A new Twilight:2000... how would you do it?

[3catcircus]

Er...how would you need that stuff in GURPS but not in T2K? The 3e GURPS book has a reasonable assortment of weapons in it, including what I would think would be the 'most common' modern ones. (I don't recall what it's got vehicle-wise.)

Sure, it'd be better with all the other books. But fact is, you don't need GURPS Vehicles to stat up a real tank - you need the Basic Set and Jane's. It goes 30 mph for this long on this many gallons of gas...really all you need is an estimate of the DR.

How would you need that stuff in GURPS TW2K but not in a self-contained TW2K? Well - for starters the original and v2.x TW2K came in boxed sets that contained everything - rules and setting information, as well as some scenarios and maps and stuff. Versions 2 and 2.2 also came in a single book - for players rather than GMs. In GURPS, not only do you need to buy the basic rules (for the mechanics), but you would have to, as a minimum, buy the "GURPS TW2K" book for the setting information and any deltas between the basic rules set and any rules specifically for the TW2K setting.

You also allude to the fact that you'd *only* need the basic rules and a copy of Jane's. Do you have *any* idea of how much Janes books cost? A copy of *just* "Armour and Artillery" is $670 direct from Janes - and for an online or CD version it is another $1000 or so... You'd also need the Military Vehicles and Logistics book, Armour and Artillery Upgrades, and maybe Land-Based Air Defence book as well - each of them at about $570-$670 for a current book edition. If the GURPS TW2K book didn't include information on the ORBATS and kit of the world's armies, you'd also need a copy of Jane's World Armies - another $650 or so.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay the $40 for a TW2K boxed set that has everything I need to play the game. And before you say "Use a library copy," my answer is - why would I want to be constrained by having to go to a library, especially if I get a creative idea at 3 in the morning?

 

[3catcircus]

A skill/feat/class/level-based system seems like a perfect fit for a military game -- as long as you lose the hit dice. What am I missing?

Hmm - well - what would a level in "Airborne" really represent? Is Airborne a base class, a feat, or a prestige class? Likewise, how would you distinguish the difference between an eleven-bravo and an eleven-charlie, since both are infantrymen. How about the fact that you can be a "Parachutist" (SQI P), a "Ranger" (SQI G), a "Ranger-Parachutist" (SQI V), or a Special Forces Military Free-Fall Operations (ASI W8)? How do you distinguish the differences in the skill-set between these, if using a class-based system? Do you simply make a different set of skills the "class skills" for each of these? If so, then the skill-set is the only difference and the class is identical in all other respects? If that is the case, then it seems that a particular class is meaningless.

How do you distinguish between the various branches of the different military services (infantry, armor, artillery, medical corps, etc.)? How do you distinguish between specialties there-in (11B Infantryman vs. 11C Indirect Fire Infantryman? Mechanized Infantry (1ID(M), 3ID(M), etc.) vs. Light Infantry (7ID, 9ID, 101AbnDiv (AAslt), 82nd Abn Div) vs. Mountain Infantry (10ID) vs. Light Fighters (25ID)? What about a tank Bn vs. a Mech Inf Bn in a given unit (Inf vs. Arm vs. Cav)? What about differences in training and skills for different countries' militaries? I just somehow see the different distinctions becoming a morass of extra feats and prestige classes in a d20 system - the v2.x TW2K system was rather elegant in that you simply had to worry about skills for a given branch and specialty.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

3cat... you've got a good point. I spent 9 years in the Air Force and I still ran into people who thought that everyone in the Air Force flies planes. There are so many other jobs that have to be taken into account. I'd remedy it by making the service branches generic classes after a point. Everyone who goes through Army boot camp would have some basic skills that everyone gets while going through it. After that I'd give each player some unallocated class skills which represent going to tech school for your MOS/AFSC/whatever. Have them grouped into technical specialties and once a specialty was chosen your unallocated skills all have to be chosen from that group. That is just 1st level (1st term). I know that in the Air Force you can cross train every 4 years so with every term you could possibly go into another field though there is some luck to it. Just like Traveller you'd need a term "turn out" chart to see how well you did in that term and if you were elegible for cross training.

This could work.

