twilight2000-digest Tuesday, February 23 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 014 The following topics are covered in this digest: MonCon '99 T2K: Nuclear Disarmament ? Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Dragonsbreath Rounds Re: Dragonsbreath Rounds Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges SV: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines New rules Re: Submarines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:58:13 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: MonCon '99 Greetings! I'd like to announce that pre-registration booklets are now available for MonCon99, to be held at the Holiday Inn in Tinton Falls, NJ, on March 19th-21st. This year we're proud to announce our widest selection of RPGs, Miniature Battles, Board & Card Games, and LARPs ever! Interested parties are welcome to visit our official website at http://www.gameconvention.com/MonCon/ You can view our event lists, download our online pre-registration book, request a pre-registration book be mailed to you, access information on hotel accommodations, directions to the hotel from nearby metropolitan areas, and information on how you can earn free attendance at the convention by volunteering your time to help with our security and/or courtesy department. Thanks for your interest, and we look forward to seeing you there! - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 Homepage - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:34:59 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: T2K: Nuclear Disarmament ? Okay, if you want (1) a limited nuclear exchange and (2) few, if any, strategic nukes left, the only moderately realistic option is for nuclear disarmament to have progressed far better in the T2K timeline, so that by the start of NATO/Russian hostilities in 1996, the nukes available accounted for 10% of those in the US/Russian stockpiles prior to 1990. This does solve the two mutual problems, even if a bit of a long shot. A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:18:02 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges - ---Mark Oliver wrote: > Is it possible that the missiles that aren’t used could break down and fail given enough time and lack of maintenance? That would at least take them out of the game as far as being fired is concerned but would still leave the warheads behind. > > EMP effects could do that, couldn't they? i mean, the setting always talks about how almost all of the world's computers have been fried (talked about a fair bit in the Free City of Krakow module) actually now that I think about it that could add further urgency to the whole Operation Reset deal. with the reset technology, you might be able to repair the circuitry on a nuke (assuming you use EMP on them) and use it for whatever maniacal plot you might think up. not that strategic nukes are really that useful anymore, and even battlefield weapons are of fairly limited use, what with the fighting at almost nil and most forces lacking the mobility to do more than sit around in cantonment. Even if the things are supposed to be shielded, the shielding might be overrated or something else fairly critical to their launch or guidance might have been affected. I'm not too up on my ballistic missile information, but don't they depend on satellites at all for guidance? if so, that could also bring about an early end to strategic use, either through EMP effects on the sattelites or else through Anti-Satellite weaponry like lasers or killer satellites. might we even just say that the strategic exchange stopped because a)there were no really viable targets left and b)killsats had destroyed most of the low-altitude recon satellites, so reducing the ability to evaluate activity at existing targets and detect new ones? it might have seemed wiser to both sides to hold on to the rest of their weapons instead of squandering them on targets that weren't of definite strategic value. just my thoughts, i'm sure that there are some big holes, but maybe i'm right on some counts. i remember there was a discussion about EMP awhile back, can't remember if anyone mentioned nukes then. Michael Cook _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:30:23 EST From: Corkman321@aol.com Subject: Re: Dragonsbreath Rounds Dragonsbreath rounds are speciality rounds used for shotguns. They fire a flaming trail of fire up to 100 yards. Cork *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:48:37 -0600 From: "Randy, Rico & Monifa" Subject: Re: Dragonsbreath Rounds I was a FFL holder, and was able to sell a few of these to a local police department and was there when they tested them. the Dragons Breath round was developed for SWAT and anti terrorist units. Its range is very short, about 30 meters. The damage is going to be almost nil as the flash is so fast, unless you are shooting directly at gasoline, you wont ignite much. The flash effect on the other hand is really something to behold, without dark goggles on, I was effectively blinded for a few seconds. This was done in a dark room and my eyes were adjusted to that light. After the round was fired, all I could see was that old purple spot ya get when ya look at the sun lol As far as I remember, the round is only available for the 12 guage shotgun, and the price was kinda stiff, about 2 or 3 dollars(US) a round. In the original adds the manufacturers called it an incendiary round. This was technically correct, as it used magnesium dust as the active agent, though they later changed this as their target market was not buying them, believing that they would start fires. Well, that's enough fer now :) laters *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:04:35 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges I'm made the plunge into the 20th century and started a website: Still early days but I'd appreciate any feedback. Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:10:34 CET From: "Nis Mathiesen" Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Hiya.. Michael Cook wrote: >I'm not too up on my ballistic missile information, but don't they >depend on satellites at all for guidance? if so, that could also bring >about an early end to strategic use, either through EMP effects on the >sattelites or else through Anti-Satellite weaponry like lasers or >killer satellites. Most types of ICBM's are controlled by the means of inertial navigation (I think it is called just that in English) - that means by use of sensitive instruments and an onboard computer. I don't know if any of the newer ones (the Russian Topol for example) use sattelites, but I don't think so. Nis Leerskov Mathiesen ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:08:51 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 08:10 PM 2/22/99 CET, Nis Mathiesen wrote: >Hiya.. > > >Michael Cook wrote: >>I'm not too up on my ballistic missile information, but don't they >>depend on satellites at all for guidance? if so, that could also bring >>about an early end to strategic use, either through EMP effects on the >>sattelites or else through Anti-Satellite weaponry like lasers or >>killer satellites. > >Most types of ICBM's are controlled by the means of inertial navigation >(I think it is called just that in English) - that means by use of >sensitive instruments and an onboard computer. I don't know if any of >the newer ones (the Russian Topol for example) use sattelites, but I >don't think so. > This actually reminds me of that totally stupid part of the Boomer trilogy where it says they have to use a sextant to navigate because the GPS isn't working anymore--as if ships hadn't carried gyroscopes for decades.... 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, 22 Feb 1999 20:10:59 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 08:10 PM 2/22/99 CET, Nis Mathiesen wrote: >Hiya.. > > >Michael Cook wrote: >>I'm not too up on my ballistic missile information, but don't they >>depend on satellites at all for guidance? if so, that could also bring >>about an early end to strategic use, either through EMP effects on the >>sattelites or else through Anti-Satellite weaponry like lasers or >>killer satellites. > >Most types of ICBM's are controlled by the means of inertial navigation >(I think it is called just that in English) - that means by use of >sensitive instruments and an onboard computer. I don't know if any of >the newer ones (the Russian Topol for example) use sattelites, but I >don't think so. > Actually, at least some ICBM's use the stars to orient themsleves--they're programmed to look for a certain pattern. 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: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 04:55:01 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > This actually reminds me of that totally stupid part of the Boomer trilogy > where it says they have to use a sextant to navigate because the GPS isn't > working anymore--as if ships hadn't carried gyroscopes for decades.... True, and especially submarines should carry them (as do planes ... magnetic compasses tend to swing in too slow if you turn fast). But inertia navigation needs some computer power and working gyroscopes & assorted gear ... both of which may or may not be aviable or accurate. You may have an 'electric' compass, which measures the flux of the magnetic field and thus does not need a needle, but note that these things work badly with iron or even steel close to them (and need massive corrections, to be redone each time something made of metal is moved in the vicinity). Finally, just assume that you do not trust the inertia navigation (and probably want to test it). Then the best method[1] is the old and proven sextant one. Also, the repair conditions for the CC were not good, to say the least. Some of the experts were forced by threats against family members (which just inspires inconspicous sabotage). The CC was bound to get gear from the freighter, but the mob expected grain ... which wasn't there, so they smashed the parts and electronics. Note that the CC overhaul included not only the reactor and new sonar, but also new ... computer suites. While it has been repaired for the most part, it may be assumed that some less vital things are irreparably damaged. Inertia navigation is not vital as long as you stay near the cost or submerge only for limited duration and check your position every now and then using the sextant. Which fits well into the planned role of the CC. [1] GPS not aviable, DECCA is not long range, LORAN being no longer in widespread use today (RL), other systems being disassembled. Note they all need electric power and probably computer power, both rare stuff these days. Also who would continue such a service for an empty ocean? - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:17:10 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > This actually reminds me of that totally stupid part of the Boomer trilogy > where it says they have to use a sextant to navigate because the GPS isn't > working anymore--as if ships hadn't carried gyroscopes for decades.... Having been in the Navy, I can assure you even the most modern ships have a full complement of navigational devices, GPS, INS, gyros, the classic mag compass...sailors are eager to use the latest navigation techniques, but not so trusting as to give up their old tried and true methods. (Not to mention that the Navy considers it very important to make sure a ship can still sail and fight despite the loss of all electronics, so have specifically kept non-electronic systems on board more modern vessels...the carrier I was on had all the latest telecommunications eqpt., but we still had a ship-wide sound-powered phone system we all knew how to use.) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 03:43:25 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 04:55 AM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >Hi! > >Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > >> This actually reminds me of that totally stupid part of the Boomer trilogy >> where it says they have to use a sextant to navigate because the GPS isn't >> working anymore--as if ships hadn't carried gyroscopes for decades.... > >True, and especially submarines should carry them (as do planes >... magnetic compasses tend to swing in too slow if you turn >fast). But inertia navigation needs some computer power and >working gyroscopes & assorted gear ... both of which may or may >not be aviable or accurate. > Well, if the computers aren't working, taking the submarine underwater in the first place isn't a good idea (especially since you use computers for tracking with sonar and firing the weapons--the latter you might be able to pull off without the computers; the former would be virtually impossible). >You may have an 'electric' compass, which measures the flux of >the magnetic field and thus does not need a needle, but note that >these things work badly with iron or even steel close to them >(and need massive corrections, to be redone each time something >made of metal is moved in the vicinity). > >Finally, just assume that you do not trust the inertia navigation >(and probably want to test it). Then the best method[1] is the >old and proven sextant one. > No, sorry, I'm not gonna make that assumption. U.S. submarines have a very, very sophisiticated inertial navigation system (especially the boomers, of course)--it's not a gyroscope exactly but it's the same principle (spinning balls of some exotic metal, as I recall). And since it has to be stable, as I recall it's mounted in the kind of housing that's not going to break unless the rest of the submarine is trashed. No, it's not perfect, and requires occasional corrections (and subs have GPS gear, and used NavStar satellites before GPS was available). Yes, you would want to make those corrections, though I don't think using a sextant by hand would do the trick--it's probably not any more accurate--the best bet may be geographic references at points of landfall. For that matter, in relatively shallow waters you could orient yourself using maps of the ocean floor in combination with the sub's low-frequency sonar (which is designed for that sort of thing, as well as detecting mines and other close-in objects). However, the inertial navigation systems are _exceedingly_ adequate for getting a submarine across the ocean to within a few dozen yards of its planned landfall, or for navigating the English Channel without surfacing (critical for avoiding a French patrol in one of the modules). >Also, the repair conditions for the CC were not good, to say >the least. Some of the experts were forced by threats against >family members (which just inspires inconspicous sabotage). >The CC was bound to get gear from the freighter, but the mob >expected grain ... which wasn't there, so they smashed the parts >and electronics. Note that the CC overhaul included not only >the reactor and new sonar, but also new ... computer suites. > With an inertial navigation system, it should either work or not--and it's not going to be one of the first things that breaks. And, I should stress here, even if it doesn't work, a gyroscope, carried by every merchant ship in the world, would to the trick quite nicely, as long as you don't plan on launching ICBM's or something similar that requires precise positioning (which of course the _CCC_ wouldn't do, not being a boomer). I commend your efforts to salvage the modules in question, but the fact is that they were written by someone who was completely ignorant about ships, and there's really no way to reconcile them to the facts other than by changing the inaccurate parts. Another example is in the color text, where a character looks up the name of the Soviet boomer in _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--when the modules were written, _Jane's_ didn't list the names of Soviet subs, and in fact still didn't do so as late as the 1991-92 _Jane's_ that I have on my shelf, for the simple reason that the Soviets didn't reveal those names. On the whole, the later modules were just plain bad. Some, like the _Last_ _Submarine_ trilogy, had a lot of good points, but were at best uneven (and of course editing and proofreading at GDW were always non-existent). >While it has been repaired for the most part, it may be >assumed that some less vital things are irreparably damaged. >Inertia navigation is not vital as long as you stay near the cost >or submerge only for limited duration and check your position >every now and then using the sextant. Which fits well into the >planned role of the CC. > Inertial navigation is considered so vital that _every_ ship has it and in fact has had it since like the 1920's. And like I said before, it's not like it would be hard to yank a gyroscope off a merchie. 