Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
So what is your favorite version of Twi 2000? I'm a version 2 fan. I liked the move to a d20 from %dice. The change reduced, a little bit anyway, the number of dice rolled during an encounter.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Twilight 2000, Ver 1, 2 or 2.2
- Thread starter Sgt Biggles
- Start date
montanakennedy
SOC-8
Not to mention PCs arguing over which die was the tens and which die was the ones...
Not to mention PCs arguing over which die was the tens and which die was the ones...
</font>[/QUOTE]Heh. That's why I have one that has 10's and one that has 1's on it.
More seriously, I felt that the 1st edition had a better char gen - fewer snake eaters but much more fun to play characters - and as long as you were only using the 3 difficulty levels then the % made sense. Only moving to the full DC/TNE task system or to 2300ad's d10 sysstem would really improve that.
2nd had distinct improvements to a lot of things - vehicle combat is a notable bit. There were a number of other nice bits too, like the weapon cards and generic NPC's, scenarios, and animal encounters.
I guess my preference would be 1st ed characters and timeline with 2nd ed (2.2 specifcally for tasks) for the rest. Plus a copy of "Escape from Kalisz" to start a campaign out.
William
Not to mention PCs arguing over which die was the tens and which die was the ones...
</font>[/QUOTE]Heh. That's why I have one that has 10's and one that has 1's on it.
More seriously, I felt that the 1st edition had a better char gen - fewer snake eaters but much more fun to play characters - and as long as you were only using the 3 difficulty levels then the % made sense. Only moving to the full DC/TNE task system or to 2300ad's d10 sysstem would really improve that.
2nd had distinct improvements to a lot of things - vehicle combat is a notable bit. There were a number of other nice bits too, like the weapon cards and generic NPC's, scenarios, and animal encounters.
I guess my preference would be 1st ed characters and timeline with 2nd ed (2.2 specifcally for tasks) for the rest. Plus a copy of "Escape from Kalisz" to start a campaign out.
William </font>[/QUOTE]that is exactly what I ran for several years. Characters created using the 1st ed, but combat and all using the 2.2 version.
My preference is for 1.0 or a modified 2.0.
2.0 has a few combat oddities that I don't care for, but they can be compensated for. (That they were not addressed in TNE was even more of an issue for my players and myself.)
When I run T2K 2.0/DC, I change the HP formulae. To reduce PC's HP. If you don't "fear bullets", you don't fight realistically. Also, I use variable HP by type for NPC's.
Often, i will use D10's for damage. Also, I've run TNE... same mods.
1st ed I ran for a while in high school; i lways loved it, and combat WAS deadly.
2.0 has a few combat oddities that I don't care for, but they can be compensated for. (That they were not addressed in TNE was even more of an issue for my players and myself.)
When I run T2K 2.0/DC, I change the HP formulae. To reduce PC's HP. If you don't "fear bullets", you don't fight realistically. Also, I use variable HP by type for NPC's.
Often, i will use D10's for damage. Also, I've run TNE... same mods.
1st ed I ran for a while in high school; i lways loved it, and combat WAS deadly.
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
Damage dice and hit points were areas I modified as well. Using a d10 for damage helped. I cut the injury levels in half, which is the same as reducing the points. I always had a problem with a PC having to shoot a target 7 or 8 times with a handgun.
Keep the thoughts coming!
Keep the thoughts coming!
montanakennedy
SOC-8
In a campaign I ran, we came up against the damage amount issue, but, being too young to have any good ideas for modification, we left it alone.
The effect, you ask? For quite while, the PCs sucked up an inordinate amount of damage while remaining somewhat OK. However, due to my overmatching the group and some atrocious rolls on their part, a party of 5 plus a few NPCs was knocked to 1 healthy, 1 WIA (badly) and about 6 KIA... Several KIA (1 PC and 2 NPCs, IIRC) resulted from a 75mm hit on the HMMWV they were in... One of the KIA was the result of a Sov grenade fired from a BG-15 at close range - quite spectacular really...
-A much smarter Dave...
The effect, you ask? For quite while, the PCs sucked up an inordinate amount of damage while remaining somewhat OK. However, due to my overmatching the group and some atrocious rolls on their part, a party of 5 plus a few NPCs was knocked to 1 healthy, 1 WIA (badly) and about 6 KIA... Several KIA (1 PC and 2 NPCs, IIRC) resulted from a 75mm hit on the HMMWV they were in... One of the KIA was the result of a Sov grenade fired from a BG-15 at close range - quite spectacular really...
-A much smarter Dave...
D10's for damage.
Base calcs same as rules, only are for serious wounds; slight are 1/2, scratch 1/4.
I am scratching out ideas for a "HP-less" mechanic; roughly thought out, here is the base: roll damage in d10's. Compare each die to the DR figured stat (Str + Con)/3. If >= DR1 wound level. 10's generate an additional die. "-1" damage rolls against 2xDR; if DRx2 >9, treat as 9.
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
Sounds interesting. Let me know how it works in play.
The damage issue will be taken care of in the T20 release since all damage and injuries are handled as in T20 Traveller. Combat should be smooth.
From everything I have heard resolving the damage and hit point issues will really increase the playablity of Twilight.
I started out in ye ol D&D so bags o dice is encrypted upon my psyche. Happily years of therapy and two major operations is allowing for a conversion to simpler systems ...
In short I started with and up till now played version 1 with ideas lifted from others......I'm getting better though.
paladin2019
SOC-5
If it's not too late to reply, I always liked the old box. I have always been a fan of %-based games for some reason, and chargen in the first system made reasonably skilled chars.
I found that chargen in 2nd Ed created far inferior chars in terms of skills. That, coupled with the recomendation that 1st ed baddies from mods and stuff should just have their skill numbers divided by 10 made some rather, unbalanced, encounters. My group at the time decided to just go back to 1st ed rather than modify the 2nd ed system.
I found that chargen in 2nd Ed created far inferior chars in terms of skills. That, coupled with the recomendation that 1st ed baddies from mods and stuff should just have their skill numbers divided by 10 made some rather, unbalanced, encounters. My group at the time decided to just go back to 1st ed rather than modify the 2nd ed system.
First Ed.
Why?
- art
- flavour text
- char generation
Main problems
- One 125mm shell can spoil your whole day
- One 5.56mm should spoil your day, but often did not....
The first edition with some cleaned up combat rules (D10 or D20 dice are okay, but quite frankly the 'D20' rules with feats and all such drek leave me cold.... so I'm not looking forward to T20(2K) or whatever they'll call it).
Why?
- art
- flavour text
- char generation
Main problems
- One 125mm shell can spoil your whole day
- One 5.56mm should spoil your day, but often did not....
The first edition with some cleaned up combat rules (D10 or D20 dice are okay, but quite frankly the 'D20' rules with feats and all such drek leave me cold.... so I'm not looking forward to T20(2K) or whatever they'll call it).
mandelkubb
SOC-8
1 ed.
Except for the crippled magazine capacity.
Ahh...those were the days (and long nights)..following the projectile's way through the armour and hitting (or missing) every component on the way.
Maybe a bit complicated and time-consuming, but it felt very realistic at the time. Of course, now we know that if a tank is hit with APFSDS(DU), there is no real need to roll that 50% chance of the projectile actually hitting the crew that got in the way. We had a house rule that dealt with overpressure (blast) from HEAT if the penetration was above 200 points.
Except for the crippled magazine capacity.
Ahh...those were the days (and long nights)..following the projectile's way through the armour and hitting (or missing) every component on the way.
Maybe a bit complicated and time-consuming, but it felt very realistic at the time. Of course, now we know that if a tank is hit with APFSDS(DU), there is no real need to roll that 50% chance of the projectile actually hitting the crew that got in the way. We had a house rule that dealt with overpressure (blast) from HEAT if the penetration was above 200 points.
I found the problem was not in top end lethality, but in bottom end lack thereof. Pistols just weren't that dangerous.
