twilight2000-digest Tuesday, November 3 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 049 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Radio's & Small Arms Re: Radio's & Small Arms Re: Radio's & Small Arms Re: Questions about character generation and US military career Re: German AR Re: German AR Re: Questions about character generation and US military caree An effort to refine the small arms formula. Small Arms... worse and worse Weapon Reliability Re: An effort to refine the small arms formula. RE: An effort to refine the small arms formula. Re: German AR Re: Radio's & Small Arms weight in grains of various ammo types Re: German AR Re: An effort to refine the small arms formula. Re: German AR Re: Radio's & Small Arms Re: Weapon Reliability Re: weight in grains of various ammo types Re: weight in grains of various ammo types Re: German AR Re: weight in grains of various ammo types Re: Questions about character generation and US military caree ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 22:21:41 -0500 From: negril@mindspring.com (C. Webb) Subject: Re: 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. Yeah, I agree with your disdain for the small arms stats. This stuff was penned from la-la-land. There are so many things wrong that I basically rewrote the book including the supplemental small arms guide. The most insulting example is the range on the Barrett .50. A visit to the U.S. Army's Target Interdiction Course would reveal just how CLOSE things are when the long arm of the Barrett reaches out and thunps 'em. Frank and his boys just did'nt know what they were writing about. >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. Commo is another matter. They really don't touch on the skill and its equipment. I dont know what's worse, leaving it out or supplying erronious information like that of the small arms section. >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. *************************************************************************** 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 22:05:59 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Radio's & Small Arms > From: dragon@euronet.nl > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Radio's & Small Arms > Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 12:15 AM > > 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. Being a ham radio operator and a CBer before that, as well as being a shortwave radio/scanner enthusiast since I was a kid, when I played TW2K, I usually use what I know about radios and put it in the game. First off, you have to define what type of radios you have in the group and roughly what frequencies they would use. My gaming groups tended to portray survivalists and militia types more than military so I tend to use more equipment that a civilian ham radio operator can obtain than military radios. Most people of this type would probably use CB's which here in the US fall into the upper shortwave bands at 11-meters (26,815 to 27,405 kc) at 4 watts RF output so it would be good for short range contacts although if the conditions are right, you can make those signals skip hundred or thousands of miles. Most military comms would fall into the 30 - 54 Mc (although in Europe, they could fall into the 30 - 88 Mc range due to different frequency allocations) aka VHF-Lo and 137 - 144 and 148 - 174 Mc which is VHF-Hi. Of course there are military aircraft that would use the civilian 108 - 137 Mc and the military 225 - 400 Mc aircraft bands. Most radio signals from 88 Mc and up tend to be more line of sight, that is terrain could affect the distance of transmission although sometimes they would go beyond the horizon a little bit. Range is tough to quantify in rules though since you could have weather effects extend or shorten your range, high sunspot activity could do the same, and so on. I like to spice up my games by having the characters talk with other ham radio operators and overhear foreign shortwave broadcasts along with intercepting some military traffic on the shortwave radio and the VHF/UHF traffic on their police scanners. 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: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 21:56:14 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: Radio's & Small Arms C. Webb wrote: > > Yeah, I agree with your disdain for the small arms stats. This stuff was > penned from la-la-land. There are so many things wrong that I basically > rewrote the book including the supplemental small arms guide. The most > insulting example is the range on the Barrett .50. A visit to the U.S. > Army's Target Interdiction Course would reveal just how CLOSE things are > when the long arm of the Barrett reaches out and thunps 'em. Frank and his > boys just did'nt know what they were writing about. > Yeah-1800 meters is getting into the actual ballpark range of the M82A1 Barrett's they use...well lots of countries are adopting their designs, Harris/McMillian's, LAR's, etc. The game never properly reflected the ranges capable of the weapons out there, the bulk rates could be interesting too sometimes... 