twilight2000-digest Friday, June 4 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 043 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: T2K Warfare (long) Re: T2K Warfare (long) Troop Movements. char sheet for 1st edition Twilight 2000 wantedhi Maus Re: Troop Movements. Re: T2K Warfare (long) Re: T2K Warfare (long) I am starting to make new autofire rules. Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) RE: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) Searching for Twilight 2000 computer game RE: I am starting to make new auto fire rules. Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) Quick Kill, etc. Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 00:10:07 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: T2K Warfare (long) C Jones wrote: > > From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Reply-To: twilight2000@mpgn.com To: "T2K forum" Subject: T2K Warfare Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:50:37 +1000 Hi all, I've really been enjoying the discussion on modern warfare over the last few days, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. The question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in the T2K rules set have on modern warfare? In our campaign warfare has degenerated into small-scale trench war a' la 1915. Local commanders are not capable of summoning the logistics or manpower required to straighten fronts, so they are unable to join with allied units in their cantons. The encounter tables and equipment list availability chart seem to indicate it is still fairly easy for troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being built so maneuvre warfare seems out as well. Interested in your response. Jim. I think the combat in Twilight would be similar to the United States position in Vietnam. I think that there are no longer any fronts and that there is not much happening other than armies trying to survive in a post-nuclear war environment. There would be outpost of different armies that have dug-in to try and survive the current conditons. Nobody wants to take the offensive because that would make them leave their newly planted farms (which they live off of). The only people that are making offensive moves are the deserters and mauders (they take their food so they have nothing to lose). The PC's are usually lost somewhere in hostile territory and trying to find someplace to get away from the war (to bad there are not that many places like that... if any at all). The PC's must fight all the hostile patrols of different armies and try and keep the mauderers off of them and just stay alive any way they can (whether that means joining up with a canton or! ..! .. becoming mauderers themselfs). This is the way I see the war. Tanks and Aromored vechices are still made just so few last long enough to make any difference (and though that do survive are so valuable nobody wants to risk using them other than for a last defence). Write back if you disagree I want to hear different opinions C JONES > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit www.msn.com I'd just like to ask that people not use html in their emails; in netscape composer, click on options when writing an email and set format to plain text only - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:20:13 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: T2K Warfare (long) Just a few thoughts, Since I posted that query, debate has raged pretty hot in our gaming group. Here's some ideas. Believe it or not, tanks are'nt the real problem for an entrenched position, the reason tanks worked so well at Cambrai in '15 was the fact that they'd never really been used in such large numbers and the Germans had'nt time to develope an effective counter. The main answer to trenches is the German Sturmtruppen "Infiltration Tactic". All that aside, the reason I put forward for reintroduction of trenches, (By "small scale, I mean the trench line is generally anchored on either side by a terrain feature such as a lake or ridge.) is the need for a non-permeable defence (sorry about that, I hate wanker terms too.) to stop the bad guys getting thier units into your food producing areas, in our campaign the 9th Pol. MRD got close enough to the Kolobrzeg enclave to dump a bucket load of persistent nerve agent all over our crop land. The main reason I dont think it would turn into a Vietnam style campaign is that the NVA and VC were forced into a guerilla war because they did'nt have a hope in hell of winning a conventional one. Everytime they were not carefull enough about letting their main force units get caught by the US, you guys smeared them. The Pact army does'nt have to worry about that, they outnumber NATO on the ground. Your absolutley right about the Marauders though, I suppose they have little choice. Its be a guerilla ore starve. By the way, has any body found out where the 29th Panzer and the 6th and 21st Panzergrenadiers are in Northern Poland? They're listed in the East Europe Sourcebook but not Where! Sorry if I've gone on a bit, Jim. > > I think the combat in Twilight would be similar to the > United States position in Vietnam. I think that there > are no longer any fronts and that there is not much > happening other than armies trying to survive in a > post-nuclear war environment. There would be outpost of > different armies that have dug-in to try and survive the > current conditons. Nobody