Evildrsmith
Topic Author
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 09 Nov 2019, 18:34

Vehicles, kit , etc

Sun 17 May 2020, 16:24

One of the features of Twilight:2000 has been it's level of detail regarding vehicles, military equipment, etc - you didn't just have a tank, but an M1..only it wasn't just an M1, but an M1, or an M1A1, or an M1A2...
I'm wondering if (and hoping that) that level of 'crunchy' military detail is to be retained in this 4th edition?
Assuming so, will the vehicles etc include the 'what-if' projections that GDW made in the mid-1980s (e.g. M1A2 Giraffe, LAV-75), or include only what really existed in 1995?
Regardless, I also hope that the time is taken to updated and correct some of the errors in GDW's statistics, which also seemed to be ported directly into 3rd ed (T:2013) - the overly low armour rating for Warrior, for example.
 
User avatar
Vader
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2019, 14:11
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Sun 17 May 2020, 18:08

Bearing in mind that the basic premise for the setting is that the Soviet Union did NOT collapse in 1991, one must also assume that the authors also posit that military hardware development did NOT slow down over the ‘90’s, but that a fair amount of the various systems and platforms that were in development or early introduction but were shelved at the time as their immediate need was perceived to evaporate, actually went into service.

And indeed, one does fervently hope that Fria Ligan’s edition continues the proud tradition of “MÖP-service” established by earlier editions... ;)
Last edited by Vader on Mon 25 May 2020, 13:27, edited 1 time in total.
- They're a bit like Facehuggers, aren't they?
- Face ... huggers?
- Yeah, you know. Alien.
- ...?
- The horror movie, Alien.
- There's a horror movie called Alien?? That's really offensive! No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
 
ReverendDak
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun 17 May 2020, 01:37
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Sun 17 May 2020, 19:01

Did anyone else get disappointed when the "real" M1A2 Abrams _didn't_ get a self loading gun, or the G-11 (bullpup) not getting adopted by NATO? Also later on finding myself as gunner of a M2A1 BFV, I expected a few more advancements. I have to find my old books.
 
User avatar
Severian
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon 18 May 2020, 16:23

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Mon 18 May 2020, 17:03

Did anyone else get disappointed when the "real" M1A2 Abrams _didn't_ get a self loading gun, or the G-11 (bullpup) not getting adopted by NATO? Also later on finding myself as gunner of a M2A1 BFV, I expected a few more advancements. I have to find my old books.
Yeah, +1. I spent 1989-2012 in the US Army and USAR and had hoped there would be a lot cooler tech adopted (although I did see a lot of interesting stuff when I was in MI and SF than I did as a grunt!). I expect a lot of the stuff that got shelved on both sides after 1991 will become standard issue by 2000. I'm also looking forward to a lot of new environments for the game setting. Poland was fun, but there are many cool places that would be likely hotspots during a conflict like that. The Finno-Russian or Iranian-Russian borders, for example. Maybe SF ODAs in the 'stans. What about units that were in non-Soviet areas? Maybe Kim Jong-il would take the opportunity to invade South Korea. Maybe some other hotspot would provide the catalyst for the war in 2000, like the current situation in Syria. Maybe this war has a lot of fronts. It provides a lot of opportunities to expand the original concept. I'm looking forward to it!
Sev
 
Evildrsmith
Topic Author
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 09 Nov 2019, 18:34

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Thu 21 May 2020, 12:05

I guess the question I was really asking is to what extent the original GDW stuff needs to be updated, dropped or replace.
Tank Breaker, for example, could sensibly be retained but renamed as Javelin.
But should the Abrams-based SPAA vehicle (M691?) be retained (since it's pure fabrication)? Would it be better to 'resurrect' the M988 Sergeant York, on the assumption that 10 years of computer advancement enabled the targeting problems to be fixed, enabling an 'M988A1' to be rushed into service/production at the start of the war?
 
Hellfish
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat 23 May 2020, 19:34

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Sat 23 May 2020, 19:35

Will there also eventually be source books? As a kid I loved the US/NATO/Soviet vehicle guides.
 
User avatar
Vader
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2019, 14:11
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Mon 25 May 2020, 14:14

Did anyone else get disappointed when the "real" M1A2 Abrams _didn't_ get a self loading gun, or the G-11 (bullpup) not getting adopted by NATO? Also later on finding myself as gunner of a M2A1 BFV, I expected a few more advancements. I have to find my old books.
For certain!

The G11 is a prime example of a piece of hardware that never saw light of day in service IRL, but by necessity must be a standard item in the game.

By 1991, the rifle had gone through all the necessary technical and troop tests with Bundeswehr, and was ready for being issued Permit for Fielding. Only the political decision to put it into service remained. And then the Soviet Union collapsed ... and bye-bye G11. The official decision to postpone the programme (indefinitely) was made in the Bundestag in 1992.

The G11 was set to be supported by a whole ecosystem of firearms, with an LMG using the same cartridge, and a sidearm using a short version of it. The question however whether the 4.73x33 ammunition could ever have been adopted as a NATO standard cartridge is somewhat diffuse. The G11 (under the moniker "HK-ACR") had - in spite of very successful trials at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds - been, along with all the other contenders, rejected as a replacement for the US M16A2 with the closing of the Advanced Combat Rifle programme (on slightly diffuse grounds ... ostensibly because "hey, none of the contenders is really better than the M16 anyway", but "hey, the Iron Curtain just fell, so why bother?" also seems to have been a factor) in 1990, and the Bundestag officially stated that "adoption as NATO standard is unlikely" in 1993, but I hear some conflicting accounts.
In the end, the conclusion that had the USSR and the Warsaw Pact not collapsed, history would most likely have played out very differently for the G11, is inevitable.


(Just for the record - what makes the G11 unique is not its bullpup configuration - both the British and the French have had bullpup assault rifles in service since the '70's and '80's, with the SA80/L85 and FAMAS ... apart from the dozens of countries that have adopted the FN P90 into various services since the '90's, etc..
What does make the G11 unique is (a) the fact that it uses caseless ammunition, and (b) it's "designed dispersion" ultra-rapid three-round burst, that considerably boosts a rifleman's hit probability.)
- They're a bit like Facehuggers, aren't they?
- Face ... huggers?
- Yeah, you know. Alien.
- ...?
- The horror movie, Alien.
- There's a horror movie called Alien?? That's really offensive! No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
 
User avatar
aramis
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2019, 20:34
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Wed 27 May 2020, 09:40

I, for one, hope the vehicles and kit don't get overly bogged in the minutiae...

For example, the practical differences between the M16-A2 and -A3 aren't that much, and the practical differences in game stats are probably below resolution, unless they're seriously altering the fundamental score ranges of the YZE...
—————————————————————————
Smith & Wesson: the original point and click interface...
 
User avatar
Vader
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2019, 14:11
Location: The Frozen North

Re: Vehicles, kit , etc

Thu 28 May 2020, 12:10

...whereas, OTOH, the differences between the M16A1 and the M16A2 are quite significant, and ought to have a visible impact in game terms.

Too much is always too much, of course; I really don't think anyone wants to see a Phoenix Command, here ... but I believe the previous editions of T2k struck a very good balance.
I therefore hope this new edition continues in the same vein.

No more -- and certainly no less -- detail ... just making sure this time that the detail that is included, is relevant and correct (no more "the standard Swedish assault rifle MKS" and whatnot if at all avoidable, please!).
- They're a bit like Facehuggers, aren't they?
- Face ... huggers?
- Yeah, you know. Alien.
- ...?
- The horror movie, Alien.
- There's a horror movie called Alien?? That's really offensive! No wonder everyone keeps invading you.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest