What I like/dislike about T2K

[Bullet Magnet]

All right, I thought it might be interesting to find out what people thought were the best (and worst) parts of the game.
When posting, please mention what edition you are talking about, if your comment is edition specific.

Since I'm the one opening this can of worms, it's only fitting I should start.

First, a like: (1st edition) I've always liked the skill system in v1. From being percentile based, to the method for improving skills. I like how it requires actually USING the skill to gain points to improve said skill. Yes, there are also rules for gaining skill points through formal instruction, but the point is that most other games, being level based, just give you points at each level, which can then be put on any skill, regardless of if that skill ever gets used or not.

Now, a dislike: (any edition) For whatever reason, GDW never got around to the rest of the world. All the focus was on Eastern Europe, with barely a mention of other parts of the world. I think it would have been cool to have some details on what was going on in Africa, South America, Asia, and Australia...something more than "nothing really worth mentioning happened here".
(A bit of a softball dislike I admit. But since this is a new thread, I figured I'd get it out there.)

[leonpoi]

All right, I thought it might be interesting to find out what people thought were the best (and worst) parts of the game.
When posting, please mention what edition you are talking about, if your comment is edition specific.


Like:
(All) the setting. Eastern Europe, warlords, bad weather and all kinds of danger. V1 and V2(.2) settings are both wonderful for me - all I was interested in was creating the setting and sandboxing it from there.

(All) the year 1996-2000. The era in which armies had a wide range of weapons, SMGs, assault rifles, not the refined weapon 'systems' of today. I just preferred it this way I guess.

(v2.2) the system. I know many are going to swear by v1, but for me v2.2 was quick enough but detailed enough that skirmishes were exciting, full of options, but didn't bog down. (sure I houseruled body hit points lower, and tweaked the initiative system a little, but otherwise untouched).

Dislike:
(v1) vehicle damage rules. Ok, I thought they were cool, but how many times can you spend 1/2 an hour only to find that your round failed to penetrate the engine block, again.

(:() that I've moved to country and now have to gaming group. The curse of old age I guess.

[Adm.Lee]

Like: Too much to say.

Dislike:
(either ed.) Anymore, I'm not a fan of the initiative systems, they seem too fiddly. I haven't come up with much better, though. If I were to run again, it would likely be with a group that is used to rolling for initiative, or drawing cards, and we might end up compromising with one of those.
(2nd) I very much disliked this initiative, if you allow PCs to grow their initiative ratings. I ran a not-that-long Merc campaign that had nearly all of the PCs raise to the 5 or 6 level, and just about every fight was a cakewalk by then.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Like: Most of the setting, everything in general.
Dislike: vagaries of the rest of the world, although coming from an AD&D-with-Greyhawk background I know how much fun it is to pencil in your own stuff...

[irishboy]

I'm still learning about the system (playing in my first campaign PbP), so I'll reserve my 'likes' for later on, once I have a better idea.

But I dislike the 4 year term in character creation (v2.2). It makes the characters too old. I think that in a setting as grimy & fatal as the year 2000, a 20 year old with good reflexes has a better chance of surviving than a 40something... whatever. Experience in life can help, but age can be a limiting factor too.

[95th Rifleman]

As mentioned already, I like the tech level. Conflicts in the T2K era are sill free for alls where the outcome just isn't certain. These days it's uber superpower versus little guy who loses 90% of his army in the first month of ariel blitz. the T2K war is also in a way honest,it's super power v superpower for territory and dominance. Non of the clouded political/idealogical double dealing of today.

i don't like the 2.2 timeline, I still use the 1st ed timeline (which lets me use the RDF and UK sourcebooks much easier).

[Legbreaker]

(2nd) I very much disliked this initiative, if you allow PCs to grow their initiative ratings. I ran a not-that-long Merc campaign that had nearly all of the PCs raise to the 5 or 6 level, and just about every fight was a cakewalk by then.

The 2.0 initiative has a few things in it which level the field A LOT. Repetitive actions for example where a character with low actions is given the support weapon (belt fed machinegun, AGL, etc) and just keeps firing at the same general area between actions - makes great use of the danger area rule of automatic weapons and makes machineguns much more useful in the automatic rather than single shot role.
The other is the damage - if a character takes enough to cause them to loose an action, even if it's just a paper cut, then they're unable to do ANYTHING until the next turn (30 seconds). Grenades and other explosive area effect weapons are brilliant in this regard, the concussion alone can be enough to effectively paralyse an entire unit (if they're bunched up too close) allowing the Initiative 1 plebs to stroll up at their leisure and beat them to death with blunt objects. This of course promotes the use of hand grenades, etc by both sides and the local town chemist becomes a very valuable member of the militia (they can make explosives).

