twilight2000-digest Monday, 14 October 1996 Volume 1996 : Number 021 The following topics are covered in this digest: 1. RE: Nonsense 2. Re: interest 3. Re: interest 4. Re: old vs new modules 5. Re: interest 6. Re: old vs new modules 7. Re: Nonsense 8. Re: 9. Re: 10. Re: old vs new modules 11. Power Gaming 12. Money.....It's a gas..... 13. Re: old vs new modules ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Reed" Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 12:58:07 -0500 Subject: RE: Nonsense - ---------- > From: Christopher R Stainton > To: Twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Nonsense > Date: Saturday, October 12, 1996 11:22 AM > In reality ( which is one thing T2 tries to simulate, and does so fairly > effectively IMHO) I can hit a target at 400m with a 3-5 round burst out > of an M-60 damn near every time. It was my assigned weapon for a number > of years and was what I went into combat with. After the initial burst > of 3-5, I'd have to stop re-aim, and fire again in order to BE SURE I'd > hit the target, otherwise some rounds would hit, and some would miss. > All of this was with a bipod, however, or on a vehicle mount, from a > standing position, forget it, maybe it was like 5% per round. Did you forget to add in the bonuses for bipod/vehicle mount in your equation? ;-) They're there. That 5% (extreme range number) was for standing shots (was it aimed or unaimed? I forget.). > Another combat rule I don't like very much has to do with damage from > pistols. > So if I hit someone square in the chest and do maximum damage from my > (realworld) Beretta 92F (M9), and do the most amount of damage I can (6 > points) > the most damage i could do to the WEAKEST character or NPC is a slight > wound? You could come join us in the Millennium's End world, where everyone dies, regardless of where they're hit, or what they're hit with. (Seems that way, eh, Tony?) I think that the US national death rate for gunshot wounds is 13%. Which leaves us an 87% survival rate (including shotgun and rifle wounds), accidental or not. Does T2k give about the same results as the Real World(tm)? BUT are you using the quick kill rules? And the initiative penalties? Makes surviving ANY wound a lot less likely. > Again, Nonsense. If 9mm pistols are SO weak, why on earth would most > police agencies use them as a standard issue sidearm? Why would the US > Army issue them as a sidearm. Let's face it, if you had to use your Stupidity? ;-) I for one wouldn't carry one. My duty weapon was a .40 S&W, only because department policy precluded single action autos (my personal favorite .45 Gov't. Gold Cup included). And remember that the T2k rules ONLY account for BALL ammo. ME covers AET, hollowpoint, armor piercing, shotshell, etc. They all behave very differently. Glazers may obliterate an unarmored target, but they may not penetrate that heavy leather duster and sweater that folks in cold climes wear. Yes, but PCs seem to carry a lot more ammo into the field than is usually authorized for the average combat patrol, eh? ;-) > pistol, things are REALLY bad, and that puny little 9mm won't do > jack-----hell acording to the rules it'd be really hard to kill yourself > with it, so you'd better save a shotgun round for that last "suicide" > round! (I, however in the real world always had ne last 9mm round tucked > into my helmet band). Quick kill rules to the HEAD? Bad news. Wasn't there also a coup de gras rule, too? If you can't coup de gras yourself, who can you coup de gras? Suicide takes all fun out of letting us capture you... ;-\ (Not like you'd have time anyway, or the inclination, after meeting bouncy betty, a TOW, vehicle fire, or 7.62mm NATO anyway.) > (just waiting for the replys to this one!) All I can is: "Duck! I use Black Talon." (Great arrest procedure: "We can do this the easy way, or I can let Black Talon do it for me...") ______________________________________________________ David Reed Armed with PGP ------------------------------ From: Michael S Choi Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 14:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: interest To all: Actually having lurked a while I'll come out and say my peace/piece. I like Twilight- or at least the setting of the original first ed. Granted in terms of playability- armored and air combat leaves a lot to be desired. And the "go in turns" intiative always irks me let alone the odd vehicles like the LAV75 or the T90 or the BRDM3 or whatever and the fact that small arms damage should really make unarmored (ie out of their tracks) characters think about mortality. Twilight 2K has all those things I like lotsa guns, lotsa carnage, and a generally f$%ked up universe. Granted I really don't know if you can run a 600 turbocharged Cummins diesel on vodka but.... Personally though it's always interesting to see that Cyberpunk's Maximum Metal does smell like second ed 2K- (Craig Sheeley was largely responsible) so in some ways the GDW game does live on in at least one other game system- granted it's pretty un-Cyberpunk to have PCs riding around in a main battle tank in the middle of a big city;). Mad Mike Otakuize the world! Otaku of the world unite! Michael Choi, President of the Sailor Ranma fan club and drooling mecha fan-boy extraordinaire. On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, David Reed wrote: > ---------- > > From: Christopher R Stainton > > To: Twilight2000@MPGN.COM; darkconspiracy@MPGN.COM > > Subject: interest > > Date: Saturday, October 12, 1996 11:22 AM > > > How many people out there actually play on a regular basis? Including > > people you know, or game with. > > What's "regular"? As frequently as this list gets traffic? 