twilight2000-digest Wednesday, March 3 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 023 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Character Generator Space Program Safety Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Character Generator- I'll beta it! Re: Char Generator Re: Character Generator Re: Char Generator Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Character Generator Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Character Generator Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Rules Questions Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Character Generator Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Re: Mass Combat System??? I wish to resign Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:12:39 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Character Generator Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, davidh@intellisys.net produced: > At any rate, is there even a need or want for a charcter generator that > would include a weapons\vehicle database from which to equip new characters > & NPC's? Having only experiences with V1.0: The longest part is probably choosing equipment and looking what you can carry, the second longest choosing the skills to match your character concept[1]. Otherwise the char generation sheet is comparatively fast. So these would be the parts to focus on first. You _might_ want to consider that not everyone has Windows (or Windows 95/98/NT) on their computer, nor access to it. Same goes for DOS. Just think of all the macinctoshes out there, remember that Unix is the type of platform that makes the internet happen at all, etc. If you want to be platform independent, you would either have to choose Java or an interpreted/just-in-time compiled language. Perl comes to my mind, as it's both aviable for Unixes as for Windows and probably for many other architectures (and at least for Unixes it's free, freely distributable, does come with source code, is capable and has been heavily used for many years). Ties to graphical ligraries are aviable, too, e.g. PerlTK, but then I would advise making a core engine with a simple, textual interface (compare the HTTP protocoll, etc) and a frontent which converts between this interface and the type of interface the user wants. This eases changing the interface or having several to choose from ... because some people are much faster with the keyboard than with the mouse. It probably also eases debugging both parts, allows a WWW-frontend, etc.[2] It would also allow you to write the core engine in ANSI C (which is pretty portable between most machines, if you try to be that) and use another language of your choice for the front end. This would increase the portability as well, and since all the work is done in the core, the interface program can be written in a 'slow' language (say VB, PerlTK, whatever ...) without a noticable speed degration. [1] if you have a reasonable concept ... [2] Just like you can use Netscape *and* the Internet Explorer[3] ... and if they agreed on one standard, they'd be even more useful. [3] and a few dozend other browsers as well, yes, there are many out there. > Or an encounter table? If so, please contact me. I would like to have a > few testers if possible. If there is no want or need, any other ideas would > be appreciated. I need to keep my programming skills up and would love to > do something for T2K. - -Wolfgang (No Microsoft Windows for me, thanks. For *me* Linux/Unix is just fine ...) - -- 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, 2 Mar 1999 07:09:09 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Space Program Safety Hi Wolfgang, I don't think anyone debates the fact that there have been grevious errors and oversights, and that there most likely will continue to be in the future, regarding the safety of space launches. However, I think that when you state that safety is simply not important anymore, you are going too far. While these errors have happened, the space community is very safety concious. While certain people/groups within the community have actively covered up errors, the vast majority of the people involved in these programs are *very* concerned with making sure that the shuttle and other programs are as safe as they can make them. The simple fact is that no matter how safe you make something, there is always another level of safety that is possible. The media and others constantly harrangue NASA for not achieving that next level. My question is, what level is safe enough for the public to actually consider the project 'safe'? Noone expects (or should expect) that taking off in a shuttle would be a safe as driving to the corner store. Just as noone expect carrier aviation to be as safe as commercial flights. All you can do is attain a safety level that is as high as possible considering the available resources, without compromising your ability to fulfill your mission (you can't spend your entire budget on safety issues). Again, I agree that many problems have occured, and are occuring, but I still feel that it would be insulting to insinuate that most of the people in the space program don't consider safety a primary concern. Don't let a few bad apples and disasterous