Twilight 2000, Ver 1, 2 or 2.2

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Ranger:
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.

Though your arguments have a certain sense, this ceases to make as much sense when applied to pistols or shotguns.

And when I trained in the CF, we had a weapon for which ammo was heavy, therefore precious, and expenditure of vast amounts in unidisciplined fire was a good recipe for being out of ammo (FN C1). I carried about 60-80 rounds of ammo, and the weapon did not have an automatic or autoburst setting. The recoil was significant enough that multiple shots in very-quick succession weren't that likely to be very accurate. So unless one was aiming for suppressive effects, single shots were de rigeur.

Whereas you are probably right about fire discipline and doctrine for the US, that assuredly did not apply everywhere, and looks somewhat silly for pistols.

If I have only one mag of ammo, and I have to take on four guys with my 1911A1, I don't have the *luxury* of giving each 3 rounds.

Anyway, it was an unpopular mechanic, one way or the other.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Though your arguments have a certain sense, this ceases to make as much sense when applied to pistols or shotguns.

And when I trained in the CF, we had a weapon for which ammo was heavy, therefore precious, and expenditure of vast amounts in unidisciplined fire was a good recipe for being out of ammo (FN C1). I carried about 60-80 rounds of ammo, and the weapon did not have an automatic or autoburst setting. The recoil was significant enough that multiple shots in very-quick succession weren't that likely to be very accurate. So unless one was aiming for suppressive effects, single shots were de rigeur.

Whereas you are probably right about fire discipline and doctrine for the US, that assuredly did not apply everywhere, and looks somewhat silly for pistols.

If I have only one mag of ammo, and I have to take on four guys with my 1911A1, I don't have the *luxury* of giving each 3 rounds.

Anyway, it was an unpopular mechanic, one way or the other.

You are absolutly right. The rule breaks down when you start dealing with bolt action rifles, shotguns, and large calaber pistols. I think that points to the fact that the game was originally desiged to be a modern military adventure using contemporary (for the projected future) military weaponry. In that regard, I think the rule is pretty accurate, at least in reflecting actual military small arms thinking.

Interesting that you should mention the FN seires of weapons, which was, as you pointed out, the exact opposite design concept from the M16. There was a huge debate in the small arms field as to which would be more effective, a large and very accurate bullet or a smaller and less acurate bullet that would rely on volume of fire to compensate for the accuracy and hydrostatic shock to make up for the smaller weight of the round. The US went with the smaller bullet, while the UK/France/Belgium/Germany went for keeping the 7.62 round as the main small arms round. By the early 80s, the time when T2K was published, pretty much everyone had gone over to the smaller round with the UK and France each developing their own smaller assult rifles, and even the Germans built a downsized (5.56mm) G3 to compete with the M16 in the export market and desgined the G11 with a 4mm caseless round. Even the Soviets switched to the smaller round with the AK74.

As for pistols, you have the same dynamic, with most police and military forecs going over to smaller calaber semi-automatics which alow the shooter to fire a large number of rounds quickly and having large magazines so that the shooter doesn't have to reload as often. By the time T2K was on the market, the 9mm was the designated sidearm of the US Army.

I know the '3 round shot' rule was unpopular, but that doesn't mean that it didn't accuratly reflect what the designers were trying to model. It should have been limited to the more military weaponry in the game though. I don't think it would have too hard to adjust the tables to allow single shot for shotguns and bolt action rifles while at the same time keeping the 3 round shot for the M16/AK 74 type of assualt rifles.

Just my thoughts

Rob

 

[Eamon]

It would not have bankrupted GDW if they added a page to explain their reasoning behind the 3-round burst to their mostly civilian players who did not have a military background.
In a world where resources (including ammo)are becoming scarce. Changing military doctrine to conservation of ammo a change to single shot would come about. Beside 3shot or single shot were two options aviable to a soldier in combat.
So including rules for single should have been built into the orginal rules.