wants to take the offensive > because that would make them leave their newly planted > farms (which they live off of). The only people that are > making offensive moves are the deserters and mauders > (they take their food so they have nothing to lose). The > PC's are usually lost somewhere in hostile territory and > trying to find someplace to get away from the war (to bad > there are not that many places like that... if any at > all). The PC's must fight all the hostile patrols of > different armies and try and keep the mauderers off of > them and just stay alive any way they can (whether that > means joining up with a canton or! ..! .. becoming > mauderers themselfs). This is the way I see the war. > > Tanks and Aromored vechices are still made just so few > last long enough to make any difference (and though that > do survive are so valuable nobody wants to risk using > them other than for a last defence). > > Write back if you disagree I want to hear different > opinions > > C JONES >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit www.msn.com > >I'd just like to ask that people not use html in their emails; in >netscape composer, click on options when writing an email and set format >to plain text only > >-- >([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) >(-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:32:03 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Troop Movements. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01BEAAF4.9F144340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Has anyone got any ideas about what troops are doing what in Spring = 2001? We have the 4th Canadian Mechanised Brigade moving along the = coast, trying to take Koszalin. Any more thoughts? P.S. If your after good maps of Poland (and anywhere really), the UK = Tactical Pilotage Charts really rock. Most of Poland is on TPC E-3A and = TPC E-3D, but if you want the the German border region you'll also need = TPC E-2B and E-2C. A word of caution 'though, these are 1:500,000 charts = so they're REALLY big, about A0 size. Jim. - ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01BEAAF4.9F144340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Has=20 anyone got any ideas about what troops are doing what in Spring 2001? We = have=20 the 4th Canadian Mechanised Brigade moving along the coast, trying to = take=20 Koszalin. Any more thoughts? P.S. If=20 your after good maps of Poland (and anywhere really), the UK Tactical = Pilotage=20 Charts really rock. Most of Poland is on TPC E-3A and TPC E-3D, but if = you want=20 the the German border region you'll also need TPC E-2B and E-2C. A word = of=20 caution 'though, these are 1:500,000 charts so they're REALLY big, about = A0=20 size. =20 Jim. - ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01BEAAF4.9F144340-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 18:14:50 +0200 From: "Jorgen Grundstrom" Subject: char sheet for 1st edition Twilight 2000 wantedhi This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BEAAC8.4F041000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I need a character sheet for 1st edition TW2000 badly If anyone has one please sent to: jorgen@c47.net - ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BEAAC8.4F041000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I need=20 a character sheet for 1st edition TW2000 badly If=20 anyone has one please sent to: = jorgen@c47.net - ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BEAAC8.4F041000-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 99 12:42:06 -0600 From: Dihtahn Subject: Maus Panzerkampfwagon ŒMaus¹ Porsche 205 Super heavy tank In June 1942, Porsche of Stuttgart were ordered by Hitler to start designing a superheavy tank, mounting a 12.8cm gun, and having maximum possible armour. Trials were to commence in May 1943. Many difficulties arose. For example, the air-cooled motor did not materialize, and the V1 vehicle had to be fitted with a modified MB509 aircraft engine, the V2 with a MB517 diesel. The Porsche longitudinal torsion bar suspension had to be abandoned as there was insufficient space for the number of stations needed to carry the continually growing weight. Meanwhile, an order had been placed for a production series of 150, but in October 1943, this was cancelled. The V1 prototype was tested with a simulated turret in December 1943, and with a turret and armament in June 1944, but the engine was destroyed in an accident and was not replaced until April 1945. Both prototypes were blown up at Kummersdorf. Manufacturer: Alkett 2 Prototypes, 9 under construction Crew: 5 Engine: MB509 V1 or MB517 diesel V2 Weight: 188 tons Gearbox: 2 forward, 2 reverse Length: 10.09 m Speed: 20 kph Width: 3.67 m Range: 186 km Height: 3.66 m Radio: FuG5 Armament: One 12.8cm KwK44 L/55 One 7.5cm KwK44 L/36.5 One 7.92mm MG34 Traverse:360° (power) Elevation: -7° to +23° Sight: ZF Ammunition: 32 x 12.8cm 200 x 7.5cm Armour (mm/angle) Front Side Rear Top/Bottom Turret: 240/round 200/30° 200/7° 40/90° Superstructure: 200/55° 180+100/0° 180/38° 80-40/90° Hull: 200/35° 180/0° 180/30° 100-40/90° Gun mantlet:240/Saukopfblende From Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two 1978 USA Name: PzKw Maus Crew: 5 Wt: 188 F Cap: 5022 F Con: 540 Tr Mov: 29/6 Cbt Mov: 7/1 HF: 60 HS: 56 HR: 54 TF: 48 TS: 40 TR: 40 T: 8 B: 20 Sus: 15 Rof Dam Pen Blk Mag Brst Rng MG-34 10 4 2-3-Nil 6 50B 4 125 Rld Rng/IFR Ammo Dam Pen 12.8cm KwK44 L/55 2 400 AP 28 80/70/60/50 400 APCBC 28 90/80/70/60 400 HCS C:10 B:20 110c 400 HE C:14 B:28 1c Rld Rng/IFR Ammo Dam Pen 7.5cm KwK44 L/36.5 1 275 APC 16 8/4/2 275 APCBC 16 12/6/3 250 AP40 16 16/10/7 275/7000 HCS C:6 B:12 20c 275/7000 HE C:6 B:12 -3c 275/7000 CHEM C:3 B:20 Nil 50 Cannister C:6 B:12 4/3/3/-1 I have most of the German tanks and a few of the Allied, this is the only one that includes real armour in mm/slope with T2K weapon values. The universe is created from chaos Man exists in the universe The ultimate chaos in man's existance is war When we master war We master the universe *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 12:13:56 -0700 From: Ron Hale Subject: Re: Troop Movements. Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: P.S. If your after good maps of Poland (and anywhere really), the UK Tactical Pilotage Charts really rock. Most of Poland is on TPC E-3A and TPC E-3D, but if you want the the German border region you'll also need TPC E-2B and E-2C. A word of caution 'though, these are 1:500,000 charts so they're REALLY big, about A0 size. Where would I find a retailer/wholeseller. A web site perhaps. Thanks TTFN Ron Hale *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 17:06:39 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K Warfare (long) At 11:20 PM 5/30/99 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > Just a few thoughts, > Since I posted that query, debate has raged pretty hot in our gaming >group. Here's some ideas. > Believe it or not, tanks are'nt the real problem for an entrenched >position, the reason tanks worked so well at Cambrai in '15 was the fact >that they'd never really been used in such large numbers and the Germans >had'nt time to develope an effective counter. The main answer to trenches is >the German Sturmtruppen "Infiltration Tactic". > All that aside, the reason I put forward for reintroduction of trenches, >(By "small scale, I mean the trench line is generally anchored on either >side by a terrain feature such as a lake or ridge.) is the need for a >non-permeable defence (sorry about that, I hate wanker terms too.) to stop >the bad guys getting thier units into your food producing areas, in our >campaign the 9th Pol. MRD got close enough to the Kolobrzeg enclave to dump >a bucket load of persistent nerve agent all over our crop land. Okay, then you're not talking about trench warfare, which is two lines of trenches running opposite each other, but about building fixed fortifications. I can see this, but you might take an example from the Middle Ages here: it simply wasn't feasible to build and man fortifications all the way around your farmland; rather, you built a strong point (a castle) to which the population could flee in case of an attack. > The main reason I dont think it would turn into a Vietnam style campaign >is that the NVA and VC were forced into a guerilla war because they did'nt >have a hope in hell of winning a conventional one. Everytime they were not >carefull enough about letting their main force units get caught by the US, >you guys smeared them. The Pact army does'nt have to worry about that, they >outnumber NATO on the ground. Your absolutley right about the Marauders >though, I suppose they have little choice. Its be a guerilla ore starve. I don't know why Vietnam was even brought up, since the political aspects of that war (trying to convince one side to get out, trying to win over the population) don't really enter into the equation here. Except in a guerilla war, the use of raiding tactics has little to do with whether or not one side is bigger than the other; rather, it's a matter of the density of men per mile of frontage: when a raid of the enemy's supply lines can cripple an enemy formation at little cost to yourself, it's stupid to try to fight a pitched battle. The Polish-Soviet War, for instance, involved fairly large armies, but both of them preferred most of the time to try cutting off the enemy's supply lines rather than to meet the other side in a pitched battle. > By the way, has any body found out where the 29th Panzer and the 6th and >21st Panzergrenadiers are in Northern Poland? They're listed in the East >Europe Sourcebook but not Where! > Sorry if I've gone on a bit, You haven't really, but one thing you might do is delete parts of the text you're replying to if you're not replyign to them directly. Since you didn't even bother to scroll down and put your comments beneath the previous poster's, and you didn't refer to them, I'm assuming you weren't replying to them at all--and certainly (especially since you didn't refer to them) nobody is going to bother to scroll down to them after (let alone before) reading yours, so why did you include them. I've noticed that people who respond below the quoted text rather that above, are not only much easier to read, but are much less likely to leave in unnecessary quoted text. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 17:05:27 +0200 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: T2K Warfare (long) Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, fitek@ix.netcom.com produced: > I'd just like to ask that people not use html in their emails; in > netscape composer, click on options when writing an email and set format > to plain text only To which I'd like to agree: Not only doubles and triples HTML the size of the message needlessly, most people in the world don't have flat provider rates and even more don't have flat phone rates. The same goes to quoting needless stuff ... :-/ And sending background-pictures along with your mail may be cute, but for me it's as cute as sending a dead (smelly) rodent with snail-mail letters. *sigh* - -Wolfgang (I really must think if I want to automatically bouncie (reject) such emails ...) - -- 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@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 22:22:34 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: I am starting to make new autofire rules. I am starting to make new autofire rules for TW2000 system. Orginals are (my opinion) too useless for coverfire and maybe they are inaccurate too. I like to read some reports in real gunfights etc. to get more realistic rules. Does anybody know where I can found them? In internet? Or do somebody allready have own rules for autofire? - I like to read them first. Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:29:00 +0200 From: "Ronald A" Subject: Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) > Or do somebody allready have own rules for autofire? - I like to read them > first. I have made some changes to the autofire rules, and the recoil rules. There were several things i thought was lacking in the original rules. 1. Recoil values wasn't consistent. Some weapons were listed with far to high values, and other with low values (almost anyone can actually take an mp5 and point it at a target 30 m away and hit with most of the rounds on full auto... but the rules say no way...) 2. It forced the players into using single shots to be effective, and they rarely used autofire, not even for cover fire. Not even with machineguns... (by the way the mg-3 doesn't even have a fire selector. It's safe or auto. At best of luck you can manage to cut burst to 2-3 shots) 3. Since autofire was a complete waste of time and ammo players used way to little ammo compared to a real firefight, witch meant they always had enough ammo to go. And that isn't funny in a tw2k setting. 4. Some weapons wasn't as effective as they should have been (machineguns..). So to remedy this i made some changes. 1. I rearranged all recoil values, removing brst values and retaining only the modified single shot values. 2. I modified rof to be the weapons cyclic rof pr second. 3. I came up with a new way of differencing between the different types of fire. 1. aimed single shot (one range band closer, two if the weapon has some kind of scope) recoil has no effect person spends one round aiming before firing the next round 2. single shot (one range band closer) recoil as no effect one shot per round 3. quick single shots (normal range) up to 5 shots pr round recoil as normal 4. 3 rnd burst's (normal range) up to 5 burst's pr round recoil as normal 5. autofire (one range band further away) can be performed by sa weapons also (up to 20 shots pr round) up to rof x 5 shots pr round recoil as normal * notice autofire doesn't have to be a long burst, it can be several shorter ones. 4. I also treat recoil differently. I've given each person a recoil handling capacity (rhc) equal to strx2. I then check how much recoil they accumulate pr second vs. their rhc. If they stay below its ok, but if they go over it, they must spend the next second regaining control of the weapon. If a weapon excides half the rhc with a single shot, they will also have to spend a second regaining control (this to count in heavy recoil weapons such as the .50 cal and so on). By using these rules i feel i have control over most weapons beaviour. Autofire weapons with heavyer recoil, fired in automode, would propably be used with shorter burst's (as much as the player can handle, and next second the player would fire another short burst). 5. I treat autofire diffferently. My players don't designate targets in the conventional way anymore, but areas they want to hit. Those areas range from 1x1 m and upwards. The size of the target area modifies the chance of hitting. Mansized as above, Vehicle sized is one rangeband shorter, and building sized is two range bands shorter. I then have a small computerprogram that calculates hits on target for me (based on target size, cover, action, numbers of targets, and numbers of rounds fired). This way weapons capable of sustained autofire (mg's) actually get used for that purpose, and the ammo goes a hell of a lot faster (I now have players reloading cartridges, and scavanging bodies for ammo. The last firefight had about 20 seconds of firing, and the players spent about 60 7,62 Nato and 30 12,7 bmg rounds from the machineguns alone). By having a small program (actually it's made in ms excel, and it's not perfect...) i can also use it for calculating stray bullets chances of hiting players during larger battles (like when they move through a forest aproaching the combat zone, and occationaly a bullet comes wistling down betwine the trees). These rules also permit heavyer autoweapons to engage groupes of people effectivly. The advantages of doing this is more realism, and players have improved their tactics skill. The drawbacks are slower system, and more book keeping (this kan be partially remedied by leting player do some of their own calculations). I hope i got this down as i intended, it's quite late here in norway, and i'm dead tired. So if you spot some inconsistencies in what i just wrote, point it