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: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:46:56 +0100 From: Marco Pietersen Subject: Re: Questions about character generation and US military career > >Has somebody tried to do 3 years undergraduate and 2 years graduate terms? My opinion is that a player is getting to few skills from his careers. Al of my friends are choosing undergraduate in combination with ROTC and later a special service career, just to get enough skills to keep standing and not getting to old. Well, to overcome these problems I use an average for some time now. I think that for a working career one should get more points! So I vary the years a term cost. I use 2 years for a working term and 4 years for a study term. Most schools are about 4 years, I think. This is not correct for university careers, I agree, but most of my PC do not like to go to a university because of their age when they are finished. And as mentioned earlier in this list, the skills players get in a term with the special forces are also very wrong !!! Marco Pietersen -- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." -- Someone said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 11:47:24 +0100 From: Marco Pietersen Subject: Re: German AR > 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 The Dutch army is currently using the Canadian 'Dimago'. Probably a somewhat cheaper M16-clone. Marco - -- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Someone said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:11:34 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Re: German AR > > The Dutch army is currently using the Canadian 'Dimago'. > Probably a somewhat cheaper M16-clone. > > Marco > -- It's the Diemaco C7 (C8 version as well) and the LSW verison is used by the marines. The Diemaco is in fact more expensive than the M16A2 as I understand, which makes sense because NL is more likely quality than quantity. The DIemace has a forged instead of a cast barrel (M16A2) and the rear sights are a flip design with two settings, 100m and 250m, on the rationale that the fully adjustable is too vulnerable, and all teh support troops using the things won't sero anyway. Line infantry, commando's and other combat units have an optical sight on a M16A3 type receiver, which I'll be able to try out soon, nd I'll let you know what I think of it. EJ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:05:05 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Re: Questions about character generation and US military caree > 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. Unfortunately, having to rate by something, using the highschool equivalency as a basis is the best I can do. The variation beyond that is impossible for a outsider to follow, and alas, the semblance of order imposed by the concept of honor's and AP courses has just vansihed before my eyes... oh well. > 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. Nor is it in the Netherlands. Our so called "higher vocational schools" probably offer a better education than many of our universities do, especially in technical fields, but that's the equivalency level we're talking about. > 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. I'm not saying European universities are neccesarily better than US ones are, but I am saying that they are not neccesarily worse as implied two steps up the thread. > 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. In a way I agree with the positive aspects of having to take education you pay yourself seriously. However, I think this may exclude people who are perfectly capable of completing a master's degree or something due to a shortage of funds. In the true Idealistic manner, I do not believe the search for knowledge should be constrained by such trivialities... :-) > 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. In one way true, in another, not quite. What I mean is, that if the last years of regular secondary education in Europe can be compared to the first years of a college, we may very well be comparing two real items. We are, ofcourse, trying to determine academic quality achieved per unit time, which is the career problem in the Twilight system which led to this discussion. > Well, that undoubtedly is just a continuation of the practice from the > middle ages 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. The practice is related to the "Magister Artium" or Master of Arts title, but it's not what we actually use in the NL. The title you get in Holland is a Doctorandus, which means "he who will be doctor", or some such gibberish in Latin. The university advises to use M.A. after your name in english speaking nations since they haven't the foggiest what the **** a "doctorandus" (drs. for short) is. This practice is accepted by for instance Yale and I believe , which Leiden University has exchange programs with. > 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. Well, I am pleased that the European Commission rated Leiden as number three under Oxford and Cambridge then.... :-) (Sorry coudln't resist). Another question, though... how about the number of "Elite" universities per capita? (I know this is a wasp's nest, because how do we decide what a Elite university is? > 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). Hmmm... I have heard this works this way, but I think it's very strange. I suppose there's a certain logic to it, and there is something to be said for a general expertise in a certain field, but I can't help feelign that it would slant your perception of Law. I study history, and I know that I could not see law as objectively anymore as someone new to the subject (ofcourse I'm hardly a statistical analysis). > I would imagine the main problem would be more students than places? Well no, the practical problems are more in the form of having to travel around the country to get to teh classes you want to visit. In general there are only a limited number of places for some very specific studies like Medicine, and some very popular forms of Economics. Well, that's it. EJ. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:29:45 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: An effort to refine the small arms formula. Does anyone know what a grain is in kg? I mean a regular 5.56mm bullet is 55 grain, and an SS-109 round is 62 grain, but what on earth is that in kg? That way I can see if I can make sense of a system to calculate some reliable recoils. EJ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 01:29:45 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Small Arms... worse and worse Wow.... I have been looking at Infantry Weapons of the World, and teh Formula for converting weapons actually says that increased weight INCREASES recoil. I'm not aure which of Newton's laws it is, but the one on inertia, I think it's the third law of motion or something... It's thetendency of a body to resist a change of motion. Essentially, it means that, at a given muzzle energy ehmmm 1/2 mass times velocity squared equals the same thing for th gun. So, 1/2*(mass of bullet)*(velocity of bullet squared)=1/2*(mass of gun)*(velocity of gun the other way squared). This simple law of nature shows that heavier weapons have less recoil. I think this is a serious lapse, I mean, we may expect the composer of the formula in the Twilight Infantry Weapons of the World to have had highschool physics right? Any thoughts on the subject? EJ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 19:19:58 -0600 From: Mitch Berg Subject: Weapon Reliability Weapon reliability is one of many details that is all-important in real life, but clutter if treated more than cursorily in a p l a y a b l e game setting. Here's what I did - if a player rolled a catastrophic failure during fire combat with a small arm, I rolled D10 for the jam, depending on the reliability (or unreliability) of the weapon involved. AK47, Galil, SIG, G3/MP5 and a few others jammed on a 10, most others on 9+. A few (old M16s in the mud, Nambu pistols, Sten MkII, Chauchat light MGs, weapons firing really bad reloads they'd bought) I had jamming on 7+ Not perfectly accurate, but playable. And that's the bottom line. Mitch Berg Humanware Design - www.humanwaredesign.com (651)644-4192 User Interface Design, Usability Analysis and Information Engineering. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:21:53 -0600 From: "Rodney Felts" Subject: Re: An effort to refine the small arms formula. - -----Original Message----- From: dragon@euronet.nl To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 6:38 AM Subject: An effort to refine the small arms formula. "Does anyone know what a grain is in kg? I mean a regular 5.56mm bullet is 55 grain, and an SS-109 round is 62 grain, but what on earth is that in kg? That way I can see if I can make sense of a system to calculate some reliable recoils. EJ" The answer to your question is 7000 grains to a pound. 1 pound = 2.2 Kg. I hope this helps. HellRazor *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:57:52 +0100 From: "Ronald Aas" Subject: RE: An effort to refine the small arms formula. Slight correction, there is 2,2 punds pr kg. (one pund is about 0,454 kg) ronald - -----Original Message----- From: owner-twilight2000@lists.MPGN.COM [mailto:owner-twilight2000@lists.MPGN.COM] On Behalf Of Rodney Felts Sent: 3. november 1998 14:22 To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: An effort to refine the small arms formula. - -----Original Message----- From: dragon@euronet.nl To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 6:38 AM Subject: An effort to refine the small arms formula. "Does anyone know what a grain is in kg? I mean a regular 5.56mm bullet is 55 grain, and an SS-109 round is 62 grain, but what on earth is that in kg? That way I can see if I can make sense of a system to calculate some reliable recoils. EJ" The answer to your question is 7000 grains to a pound. 1 pound = 2.2 Kg. I hope this helps. HellRazor *************************************************************************** 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: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 16:18:21 +0100 From: Marco Pietersen Subject: Re: German AR > Line infantry, commando's and other combat units have an > optical sight on a M16A3 type receiver, which I'll be able to try out > soon, nd I'll let you know what I think of it. Well, and where could you try these weapons? If been at the 'Oranje Kazerne' from the airborne infantry and I was allowed to hold the several versions of the weapon, (carabine, LSW and the normal one) but I thought that was as close as you can get for non-military personel... And the optical sight is only used by the marines, airborne, commando's and navy personel. regular grunts were found to dumb to use one... Marco "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Someone said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:44:15 -0600 From: Nate Birkholz Subject: Re: Radio's & Small Arms Rogue09 wrote: > > C. Webb wrote: > > > > > Yeah, I agree with your disdain for the small arms stats. This stuff was > > penned from la-la-land. There are so many things wrong that I basically > > rewrote the book including the supplemental small arms guide. The most > > insulting example is the range on the Barrett .50. A visit to the U.S. > > Army's Target Interdiction Course would reveal just how CLOSE things are > > when the long arm of the Barrett reaches out and thunps 'em. Frank and his > > boys just did'nt know what they were writing about. > > > > Yeah-1800 meters is getting into the actual ballpark range of the M82A1 > Barrett's they use...well lots of countries are adopting their designs, > Harris/McMillian's, LAR's, etc. The game never properly reflected the > ranges capable of the weapons out there, the bulk rates could be > interesting too sometimes... > But is the question the _capable_ ranges or the _effective_ ranges in a combat situation? I think the latter was the intent, and the refinement I would suggest is to use the ranges listed as an eefective range under a combat situation, with some sort of multiplier for the character's coolness rating (do they still have those in v2.x? I haven't read it that closely, since I am still very fond of the v1 rules). Then a character with a good coolness rating would have a longer effective range than one with a lower coolness under fire rating. Characters waiting in ambush should have a modified coolness rating for the initial fire to give them an increased range, although not too much, since someone who is jumpy in a firefight situation would be jumpy still in an ambush. This does, of course, add more paperwork, but sometimes that's the price of increased realism. My $.02 Nate Birkholz (New to the list) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:32:58 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: weight in grains of various ammo types Hi, Does anyone know where I can find the grain weights of the most common types the matching muzzle velocity's for common weapons? That way I can see if I can make some sensible recoil values. Thanks, EJ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 04:50:36 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Re: German AR > Well, and where could you try these weapons? Well, first you have to join the army for thirteen months, then be discharged, say you want to be an active reservist, and wait until they select you for a job. After all that you will eventually get round to firing most weapons in the army inventory. An easier way of doing it is joining one of the "Schutterijen" like the HSSK or "Haags studenten schutters korps" who are a bunch of students with contacts with army and the oppurtunity to fire military weapons. > If been at the 'Oranje Kazerne' from the airborne infantry and I was allowed > to hold the several versions of the weapon, (carabine, LSW and the normal one) > but I thought that was as close as you can get for non-military personel... See above, some form of military personnel definitely helps though. > And the optical sight is only used by the marines, airborne, commando's and > navy personel. > regular grunts were found to dumb to use one... I beg to differ, even the National Reserve is issued with the optical sight version. I;m pretty sure they've issued them to the armoured infantry units too, I'll be able to tell you for certain in a few weeks, because I've just been posted to one of these units, but it will take some time to get that sorted out. EJ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:36:06 -0600 From: "Randy, Rico & Monifa" Subject: Re: An effort to refine the small arms formula. Subject: An effort to refine the small arms formula. >Does anyone know what a grain is in kg? I mean a regular 5.56mm >bullet is 55 grain, and an SS-109 round is 62 grain, but what on >earth is that in kg? That way I can see if I can make sense of a >system to calculate some reliable recoils. I have studied both interior and exterior ballistics, so I actually know this one :P There are 437.5 grains to an ounce, 7000 grains to a pound, that would make 15400 grains to a kg. By the way, the grain weight comes from the weight of one full ripe grain of wheat. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:24:54 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: German AR > "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." > > -- Someone said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. > That famous line was uttered by young Jason Fox (of the comic strip Foxtrot)...and one of my personal favorites... 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: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:34:04 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: Radio's & Small Arms Nate Birk > > But is the question the _capable_ ranges or the _effective_ ranges in a > combat situation? I think the latter was the intent, and the refinement > I would suggest is to use the ranges listed as an eefective range under > a combat situation, with some sort of multiplier for the character's > coolness rating (do they still have those in v2.x? I haven't read it > that closely, since I am still very fond of the v1 rules). Then a > character with a good coolness rating would have a longer effective > range than one with a lower coolness under fire rating. Characters > waiting in ambush should have a modified coolness rating for