 

[kaladorn]

Two further points to consider:

One, as it pertains to the 7.62N vs. 5.56N. For the record, the C7 is, for most people, more accurate than the FN at ranges up to 500m. Why? Recoil had a lot to do with the overall quality of shooting with the FN, as did the brutish weight you had to support with your forearm if shooting from standing, kneeling, or sitting positions. Over the course of prolonged activity, accuracy went way down. And light soldiers (especially women) tended to fair not so well with the FN. However, once the C7 appeared, we suddenly found a bunch of female marksmen and most of our people started scoring better on the ranges. Why? Lighter weapon and lighter recoil. And a 5.56 delivered into the body of an attacker may not be as ideal as a 7.62 delivered to the same body, but it is a helluva lot better than a 7.62 NOT delivered to said body due to innaccuracy.

Thus the 5.56 weapons wins out on the 'realized accuracy' front in the majority of cases. (At least the C7 vs. the FN C1).

Second, If I can carry 120 rounds instead of 80, or if I model mass for mass, I think it might be (if we include weapon weight) more like about 180-210 rounds vs. 80, that's a huge difference.

Since the combat soldier has had to hump new things like NBC gear, new commo/integrated electronics, etc, every pound you can shave on the weapon is nice. This was probably part of the use of the M4 - nearly as accurate over most common combat ranges, with lots of add on bits, and leveraging a lot of the M16 skills/experience and firing the same (I believe) cartridge.

Now, that still doesn't nullify the point that single shot is and always was an option. Bursts don't make much sense at 500m. Single shot does. Even for automatic rifles, single shot should have been an option, doubly so in a world of disappearing ammunition supplies - mostly due to a lack of proper primer manufacture, which is far harder than making the powder....

Most of the rounds also got smaller because of the KE=mv2 thing.... higher velocity also gave a whacking pile of armour penetration (witness FN 5.7mm which, as essentially a pistol round, can penetrate a US PASGT helmet at 100m).

I'm not saying what the designers were aiming to do or not, but they disallowed (by not including rules) fire patterns that would have been reasonable due to ammo concerns and due to varying weapon types.

And it annoyed players. Which ultimately is a bad thing for a game to do.

 

[mandelkubb]

From the "designer's notes" of T:2000 2nd ed. (rev.1)

There is absolutely no question but that having each game "shot" represent the effects of three bullets fired in the original game caused more confusion than any other feature in the game. I cannot begin to estimate the number of letters that began, "How come your magazine capacities are only one-third as big as they ought to be?" My original motive in lumping everything together was twofold. I wanted to minimize the die rolling, especially for automatic fire, and I wanted to keep bookkeeping of ammunition under control. Both of these are probably laudable goals, but the end result was unquestionable unpopular"

Any spellink errors are probably mine.

The only reference I could find (altough I didn't re-read every word) in the original T:2000 to this was this (Play Manual, p. 21)

A shot is usually a burst of three bullets or rounds, although for some weapons it is only one round. Everything in these rules are described in terms of shots, not bullets or rounds.

Well, the designers have repented, and all is well.

 

[kaladorn]

Not everything that looks good on paper or even in playtest works in the real world outside. Some things fall very flat and this was one of them.

It just goes to show you that you must test-test-test, get as diverse a test audience as possible, and listen to the feedback.

And of course, you can still be utterly wrong in the long run.

Oh well, no one said game design/sales were a fair environment... fans are fickle....

 

[Markiz]

Regarding the tre round shots in version 1.0. This can easily be remedied by applying damage to each bullet, not shot. The hit base number is used for the whole shot but then one rolls a D3 to see how many of the rounds in the shot actually hits the target. Then one rolls on the hit location table for every round that hits. Of course players can choose if the want to fire three, two or one rounds. Of course this complicates book keeping. For this last reason three round burst should be the norm but the option for players should however be presented if they only have one or two magazines left.