incidents color your view so much as to think that carelessness and lack of concern for safety are the normal mode of operations in the space program, for they certainly are not. IMHO, of course, S2000 - ---Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > > > I think that most anyone working for NASA or any of the many aerospace > > contractors working on these projects would find that comment quite > > insulting. > > Then read the findings of the Challenger catastrophy. Rubber > rings which were never meant to be damaged had been found damaged > (burned by the exhaust of the boosters) many before. More if it > was colder outside. But since they were only burned 1/3 through, > they were assumed safe ... there was still 2/3 "safety margin" > left, after all. > > Now, by *not* investigating why these rubber rings got partially > burned (which, see above, was *never* meant to happen) and not > even investigating which conditions lead to these burns for about > a dozend of such incidents, lead to the Challenger exploding. > > Now, does *that* sound like safety to you? And the report states > that --- apart from the computer programs --- every part of the > space shuttle program was (and probably still is) on the same > level of safety conciousness, even though it was very quality > and safety orientated when it began. > > (Not to mention that the engineers at the base had quite good > ideas on the failure rate, e.g. 1 in 300 missions would fail > because of one engine (2 booster and 3 main engines, that comes > close enough to the 'measured' 1:60'ish rate) ... compared to > the 'management' levels stating numbers which would allow daily > launches for a century with nary a problem). > > Does that clear up my remark? > > -Wolfgang > > PS: Do I sound bitter? Good. Just imagine hooking up YOUR life > support system to, say, Windows98 and then trying to attach > a scanner to the computer. Or giving you ammo that will jam > your machine gun ... when in a heavy firefight, preferably. > > -- > 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. > _________________________________________________________ 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, 02 Mar 1999 12:40:25 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Not sure how many TW2K players out there got heavy into another GDW game "Traveller: The New Era", but one of the plethora of supplements they made for it was "Fire, Fusion and Steel" (GDW 0304, 1993). Its a technical architecture book with rules for the creation of such things as space ships, vehicles, various subsystems and weaponry. Its a fairly detailed system, where when creating a new firearm, the specs of the bullet itself are quite important, let alone the characteristics the weapon system itself. T:TNE uses the same games mechanics as TW2k 2.2 (I believe). Hence the formulas for things like Bulk, Recoil, Range, Damage are all explained. A weapon's Range (in m) is equal to 0.15 x the square root of the weapon's muzzle energy, divided by the weapon's loaded mass (in kg), plus a bonus for particularly high muzzle energy, multiplied by the recoil compensator modifier (from muzzle brakes, etc). Bulk is actually the easiest thing to calculate, being equal to the weapons length (in cm) divided by 15, rounding all fractions down. The book is quite well researched I find, and has a wonderful section of such technologies as hydrogen fuel cells, and various theories on the possibilities of cold fusion. Plus a wonderful article on gunshot wounds, that I wish I could make every "firearm munchkin" read... The book is quite handy in the TNE/TW2K universe I find, although its hardly perfect (I won't go into the accuracies), and does require at times some advanced algebra (as shown above). Worth picking up, IMO, if this sort of thing interests you. - trustno1 p.s. Has anyone else (with FFS) toyed with the idea of redoing all the TW:2K weapons ? If only for more accuracy :) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:33:21 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS At 12:40 PM 3/2/99 -0400, trustno1 wrote: >[SNIP] > Bulk is actually the easiest thing to calculate, being equal to the >weapons length (in cm) divided by 15, rounding all fractions down. >[SNIP} > p.s. Has anyone else (with FFS) toyed with the idea of redoing all the >TW:2K weapons ? If only for more accuracy :) I stand somewhat elaborated upon concerning bulk. I had toyed with the idea of redoing all the weapons in Twilight when I first got FF&S, but then I found a copy of BTRC's "More Guns," which uses their 3G3 system. It's got pages & pages of Twilight weapons conversions. It's pretty accurate, and they've got rules for special rounds -- i.e., hollow-points, armor-piercing and exploding ammo. And it's all pre-packaged, and ready to use. I have the first edition. I understand there was an update that included Traveller:TNE weapons as well. Since the damage systems are the same, it should be useful for anyone who can find a copy. One thing I have tried to use FF&S for is building vehicles & armament for an Armor XXI-type campaign. But DAMN those rules are tough/impossible to balance. ~Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:20:17 EST From: MarkChest@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS I wouldn't bother myself. This is Twilight 2000 not Phoenix Command. The ease of use of the weapon rules makes it ideal for beginners and experts alike. To alter the rules would tend to put it in the same class of people that play Phoenix Command *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 21:53:25 CET From: "Nis Mathiesen" Subject: Re: Character Generator- I'll beta it! HuH??? Character Generator...? Yes please, I would like to try it out, please. Nis L. ______________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:25:57 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Char Generator which ones yours? - -----Original Message----- From: Eddie Hallahan To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:55 AM Subject: Re: Char Generator >ditto > >>I've got room on my page if you need it... > > >EddieH > >*************************************************************************** >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, 2 Mar 1999 17:36:28 EST From: SharpInt@aol.com Subject: Re: Character Generator I would love to try out anything like that. Kevin Sharp Sharpint@aol.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, 02 Mar 1999 22:55:49 +0000 From: Eddie Hallahan Subject: Re: Char Generator I dont actually have one up but i get 10Mb free with my isp account so I could put up whatever people want really. EddieH At 16:25 02/03/99 -0500, you wrote: >which ones yours? >-----Original Message----- >From: Eddie Hallahan >To: twilight2000@mpgn.com >Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:55 AM >Subject: Re: Char Generator > > >>ditto >> >>>I've got room on my page if you need it... >> >> >>EddieH >> >>*************************************************************************** >>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. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 19:38:49 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS >> p.s. Has anyone else (with FFS) toyed with the idea of redoing all the >>TW:2K weapons ? If only for more accuracy :) >I wouldn't bother myself. This is Twilight 2000 not Phoenix Command. The >ease of use of the weapon rules makes it ideal for beginners and experts >alike. To alter the rules would tend to put it in the same class of people >that play Phoenix Command I *totally* agree. However, that wasn't exactly what I was talking about "Fire, Fusion and Steel" uses the *same* mechanics as TW2K, hence there are no rule changes. I was only asking if anyone had done the work of using the FFS methods to more accurately model the TW2K weapon characteristics (Rof, Damage, Pen, Bulk, SS, Burst, Range, etc). My point being that there might be a group of people out there who feel that not all weapons are as similar as the TW2K data charts indicate. Under the FFS technical calculations, I doubt most assaults rifles would have a base range of exactly 50m, some might be 45m, some might be 51m, etc (some might be 49m and 51m too, of course...). Sure, this isn't necessary, but some folks might be interested none the less. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 21:12:46 -0500 From: Mykn8r Subject: Re: Character Generator Dave wrote: > At any rate, is there even a need or want for a charcter generator that > would include a weapons\vehicle database from which to equip new characters > & NPC's? > Or an encounter table? If so, please contact me. I would like to have a > few testers if possible. I'd love to try it. Mikenator *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:55:22 -0600 From: "ddolllaw" Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS - -----Original Message----- From: trustno1 To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 5:48 PM Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS You stated > I *totally* agree. > However, that wasn't exactly what I was talking about "Fire, >Fusion and Steel" uses the *same* mechanics as TW2K, hence >There are no rule changes. > > I was only asking if anyone had done the work of using the FFS >methods to more accurately model the TW2K weapon >characteristics (Rof, Damage, Pen, Bulk, SS, Burst, Range, etc). >> My point being that there might be a group of people out there who >feel that not all weapons are as similar as the TW2K data charts >indicate. >Under the FFS technical calculations, I doubt most assaults rifles >wouldhave a base range of exactly 50m, some might be 45m, some >might be 51m, etc (some might be 49m and 51m too, of course...). > Sure, this isn't necessary, but some folks might be interested none >the less. I would agree with you that all the weapons would not have the same ranges. Several sources state the maximum effective range (MER-distance at which 50% shots would hit man sized target) of a M16a2 is 550-600 meters (US Army states 550m) and that of a Galil or AR-18 is 450-500 meters.yet both have a SR of 55m. I don't see how that is possible. A second point I would like to raise to every one is the fact that based on a short range of 55m, the extreme range of an M16a2 is 221 meters to 440 meters (281-560 with scope) and you cannot make a quick shot at a person over 221 meters away. The MER generally assumes using the Iron Sights on the weapon, unless