out. It's propably something i've already corrected, but didn't see just now as i'm scribling this down... But please tell me what you guys think of it. Ronald A *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:55:30 -0400 From: "Erwos" Subject: RE: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) I think there were some rules printed for 3 round bursts in that GDW mag. I remember them being quite good, as well, and actually giving a decent chance of hitting with all 3 rounds. You have to remember that the full-auto depicted in T:2K is more of a spray-and-pray type of affair rather than a controlled burst. In such a case, the autofire rules aren't THAT bad. - -Erwos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com > [mailto:owner-twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Ronald A > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 7:29 PM > To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com > Subject: Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) > > > > > Or do somebody allready have own rules for autofire? - I like > to read them > > first. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:15:06 +1000 From: Damian Robinson Subject: Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) Erwos wrote: > > I think there were some rules printed for 3 round bursts in that GDW > mag. I remember them being quite good, as well, and actually giving > a decent chance of hitting with all 3 rounds. yup, they were quite good. aimed shot as normal, but roll a d3 for the amount of rounds hitting. Page 23, Special Operations, GDW 2012. - -- Cheers Damian Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/4808/ pay a visit, and please don't forget the Guestbook... ICQ? #14030875 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 00:41:50 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) At 12:15 PM 6/2/99 +1000, Damian Robinson wrote: >Erwos wrote: >> >> I think there were some rules printed for 3 round bursts in that GDW >> mag. I remember them being quite good, as well, and actually giving >> a decent chance of hitting with all 3 rounds. > >yup, they were quite good. aimed shot as normal, but roll a d3 for the >amount of rounds hitting. Page 23, Special Operations, GDW 2012. Ah, yes. My second favorite rule (after the Quick Kill). This really streamlined close-quarter combat. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:28:10 +0200 From: Hortobagyi Jozsef Subject: Searching for Twilight 2000 computer game Dear lovers of TL2000! My name is Joseph, I live in Hungary. I'm searching for the Twilight 2000 computer game since a long long time. I've searched (i think) the full internet, but i can't find this game. I've have found only the full rpg version of this game, but since 1992 I've never found the computer game version of the Twilight 2000. Once in the year of 1992 I was played this computer game a week, but that was deleted by the supervisor of the gameserver. Can u please help me, how can I find the computer game version of this Twilight 2000 rpg? more thanx: - joseph - (Evv@korb1.sote.hu) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:00:38 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: I am starting to make new auto fire rules. You may wish to start by looking at the auto fire rules in T2K 2nd Ed (2.2) first. As far as war reports go S.L.A. Marshall's oral histories are popular, but perhaps suspect. As I recall actual wartime ratios of hits to auto-fire rounds shot is *VERY* low. Such data exists for Viet Nam, but I do not recall sources at the moment. These actual to-hit numbers can be compared to early marine hit/bullet ratios (they used single-shot carbines early in the war). > ---------- > From: Pietu[SMTP:peter.himberg@pp.inet.fi] > Reply To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 2:22 PM > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: I am starting to make new auto fire rules. > > > I am starting to make new auto fire rules for TW2000 system. > > Orginals are (my opinion) too useless for coverfire and maybe they are > inaccurate too. I like to read some reports in real gunfights etc. to get > more realistic rules. Does anybody know where I can found them? In > internet? > > Or do somebody allready have own rules for auto fire? - I like to read > them > first. > > Peter > > > ************************************************************************** > * > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to > majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 15:19:00 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) Snake Eyes wrote: > At 12:15 PM 6/2/99 +1000, Damian Robinson wrote: > >Erwos wrote: > >> > >> I think there were some rules printed for 3 round bursts in that GDW > >> mag. I remember them being quite good, as well, and actually giving > >> a decent chance of hitting with all 3 rounds. > > > >yup, they were quite good. aimed shot as normal, but roll a d3 for the > >amount of rounds hitting. Page 23, Special Operations, GDW 2012. > > Ah, yes. My second favorite rule (after the Quick Kill). This really > streamlined close-quarter combat. > > ~ Snake Eyes > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. What exactly were these rules, and what is quick kill? - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 16:13:30 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Quick Kill, etc. At 03:19 PM 6/2/99 