It is a totally waste to fire bursts with battle rifles (7.62N) as the recoil is uncontrollable (I know from experience firing with Swedish-made G3:s) and shouldn't be allowed by the referee. The only time one uses the full auto with battle rifles is in clearing treanches. One is supposed to fire a series of three rounds in succession, semi-automaticallay. That's why in the rules the ROF is 2 for battle rifles. One can question the validity for firing a series of three rounds at long range but then again chances are reduced to 1/3 in the base hit number anyway to hit at all. Using a D3 to see how many rounds hit increases the realism further in this respect.

Regarding pistols. The manual in firing pistols in the British SAS is to fire two fast rounds in succession. This can easily be translated to three rounds for gaming purposes.

12 gauge shots are counted as single rounds in the original rules.

Regarding single bolt action rifles. The ROF is 1 which give the ability to fire tre rounds in 5 seconds. I know also from experience that a trained hand in a fire fight easily can send away tre rounds in one combat round.

We are not talking about marksmanship here but combat firing. The most important thing is to hit the target. More bullets increases this chance.

There are however characters that prefer the 'one shot-one kill' doctrine and for these I have developed the house rule of amining (with increased hit chance) and firing one round in the same combat round.

About the kill capacity of weapons in T2K ver.1.0., I always thought they were a little bit low on damage, so I remedied this a bit with my own house rules:

A bullet has a innate damage number on its own (a round thrown to a camp fire will send away its bullet and give potential damage). Pistol ammunitionn has a DAM of 1. Rifle ammunition has a DAM of 2. Heavier caliber small arms (12,7mm etc.) have a DAM of 3. The damage number associated with each weapon is added to that and represents the increase of damage made through the barrel, i.e. different weapons potentially can give different damage to the same ammunition as can be seen between battle rifles and machine guns (i.e. machine guns have a longer barrel).

Also counting every bullet with separate damage using a D3 enhances lethality quite a bit!

 

[PBI]

I prefer ver 2 over ver 1, simply because the rules have less holes in them and some things, like auto fire, are cleaned up considerably. About the only thing I don't like about ver 2 is the absence of the Escape scenario and the history it provides, even if an alternate start is chosen.

 

[PBI]

What I did for the silly rule on auto ROF with the C7 (don't know if the M16 actually has such a burst governor, though I doubt it) was to simply change it. Along with a lot of other rules pertaining to CF character generation and kit. And UK, for that matter

 

[krb243]

Our favorite version is 2.2. It's easy and runs smooth during deadly combat.

 

[Markiz]

I prefer version 1.0 as the basic rules are sound and realistic and gives much room for the referee to expand upon within the frames and boundaries of the basic rules. The rules works as a spring board for me. In my opinion you don't have to change anyting (read cancelling out) in the original rules, just expanding and creating more detailed rules (for an example see some of my house rules in my previous letter). One can say that the original rules stimululates creativity on behalf of the referee.

Besides combat, I have also expanded on the rules of fatigue and travel. The rules are good in this respect in its original form but to enhace realism I have put in some more detail when it comes to fatigue in relation to travel, daily requirements, sickness and damage. As I today mainly play within a British SAS-setting, I have also developed special rules of stealthily movement; the rules on encounters has been expanded for special ops scenarios.

I bought version 2.0 when it came out but it was a great dissapointment, both aestetically and in content. I never saw version 2.2 so I don't have a opinion in that respect. I also were dissapointed with the rules in Traveller: 2300/2300 AD. If I would start a campaign with 2300 AD I probably would use Twilight version 1.0 rules.

 

[PBI]

Reading the comments, I find myself wondering what it is that folks like or don't like about the various versions, specifically? Not merely personal preference, though that does come into it somewhat, but there has to be certain rules or methods of implementation that some players prefer in one version as opposed to the other.

For example, what is it about 1.0 that makes it "better" than 2.0, or vice-versa?