 

[3catcircus]

3cat... you've got a good point. I spent 9 years in the Air Force and I still ran into people who thought that everyone in the Air Force flies planes. There are so many other jobs that have to be taken into account. I'd remedy it by making the service branches generic classes after a point. Everyone who goes through Army boot camp would have some basic skills that everyone gets while going through it. After that I'd give each player some unallocated class skills which represent going to tech school for your MOS/AFSC/whatever. Have them grouped into technical specialties and once a specialty was chosen your unallocated skills all have to be chosen from that group. That is just 1st level (1st term). I know that in the Air Force you can cross train every 4 years so with every term you could possibly go into another field though there is some luck to it. Just like Traveller you'd need a term "turn out" chart to see how well you did in that term and if you were elegible for cross training.

This could work.

I hear ya - I spent 6 years in the navy - people always assumed I dealt with nuclear weapons when they asked what I did and I responded with "Submarine Reactor Operator." In the navy, it is a lot harder to cross-train to a completely different field unless the field you are in is way overcrowded - there is no every 4-year's go and cross-train options. For example - as an Electronics Technician (ET) in the nuclear field - there ain't no way I'm going to be able to change jobs. Us nukes were always undermanned - most of us were smart enough to get the hell out of the navy at the end of our first enlistment (which is 6 years in length). Now, say I am a Yeoman 3rd Class (E-4) and I want to become an Information Systems Technician 3rd Class, I'll probably be allowed to convert since that rating is undermanned at the E1-E4 level.

I'd like to revamp the current TW2K v2.x system for promotions and skills - boot camp, initial training (Army AIT, Navy 'A' School, etc.) and your first term skills would all be considered a single 4-year term with the exception that I'd make promotion rolls based on the minimum TIS/TIG requirements (therefore every enlisted guy in the Army, Air Force, and Navy would be an E-4 at the end of 4 years - note that in the USMC, E-4 promotion is competitive.) - In fact - this is a house-rule that I use now. If we are talking d20 - then I'd have to make different prestige classes or feats for different things - I don't see how you could make a "Ranger Qualified" feat represent all of the knowledge you gain down in Ranger School and get that SQI of G for Ranger. However, it would be easy, for example, to assign a feat for completing the Army's Master Fitness Trainer courseand getting the 5P ASI. I just don't see an easy way of representing the differences in level of skill gained for different MOS's, SQI's and ASI's in an elegant manner.

 

[buzzard]

I knew someone was going to bring that up... I have my response all ready.

A veteran knows where to look for trouble (more ranks in Spot) and when and where to dive for optimum cover. Both of those are covered already. It does NOT make him any more bulletproof. If a veteran is standing out in the open and I open up on him with an M-16A1 (A2's are not fully auto) he'll be DEAD DEAD DEAD. Hit points are supposed to represent divine grace and luck... neither really work in T2K. Luck is represented by the GM/Player rolling low on a to hit roll. Vitality represents ducking and weaving and when you finally take Wound damage it represents that you were too wore out to get out of the way. Great for cinematic games, not for realistic modern combat. The veteran could bounce around all he wants... if I have an automatic weapon I WILL hit and kill him unless he gets behind cover which I've already mentioned before.

Ok here's a couple counter facts. In war these days, tens of thousands of bullets are fired for each casualty. How do we wish to model that? Would TW2k allow for that kind of ammo/hit reality? In a game where supply is everything, I rather doubt it. Granted people may fight quite a bit differently, but I doubt you're going to pare than ratio down much more than maybe 100/hit. Sounds like a boring game if you want to roll all of those dice to get one hit.

Then as to whether veterans do improve beyond simply becomming more skilled, well I suppose it's a matter of the level of detail you intend to simulate in the rules. VPs are meant to simulate getting cover, diving, and dodging, but in an automatic fashion. They also serve to simulate fatigue which is useful in and of itself. If you feel like making combat that detailed, more power to ya.

This is not to mention that they simulate luck. You might want that in the luck of the dice, I don't don't think it simulates certain people.

Hence, without VP, how do you simulate Audie Murphie or Alvin York?
Some of the things that people have done in war have really been cinematic.

buzzard

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Don't get me wrong... you may be eligable every 4 years but if your career field was at critical manning there was NO WAY you were going to get out of it. There is an approval process just like anything else in the military.

Things like Pararescue, Combat Control, Seals, and Rangers I'd make Prestige Classes. Those are all fields that you try out for once you get your foot in the door with another career field. If we wanted to make it realistic acceptance would be a combination of EVERY stat. Physical ability is important but so is the mental ability part. Charisma goes a long way towards just getting into the class in the first place.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Ok here's a couple counter facts.

1) In war these days, tens of thousands of bullets are fired for each casualty.

