 manual. There was also someone out there who had modified the radio rules, and I would also very much like to see their modifications of the rules, if possible. Thanks in advance, EJ (dragon@euronet.nl) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:38:31 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Questions about character generation and US military career At 05:05 AM 11/2/98 +0000, dragon@euronet.nl wrote: >The Dutch educational system is different from both the described >Sanish and US ones. Essentially, the system starts at secondary >school of which there are 3 basic levels. The lowest level, >considered equivalent to a US high school diploma (without advanced >placement and/or honors courses), does not allow entry into >university or higher vocational school. That would depend entirely on the high school course. In theory, most people receive a diploma that's supposed to prepare them for college, though often a given high school (depending on the school system) will offer "college prep[aration]", "general", and "vocational" degrees all at once. >This secondary school diploma >in the Netherlands takes four years, meaning you tend to have it at >16 years of age. It is roughly comparable to english GCSE's but not >quite. The middle level of secondary school takes five years >(finished at 17) probably roughly equivalent to UK O-levels, and >allows entry into higher vocational schools (in the US these would >be universities which offer only undergraduate degrees), the dutch >equivalent to the US bachelor's or undergraduate degree. I think there's a misunderstanding here. In the U.S., the quality or content of a post-secondary course is not related to whether or not the school offers graduate degrees. First, by definition, a "university" is a school that offers graduate degrees. A "college" is a school that offers only undergrduate degrees (or mostly undergraduate degrees, in a few cases). Colleges tend to be smaller than universities and offer a more narrow range of courses, almost always focusing on liberal arts or the more theoretical sciences, but are not considered better or worse institutions: there's a whole range of both types, and some of the best and most famous post-secondary institutions are colleges rather than universities. However, some "community colleges", colleges run by localities, are a lesser quality (and typically offer vocational and more practical courses than a liberal arts college would), though people often go to these collegs for two years, possibly earnning an associate's degree, and then transfer somewhere else. A college that offers only two-years courses (which includes many some community colleges) is called a "junior college"--these typically aren't as good as four-year colleges or universities, but provide a way for people who didn't do well in high school to establish a good college record and then transfer somewhere else after earning an associate's degree. There are also vocational colleges--or in many cases, vocational courses are offered by junior colleges. They're mostly two-year programs. >The highest >level of secondary schools (finshed at 18, comparable to UK a-levels >allows entry into university, and the university gives you a Master's >degree. There is no Bachelor's degree at dutch universities, the >english system does have bachelor's degrees, bachelor honors degrees >and a number of other confusing titles. > >> Note that the first year of U.S. undergraduate education is often >> considered equivalent to the last year of secondary school for someone with >> a baccaulereat or the equivalent in Europe; on the other hand, U.S. >> university education is generally considered to be much superior to the >> European equivalent. > >Sorry, not true. I'm not familiar with Dutch education in particular, and I don't bear any ill will to the nation that provided 1/4 of my genes, but university education is my business, and I know quite well that in general the U.S. is considered to have by far the best university education in the world. We have many other failings, especially in lower education, but post-secondary education isn't one of them. Of course, for us quality varies, but remember that in the U.S. students have to pay for their own college education (unless they earn a scholarship), meaning that they often tend to take it more seriously. Our professors also tend to be held to a higher standard in terms of the amount of work they're required to do. We're also able to attract some of the best European scholars to teach and do research here. It's true that our poorer-quality colleges are not as good as many in Europe, but remember that more than half our population starts college. So when you're talking our lower-quality colleges, there's nothing they can be compared to in Europe--the students in question wouldn't be receiving a post-secondary education at all in Europe. When you're comparing something to nothing, it's not terribly fair to criticize the quality of the something. >First of all, in any case in teh Netherlands, there >is not such a wild variation in quality of universities, and ofcourse >the universities all supply master's degrees (in a four year program) >which are accepted as such by the US as well. Well, that undoubtedly is just a continuation of the practice from the middle ges of calling a graduate of a university course a "Magister" ("Master"--fomr the fact that the person was considered qualified to teach at university); I don't think there was a lower degree (though people would often attend a university for a lesser period of time). The reason the Dutch degrees are treated as master's degrees in the U.S. may be that they're 4-year courses rather than 3-year, , I really don't know enough to comment, since I don't know how they actually compare to a U.S. degree in terms of content. >I can not speak for >the english university system in comparison to the US system but it >is highly regarded in the Netherlands. The U.K.'s elite univesities are well regarded here as well, but there are only a handful of them--Cambrige, Oxford, and the London School of Economics are the only ones that would really have an outstanding reputation (or really even be generally recognizable) here. In general I think these are considered every bit as good as the best U.S. universities, if not better, at last in more traditional areas (as opposed to newer subjects like engineering). We do send a lot of students there to study, though I think they send quite a few here as well. But the number of elite universities in the U.K. is much smaller than that in the U.S. (especially if you throw in the elite liberal arts colleges in the U.S.), even in proportion to the population. >I is also possible to get a >Law degree in four years (at the university of Leiden, even in US >law), which is accepted in the US. This is how law degrees work in most countries. It has nothing to do with quality, but rather with how the system is set up. A law student in the U.S. takes only _three_ years to get a degree, but you can't get into the school before finishing an undergraduate degree. Thus, an American lawyer has been to school for 7 years (at least), but you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that he or she actually studied law the first four years--he or she may have studied English, math, or even chemistry or engineering, and be fully qualified for a job in those fields; there are undergraduate "pre-law" or "law degrees" at some U.S. institutions (though they're less common than they used to be), but these are mostly courses in English and other liberal arts, sometimes with a little bit of law (though the law will generally be taught using political science methods, not law-school methods). >As a general rule I find dutch >education to be extremely high in quality, but lacking the >flexibility of organisation of the US system. We do have the added >benefit of only having to pay tuition once a year to be able to >follow any course at any university or higher school in the >Netherlands, which greatly expands the possibilities, but presents >some practical problems. > I would imagine the main problem would be more students than places? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #48 ************************************