Forum

Some thoughts on vehicles and vehicle-related subjects:

First, I assume the null value for cargo on most tanks/anti-tank vehicles is intended to be a placeholder? Because if not, and they're not supposed to carry cargo of any sort, that seems like a big mistake—tanks and other AFVs throughout history have been known to carry as much gear as it's possible to stick on the vehicle, up to and including the modern day. Given the rules as written don't even work for a vehicle without a cargo value right now, that might be something to consider if it's not a placeholder for whatever reason.





Pictured: cargo

Second: While I like the idea behind the "roll to see which vehicle your party starts with" table, I'm not sure it will really work out in practice:



In my opinion, there's a couple practical problems with this table: First, and probably easiest to fix, is it skips right from APCs to MBTs without any step for IFVs. There's obviously a pretty big gulf between something like an M113 and an M1 Abrams, and slotting the option for the party to take an IFV in-between those choices seems like a quick and reasonable fix.

But! There's a part of me that isn't sure it's a great idea to roll for vehicles at all. A party's vehicle is going to be a big part of any campaign, and something with as big of an impact as "do they have horses or an M1 Abrams with which to solve and/or cause problems" doesn't seem like something that should be left to the dice. Obviously, the GM has the option of straight-up picking an option for the party, but then that's just making the table irrelevant entirely. And, of course, there's the problem that while the likelihood of the players getting an MBT only goes up with the more players that they have, this means that the more players the party has, the less likely it is that they'll end up rolling a vehicle that can physically carry all of them! (Without party members riding on the roof, at least)

What could be a potential solution would be that instead of having the party roll to see what vehicle they get, to instead provide a list of options the party can decide upon. This is something that I really liked as an option in FFG's Age of Rebellion, for instance—in that book, the party has the option of deciding if they want to start with a squadron of Y-Wings, a captured Lambda shuttle, or a pre-established hidden base. While the GM can still choose which asset they start with, for the players it can be a great opportunity to decide what kind of game they want to play, and what resources they want to start with. Obviously, Twilight: 2000 has a much different tone than a Star Wars game, and you don't necessarily want to give players the straight-up option to take a fully-functional MBT at the start of a campaign. But, allowing the players to choose from a series of vehicle and gear options, as opposed to merely rolling, could be a great way to give the players agency (And save the GM some headaches) at the start of the game.

Plus, you could also make one of the options "Start with a semi-established base," which would also fit in nicely with the new base building rules.

As an example, the players could be given the following options:

-Start with access to a secure base with some supplies
-Start with APCs in reasonable repair
-Start with a badly damaged MBT

Could probably stand to be more granular, but you get the idea.

Third and final thought: Customization! I mentioned this before in my previous post in this thread, but I wanted to expand on it since I think it's important (Even if this suggestion is the least likely to actually make it into the final rulebook). When players have access to a vehicle, one of the first things they'll want to do is figure out how to upgrade it—be it through improved weapons, extra armor, or other customizations. As a GM and a player, I think this is great, since it gives the players additional emotional attachment to their vehicle, and finding parts for upgrades can become questlines in their own right. And the world of Twilight: 2000 is perfectly ripe for this: With the world breaking down, soldiers are going to add whatever improvements they can to the vehicles they have access to in order to keep them alive—be it additional weapon mounts (Something that was extensively done in World War II and Vietnam), additional armor plating, ERA blocks stapled everywhere, expanded or external fuel tanks, barbed wire to keep those infantry jerks from messing up your paint... you get the picture. And technically speaking, one upgrade is already in the game—the ability to convert an engine to run on alcohol fuel.

In my opinion, vehicle upgrades could (And should!) be a section unto itself within the Gear chapter. It's simply too fitting for the game to go without the ability to customize or upgrade vehicles, and will be an immense help when players inevitably ask to do it anyway. A lot of fun could be had writing and playtesting such a section, and I for one would be happy to volunteer :v

On Rate of Fire, Ammo dice and Capacity:
There are weapons (the Auto-5 and 311R shotguns, unless i missed something) with a Rate of Fire of 2 and a Capacity of less than 6.

The rules of Ammo spent (page 61) seems to say that even if i use two Ammo dice and roll for example two sixes they will be removed due to them being higher than the number of cartridges left in the magazine.

This would indicate that there is never a reason to use more than one Ammo dice with these weapons, which makes the Rate of fire pointless and the higher cost of the Auto-5 compared to the 870P illogical.

A solution would be that you always keep one ammo dice even if it's higher than the number of remaining cartridges, for instance. This would also make the Ammo dice useful for weapons with a Rate of fire of 1 and a Capacity less than 6 (like the M700 and the M40A3) other than being just a source of mishaps.