2) VPs are meant to simulate getting cover, diving, and dodging, but in an automatic fashion.

3) Hence, without VP, how do you simulate Audie Murphie or Alvin York?
Some of the things that people have done in war have really been cinematic.

buzzard

I numbered your counter-facts to counter them.

1) Where do you get that figure? Fully loaded for SP duty I was given only 120 rounds of AP 5.56. If It takes tens of thousands then it would be statistically almost impossible for me to take down one man with my 120 rounds. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that I'd like to know where you came up with that "fact".

2) Then throw the rules for cover out. There are separate rules for cover so VP do NOT take cover into account. Dive and dodge all you want, an automatic weapon pretty much takes whatever movement a person can take out of the equation at short distances. Movement at medium and short range makes hitting a target progressively harder. This is one of the reasons I liked T2K's system of x1/4, x1/2, x1, x2, x4.

3) I can sum up Sgt York with one word. Marksmanship.

 

[mmadsen]

Hmm - well - what would a level in "Airborne" really represent? Is Airborne a base class, a feat, or a prestige class? [...] How do you distinguish the differences in the skill-set between these, if using a class-based system? Do you simply make a different set of skills the "class skills" for each of these? If so, then the skill-set is the only difference and the class is identical in all other respects? If that is the case, then it seems that a particular class is meaningless.

I don't see why a class that "just" defines a skill-set is meaningless. For a military game, I'd expect a bunch of short (prestige) classes listing skills and feats, with a few choices where choices do exist.

I just somehow see the different distinctions becoming a morass of extra feats and prestige classes in a d20 system - the v2.x TW2K system was rather elegant in that you simply had to worry about skills for a given branch and specialty.

I don't see why a class system can't mimic that elegant solution perfectly.

 

[mmadsen]

Ok here's a couple counter facts. In war these days, tens of thousands of bullets are fired for each casualty. How do we wish to model that? Would TW2k allow for that kind of ammo/hit reality? In a game where supply is everything, I rather doubt it. Granted people may fight quite a bit differently, but I doubt you're going to pare than ratio down much more than maybe 100/hit. Sounds like a boring game if you want to roll all of those dice to get one hit.

If you're low on supplies, you don't lay down suppression fire; you practice strict fire control.

If you want to reflect long-range suppression fire with a heavy machine gun, treat it as an area-effect attack (like a D&D fireball) with a fairly low Ref DC.

Then as to whether veterans do improve beyond simply becomming more skilled, well I suppose it's a matter of the level of detail you intend to simulate in the rules. VPs are meant to simulate getting cover, diving, and dodging, but in an automatic fashion. They also serve to simulate fatigue which is useful in and of itself. If you feel like making combat that detailed, more power to ya.

High Ref Saves (along with Defense based on Ref) achieve the same thing -- veterans happen to be wherever the bullets aren't, without being bulletproof.

 

[buzzard]

I numbered your counter-facts to counter them.

1) Where do you get that figure? Fully loaded for SP duty I was given only 120 rounds of AP 5.56. If It takes tens of thousands then it would be statistically almost impossible for me to take down one man with my 120 rounds. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that I'd like to know where you came up with that "fact".

Well the latest instance was a show on the History Channel. They were discussing how in W.W. II it was something like 50K rounds fired per casualty, and by Vietnam it had gotten well over 100K per. If you really care enough I can probably dig up such a figure in one of my Keegan books or an encyclopedia. I know I've read it in various places.

2) Then throw the rules for cover out. There are separate rules for cover so VP do NOT take cover into account. Dive and dodge all you want, an automatic weapon pretty much takes whatever movement a person can take out of the equation at short distances. Movement at medium and short range makes hitting a target progressively harder. This is one of the reasons I liked T2K's system of x1/4, x1/2, x1, x2, x4.

How about when you are moving through an area where the cover is variable? Let me clarify that. Say I'm at starting point A, no cover, I'm moving to end point D, with some cover. During the whole time there are varying amounts of cover in between at B and C. In a turn based game it is roughly impossible to account for that sort of thing. Thus, while I have moved into cover, and deserve a bonus for that, the process of dodging into cover while arriving there should be accounted for. I imagine VP could be looked upon in that way. VP could also be the ability to more efffectively use the cover that you have. One does tend to expose some of onesself when firing of course, and ducking takes energy.

3) I can sum up Sgt York with one word. Marksmanship.

You can't sum up Audie Murphy that easily. He also made York look like an amateur.

buzzard