6 > or so, here. > > > And how many people would buy new or revised products for this game > line? > > I would buy new materials, but I think that two releases of "revised" > material so far were more than enough to put GDW in it's grave. If we > could generate some new sourcebooks for DC, I think they might sell 3 or 4 > copies. What we need for T2k is a personal endorsement from Arnold > Schwarzeneggar(sp?)... Or a Merc:2000 release that covers NYPD Blues. > > I don't see the current crop of gamers buying into these two stock games. > Give it a couple more years for the cycle to come back around. > ______________________________________________________ > David Reed Armed with PGP > ------------------------------ From: jeremy14@juno.com (Jeremy S Menefee) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 15:39:07 PST Subject: Re: interest Well, since I am running a campaign :) you could say I play regularly. Also, before I moved to the boonies, I played regularly in several campaigns. I would buy every damn new or revised product the new owners cared to publish, and I have at least seven or eight people on my waiting list alone who would be interested in buying these things, not to mention those on the Merc:2k game going on via PBeM by Chris D.. There is also another TW2K game being run by Orrin Ladd. All three of us have similar numbers of lurkers, and I would assume similar numbers of people interested in plunking down cash, so let's say... 21 to 24 people off the top of my head. Not including the people I played with back in Seattle. Plus you ?? - -Jeremy Menefee Semper Fidelis On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:22:36 EDT kappaabz@juno.com (Christopher R Stainton) writes: >Question: >How many people out there actually play on a regular basis? Including >people you know, or game with. >And how many people would buy new or revised products for this game >line? > >Curious, >Chris ------------------------------ From: jeremy14@juno.com (Jeremy S Menefee) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 16:41:03 PST Subject: Re: old vs new modules On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 12:56:59 -0500 "David Reed" writes: >---------- >> From: Christopher R Stainton >> To: Twilight2000@MPGN.COM >> Subject: old vs new modules >> Date: Saturday, October 12, 1996 11:22 AM > >> They have missed the point entirely (IMHO). Although nowadays the >trend >> in RPGs is "Power Gaming", it seems that the new modules were only >> constructed to throw PCs into combat situations, with everything >spelled >> out for them. The old modules (most of them) were campaign type > >Gee, that sounds like what happens in a military conflict. Hmmm. Still, don't you think any GM can come up with a combat mission? Why do they need to publish them? I'd still rather have those handy regional sourcebooks like Free City of, and The Black Madonna. My 0.02 - -Jeremy Menefee Semper Fidelis ------------------------------ From: jeremy14@juno.com (Jeremy S Menefee) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 16:19:55 PST Subject: Re: interest Well, personally, I am a fan of putting out ALL NEW stuff. No more modules, unless they are like some of the original ones. As to a lack of interest, this is partly due to the cycle of card games right now. Five years ago it was miniatures (which I still play:). I think there are a lot of people out there who would buy stuff, though admittedly many if not most of them are complete strangers to the game, but that is a GOOD thing. Put the stuff out in an on-line catalog, and I and my fellow PBeM GMs would harp it's virtues endlessly! - -Jeremy Menefee Semper Fidelis On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 12:55:39 -0500 "David Reed" writes: >---------- >> From: Christopher R Stainton >> To: Twilight2000@MPGN.COM; darkconspiracy@MPGN.COM >> Subject: interest >> Date: Saturday, October 12, 1996 11:22 AM > >> How many people out there actually play on a regular basis? >Including >> people you know, or game with. > >What's "regular"? As frequently as this list gets traffic? > 6 >or so, here. > >> And how many people would buy new or revised products for this game >line? > >I would buy new materials, but I think that two releases of "revised" >material so far were more than enough to put GDW in it's grave. If we >could generate some new sourcebooks for DC, I think they might sell 3 >or 4 >copies. What we need for T2k is a personal endorsement from Arnold >Schwarzeneggar(sp?)