its a sniper rifle. (Note the SVD has a MER of 800 without it scope, 1300 with according to most sources.) To me that seems inaccurate that I don't have any chance of hitting a standing person 221 meters away with a quick shot, even if I quick shoot a full clip (semi-auto). Lastly (whew, I'm typing myself to death) the assumption that a .38 special, .357 magnum, .22 auto, .380 auto, 9mm makarov have the same effective ranges as do 9mm Parabellum, 7.62 Tokarev, .45ACP. without starting to take into account different barrell lengths, a particular weapons accuracy (a cheap 9mm auto is a accurate as an high quality fire arm?!?!?!) also strikes me as wrong. So my question is what can we do about this. I tried to use TNE FF&S but it even shortened the range of the M16a2. Just pondering DDolllaw@wans.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:58:41 -0600 From: "ddolllaw" Subject: Re: Character Generator Dave Count me in too - -----Original Message----- From: Mykn8r To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Character Generator >Dave wrote: >> At any rate, is there even a need or want for a charcter generator that >> would include a weapons\vehicle database from which to equip new characters >> & NPC's? >> Or an encounter table? If so, please contact me. I would like to have a >> few testers if possible. > > >I'd love to try it. > >Mikenator >*************************************************************************** >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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 02:04:07 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS In a message dated 99-03-02 23:14:26 EST, you write: << I would agree with you that all the weapons would not have the same ranges. Several sources state the maximum effective range (MER-distance at which 50% shots would hit man sized target) of a M16a2 is 550-600 meters (US Army states 550m) and that of a Galil or AR-18 is 450-500 meters.yet both have a SR of 55m. I don't see how that is possible. A second point I would like to raise to every one is the fact that based on a short range of 55m, the extreme range of an M16a2 is 221 meters to 440 meters (281-560 with scope) and you cannot make a quick shot at a person over 221 meters away. The MER generally assumes using the Iron Sights on the weapon, unless its a sniper rifle. (Note the SVD has a MER of 800 without it scope, 1300 with according to most sources.) To me that seems inaccurate that I don't have any chance of hitting a standing person 221 meters away with a quick shot, even if I quick shoot a full clip (semi-auto). >> I would agree that the effective range of the M16A2 is around 550 to 600 meters. However, I do not agree that you should be able to quick shoot someone at that distance. Granted, extreme range is 221 to 440, but have you SEEN a target at that range? It's teeny tiny! I severely doubt very many people could quicly raise their rifle to the firing position and squeeze off a shot and expect to hit. It takes a bit of time to make sure you're on target and to sight in. And come on, how many enemies are just going to be standing there in the open, waiting to be shot. Most will be moving or at least trying NOT to be shot, thus making a quick shot even harder. I think the rule works 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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:40:07 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Rules Questions >"BLK" stands for "bulk." >Bulk can also be used to determine the difficulty of spotting concealed >weapons on a character's person. Smaller weapons are more easily >concealable, but I don't recall the exact rule that covers this. In fact, >maybe I just made it up. > >~Snake Eyes The T2K 'Special Operations' has the Concealed Weapons Detection table. Blk 4-5 forget it, the rest based on what the person is wearing. Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:48:19 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS - -----Original Message----- From: Snake Eyes To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Wednesday, 3 March 1999 6:44 >At 12:40 PM 3/2/99 -0400, trustno1 wrote: >>[SNIP] >> Bulk is actually the easiest thing to calculate, being equal to the >>weapons length (in cm) divided by 15, rounding all fractions down. >>[SNIP} >> p.s. Has anyone else (with FFS) toyed with the idea of redoing all the >>TW:2K weapons ? If only for more accuracy :) > > >I stand somewhat elaborated upon concerning bulk. I had toyed with the >idea of redoing all the weapons in Twilight when I first got FF&S, but then >I found a copy of BTRC's "More Guns," which uses their 3G3 system. It's >got pages & pages of Twilight weapons conversions. > >It's pretty accurate, and they've got rules for special rounds -- i.e., >hollow-points, armor-piercing and exploding ammo. And it's all >pre-packaged, and ready to use. I have the first edition. I understand >there was an update that included Traveller:TNE weapons as well. Since >the damage systems are the same, it should be useful for anyone who can >find a copy. > >One thing I have tried to use FF&S for is building vehicles & armament for >an Armor XXI-type campaign. But DAMN those rules are tough/impossible to >balance. > >~Snake Eyes How far are you along with this Armour XXI idea? Anything worth mentioning? Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 06:17:01 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Character Generator Hi Dave, This would be great! I would certainly like to help you test it out. In addition, I have a friend who is working on programming a combat management program for T2K, he already has done one for Rifts. If he gets it done, I'll let you all know should anyone want to help test it. --S2000 - ---Dave wrote: > At any rate, is there even a need or want for a charcter generator that > would include a weapons\vehicle database from which to equip new characters > & NPC's? > Or an encounter table? If so, please contact me. I would like to have a > few testers if possible. If there is no want or need, any other ideas would > be appreciated. I need to keep my programming skills up and would love to > do something for T2K. > > Thanks > Dave _________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 06:30:50 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS I'm not into Traveller, but I've long owned a copy of Fire, Fusion, and Steel. I have often used it to make stats for weapons/vehicles not covered in the T2K books I have. I've thought about redoing some of the existing ones, but it would be pretty time intensive. The useful thing about FFS is that it covers a variety of 'tech levels', so you can design weapons for modern day, but I also used it to make stats for WWII weaponry. -- S2000 - ---trustno1 wrote: > > > > Not sure how many TW2K players out there got heavy into another GDW game > "Traveller: The New Era", but one of the plethora of supplements they made > for it was "Fire, Fusion and Steel" (GDW 0304, 1993). Its a technical > architecture book with rules for the creation of such things as space > ships, vehicles, various subsystems and weaponry. Its a fairly detailed > system, where when creating a new firearm, the specs of the bullet itself > are quite important, let alone the characteristics the weapon system itself. > T:TNE uses the same games mechanics as TW2k 2.2 (I believe). Hence the > formulas for things like Bulk, Recoil, Range, Damage are all explained. > > A weapon's Range (in m) is equal to 0.15 x the square root of the > weapon's muzzle energy, divided by the weapon's loaded mass (in kg), plus a > bonus for particularly high muzzle energy, multiplied by the recoil > compensator modifier (from muzzle brakes, etc). > > Bulk is actually the easiest thing to calculate, being equal to the > weapons length (in cm) divided by 15, rounding all fractions down. > > The book is quite well researched I find, and has a wonderful section of > such technologies as hydrogen fuel cells, and various theories on the > possibilities of cold fusion. Plus a wonderful article on gunshot wounds, > that I wish I could make every "firearm munchkin" read... > The book is quite handy in the TNE/TW2K universe I find, although its > hardly perfect (I won't go into the accuracies), and does require at times > some advanced algebra (as shown above). > Worth picking up, IMO, if this sort of thing interests you. > > - trustno1 > > p.s. Has anyone else (with FFS) toyed with the idea of redoing all the > TW:2K weapons ? If only for more accuracy :) > > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > _________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 10:42:45 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS >I would agree with you that all the weapons would not have the same ranges. >Several sources state the maximum effective range (MER-distance at which 50% >shots would hit man sized target) of a M16a2 is 550-600 meters (US Army >states 550m) and that of a Galil or AR-18 is 450-500 meters.yet both have a >SR of 55m. I don't see how that is possible. > > >So my question is what can we do about this. I tried to use TNE FF&S but it >even shortened the range of the M16a2. > >Just pondering >DDolllaw@wans.net > I agree, the ranges are too short. Might I suggest two fixes: 1) Try changing the size of the range bands. Instead of the x1, x2, x4, x8 system listed in the book, try something like x1, x3, x6, x12. (50m x 12 for extreme range => 600m) 2) Try multiplying all short ranges by 1.5. (50m x 1.5 = 75m; extreme range 75m x 8 => 600m) If you've done an FF&S work up (I got 44m for the M16a2), which spits out 528m. Guess some quick thoughts... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:08:15 -0600 From: "ddolllaw" Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS - -----Original Message----- From: Grimace997@aol.com To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 1:07 AM Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS Grimace: I agree we disagree. Even so, my point is that you cannot even attempt to make a quick shot at a target over 221 meters away at all, be it man sized or the size of the space shuttle. The only shot you can make at 221 meters with an M-16 at a stationary target, according to the rules is an aimed shot. Now under the rules if a PC with a combined SAR/STR of 20 attempted to make the shot without a scope (using the iron sights), his odds of making the shot would be 25% (5 on a d20). You'd fail to