the initial > fire to give them an increased range, although not too much, since > someone who is jumpy in a firefight situation would be jumpy still in an > ambush. You ever seen a Barrett M82A1? This is not a weapon you let loose at some guy shooting at you across the street... It's too heavy to haul around for long stretches at a time, you find a place to hold up and shoot from there at your target...this is designed for firing on thin skined vehicles, buildings, and for LONG range shooting. The 50 BMG would not be desirable in a traditional stand up fight, the weapon's low rate of fire coupled with it's massive overpenetration means you'd grab something more along the lines of M4A1 carbine (or whatnot)... > > This does, of course, add more paperwork, but sometimes that's the price > of increased realism. Amen to that...try keeping up to date with the newest firearms developments-it's making the Twilgiht world more dangerous than it was before... > > My $.02 > > Nate Birkholz > (New to the list) Welcome aboard 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: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:36:26 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: Weapon Reliability > Chauchat light MGs, weapons firing really bad reloads they'd bought) I had jamming on 7+ You actually inflicted a Chauchat LM from WWI on your players?!! Oh man is that ever cruel!!! This was the weapon voted most likely to be dumped into a deep dark hole by most vet's of WWI... 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: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:54:24 -0600 From: "Randy, Rico & Monifa" Subject: Re: weight in grains of various ammo types Subject: weight in grains of various ammo types >Hi, > >Does anyone know where I can find the grain weights of the most >common types the matching muzzle velocity's for common weapons? >That way I can see if I can make some sensible recoil values. > >Thanks, >EJ Any good reloading manual should do just fine *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:27:14 -0500 From: Hound Subject: Re: weight in grains of various ammo types >Does anyone know where I can find the grain weights of the most >common types the matching muzzle velocity's for common weapons? >That way I can see if I can make some sensible recoil values. BTRC has a book out called MORE GUNS - a supplement for their GUNS GUNS GUNS (or GUNS3) book. It contians stats including weight (but not in grains - - everything is metric) and optimal muzzle velocities for various munitions. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:35:28 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: German AR > From: Marco Pietersen > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Re: German AR > Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 5:47 AM > -- > "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." > > -- Someone said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. Ain't that the truth. I enjoyed that show. It seems like all we have today on (U.S.) TV are insipid sitcoms. 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: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 23:43:45 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Re: weight in grains of various ammo types > Subject: weight in grains of various ammo types > > > >Hi, > > > >Does anyone know where I can find the grain weights of the most > >common types the matching muzzle velocity's for common weapons? > >That way I can see if I can make some sensible recoil values. > > > >Thanks, > >EJ > > > Any good reloading manual should do just fine > I'm sure it would, but in the Netherlands (rather low on guns), these things are not exactly growing on trees. What I need is teh FMJ grain weights for, basically the following 4.7x21mm Caseless 5.45x39mm Russian 5.56x45mm NATO .22 LR 7.62x25mm Tokarev .45 ACP .50 AE .357 Magnum 7.62x51mm NATO .30-06 9mm Parabellum 12.7x99mm BMG 7.62x39mm Russian With these, I would have a reliable cross section in order to be able to give some sensible ratings for recoil. So if anyone has these at hand, I would be much obliged if you could mail them to me, or post them here. Thanks, EJ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 18:14:11 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Questions about character generation and US military caree At 01:05 AM 11/3/98 +0000, dragon@euronet.nl wrote: > >Unfortunately, having to rate by something, using the highschool >equivalency as a basis is the best I can do. The variation beyond >that is impossible for a outsider to follow, and alas, the semblance >of order imposed by the concept of honor's and AP courses has just >vansihed before my eyes... oh well. Well I think the key thing to remember is that the last year of European secondary school (but only for people on a college-preparatory track) is essentially equivalent to the first year of U.S. college or university education--this isn't really a result of our high schools being "bad" (though many of them are), but rather that the course of study is structured a little differently (though schools in both places end at about age 18). I think it has something to do with the fact that high school is considered a general education in the U.S. (and more people go to college anyway), so it doesn't go quite as far. Despite some "tracking" in high school (as I mentioned earlier), U.S. students aren't placed into rigid educational categories nearly as early as European ones--some people may get a vocational diploma from high school, but in theory anyone who graduates from high school with a good record can go to college. Of course, in many cases this level of education is accomplished in Europe by the same age as the lesser level in the U.S.