Good points, we'll have a look at those stats.

Smoke - Dense smoke can also be created by WP grenades, as well as mortar and artillery rounds, not just smoke grenades.

In the rules, it says "Roll a D6 at the start of each round for each smoke marker on the battle map – on a result of 1 or 2, remove it." Theoretically, you could throw smoke one round and it be gone the next. From my experience with smoke, from grenades, mortars and artillery, this time frame is too short. I would say that the smoke should stay longer and maybe have the rolls start after the 4th round or so. It should also be noted that smoke will be heavy two rounds after it is thrown. The first round is light smoke that does not block line of sight. Just a suggestion.

Regarding the length and width, smoke travels on the wind and the clouds will be drawn in that direction. I would suggest that smoke be twice as long as wide (using the blast power rating of the round) and will move from the point of impact downwind. The wind direction can be determined randomly using a D6.

What happens with 'moving smoke', i.e. that potentially generated by some Soviet tanks by injecting oil into the exhaust outlet?

I have seen just issued smoke grenades sputter out seconds after being thrown. Smoke duration is also a factor of the wind speed. As a referee I'd probably adjust the time before rolling a D6 based on the wind conditions (and if indoors it won't clear for a long time).

The Soviet injection smoke systems require diesel fuel, so if the tank's are running on alcohol then they can't generate smoke that way. Smoke grenade / anti IR units on the turret need smoke grenades to work.

Minor weirdness with encumbrance, a fully loaded magazine weighs 1/4 units and 25 loose rounds weigh the same. IMO it would make a lot more sense if loose rounds weighed less, like 50 rounds weigh 1/4 units since they don't include the weight of a magazine.

It's even more weird when you consider that a M249 belt is 200 rounds and weigh 1 unit whereas the same ammo without links and box weigh twice as much.


More of a balance issue, but the fact that all ammo is the same value feels wrong to me. Pistol calibre ammo (like 9x18 and 9x19) is a lot worse compared to rifle ammo (like 7.62x51 for instance) yet cost the same. So if you use a pistol or an SMG you use up the same amount of resources for a lot lower payoff. Considering most Submachineguns cost just a little less than an assault rifle (Uzi for 350 vs FAMAS for 400) yet have a lot worse stats makes them pretty bad in comparison. If they at least fired cheap ammo they might feel like there is a choice between a powerful rifle and a cheap SMG.

The Soviet injection smoke systems require diesel fuel, so if the tank's are running on alcohol then they can't generate smoke that way. Smoke grenade / anti IR units on the turret need smoke grenades to work.

Yes, but there is always a 'just in case' factor, just in case diesel is involved.

The Soviet injection smoke systems require diesel fuel, so if the tank's are running on alcohol then they can't generate smoke that way. Smoke grenade / anti IR units on the turret need smoke grenades to work.

Yes, but there is always a 'just in case' factor, just in case diesel is involved.

In that case you'd have a constant smoke cloud coming from the tank, treat it as a smoke grenade every round - and if the tank moves the smoke will trail behind it and be subject to D6 rolls for every hex effected (rough mechanic).

More feedback from my side;

• The typcial NPCs table in the referee's handbook does not include CUF, but this is needed for rolls for suppression and such if you do not use the simple NPC rules. I assume a CUF of C for normal soldier and B for officers and special forces, etc.

• Regarding ovewatch, the player's handbooks says "Just like cover, overwatch must be directed at a specific field of fire, covering three sides of your hex as per the diagram on page xx. To indicate this, place an OVERWATCH marker underneath your token." I cannot find the diagram that Overwatch mentions, nor the diagarm for Cover.

• Suggstion for initiative: The combat round is a few seconds the characters can change their mind about what they want to do based on actions that have taken place before their turn. My suggestion would be for each to declare their actions and THEN draw initiative cards. That way, the players and NPCs are committed to their actions. I believe this helps to better simulate things happening simultaneously.

A bit more about smoke — I think it would be beneficial to highlight the difference between "torch-type" and WP-type smoke grenades.

Some torch-type grenades can take a few seconds to get going after ignition, and emit a steady, thick stream of smoke over a period of time — about one to three minutes, depending on type. If there is wind, the smoke stream will drift with it; if there is no wind, the smoke will accumulate in place.

WP grenades create an instantaneous, dense smoke cloud tens of metres in diameter upon ignition. While useful also as incendiary weapons, they are primarily useful as smoke grenades. A tank's smoke dischargers (not to be confused with the aforementioned diesel smoke generators) are always loaded with WP grenades.