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: >Snake Eyes wrote: > >> At 12:15 PM 6/2/99 +1000, Damian Robinson wrote: >> >Erwos wrote: >> >> >> >> I think there were some rules printed for 3 round bursts in that GDW >> >> mag. I remember them being quite good, as well, and actually giving >> >> a decent chance of hitting with all 3 rounds. >> > >> >yup, they were quite good. aimed shot as normal, but roll a d3 for the >> >amount of rounds hitting. Page 23, Special Operations, GDW 2012. >> >> Ah, yes. My second favorite rule (after the Quick Kill). This really >> streamlined close-quarter combat. > >What exactly were these rules, and what is quick kill? Quick Kill first showed up as a new version 2.0 rule in Merc 2000 on page 85. Basically, any aimed shot hitting the chest or head may result in an instant kill shot. Roll a d10 -- If the damage value is less than or equal to the damage value of the shot (AFTER subtracting dice for any applicable armor), the target is killed instantly except on a roll of 10 exactly. This is meant for NPCs only. If a PC takes a potential killing shot, immediately raise the hit location to the "Serious" wound level, THEN apply the normal damage of the round on top of that. The Aimed 3-Round Burst is in the Spec Ops book, as quoted by Damian above. This allows any SMG, assault rifle or battle rifle to fire a 3-round burst as one aimed shot. Use your aimed small arms skill & deduct recoil for a three round burst, and make any other combat die adjustments. If you make the shot, roll a d6 & divide by 2. That's how many rounds hit. Then roll hit locations and calculate damage normally. You can only fire one burst per action, and there is no danger zone from the autofire. The Spec Ops book has another great provision on page 22, for Targeted Shots. Any aimed shot can be targeted at a specific body part at one greater level of difficulty. Which translates to losing the one level bonus you get for aiming in the first place. So for no net loss, you can pick your body part. It is unclear if this is allowed to be combined with the aimed burst above, but I've always allowed it. What's good for the PC is just as good for the NPC though. These three rules take a little bit of learning and some pratice, but as soon as you're familiar with them, you'll find they absolutely rock. If you implement the Quick Kill rule, the Aimed 3-Round Burst and allow Targeted Shots, combat is resolved quicker and becomes much more lethal for everyone concerned. It actually becomes realistic to conduct a close quarter raid using only an MP5 (Navy SEAL style -- with aimed bursts to the head), which is ususally suicidal under the basic rules. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 00:43:53 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: Re: I am starting to make new autofire rules. (long) First, sorry for my late reply and thanks for everyone who answer my questions. Now I like to present some of my opinions. At 01:29 2.6.1999 +0200, you wrote: > >> Or do somebody allready have own rules for autofire? - I like to read them >> first. >2. It forced the players into using single shots to be effective, and they >rarely used autofire, not even for cover fire. Not even with machineguns... I think that using single shots in gun fight is not realistic. In combat situations (I mean streets and bushes, not fields) , soldiers more likely shot quick shots and sametime try to be in safe from bullets. In TW2000 rules, thesekind situations are not common. With my experience, that player who have best iniative really controls the combat situation. He has no reason to seek even cover, he just shot everyone! There seen to be no rule to shot quick shots fast and sametime try to get cover (Bad for NPC:s:)). >3. Since autofire was a complete waste of time and ammo players used way to >little ammo compared to a real firefight, witch meant they always had enough >ammo to go. And that isn't funny in a tw2k setting. I have discovered same thing. One thing, which I tryed before change to MERC2000, was force players to make their charaters as students and other not so military careers. This make charaters avoid combat because their poor cambat skills. Well, it works pretty good before they get in ambush... >building sized is two range bands shorter. I then have a small >computerprogram that calculates hits on target for me (based on target size, >cover, action, numbers of targets, and numbers of rounds fired). This way >weapons capable of sustained autofire (mg's) actually get used for that >purpose, and the ammo goes a hell of a lot faster (I now have players >reloading cartridges, and scavanging bodies for ammo. The last firefight had >about 20 seconds of firing, and the players spent about 60 7,62 Nato and 30 >12,7 bmg rounds from the machineguns alone). By having a small program >(actually it's made in ms excel, and it's not perfect...) i can also use it We have allready primitive program to handle burst shot in one of my friends calcurator. But it is not so good than your own. BTW have anybody even think how much portable computer may help GM´s work? Or make game sessions better? Imagine showing maps, pictures or even sounds with computer to players! Have anybody try it? - I would like to hear how it works. I will test your rules in "real situations" before I can give any opinion about it. Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #43 ************************************