... Or a Merc:2000 release that covers NYPD Blues. > >I don't see the current crop of gamers buying into these two stock >games. >Give it a couple more years for the cycle to come back around. >______________________________________________________ >David Reed Armed with PGP > ------------------------------ From: jeremy14@juno.com (Jeremy S Menefee) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 15:57:28 PST Subject: Re: old vs new modules I frankly liked the Krakow module, and the Black Madonna. Modules should (IMHO) simply be frameworks for GMs to work in. A creative kick-start, if you will :). I never bought any of the modules after Going Home and Ruins of Warsaw, as I had my own ideas. These earlliest of modules could be considered regional sourcebooks, one detailing Silesia, and the other detailing the city-state of Krakow. These are really the only type of modules the new company should produce (assuming they ever get it going again), though I am going to try to buy all the old modules I can (using them simply as ideas, and modifying them heavily). For example, you mention the automatically friendly populace. So figure out why they are friendly. Is it because they are getting some free ammo from a NATO unit? If so, which one? Well, you can make a lot of stories structured around that. How about the characters being the ones who are sent to earn the villager's trust, and then setting up trade relations? How about a series of patrols that slowly turn up clues as to the nature of the imminent marauder threat that the module is originally about? As you can see, even a static, one-shot module can be a great engine for creativity. The above was purely off the top of my head by the way. Thoughts, comments, ideas? - -Jeremy Menefee Semper Fidelis On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:22:36 EDT kappaabz@juno.com (Christopher R Stainton) writes: >My last post (for now) > >I have been less than satisfied in the trend GDW had for their T2000 >2.0+ modules. >They have missed the point entirely (IMHO). Although nowadays the >trend in RPGs is "Power Gaming", it seems that the new modules were >only constructed to throw PCs into combat situations, with everything >spelled out for them. The old modules (most of them) were campaign >type modules, were the Gm was given a bunch of information as to the >PCs situation, the enemy's situation, and some plot devices and then >went to work. I remeber spending countless game sessions doing recon >missons, my own Intel. (since there really wasn't any more Intel), and >devising a plan of action. Sometimes we'd have to train insurgents >and win over the local populace, (hearts and minds, anyone?). Or >infiltrate an enemy's organization as a prisoner, hired gun, whatever. > These "modules" were actually campaign settings and creative GMs were >required to keep the game going and the PCs coming back for more. >Lately the trend is for 1 mission raids. where the PCs are asked to >do something (take out a target, rescue someone, steal something) >where the Intel is pretty much provided, locals are willing to help, >and all the PCs have to do is go in and blast the hell out of >everything that moves. >It is too "hollywood" like, too many movies. > I dunno, perhaps Im old and jaded. > >what kind of modules do you like to run? Or like to play? > >Chris ------------------------------ From: jeremy14@juno.com (Jeremy S Menefee) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 16:04:15 PST Subject: Re: Nonsense v2.2 (sort of) takes care of that problem with the following statement... "A hit to the head or torso that does more damage than that person's CON is an automatic killing shot against NPCs and an Outstanding Success versus player characters." My idea of an outstanding success would be double or even triple damage (being again doubled in the case of head wounds). This simple addition greatly enhances the lethality of combat. As to a Slight wound to the leg from a 9mm, I have been shot in the leg before (by a Ruger, BTW), and it did not even slow me down. Well, not until the adrenaline ran off, and then of course I didn't feel much like moving. Point being, damage to the head and body is now more severe than before. I have even considered changing it from resulting in an Outstanding Success to being a Critical Wound. This would be automatically fatal in the case of a head shot, and certainly bad enough in the case of a torso wound. So there. Hmf. :-) - -Jeremy Menefee Semper Fidelis On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:22:36 EDT kappaabz@juno.com (Christopher R Stainton) writes: >Here is my $.02 worth for my problems with autofire rules. >In Version 2.0 it is a 6 for every D6 rolled that's a hit. In 