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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

(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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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/leonpo...edirects=0&d=1

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

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.