And yes, you mentioned another point I had "repressed"... the 1:3 (or thereabouts) obfuscation with magazine size. Obviously the editors never heard of "semi-automatic single shot". In my time in the CF, I don't think I ever saw anyone train to shoot automatic or with bursts from a combat rifle. It was always ammo conservation and marksmanship that were prized (except occasionally when you wanted to 'cover' someone with suppressive fire, but even then that was rightly the job of the SAW).
mandelkubb
SOC-8
I don't think the lethality itself was the problem, rather the fact that is was dropping of to rapidly.
IMO, the damage should be fairly constant (the dice throw will make enough difference) over a much large range span. Well, to late to change this.
The armour multiplier was a nice touch, making some weapons lethal against a soft target but ineffective against one wearing body armor.
However, the armor multiplier could, theorethically, give really bizarre results.
An example: a person wearing a kevlar vest is hit in the chest with a 40 mm HE. If the damage roll (4D) is 9, the damage will be 90 (9x10). The armor multiplier of the HE round is x10, which wil give the kevlar vest an effective armour of 100. Since 90 is less than 100, the HE round will not penetrate the armor. And the chance of being hit by fragments is 60% within the primary radius (we're assuming the fagments miss).
Hence, the only result is that the person will be knocked down since he's within the KDR.
If you follow the rules by the letter that is.
Perhaps they wanted to avoid having separate rules for semi-automatic and full-automatic fire?
IMO, the damage should be fairly constant (the dice throw will make enough difference) over a much large range span. Well, to late to change this.
The armour multiplier was a nice touch, making some weapons lethal against a soft target but ineffective against one wearing body armor.
However, the armor multiplier could, theorethically, give really bizarre results.
An example: a person wearing a kevlar vest is hit in the chest with a 40 mm HE. If the damage roll (4D) is 9, the damage will be 90 (9x10). The armor multiplier of the HE round is x10, which wil give the kevlar vest an effective armour of 100. Since 90 is less than 100, the HE round will not penetrate the armor. And the chance of being hit by fragments is 60% within the primary radius (we're assuming the fagments miss).
Hence, the only result is that the person will be knocked down since he's within the KDR.
If you follow the rules by the letter that is.
Perhaps they wanted to avoid having separate rules for semi-automatic and full-automatic fire?
A big problem with the system was it didn't take into account bleeding severity which would stop a man as certainly as a kill shot to the brain.
The damage for a gut shot would end with a simple bandage.
My solution was to continue with a point per round internal leeding damage until he recieved the attention of a surgeon for each torso hit.
The damage for a gut shot would end with a simple bandage.
My solution was to continue with a point per round internal leeding damage until he recieved the attention of a surgeon for each torso hit.
montanakennedy
SOC-8
I had an issue with this also - but then I am a gun geek and I had problems at the time with the concept that everytime you pull the trigger, 3 rounds are fired... sheesh...
I had an issue with this also - but then I am a gun geek and I had problems at the time with the concept that everytime you pull the trigger, 3 rounds are fired... sheesh... </font>[/QUOTE]That's actually an accurate representation of US Army small arms doctrine a the time T2K was written. The US Army has always had a problem with fire dicipline (as have most armies once they introduced individual weapons capable of semi-automatic or full automatic fire). As a result, the US redesigned the M16 to remove the "full auto" setting and replace it with a three round burst setting. The idea was that in most situations the soldier would have the weapon set on three round burst. The HK G11 (another main weapon in the T2K inventory) was also desiged specfically to be used on a three round burst setting.
Even troops using weapons that do not have a burst setting seem to squeeze off 2 or 3 rounds each time they engage a target before waiting to see if the first shot actually hits. My personal take on this is that it is part of the human desire to take action in the face of danger (the fight half of fight or flight) and just squeezing the triger once isn't enough phycologically.
In this light, I think the 3 round 'shots' from T2K were an effort to enforce some real world conditions on game players who would always wait to see if their first shot hit before firing again.
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