2.2 its >your extreme range number, and most people in t2000 realisticall >wouldn't have a small arms skill of higher than 16, so that means >every time I hold the trigger down, I've got a 5% chance of hitting a >target? Nonsense. >In reality ( which is one thing T2 tries to simulate, and does so >fairly effectively IMHO) I can hit a target at 400m with a 3-5 round >burst out of an M-60 damn near every time. It was my assigned weapon >for a number of years and was what I went into combat with. After the >initial burst of 3-5, I'd have to stop re-aim, and fire again in order >to BE SURE I'd hit the target, otherwise some rounds would hit, and >some would miss. All of this was with a bipod, however, or on a >vehicle mount, from a standing position, forget it, maybe it was like >5% per round. >Another combat rule I don't like very much has to do with damage from >pistols. >So if I hit someone square in the chest and do maximum damage from my >(realworld) Beretta 92F (M9), and do the most amount of damage I can >(6 points) >the most damage i could do to the WEAKEST character or NPC is a slight >wound? >Again, Nonsense. If 9mm pistols are SO weak, why on earth would most >police agencies use them as a standard issue sidearm? Why would the >US Army issue them as a sidearm. Let's face it, if you had to use >your pistol, things are REALLY bad, and that puny little 9mm won't do >jack-----hell acording to the rules it'd be really hard to kill >yourself with it, so you'd better save a shotgun round for that last >"suicide" round! (I, however in the real world always had ne last 9mm >round tucked into my helmet band). >Hope it helps, > >Chris >(just waiting for the replys to this one!) ------------------------------ From: jeremy14@juno.com (Jeremy S Menefee) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 16:32:21 PST Subject: Re: On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 12:57:32 -0500 "David Reed" writes: >---------- > >> Tracking. I like version 1's character generation system, because >if >> you get really lucky, or like to cheat, and have really high >attribute >> scores, then your rank and MEB is going to be low. While this isn't >the >> most realistic system, it seem s quire fair to me. Similarly i do >like > >Why not go with a straight up point assignment system? Perhaps with a >small random element? I think that most "modern" games are going away >from random character generation for abilities and skills, but what >would >I know? I don't buy too many anymore. Well, I do go with a point-system. Each character begins with 32+1d6 points for attributes. Skills are a function of the number of pre-war terms you have, and this seems pretty realistic to me, especially considering the declining rate of return -vs- age effects. So what's wrong? > >> the fact that in Version 2.0 the Autofire (here we go with this one) >> rules seemed designed for those characters who were terrible shots >or >had >> little training in small arms. They could indeed hit a target be >> expending a lot of rounds, while the "better shots" could hit a >target >by >> aiming and firing semi-auto. Seems fair (not realistic, but fair). >I > >Well, perhaps paintball isn't a good analogy, but I see lousy shots >not >hitting anything, even the barn, but the good shots "lighting up" >whatever >they aim at with LOTS of rounds (might as well be full auto). >Marksmanship is relevant, but spray-'n-pray *does* hit things, >sometimes, >if they stand still long enough. Perhaps the drive-by-shooting is a more appropriate analogy. They often *do* hit what they are spraying (poor fools never learned to use bursts!), the problem is that they hit a lot of other stuff too, like innocent bystanders. Spray and pray works, it's just not the best, most efficient, or most effective means. Especially considering the need to rechamber, rather than going down to Wal-Mart and picking up a case of 9mm. No more Walley World, after all. >Well, I think that the field grades are more likely to survive >something >like Kalisz. They're more likely to have access to survival >necessities, >and they're more likely to have enough influence over the lowbies to >make >it all stick. See my response to this for a "fix" if this part bothers you. I have to agree with the below statement, though. With no replacements, and field-promotions, and the grunt casualty rate, there would probably be a higher per capita of high rankers. With the 50-80% casualty rate pretty much standard for military units in E. Europe, who do you thing did all the dying? Certainly not the Staff Sgt.'s.... But, I agree that all of the rank assignment was a bit >biased, one way or the other. I would see it as: > > 15% PFC to Lance Corporal > (front line is the meat grinder) > > 40% Sergeant > (on the front, but lower casualty rate) > > 20% Gunnery/Staff/Master Sergeant > (same as Sgt. but fewer per capita to begin with) > > 20% Lieutenant(s)/Captain/Major > (don't see the front much) > > 5% Colonel/General > ("Front? Which way is the front?" But not many...) > >I usually try to make sure that there is at least one Captain or >higher. >But we had a group composed completely of grunts once, but they were >taken >"under wing" by the first defector DIA officer that happened along. > >My $0.01 (inflation adjusted, and what's left after der Schlickmeister >takes his half). >______________________________________________________ >David Reed Armed with PGP > ------------------------------ From: jeremy14@juno.com (Jeremy S Menefee) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 15:47:44 PST Subject: Re: I have to agree on the rank thing. I am changing the rules in my campaign (for new characters, anyway) so that I roll the promotion dice. Since the average number of terms, including the "war" term, is five +/- 1, the odds are that a carreer military type would end up as a Major. If we now add the rank of 1st Lt. (omitted in the game), then the average rank of carreer-types is Captain, a bad roll will give him 2nd Looey, and a REALLY GOOD set of rolls will give Major. Note the conspicuous lack of Lt. Colonels etc. in this example... This is an easy and simple way of "fixing" the problem. As to the V2.2 combat rules, while they are perhaps not the best in the world, they make for very smooth play, and are realstic enough that people don't try to go "Rambo". Full auto continues to allow everyone the opportunity to experience the joy of killing people who are different from them :), while maintaining the desirability of using single shot/bursts for those who are good enough. IMHO. And BTW, I started with V1 also. This is in fact the game that got me out of the Elf-bashing genre of RPGs. - -Jeremy Menefee Semper Fidelis On Sat, 12 Oct 1996 12:22:36 EDT kappaabz@juno.com (Christopher R Stainton) writes: >I'd like to say answer a few things asked on various posts. 1st, I >play Tw2.0 usually. I don't like 2.2 very much with it's "expanded >skill lists" (just MHO), although I do play 1st ed occasionally, where >I love the % based skills vs d20. I have been playing twilight since >it's inception in the mid-80's (RPGs since 1980 starting with Traveler >by GDW...RIP), and have always been fascinated by it. Things I don't >like is that T2k 2.0 & 2.2 are an attribute based game rather than a >skill based game. It reminds me of the EGS game by T$R. But I do >like initiative compared to Coolness Under Fire. When I run a >protracted campaign, I usually have it as a mixture using the >character generation and skills from version 1 with the combat and all >other rules from version 2 (2.2 doesn't even figure into the >equation), with the exception of the Recon skill which I do divide >into Observation, Stealth, and Tracking. I like version 1's >character generation system, because if you get really lucky, or like >to cheat, and have really high attribute scores, then your rank and >MEB is going to be low. While this isn't the most realistic system, >it seem s quire fair to me. Similarly i do like the fact that in >Version 2.0 the Autofire (here we go with this one) rules seemed >designed for those characters who were terrible shots or had little >training in small arms. They could indeed hit a target be expending a >lot of rounds, while the "better shots" could hit a target by aiming >and firing semi-auto. Seems fair (not realistic, but fair). I also >like the fact that in Version 1, the chances of a player winding up a >Field Grade Officer (04-06) were really slim, but in Version 2+ it >seems commonplace. Look at the PBEM example...........how many PCs >are Colonels, Commanders, and the like? Realistically I doubt >seriously you'd see that many "Rambo" types with ranks that >high.....I've surely never seen them. If you're that high of a rank >your job is to lead troops, train them, and sustain them in a >battlefield environment. >In version 1, a Captain is a High starting rank. That's about right, >IMHO. > >well, that's about all on this subject for >me....................................... > >Christopher Stainton >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >" Do you really think the Russians would have invaded Afghanistan if >Ronald Regan were President >Do you really think Third-Rate Military Dictators would laugh at >America and burn our flag in contempt if Ronald Regan were President? >..................Roger Waters ------------------------------ From: Michael S Choi Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 19:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: old vs new modules Otakuize the world! Otaku of the world unite! Michael Choi, President of the Sailor Ranma fan club and drooling mecha fan-boy extraordinaire. On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Jeremy S Menefee wrote: > I frankly liked the Krakow module, and the Black Madonna. Modules should > (IMHO) simply be frameworks for GMs to work in. A creative kick-start, > if you will :). I never bought any of the modules after