Any status yet?

[calico_jack73]

There hasn't exactly been any kind of news about Twilight on QLI's website for some time. The last update I saw was in the press release and that was in 2003. Here we are in 2005 and it'd be nice to know if the whole project was even still a go or if it had been axed.

 

[montanakennedy]

I thought I saw a post here from Craig or someone else recently mentioning the delay and that work is ongoing and was slated for this year or next...

As someone else who is in the middle of a large writing project I sympathize...

"I hate writing. I love having written." - attributed to Dorothy Parker (and others)

Dave

 

[imported_Sgt_Biggles]

Greetings All,

Currently I am crunching the numbers in order to create the vehicle and weapons lists. The project continues to move forward, although slowly, I am picking up speed once again.

Hang in there folks. We are not down and out yet!

Craig

 

[BetterThanLife]

Craig,
Since I have some knowledge of military equipment and tactics, from both sides of the "war" (9 years Active Duty HUMINT specialist, Soviet/Eastern Europe expert, 2 years Guard same MOS, 3 years, Guard, 11B.) is there anything I can do to help?

 

[imported_Sgt_Biggles]

Thanks. Refer to the PM I sent you.

Craig

 

[PBI]

Will the basic kit lists and chargen profiles look like the original, or will they be more accurate this time?

 

[imported_Sgt_Biggles]

Character Generation will be fairly open. As a player you will have access to many of the skills and feats, so it will be up to you. The character classes cover Army, Navy, Air Force & Marines. Special Operations classes are in limbo. They may stand as basic classes, since many of the SF career fields can be entered at enlistment. On the other hand, to become truly skilled in Spec Ops takes time, so they may end up as Prestige classes. This is where I am leaning at present, although I originally wrote them in as starting classes.

For the civilian side there is the Professional, Crafter and Emergency Services careers.

The basic skills and feats relate to modern day recruiting standards more so than the original game.

Kits are also open ended. After 5 years of fighting the Twilight War, most soldiers are outfitted significantly different than pre-war standards. Each character will get some basic gear, nothing fancy, and will have the opportunity to acquire additional equipment through the mustering out process. There is a lot of player choice surrounding the creation process.

Hope this helps.

Craig

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by PBI:
Will the basic kit lists and chargen profiles look like the original, or will they be more accurate this time?

I found the basic kits were fairly accurate. Especially based on what was actually carried vs. what was issued. Some things tend to get "mislaid" with no attempt to replace it, other things tend to get held on to no matter what else is available to replace it.

 

[PBI]

I should have clarified myself, so, apologies

I was actually referring to the non-US militaries when I asked about kit lists and chargen. The kit list in 2.0 for Canada, for example, had some rather glaring errors, as did the basic skill list. It was no big deal for me, since I was able to correct the errors based on my own knowledge, but I still felt somewhat irked that a game that seemed so well-researched fell down once it delved into non-US areas.

Yes, I know why (or I think I know why) that happened, that the game was designed by and for a primarily US market, but still

 

[kaladorn]

Good point PBI. I found the same thing, though mind you I did my time in the primary infantry reserve in the Great White North in 87-88 time frame.

Certainly, with CotI, there exists a broad spectrum resource from which to draw for kit lists and the like for foreign military forces (ie non-US), so all that is required is a solicitation for information.

As to SF, they're a bit tricky. Different forces have very different issues. I have a friend just retired from 5th SF, but I spent a bunch of years in the airborne first. I know a former SAS Sgt, but in order to get into SAS, he had to try out repeatedly. I know of people that went into our JTF2 from other regular forces. I know a US Ranger who explained to me a little abouthow they trained and recruited. Different SF units (and probably different militaries) have very different ways of populating their force - some are available right after enlistment, others only after you have sufficient field experience. This also applies to some MOS (Royal Marine Commando Sniper for instance).

 

[PBI]

I agree that the spec ops types are a little harder to craft a skill set for, since they tend not to want to advertise

Also, I know that it'd be damn near impossible to fully detail all the various armed forces, but big things like having Canadians running around with M-60s and Canucks and Brits getting out of basic training without any first aid at all? Okay, so maybe the first aid thing isn't that big

 

[kaladorn]

I knew emergency first aid including treatment of broken bones, bleeding, shock, hypthermia, etc. and gunshots when I got through with basic.