--and without starting at a younger age sometimes. But there are a variety of differences hidden in here, such as the emphasis in the U.S. on broader education, including sports and other extra-curricular activities. AP courses especially are designed to provide something closer to the European university-prep secondary education--the idea is to let good students (roughly equivalent in many places to the numbers of European students who would be going on to university) to complete their first year or half-year of university in high school. > >> 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. > >Nor is it in the Netherlands. Our so called "higher vocational >schools" probably offer a better education than many of our >universities do, especially in technical fields, but that's the >equivalency level we're talking about. > No, that's not the equivalency level we're talking about. I think there's still a misunderstanding: in the U.S., the education provided by colleges that don't grant graduate degrees is exactly equivalent to that provided by research universities; _precisely_ the same sorts of degrees are awarded by both types of institutions, though certain fields like engineering are less available in small colleges. I'm not talking about vocational training, but the same subjects taught in universities. In fact, colleges typically specialize in teaching, and as a result have smaller classes, attract faculty more interested in teaching than in research, and in fact often spend a lot more per student on the education effort. The graduates of these colleges can go to graduate school just like the graduates of universities. In other words, in the U.S., you have two choices for getting the same degree: you can go to a university and you can go to a college. One type of institution is not "above" or "superior" to the other--they award the same types of degrees, they have the same level of prestige, and so on. Some colleges are better than some universities, and vice versa. Another choice is to go to a junior college and then transfer to a university or college after two years (usually you get an "associate's degree" for these two years); students taking this course don't tend to be the strongest students, but many would be able to go directly to a college or university and decide on a junior college instead, usually because it's close to home, or concentrates more on teaching students. There ARE vocational institutions in the U.S. (often called "trade schools"), but they shouldn't be confused with colleges (there are a few that lie somewhere in between the two, but in general it's different different types of insitutions). >I'm not saying European universities are neccesarily better than US >ones are, but I am saying that they are not neccesarily worse as >implied two steps up the thread. > I don't think European universities would be markedly worse, and I think the question gets very complex when you start looking at different quality levels and very different systems of education. However, the best U.S. institutions are probably better than the best European institutions. And our universities especially excel in graduate education--even the mediocre ones may be better in that respect than a lot of European universities. I'll concede that the question of undergraduate education is a lot more arguable, but I don't think that's as much the case for graduate education. I do think, as an aside, that expectations for U.S. students are quite different: for example, you couldn't pass at all here if you followed the common European practice of skipping all of your lectures and showing up only for the exams. :) >> 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. > >In a way I agree with the positive aspects of having to take >education you pay yourself seriously. However, I think this may >exclude people who are perfectly capable of completing a master's >degree or something due to a shortage of funds. In the true >Idealistic manner, I do not believe the search for knowledge should >be constrained by such trivialities... :-) It can occasionally have that effect, but in general scholarships and low-interest loans are available--the typical effect is that a person who's less than wealthy will end up in debt after getting un undergraduate education (a private school may cost $30,000 _per_year_ for the student--and the full cost of educating that student, counting endowments and government funds, will be something like twice that, or more). People who are richer also tend to go the private intitutions (universities and colleges) more often than poorer people, because public institutions are more heavily subsidized, but I think most people here feel that the quality of education at the private schools does not in general correspond to the enormous extra costs; even so, private schools give many grant to poorer students, and also offer loans and "work-study" programs (that is, part-time jobs on campus). Probably the biggest barrier for poor people is getting a good high school education, and