Going Home and > Ruins of Warsaw, as I had my own ideas. These earlliest of modules could > be considered regional sourcebooks, one detailing Silesia, and the other > detailing the city-state of Krakow. These are really the only type of > modules the new company should produce (assuming they ever get it going > again), though I am going to try to buy all the old modules I can (using > them simply as ideas, and modifying them heavily). Personally though I was sort of disappointed that GDW only came up with two modules for the Mid East Twilight setting. One was the rDf sourcebook and one was that treasure hunting one (aka Indiana Grunt Jones or Raiders of the Shah's Ark). GDW didn't explain their Middle East conflict? Namely- why did both the US and Soviet Union invade Iran? What about Iraq- qhat roles does it play? Or how about the Gulf Arab states? And then there's Israel and the Arab Levantine states and Jordan and Turkey? How do they fit in the Brave New World. Remember that during the Cold War it was impossible for either side to display a clear dominance in that region. The USSR supplied Syria, Iraq, Libya, and et al due mainly to conter US influence with the Gulf states and Israel but more importatnly Middle Eastern amrs sales provided the Soviet Union with hard currency. The US has lost the Shah's Iran and found they couldn't maintain that type of relationship with the patrimonial monarchies in the Gulf region and more often than not the Israels regularly embarass Uncle Sam and the US is often hard pressed trying to balance the need for oil with the need to maintain a relationship with the Jewish state. And then there's Korea. North Korea has poltical savy. able to play off China and the USSR all throughout the Cold War and at the same to reap benefits from both sides. Then again both China and theSoviet Union were Communist states and had no reason to love the US. So the idea of a Chinese invasion of Korea (under the auspices of linking up with American forces doesn't wash). The Chinese sent a million man army to fight the American led UN forces in 1950- remember. Granted with both China and the USSR at war with each other North Korea could have launched its own campaign on the South- thus the 25th Infantry Div (Light), 7th Infantry Div (Light), 3rd MEF, and the 9th Infantry Div (Light) would join in to stop the NKs. GDW seemed to concentrate exclusively on Post-Holocaust America starting with New York and Texas and then to the Midwest figuring everything from Mexican Army invaders to a Neo-Nazi organization bent on creating their version of America out of the ashes. I never did get to see the Return to Europe trilogy and if there's a set out there somewhere i'm willing to fork over the bucks. Still I did like the concept of using a 688 attack boat as a platform for SEAL type raids- granted I would have used a Sturgeon myself. Mad Mike ------------------------------ From: kappaabz@juno.com (Christopher R Stainton) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:27:05 EDT Subject: Power Gaming >> out for them. The old modules (most of them) were campaign type > >Gee, that sounds like what happens in a military conflict. Hmmm. Yeah, it also sounds like we are mindless drones who cannot come up with (as players and gms alike) plans and Intell, and logistics of our own. Combat is fine (in RPGs) but if there is nothing more to it than that......... ------------------------------ From: kappaabz@juno.com (Christopher R Stainton) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:27:05 EDT Subject: Money.....It's a gas..... >>>V2.2 (sort of) takes care of that problem with the following statement... "A hit to the head or torso that does more damage than that person's CON is an automatic killing shot against NPCs and an Outstanding Success versus player characters."<<<< That's great, I guess, if you've got Version 2.2. I've looked through it, but didn't see a need to buy something that I felt didn't have enough revisions to be worth the $20+ price tag. IMHO ------------------------------ From: kappaabz@juno.com (Christopher R Stainton) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 00:27:05 EDT Subject: Re: old vs new modules On Sun, 13 Oct 1996 19:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Mad Mike writes: > Personally though I was sort of disappointed that GDW only >came up with two modules for the Mid East Twilight setting. One was the rDf >sourcebook and one was that treasure hunting one (aka Indiana Grunt >Jones or Raiders of the Shah's Ark). GDW didn't explain their Middle East >conflict? Namely- why did both the US and Soviet Union invade Iran? >What about Iraq- qhat roles does it play? Or how about the Gulf Arab >states? Well, I was "disappointed" too that there was only one module "Kings Ransom", and one sourcebook published. But at the same time, I am sure GDW had to think about sales. Euorpe and the US would sell to the mass market of new Twilight fans (Loren, jump in here any time). As far as the political scheme of things goes.....in the Middle East Iraq and Iran had two seperately supported govts. Actually in Iran (which was the major focus of the game) had a Soviet supported and backed local Government, & a movement of national independance (read into US supported) and the US just couldn't cut it. At the time Iran was still a major problem tp the US (in realworld), so naturally the writers (I think Frank Frey was a Veitnam Vet.