RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-12-2010, 07:16 AM
Tegyrius's Avatar
Tegyrius Tegyrius is offline
This Sourcebook Kills Fascists
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog 6 View Post
i'll buy it as long as the back story is good and they don't kill off 90% of the world like in 2013k. 2013k sucked so bad i wish i had my money back for it.
I'm curious. Exactly what casualty rate would you consider acceptable for a modern WWIII scenario? FYI, GDW's figures in the 2.0 timeline were 52% in the United States and 45% in Canada, and those numbers were exclusive to primary and secondary casualties from the 1997 nuclear strikes over the 1997-2000 period (pp. 234-236).

To put it another way, what survival rate would you consider plausible for a global conflict producing near-complete disruption of the medical and agricultural industries that enable the current population density in developed nations?

- C.
__________________
Clayton A. Oliver • Occasional RPG Freelancer Since 1996

Author of The Pacific Northwest, coauthor of Tara Romaneasca, creator of several other free Twilight: 2000 and Twilight: 2013 resources, and curator of an intermittent gaming blog.

It rarely takes more than a page to recognize that you're in the presence of someone who can write, but it only takes a sentence to know you're dealing with someone who can't.
- Josh Olson
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-12-2010, 06:57 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegyrius View Post
I'm curious. Exactly what casualty rate would you consider acceptable for a modern WWIII scenario? FYI, GDW's figures in the 2.0 timeline were 52% in the United States and 45% in Canada, and those numbers were exclusive to primary and secondary casualties from the 1997 nuclear strikes over the 1997-2000 period (pp. 234-236).

To put it another way, what survival rate would you consider plausible for a global conflict producing near-complete disruption of the medical and agricultural industries that enable the current population density in developed nations?

- C.
40-60% would be in the range
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-12-2010, 07:19 PM
Eddie Eddie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog 6 View Post
40-60% would be in the range
JFTR, this survival rate would equate roughly to the global population of the 1960s, give or take 10 years.

A 10% survival rate would equate to the global population of roughly 1700 or so.

If we use the 2006 world population that we had when we were working on the book.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.