Of course, I had a friend who watched US forces from the Southern US, up on an exchange program, disobey his suggestion (he was only a corporal, the local guide) to stay off a river that was frozen (of course, not as much near the shores!). He warned them, they told him basically to button it. Someone went in. He then told them they needed to get him in a sleeping bag with someone else post-haste to let skin-to-skin transfer body heat. The US officer wouldn't allow it (had quite a homophobic response). My friend called in the evac, but the poor bugger died of hypothermia and shock.

In the CF, that would get you cashiered. When the Canadian Colonel took it up with the US Major, the response was 'acceptable training losses'.

Maybe first aid isn't a US strong point (Of course, this is probably an anomalous experience, I admit!)

Part of it probably was not wanting to detail all the different weapons, etc.

 

[PBI]

My beef with the weapons issue, in particular, was that T2K 2.0 had Canada using weapons never issued to the CF, not using ones that were in widespread use, and only partial listing of the old, "no longer used but there's still a feeling of nostalgia" weapons.

That is partially what the weapons guides were for, but the core rules got simple, basic equipment wrong, including the initial kit list for a Canuck; I remember reading the 'awesome extras' the Yank PCs got and had a great time seeing the look on the other players' faces when the CF PC showed up with about half again as much kit as the US characters, and all for free.

As for first aid being taught or not taught to the US mil, I don't know either. I do remember playing with some of the US signals troops, though, and being astonished at how specialized they were. The luxury of having over a million bodies in uniform, I guess

 

[kaladorn]

Well, M-16 could pass for a C7, but that was a later issue anyway (and slightly improved on the M16A2 in trivial ways). They could easily have had us using the FN C1s (close to the FAL) and C2s. And the Browning HP.

And the kit lists were pretty well wrong. The CF does have some nice kit, if you're lucky enough to be in a unit to get it. But that supply situation is a bit variable. One unit I was associated with had 40 odd members and about 100 gas masks and chem suits. My infantry unit had about 200 members and about 40 or so masks and I think maybe 1 or 2 full chem suits. So supply vagarities would still play into it. Still, basic CF kit was good. I liked our webbing a lot better than all that stuff with ALICE clips, among other things. And cold weather gear was pretty reasonable. I was jealous of US rain gear at the time.

You make a good point about specialization. A friend recently got asked by a USN Bosun how to read ' one of them map things '. Now, as anyone who has proper nautical navigation training knows, it is not a map but a chart. The fact a Bosun had no idea how to even read one, and he was supposed to be conning a US vessel (small, true enough) at the time was rather scary. Part of the inability to read tide tables allowed one of the USN boats to be grounded inside Canadian waters. (They had to leave guys on it, they were afraid the RCN would try to claim it for salvage...).

So I think we do actually have a broader scope of training. I don't doubt the average US grunt gets better comms gear, better arty support, better toys for MOUT than we do, but I also feel certain we've got better cross-training in our forces (especially in armour or other vehicular troops), we've had to be resourceful do to our lower budgets, and we're a better at OOTW.

It would be interesting if the new version of the game could reflect some of those types of differences, where a particular nation has strengths in one area or another. That might serve to make different national forces more different than just a different fatigue pattern and native language...

 

[GJD]

Ultimately, at the end of the day, it comes down to who has the nicer rations.

G.

 

[kaladorn]

True enough. MREs have come a long way. And Canadian rations are actually darn good, from my experience. I never starved. Heck, with the kind of workout you get running, doing A-to-C, being up all night on picket, doing random bursts of physical activity, etc. or trudging through the bush on excercise with 60 lbs of gear, you could eat like a horse and you didn't gain weight... (alas, the job of the computer programmer does not share that character.... but fewer people shoot at us...)

 

[imported_Sgt_Biggles]

Looking at the various nations and their training programs, there is not a whole lot of difference. I have trained with, been trained by or trained members of several nations spec ops folks or law enforcement agencies.

If you take a Canadian, British, American and Russian infantry specialist, each with two years of service, you will find they all have the equivalent amount of training, or close enough it makes no never mind. Their knowledge and skills are going to be pretty much the same. What changes is the gear they use and of course terminology. Even when you get into Special Forces, different nations have similar training. In fact many nations train along side their foreign counterparts. U.S. Ranger classes have British and Canadian troops assigned on a regular basis. The same is true of the U.S. Marines Recon Battalion. I have trained with the British special police and with some specialized Germany units. Several of my supervisors spent time with the Canadian Mounties (RCMP?)