-again, Loren correct me if I'm wrong) tried to gravitate it into a Vietnam Style bogged down conflict. As far as Iraq goes I can't remeber the whol deal right now, so I'll dust off my copies of the stuff and see if I can answer that one later. GDW never really expanded that region in versions 2.0+, though. One thing GDW should've done was release a whole slew of RDF/Middle Eastern modules during the Fall of 1990, Winter or 1990-1991, and the rest of 1991. I believe that the Operation Desert Shield Factbook of theirs was on the NY Times bestseller list, but then again my memory concerning events after the first few months after the war is a little hazy. > Remember that during the Cold War it was impossible for either >side to display a clear dominance in that region. The USSR supplied >Syria, Iraq, Libya, and et al due mainly to conter US influence with the Gulf >states and Israel but more importatnly Middle Eastern amrs sales >provided the Soviet Union with hard currency. The US has lost the Shah's Iran >and found they couldn't maintain that type of relationship with the >patrimonial monarchies in the Gulf region and more often than not the >Israels regularly embarass Uncle Sam and the US is often hard pressed >trying to balance the need for oil with the need to maintain a >relationship with the Jewish state. Right, I agree. Here are 2 little known facts (realworld again) in the late 1970s (i believe) a small fundamentalist terrorist group captured and occupied the mosque in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca. oh, im sorry, I ment THE MOSQUE. It is the one that the entire Islamic world makes Pilgramiges to. The Saudis were unable to eject the Terrorists, so the Saudis asked France(I believe) for aid, and their anti-Terrorist teams accomplished the mission. It was never publicsised because non-muslims aren't allowed in mosques, much less the most holy city in their world, and relationships with other Arab states would've suffered. Another: in the early 1980's the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia secretly allowed Israeli fighter aircraft to fly over their airspace while enroute to destroy an Iranian (or was it Iraqi) Nuclear Power Plant which I believe was still under construction. The point here is.........However unified various Middle Eastern States might have seemed, there has always been the ability to ask for US or UN assistance. > And then there's Korea. North Korea has poltical savy. able to >play off China and the USSR all throughout the Cold War and at the >same to reap benefits from both sides. Then again both China and theSoviet >Union were Communist states and had no reason to love the US. So the idea of >a Chinese invasion of Korea (under the auspices of linking up with >American forces doesn't wash). The Chinese sent a million man army to fight the >American led UN forces in 1950- remember. Granted with both China and >the USSR at war with each other North Korea could have launched its own >campaign on the South- thus the 25th Infantry Div (Light), 7th >Infantry Div (Light), 3rd MEF, and the 9th Infantry Div (Light) would join in >to stop the NKs. Right again, although I did mention in an earlier post that I gamed with a guy in the late 80's early 90's who was writing a Korean Sourcebook for GDW, I even playtested it some. >GDW seemed to concentrate exclusively on Post-Holocaust >America starting with New York and Texas and then to the Midwest figuring >everything from Mexican Army invaders to a Neo-Nazi organization bent >on creating their version of America out of the ashes. US and europe sold.....that's the name of the RPG game for companies. Look at T$R's EGS. It has, IMHO, put out inferior products and lied to consumers, yet it is the biggest selling RPG game to date.....but I digress. >I never did get to see the Return to Europe trilogy and if there's a set out there >somewhere i'm willing to fork over the bucks. Me neither, the idea of me fighting my way to get out of Europe, catch the last boat home, and try to piece together what the hell happened here. Was enough for me. I surely wouldn't give a damn what happened back in Poland! I finally got home, after 3 years, and they say let's go back? well, when do I get to go back home? > Still I did like the concept of using a 688 attack boat as a >platform for SEAL type raids- granted I would have used a Sturgeon >myself. Last sub series was good..... Chris > > ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #21 ************************************