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: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:31:26 +0100 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathias_K=F6ppen?=" Subject: SV: T2K nuclear exchanges Hi guys! What if the poles changed (as it does from time to time) which would mean that north became south on a compass. How would this affect all modern navigation equipment which doesn't use satellites? Regards, Mathias Köppen >At 04:55 AM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>Hi! >> >>Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: >> >>> This actually reminds me of that totally stupid part of the Boomer trilogy >>> where it says they have to use a sextant to navigate because the GPS isn't >>> working anymore--as if ships hadn't carried gyroscopes for decades.... >> >>True, and especially submarines should carry them (as do planes >>... magnetic compasses tend to swing in too slow if you turn >>fast). But inertia navigation needs some computer power and >>working gyroscopes & assorted gear ... both of which may or may >>not be aviable or accurate. >> >Well, if the computers aren't working, taking the submarine underwater in >the first place isn't a good idea (especially since you use computers for >tracking with sonar and firing the weapons--the latter you might be able to >pull off without the computers; the former would be virtually impossible). > >>You may have an 'electric' compass, which measures the flux of >>the magnetic field and thus does not need a needle, but note that >>these things work badly with iron or even steel close to them >>(and need massive corrections, to be redone each time something >>made of metal is moved in the vicinity). >> >>Finally, just assume that you do not trust the inertia navigation >>(and probably want to test it). Then the best method[1] is the >>old and proven sextant one. >> >No, sorry, I'm not gonna make that assumption. U.S. submarines have a >very, very sophisiticated inertial navigation system (especially the >boomers, of course)--it's not a gyroscope exactly but it's the same >principle (spinning balls of some exotic metal, as I recall). And since it >has to be stable, as I recall it's mounted in the kind of housing that's >not going to break unless the rest of the submarine is trashed. > >No, it's not perfect, and requires occasional corrections (and subs have >GPS gear, and used NavStar satellites before GPS was available). Yes, you >would want to make those corrections, though I don't think using a sextant >by hand would do the trick--it's probably not any more accurate--the best >bet may be geographic references at points of landfall. For that matter, >in relatively shallow waters you could orient yourself using maps of the >ocean floor in combination with the sub's low-frequency sonar (which is >designed for that sort of thing, as well as detecting mines and other >close-in objects). > >However, the inertial navigation systems are _exceedingly_ adequate for >getting a submarine across the ocean to within a few dozen yards of its >planned landfall, or for navigating the English Channel without surfacing >(critical for avoiding a French patrol in one of the modules). > >>Also, the repair conditions for the CC were not good, to say >>the least. Some of the experts were forced by threats against >>family members (which just inspires inconspicous sabotage). >>The CC was bound to get gear from the freighter, but the mob >>expected grain ... which wasn't there, so they smashed the parts >>and electronics. Note that the CC overhaul included not only >>the reactor and new sonar, but also new ... computer suites. >> >With an inertial navigation system, it should either work or not--and it's >not going to be one of the first things that breaks. > >And, I should stress here, even if it doesn't work, a gyroscope, carried by >every merchant ship in the world, would to the trick quite nicely, as long >as you don't plan on launching ICBM's or something similar that requires >precise positioning (which of course the _CCC_ wouldn't do, not being a >boomer). > >I commend your efforts to salvage the modules in question, but the fact is >that they were written by someone who was completely ignorant about ships, >and there's really no way to reconcile them to the facts other than by >changing the inaccurate parts. Another example is in the color text, where >a character looks up the name of the Soviet boomer in >_Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--when the modules were written, _Jane's_ didn't >list the names of Soviet subs, and in fact still didn't do so as late as >the 1991-92 _Jane's_ that I have on my shelf, for the simple reason that >the Soviets didn't reveal those names. > >On the whole, the later modules were just plain bad. Some, like the _Last_ >_Submarine_ trilogy, had a lot of good points, but were at best uneven (and >of course editing and proofreading at GDW were always non-existent). > >>While it has been repaired for the most part, it may be >>assumed that some less vital things are irreparably damaged. >>Inertia navigation is not vital as long as you stay near the cost >>or submerge only for limited duration and check your position >>every now and then using the sextant. Which fits well into the >>planned role of the CC. >> >Inertial navigation is considered so vital that _every_ ship has it and in >fact has had it since like the 1920's. And like I said before, it's not >like it would be hard to yank a gyroscope off a merchie. > >Scott Orr >*************************************************************************** >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, 23 Feb 1999 01:52:55 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Which reminds me . . . Annapolis quit teaching dead reckoning and celestial navigation as a mandatory course last year, allegedly under the premise that GPS will now handle all of that. I guess you can still take it as an elective, else you'd have to learn it out in the fleet. Chalk up another one to the Nintendo generation. Also, the "Submarine Trilogy" becomes infinitely more playable if you've got a copy of Tom Clancy's _Submarine_ to fill in the gaping holes left by GDW. I loved running that series despite it's many shortcomings, however irritating they might have been. ~Snake Eyes At 08:08 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Scott Orr wrote: > >This actually reminds me of that totally stupid part of the Boomer trilogy >where it says they have to use a sextant to navigate because the GPS isn't >working anymore--as if ships hadn't carried gyroscopes for decades.... > >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: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:11:58 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: Submarines - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: 23 February 1999 08:55 Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges <<< Well, if the computers aren't working, taking the submarine underwater in the first place isn't a good idea (especially since you use computers for tracking with sonar and firing the weapons--the latter you might be able to pull off without the computers; the former would be virtually impossible). >>> Submarines managed before computers were invented didn't they? I'll admit a boomer is a wee bit bigger than the old submarine but surely it's still possible. Sub to sub combat would be very tricky (if possible at all) I admit but attacking a surface target would be a case of quick application of trig to get a firing solution and then firing a spread down that line. I used to have to solve similar problems during my school years. Mark Oliver-Macklin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:23:50 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: New rules This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE5F16.9ACD0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=92m about to start running a T2K campaign after a period of some = absence. I=92m wondering if anybody has drawn up rules to deal with the = following situations. Urban area, a squad of PCs is advancing towards and NPC held position. = The PCs dart from side to side of an alleyway, they can traverse this = distance in each turn. If the PCs are faster than the NPCs then the NPCs = will never get to shoot at the PCs. I=92d be declaring actions from = slowest to fastest, when the slow NPCs declare they can=92t see a = target. What I=92d normally do in this situation in other games is to wing it. = I=92d allow characters to enter a state of over watch over a particular = area and if any targets enter the over watch area the characters can = snap fire at them outside of the normal declaration-action sequence. = There would be some negative modifier to their chances and there=92s = always the chance in the above situation that a careless NPC could shoot = at a squad of NPCs that is following the PCs as they advance. Presumably = using RCN for T2K or something based on cool. The logic for the later is = that a more experienced character is less likely to panic into firing on = a friendly target. The other common problem is covering fire. Again something I=92d = normally make up for the situation. If the characters want to shoot at = an area to cover it what happens if another character wants to run into = that area? The chances to hit can=92t be as good as if the shots were = fired at that character but there=92s gotta be something. Anyway any thoughts appreciated. I=92m about to start running a T2K campaign after a period of some = absence. I=92m wondering if anybody has drawn up rules to deal with the = following situations. Urban area, a squad of PCs is advancing towards and NPC held position. = The PCs dart from side to side of an alleyway, they can traverse this = distance in each turn. If the PCs are faster than the NPCs then the NPCs = will never get to shoot at the PCs. I=92d be declaring actions from = slowest to fastest, when the slow NPCs declare they can=92t see a target What I=92d normally do in this situation in other games is to wing it. = I=92d allow characters to enter a state of over watch over a particular = area and if any targets enter the over watch area the characters can = snap fire at them outside of the normal declaration-action sequence. = There would be some negative modifier to their chances and there=92s = always the chance in the above situation that a careless NPC could shoot = at a squad of NPCs that is following the PCs as they advance. Presumably = using RCN for T2K or something based on cool. The logic for the later is = that a more experienced character is less likely to panic into firing on = a friendly target. The other common problem is covering fire. Again something I=92d = normally make up for the situation. If the characters want to shoot at = an area to cover it what happens if another character wants to run into = that area? The chances to hit can=92t be as good as if the shots were = fired at that character but there=92s gotta be something. Anyway any thoughts appreciated. - ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE5F16.9ACD0800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I’m about to start running a T2K campaign after a period of = some=20 absence. I’m wondering if anybody has drawn up rules to deal with = the=20 following situations. Urban area, a squad of PCs is advancing towards and NPC held = position. The=20 PCs dart from side to side of an alleyway, they can traverse this = distance in=20 each turn. If the PCs are faster than the NPCs then the NPCs will never = get to=20 shoot at the PCs. I’d be declaring actions from slowest to = fastest, when=20 the slow NPCs declare they can’t see a target. What I’d normally do in this situation in other games is to = wing it.