qualify with a M16 in the Marine Corps. So even if you think the system works fine with quick shots there is a flaw in the system even with aimed shots. and in addition remember only the first shot is aimed the rest are quick shots which means you have no chance of hitting a target 250m away with any additional shots in a turn even if you score a direct hit with the first aimed shot as you are not allowed to make a quick shot of over 220 meters. Donald *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 11:53:20 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS At 08:48 PM 3/3/99 +1100, Peter Grining wrote: > >[SNIP] >> >>One thing I have tried to use FF&S for is building vehicles & armament for >>an Armor XXI-type campaign. But DAMN those rules are tough/impossible to >>balance. >> >>~Snake Eyes > >How far are you along with this Armour XXI idea? Anything worth mentioning? > >Peter Nothing yet. I got in touch with David Nilsen, the original designer of Armor XXI, and he said that FF&S didn't work very well for him. In fact, he was just going to pull some ideas out of his head and publish some vehicles with made-up stats. But GDW folded before they got anything besides the cover art designed. I think this is one of those cases where playability will win out over realism. I'll let y'all if I ever come up with anything worth mentioning. ~Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:21:11 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Mass Combat System??? >From: MarkChest@aol.com >Having got both the 1st edition and v2.2 Twilight 2000, I was wondering is >there a mass combat system out there like the one in The Ruins Of Warsaw (For >the 1st edition). If possible could it also contain rules for Air Warfare >(Helicopters, ground support etc.) The World Tamer's Handbook, for Traveller: The New Era, has a mass combat system compatable with T2K v2.2. However, it isn't very detailed and comprises less than 5% of the book (about 6 pages). OTOH, it does deal with terrain effects and resupply. A later section in the book has (game stat) construction rules for black powder weapons and bows/crossbows. This could also be useful in a T2K campaign. However, the majority of the book is only useful for a space campaign. The Nautical/Aviation Handbook has rules for aerial combat, plus 60+ aircraft (about half are helicopters, the rest are fixed wing). 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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 19:28:12 EST From: Hruggek@aol.com Subject: I wish to resign How do I resign from the twilight list. Sorry i thought I was kicked off but I still get mail. Sorry for the interuption Monkey *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:40:54 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Questions (Bulk) - > FFS In a message dated 99-03-03 14:10:43 EST, you write: << I agree we disagree. Even so, my point is that you cannot even attempt to make a quick shot at a target over 221 meters away at all, be it man sized or the size of the space shuttle. The only shot you can make at 221 meters with an M-16 at a stationary target, according to the rules is an aimed shot. Now under the rules if a PC with a combined SAR/STR of 20 attempted to make the shot without a scope (using the iron sights), his odds of making the shot would be 25% (5 on a d20). You'd fail to qualify with a M16 in the Marine Corps. So even if you think the system works fine with quick shots there is a flaw in the system even with aimed shots. and in addition remember only the first shot is aimed the rest are quick shots which means you have no chance of hitting a target 250m away with any additional shots in a turn even if you score a direct hit with the first aimed shot as you are not allowed to make a quick shot of over 220 meters. Donald >> Ooo. Okay, I see where you are going. I was addressing the limited aspect of picking up the rifle and quickly raising it, locating a target, and firing off a shot. In my opinion, that is a quick shot. I do not have a problem with the way the rules work in that regard. On the matter of the aimed shot turning to a quick shot after the first, I do have a problem with. I agree with you that what they have listed is not wholly accurate. Personally, I use a slightly modified way to operate such things as this. Assuming someone takes the time to aim, I give them a bonus. If they are aiming at a target, and decide to put more than one round into said target, I do not change their type of fire into "quick shot" as the rules state. I keep it at aimed fire with only the added recoil taking effect. I'm sure you've probably modified things yourself to make things be a little more sensible, as has probably everyone on this list. I remember not too long ago someone was talking about the recoil of the M-16 being all wrong. Everyone has their own little, personal modifications that they make. More power to them. By the way, does anyone have any "house rules" on the modifiers/difficulty of ranging in a target with something like a M249 SAW, or even a .50 cal? *************************************************************************** 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 #23 ************************************