So how important in a game like Twilight is tweaking the starting feats and skills based on nationality, verses specialty? Is it enough to offer a large pool of basic skills and feats to choose from and call an Infantryman an Infantryman or a Tanker a Tanker? Letting the player adjust for more specific skills per his or her preference? In this case, the Canadian is sporting a C7A2; the Yank, an M16A3; and the Brit a SA80 (L85A1). Throw a Russian into the mix with similar, player selected skills and feats based on the infantry pool who is sporting an AK-74.

This is my own opinion, but whenever I have trained with members of different countries the things that standout and make them unique are their personal actions and idiosyncrasies. Brits are always smiling and love being ribbed as much as they love doing the ribbing. Canadians a more somber, with a darker sense of humor. Where a Brit will howl with laughter after pulling a fast one on a fellow soldier, the Canadian will chuckle to himself with a sly smile and a twinkle in his eye. Aussies will attempt to drink everyone under the table and the Germans will drink everyone under the table. What makes these soldiers memorable are elements that should be role-played in a game, not determined by numbers.

Thoughts?

Craig

 

[kaladorn]

Part of that similarity is the similarity of missions and some tactical similarities. If you are a SF Light Infantryman (Ranger), then your job description will be a lot like any other SF LI. OTOH, if you are an SF CT operator, your training focus will be very different. <Obvious, but I think worth stating>

Where I notice a difference is perhaps not exactly in the training, but in the approach to situations. Canadian Forces who train regularly with the UN and who often do international missions have a particular approach 'bred' into them. This makes its way into ROE and SOP. US Forces, who do a fair bit of training for force-on-force seem to be more focused on Force Protection than we are, generally.

This is tough to convey to an inexperienced player who doesn't have the experience to appreciate these idiosyncracies. When put side by side in the Balkans in tough situtations, CF command chose different coping/resolution strategies than USHQ. Thus, the reception by the locals was different as perhaps was the threat level experienced by the troops, etc. For instance, if you are CF, you just don't *have* the organic support elements that US usually does, so you learn different ways of dealing with problems with the resources you have.
This shows up even when you *have* access to those resources.

Now, also, comparing SF operators isn't probably a good comparison - by the nature of the biz, you get the best soldiers, generally experienced and broadly trained. Comparing normal soldiers or reservists, and perhaps other trades other than infantry might be instructive. When I was in CF (readying for the real Twilight War that never was), I had friends in armoured units who trained with their US counterparts. The CF guys were of the opinion that, in one of our Cougars, every man could easily slot into the job of the other since they cross-trained intensely. They ran into US forces for whom this was not the case - they may have been better at gunnery, or driving, or whatever, but they didn't have the same level of cross-training. So there *are* some differences.

YMMV, but I liked the original twilight supplements that finally got around to presenting the slightly different views of the various forces. <shrug>

 

[PBI]

I also ran into the same situation that Kaladorn describes on the communications side; it would not be unusual for myself or others from my unit to go work with American signallers who were very specialized as a general rule. We'd run into Americans who knew how to operate VHF but not HF sets, for example, whereas we were required, as a basic standard, to operate not only army radios, but some navy and air sets as well as sat units.

Additionally, in the CF at any rate, every recruit comes out with first aid training, yet that's not recognized in chargen. Other errors included allowing CF characters access to SMGs, M-60s, Barrettas, etc, when those weapons had either been retired (the SMG) or were never part of CF issue.

Those are the kinds of fundamental errors I was referring to.

 

[kaladorn]

Well, on the SMG side, the C1 (Sterling clone) was in use when I was getting into the forces in 1986-87 time frame. The Armoured Recce unit I was looking at joining had quite a few. They were retired sometime after that (in favour of the C8 I'd guess or maybe even before), but I could see some still kicking around in armouries somewhere and getting hauled out in the Twilight War when new kit was getting scarce (Heck, I can see Enfield Mk IVs being dug out if things get bad enough). But it would have been an oddity, rather than normal situation. Same with the access to the M9 or M-60, etc. You could justify a character picking one up as he kicked around Europe (it might be an easier-found replacement for a missing issue weapon), but that should have been the oddity, not the normal situation.