[leonpoi]

The 2.0 initiative has a few things in it which level the field A LOT. Repetitive actions for example where a character with low actions is given the support weapon (belt fed machinegun, AGL, etc) and just keeps firing at the same general area between actions - makes great use of the danger area rule of automatic weapons and makes machineguns much more useful in the automatic rather than single shot role.
The other is the damage - if a character takes enough to cause them to loose an action, even if it's just a paper cut, then they're unable to do ANYTHING until the next turn (30 seconds). Grenades and other explosive area effect weapons are brilliant in this regard, the concussion alone can be enough to effectively paralyse an entire unit (if they're bunched up too close) allowing the Initiative 1 plebs to stroll up at their leisure and beat them to death with blunt objects. This of course promotes the use of hand grenades, etc by both sides and the local town chemist becomes a very valuable member of the militia (they can make explosives).

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I do agree with the initiative system (as per my original post). v1 and v2, well it was just too fiddly. v1 having to spread actions around, worrying about repetitive actions. Good idea, but just a bit much for me. Same for v2.

v2.2 I liked because it was quick but then a initiative 6 character gets to go twice - why?!? Didn't seem right, so I settled on a combo that I'm still not convinced on:
Characters receive additional actions each phase (6 turns) for each level by which current Initiative > 3 (on the step equal to one-half of the current Initiative). The rational was that now it feels like a bonus - everyone gets an action and if you're good you get some more. bit harder to track though because again you're back to 6-turn phases.....

https://sites.google.com/site/leonpoitw2k/Home/files/Threatv2.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

[StainlessSteelCynic]

v2.2 I liked because it was quick but then a initiative 6 character gets to go twice - why?!?
Because a turn is 5 seconds long and they considered that a character that had a lot of combat experience would react faster than one who didn't. Reacting faster meant that they could aim in one phase of their 5 second turn and then shoot on the second phase of that same turn.
A low Initiative character would aim in the first turn and shoot in the second turn. Surviving a lot of combat had benefits but I guess they were difficult to translate to the 2nd edition rules and then the 2.2 rules so it appears GDW decided to keep it simple... too simple say some but it does give a player some hope that their PC will improve enough to survive.

[Bullet Magnet]

I got another one, kind of both a like and dislike:

(Mostly 1st edition, but I saw it in the 2nd edition as well) The adventure modules. As a 'dislike' they are a bit light on details for areas in the module in question.
However, as a like, this allowed GDW to provide SOME info on a larger area. Each module was almost a mini sourcebook for the region it covered. Looking over some of those modules last year, I realized any one of them could theoretically be expanded into a campaign in its own right. Yes, that would require the GM to do some independent research into the specific region, which might not have been that easy back in the 80s when these were printed, but now with the web, a lot of that is much easier.
The real trick is just getting the time and the initiative to do it.

[Adm.Lee]

I got another one, kind of both a like and dislike:

(Mostly 1st edition, but I saw it in the 2nd edition as well) The adventure modules. As a 'dislike' they are a bit light on details for areas in the module in question.
However, as a like, this allowed GDW to provide SOME info on a larger area. Each module was almost a mini sourcebook for the region it covered. Looking over some of those modules last year, I realized any one of them could theoretically be expanded into a campaign in its own right. Yes, that would require the GM to do some independent research into the specific region, which might not have been that easy back in the 80s when these were printed, but now with the web, a lot of that is much easier.
The real trick is just getting the time and the initiative to do it.

This has been one of my highest 'likes' for most of the modules. They were campaign outlines, rather than adventures.

OTOH, if I want to run something short and closed-end, like I do anymore, it's not so good.

[Bullet Magnet]

This has been one of my highest 'likes' for most of the modules. They were campaign outlines, rather than adventures.

OTOH, if I want to run something short and closed-end, like I do anymore, it's not so good.

Yeah, overall, it's more of a like than dislike for me too. The only real "dislike" part of it is that the modules are nor something you can read over the two nights prior to a game and feel ready to go, like I can do with a typical D&D module (T2K or D&D, if I'm running it, I've read the adventure a few times before and the two nights prior would be just refamiliarizing myself with it).
Yeah, a T2K module may require more work on the GM's part than one for D&D, or many other games. But, that one T2K module has so much more potential for expansion, and as both the Admiral and myself have said, a whole campaign ca be built from just one module. So, definitely more to like than dislike about the spartan nature of details in these modules.

[Fusilier]

Because a turn is 5 seconds long and they considered that a character that had a lot of combat experience would react faster than one who didn't. Reacting faster meant that they could aim in one phase of their 5 second turn and then shoot on the second phase of that same turn.
A low Initiative character would aim in the first turn and shoot in the second turn. Surviving a lot of combat had benefits but I guess they were difficult to translate to the 2nd edition rules and then the 2.2 rules so it appears GDW decided to keep it simple... too simple say some but it does give a player some hope that their PC will improve enough to survive.

That's one thing I didn't like about the initiative. I understood their reasoning, but with the fixed values it meant a lower initiative person could never shoot first against a higher one (unless ambush or other unequal situation).

I thought that was weak, so when its applicable I add a die roll on top of the initiative to keep it random - but still in the favor of higher initiative characters.