 

[mike wightman]

As a long time RuneQuest fan I really liked T2000 V1.0 because of its % based system and the simplicity of the rules.
When Traveller 2300 came out I was so disappointed with it not using the T2000 rules I did what Markiz suggested- I adapted the T2000 rules and used them to run Traveller 2300. I even went as far as converting CT to T2000 rules.
I've still got the book with all my conversion notes in,and I still look back on it fondly.

 

[Markiz]

Originally posted by PBI:
For example, what is it about 1.0 that makes it "better" than 2.0, or vice-versa?

I didn't like the change from the D100 to D10. I also am a old RuneQuest fan and believe the precentage system to be superior. I have played both D10 and D20 systems but regard them as poor substitues and simplifications. Also the character generation was better in ver. 1.0 compared to 2.0. Personally i prefer the three round shot-system, once the D3 die roll comes in to play, as it is a good solution between easiness of play, speed and realism. One can expand wonderfully on that shot system, also when it comes to full auto fire, etc. Also I prefer the old timeline and the game modules are just wonderful. But to be frank I never bothered to buy the ver. 2.0 modules so I don't know if they were as good, but I can hardly imagine that anything can come close to the classical Krakow, Vistula and Warsaw scenarios. Even the last modules, i.e. the UK module and 'The Last Battle' wargame is so well thought out. Last and not least aestetics; the artistry is so much more beutiful in the original rules books compared to the ver. 2.0 compendium.

When the version 2.0 came out one of my first thoughts was that it was completly redundant as it degraded the game-system, and must have been motivated by selling more games and making money.

However, back in the 90's I actually used the new timeline as it botherd me then, just after the fall of the eastern bloc, that version 1.0 was hoplessly not up to date. Today I prefer the old timeline as it becomes one of these good "but what if" scenarios that has fascinated my mind for the last 10 years or so. Growing up in Sweden during the cold war, pressed between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, I almost have become a cold war nostalgic. One sometimes thinks about what had happen if everyones worst fears had come true. This game, in its original form, gratifies that urge in me.

 

[csmith]

I think the old 3 round rule is actually a miss representation of the 3 round burst rule. This rule was made to fix the clumsiness of the Rapidfire rules in the main book that was reprinted in TNE and DC. where you roll the number of dice = to the number of bullet's fired and modified by removing dice.

This rule gave you a chance of putting more then one bullet into something on autofire.

My traveller players always wanted to put more then one hole in something with bullets. So they wanted better autofire.

 

[Goodsport]

Originally posted by oz_chandler:
Our favorite version is 2.2. It's easy and runs smooth during deadly combat.

Absolutely! Without a shadow of a doubt in every conceivable way (character generation, task resolution, regular and vehicle combat, etc.), Version 2.2 was the best version of Twilight: 2000 ever made!

Even the background story (i.e. the 1989-2000 timeline) as written in 2.2 never needs revising, unlike as it was written in the first two versions.

-G

 

[Uncle Bob]

PBI, the M16A2 does have a 3rd burst limiter as does the M4 carbine and the M16A4 used by Marines. The M4A1 used by specops does not.

It took me a while to get my head around the 3 rd rule, but once I figured it out I realized how elegant it was. The precipitous drop in damage with range didn't correspond with ballistics, which bothered me until I realized it really refered to how many hits you were likely to get. I feel the autofire rules in version 2 were more complicated if also more intuitive.

Like Markiz I introduced "deliberate fire" rules. If these had been in version 1.0 it would have been easier to see the original intent.

 

[PBI]

Uncle Bob, thank you for confirming that. Boggles the mind. The C7 the Canadian Forces use do not have any such limiter, which is why I tossed out the burst limit for Canadian chars but kept it in for any US characters, since I didn't know for certain if the M16A2 had such a feature. Now I'll know to enforce that for the US chars in my next campaign

I liked the autofire rules in 2nd Ed. They definitely are more complex, and aheadache to GM, but I thought they worked well for simulating how machine guns are employed.

 

[kaladorn]

1. I hate the three round burst rule. I trained to fire aimed single shots a lot of the time, for ammo conservation if for no other reason, unless engaging in suppressive fire. The inability to do that in V1.0 cheesed me off intensely.

2. Try killing someone with a pistol in V1.0 vanilla rules. It's more than just a challenge....

3. V1.0 had a really well developed initial scenario (Escape from Kalisz) and many excellent modules. Never saw much from the later versions I was over fond of, though admit to not owning 2.2.

4. The relationship between time in combat and coolness under fire and the relationship between that and action phases does not accurately model how troops perform in combat over time. There are some instances where you really *do* want green troops (maybe well trained, but inexperienced) and where veterans just are not a good substitute. Veterans who've seen enough combat tend to have their brains rewired by the repeated stimuli of combat. This has some serious deleterious effects on their efficacy as soldiers. Some people who've had a lot of training and enough experience to season them are really good - but some who've seen a lot of action are actually less useful - less likely to get killed dumbly, but far less likely to press hard in the face of a strong enemy. No game has yet captured the true long term physiological and psychological effects of combat, but the V1.0 association of time in combat with coolness with intiative isn't really very good.

 

[Goodsport]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
1. I hate the three round burst rule. I trained to fire aimed single shots a lot of the time, for ammo conservation if for no other reason, unless engaging in suppressive fire. The inability to do that in V1.0 cheesed me off intensely.

2. Try killing someone with a pistol in V1.0 vanilla rules. It's more than just a challenge....

Amen!

Also, there were a lot of things that weren't in v1.0 that were added into the later versions, including recoil rules, shooting while moving rules, autofire burst rules, etc.

In v1.0, character generation took forever and vehicle combat was absolute chore. Both were much more streamlined (thankfully) in later versions, particularly in v2.2.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
3. V1.0 had a really well developed initial scenario (Escape from Kalisz) and many excellent modules. Never saw much from the later versions I was over fond of, though admit to not owning 2.2.

v1.0 did indeed have a really well developed initial scenario, while I don't recall either v2.0 or v2.2 even having an initial scenario included.

That's why I'm so glad that I have all three versions (boxed sets) of Twilight: 2000, as well as all of the modules and such. I had refereed all three at some point, but of the three, I still only referee v2.2.

However, while I use the v2.2 ruleset (with the v2.2 character sheets, of course), I also use the map of Eastern Europe that was included in v1.0, as well as the adjoining map of Central Europe that was included in the module Going Home. I also use the Intelligence briefing sheet included in v1.0, and have started a new campaign with another group using Escape from Kalisz (though using v2.2 rules).

It seems that all of the stats from the older modules can be converted easily enough into v2.2 anyway, so those modules certainly haven't become obsolete either.

Another thing that I do appreciate from v1.0 was that the character sheets were separate from the books and that the two books included were binded by staples, making them more sturdy whenever it was opened, as opposed to the glue-binding that GDW used for the later versions.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
4. The relationship between time in combat and coolness under fire and the relationship between that and action phases does not accurately model how troops perform in combat over time. There are some instances where you really *do* want green troops (maybe well trained, but inexperienced) and where veterans just are not a good substitute. Veterans who've seen enough combat tend to have their brains rewired by the repeated stimuli of combat. This has some serious deleterious effects on their efficacy as soldiers. Some people who've had a lot of training and enough experience to season them are really good - but some who've seen a lot of action are actually less useful - less likely to get killed dumbly, but far less likely to press hard in the face of a strong enemy. No game has yet captured the true long term physiological and psychological effects of combat, but the V1.0 association of time in combat with coolness with intiative isn't really very good.

Thanks for that info - I've always wondered at what point a veteran soldier becomes more of a liability than an asset.


-G