supporting themselves (that is, food and living expenses) while in college, since grants and loans often don't cover all expenses fully. For graduate education, if you're getting a research degree (Ph.D., and sometimes even master's degrees), most insitutions will provide funding, as fellowships, and failing that low-interest loans. For "professional" degrees, such as law, medicine, and business administration, fellowships are rarely available--students are expected to take out low-interest loans, since these degrees are very lucrative. But of course this is a problem for people who are idealistic and don't want to use their degrees to make a lot of money. :( (People have been working to address this last problem, though.) > >> 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. > >In one way true, in another, not quite. What I mean is, that if the >last years of regular secondary education in Europe can be compared >to the first years of a college, we may very well be comparing two >real items. We are, ofcourse, trying to determine academic quality >achieved per unit time, which is the career problem in the Twilight >system which led to this discussion. > The last year of university-preparatory education in Europe is equivalent to the first year of college in the U.S.--both are typically a broad, "liberal" education in a variety of subjects. But more people get that first year of college in the U.S. than get a university-prep education in Europe; and certainly, more people go on to get college or university degrees than do so in Europe. >> Well, that undoubtedly is just a continuation of the practice from the >> middle ages 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. > >The practice is related to the "Magister Artium" or Master of Arts >title, but it's not what we actually use in the NL. The title you get >in Holland is a Doctorandus, which means "he who will be doctor", or >some such gibberish in Latin. The university advises to use M.A. >after your name in english speaking nations since they haven't the >foggiest what the **** a "doctorandus" (drs. for short) is. This >practice is accepted by for instance Yale and I believe , which >Leiden University has exchange programs with. > Well it makes sense if it's a 4-year degree rather than the 3-year degree typical of most European systems. >> 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. > >Well, I am pleased that the European Commission rated Leiden as >number three under Oxford and Cambridge then.... :-) (Sorry coudln't >resist). Another question, though... how about the number of "Elite" >universities per capita? (I know this is a wasp's nest, because how >do we decide what a Elite university is? > I think the number per capita would be higher in the U.S.--if nothing else, the fact that we send such a large percentage of people to college and university tends to produce this effect. It certainly depends on what you're talking about, since many state universities are huge, and have some VERY good programs and some very mediocre ones at the same institution--but then Oxford and Cambridge are hardly renowned for many of their technical and business degrees :) (they've certainly made recent efforts to remedy this, though). However, I could easily name 10 or 20 "elite" state universities, and an equal number of privae ones. And you have to consider the elite liberal arts colleges as well (though their student bodies are of course much smaller). >> 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). > >Hmmm... I have heard this works this way, but I think it's very >strange. I suppose there's a certain logic to it, and there is >something to be said for a general expertise in a certain field, but >I can't help feelign that it would slant your perception of Law. I >study history, and I know that I could not see law as objectively >anymore as someone new to the subject (ofcourse I'm hardly a >statistical analysis). > Well it probably stems from a difference in philosophy: the people who set up the system felt it was important for students to have a good liberal education before pursuing a narrowly professional education. I'm not sure why you would be bothered by lawyers having this background: there's nothing "objective" about the narrow education--it is after all only one perspective, whether the people who've received it realize that or not. :) >> I would imagine the main problem would be more students than places? > >Well no, the practical problems are more in the form of having to >travel around the country to get to teh classes you want to visit. In >general there are only a limited number of places for some very >specific studies like Medicine, and some very popular forms of >Economics. > Ah, okay, that's what you meant. There are often agreements among colleges and universities in the U.S. that let you do similar things, especially for graduate study. It's more common to go to another institutions for a whole year rather than a single quarter or semester, but where institutions are close together, they often have "cross-enrollment" agreements that allow you to take courses that aren't offered at your university at another one, while continuing to take classes at your own. Sometimes public and private institutions even cooperate like that. >Well, that's it. > Okay. :) 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 #49 ************************************