=20 I’d allow characters to enter a state of over watch over a = particular area=20 and if any targets enter the over watch area the characters can snap = fire at=20 them outside of the normal declaration-action sequence. There would be = some=20 negative modifier to their chances and there’s always the chance = in the=20 above situation that a careless NPC could shoot at a squad of NPCs that = is=20 following the PCs as they advance. Presumably using RCN for T2K or = something=20 based on cool. The logic for the later is that a more experienced = character is=20 less likely to panic into firing on a friendly target. The other common problem is covering fire. Again something I’d = normally=20 make up for the situation. If the characters want to shoot at an area to = cover=20 it what happens if another character wants to run into that area? The = chances to=20 hit can’t be as good as if the shots were fired at that character = but=20 there’s gotta be something. Anyway any thoughts appreciated. I’m about to start running a T2K campaign after a period of = some=20 absence. I’m wondering if anybody has drawn up rules to deal with = the=20 following situations. Urban area, a squad of PCs is advancing towards and NPC held = position. The=20 PCs dart from side to side of an alleyway, they can traverse this = distance in=20 each turn. If the PCs are faster than the NPCs then the NPCs will never = get to=20 shoot at the PCs. I’d be declaring actions from slowest to = fastest, when=20 the slow NPCs declare they can’t see a target What I’d normally do in this situation in other games is to = wing it.=20 I’d allow characters to enter a state of over watch over a = particular area=20 and if any targets enter the over watch area the characters can snap = fire at=20 them outside of the normal declaration-action sequence. There would be = some=20 negative modifier to their chances and there’s always the chance = in the=20 above situation that a careless NPC could shoot at a squad of NPCs that = is=20 following the PCs as they advance. Presumably using RCN for T2K or = something=20 based on cool. The logic for the later is that a more experienced = character is=20 less likely to panic into firing on a friendly target. The other common problem is covering fire. Again something I’d = normally=20 make up for the situation. If the characters want to shoot at an area to = cover=20 it what happens if another character wants to run into that area? The = chances to=20 hit can’t be as good as if the shots were fired at that character = but=20 there’s gotta be something. Anyway any thoughts = appreciated. - ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01BE5F16.9ACD0800-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:50:09 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 10:11 AM 2/23/99 -0000, Mark Oliver wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott David Orr >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Date: 23 February 1999 08:55 >Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges > ><<< Well, if the computers aren't working, taking the submarine underwater >in the first place isn't a good idea (especially since you use computers for >tracking with sonar and firing the weapons--the latter you might be able to >pull off without the computers; the former would be virtually impossible). >>>> > >Submarines managed before computers were invented didn't they? I'll admit a >boomer is a wee bit bigger than the old submarine but surely it's still >possible. > Submarines then were designed to be run without computers. Yes, you could take one underwater and sail it around I guess, but that's about it. >Sub to sub combat would be very tricky (if possible at all) I admit but >attacking a surface target would be a case of quick application of trig to >get a firing solution and then firing a spread down that line. I used to >have to solve similar problems during my school years. > No, it doesn't work like that quite like that. In the first place, you'd have to find the enemy submarine, which isn't possible without the sonar, which won't work _at_all_ without the computers. In WWI and WWII, all they had for passive sonar was "hydrophones", which basically relied on the skill of the operator and were only useful for getting a bearing and maybe, with a lot of skill and effort, a target track--but attacks using passive sonar alone were exceedingly rare, and successful attacks even rare; attacks against submerged submarines were rarest of all (I've heard of maybe one successful one, in WWI, though it's possible it happened once or twice in WWII). Second, most countries don't use straight-running torpedoes anymore: they use homing torpedoes, which means that the weapon itself has a computer onboard, which it uses to process data from its own sonar and to track the target. 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 V1999 #14 ************************************