twilight2000-digest Saturday, August 22 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 036 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Silly ness Re: Twilight boxed set Re: Newbee Re: Newbee My adventures. Re: the WAR Re: Twilight boxed set Twilight like book. Re: the WAR Re: Twilight like book. Re: Newbee Re: Newbee I am back again! Re: Newbee Re: I am back again! Re: I am back again! Re: Twilight like book. Re: the WAR Re: Newbee Re: I am back again! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:40:13 +1200 From: "NaT" Subject: Re: Silly ness I would have to agree about having to many colonels and stuff Lots of ammo is common in v2.2 games, however it was rather prevalent in my v1 games aswell, players will be players :) Easy to overcome by good GMing perhaps. NaT percival@ihug.co.nz Nathaniel Bacchus http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~percival - -----Original Message----- From: Darren To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Monday, 17 August 1998 13:37 Subject: Re: Newbee >I actually use a little of both. It depends how I feel. I always found >that the newer versions never gave enough skills. You usually ended up with >a character who knew a lot of skills, but was crappy at all of them. Only >the older characters were any good; but personally, i dont like the idea of >playing 50 year old soldiers. I always ended up with a group of generals >and colonels, but no privates. a little strange. i also think that the >prices for ammo and weapons are too low. A beginning character can buy >enough ammo to last forever. tens of thousands of rounds can be bought for >a few thousand dollars. a little silly. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Perry LaBranche >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 3:16 PM >Subject: Newbee > > >>Hey all, >> >> I'm a newbee on the list and just wanted to say hey. (Wondering if >>there's anyone out there except for me?) >>It has been forever since I had the opportunity to play Twilight, but it's >>one of my favorite games. Do y'all use the original black box, or the gold >>one, or is it some sort of a combination of the two here? >> >>Later. >> >>Jesse. >>Vanquer@EMAIL.MSN.COM >>ICQ. 8004143 >> >> >> >>************************************************************************** * >>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >>'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:21:55 -0600 From: Kurt Stogrin Subject: Re: Twilight boxed set Last time I was at my local used game store in Edmonton Canada I saw that they had three Twilight 2000 1st edition boxed sets. If anyone needs one I could pick them up for around $15 dollars. I also have doubles of most of the first edition modules and challenge magazines. I would be willing to trade some of them in exchange for a 1st edition heavy weapons guide or a 2nd edition twilight V2.2 rulebook or a 2nd edition Soviet vehicle guide. Perry LaBranche wrote: > >Welcome to the list. Personally, I use the V2.2, though I have all > versions. > >The best adventures, of course, came from first edition stuff, and it's > >unfortunate that they never fully got ported over to the V2.2 format, but I > >make do. > > I'm not familiar with theV2.2 rules? I had the 1st ed. rules, they got > stolen- > now I've got the 2nd ed. ones. I thought all of the stuff was excellent from > 1st. Didn't like 2nd much though. Does anyone know where I could get the > 1st ed. box? > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:43:52 +0200 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Newbee Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, darwin@idirect.com produced: > I actually use a little of both. It depends how I feel. I always found > that the newer versions never gave enough skills. You usually ended up with > a character who knew a lot of skills, but was crappy at all of them. Only > the older characters were any good; but personally, i dont like the idea of > playing 50 year old soldiers. I always ended up with a group of generals > and colonels, but no privates. a little strange. i also think that the Well, I made a few characters (I only have the 1st ed) and found that you normally get an attribute total of 50-70 ... (I mean, think of it, you roll 24 dice, which gives you a good average and few extremes) meaning that you are quite young (unless you have a very high Edu). You are around 24 - 32 months in combat (again, 7-9 dice is good for averages). Unless you favour Int and Edu you seldom get an officer --- and usually stay in the lower ranks (Sergeant, Lieutnant) due to your experience and age. On the other hand Spec 3 (or was is Spec 4) is the lowest you can get ... and you should assume that in a war with that many casualties as has happened in Europe most people with 6-12 months combat experience have been promoted a few times (or died). > prices for ammo and weapons are too low. A beginning character can buy > enough ammo to last forever. tens of thousands of rounds can be bought for > a few thousand dollars. a little silly. Well, the prices are not what you'd pay today -- after all, it's been somethings like 5 years of war and weapons are quite accessable for soldiers, even for some civilians. Soldiers trade their weapons for food or favours, some are dead and just wait for someone to relief them of their gear. Same with ammo - --- unless an army has been cut off, there should be no shortage. I'd expect soldiers to hide away some extra ammo in case the'll need it in a pinch (like being cut off for a short time with hot combat). However, they would have to carry the stuff -- together with whatever else they own (food, water supply, tent, maybe some fuel, gold, weapons, armour, helmet, tools (from the shovel via radio to vehicle repair tools), etc. without even mention stills, generators, power tools, refrigerators and the other heavy stuff) and what they are required by order to carry. So they need some way to carry their stuff ... be it a vehicle (which needs even more stuff, like a still, tools, fuel reserve, etc.) or an animal (with a cart and a good reserve of grain). Any sort of transport (vehicle or animal) needs time to care for. Now, in that Kalitz(sp -- don't have the books here) breakout all animals had to be left behind, the only transport they have are vehicles. So they have at some point to decide what to carry. The GM may see to it that later they may need to trade the ammo for fuel, grain, food, parts&tools or other stuff they need. Or the ammo might just get damaged in a fight. Or it gets stolen. You see, there are many (realistic) ways to strip people of having too much ammo. Uff, that was long. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". If you've nothing at all to hide, you must be boring. Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. Is our economy _so_ weak we have to tolerate SPAMMERS? I guess not. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:03:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Newbee - ---Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > > prices for ammo and weapons are too low. A beginning character can buy > > enough ammo to last forever. tens of thousands of rounds can be bought for > > a few thousand dollars. a little silly. > > Well, the prices are not what you'd pay today -- after all, > it's been somethings like 5 years of war and weapons are quite > accessable for soldiers, even for some civilians. Soldiers > trade their weapons for food or favours, some are dead and just > wait for someone to relief them of their gear. Same with ammo > --- unless an army has been cut off, there should be no > shortage. I'd expect soldiers to hide away some extra ammo in > case the'll need it in a pinch (like being cut off for a short > time with hot combat). > > However, they would have to carry the stuff -- together with > whatever else they own (food, water supply, tent, maybe some > fuel, gold, weapons, armour, helmet, tools (from the shovel via > radio to vehicle repair tools), etc. without even mention > stills, generators, power tools, refrigerators and the other > heavy stuff) and what they are required by order to carry. > > So they need some way to carry their stuff ... be it a vehicle > (which needs even more stuff, like a still, tools, fuel > reserve, etc.) or an animal (with a cart and a good reserve of > grain). Any sort of transport (vehicle or animal) needs time to > care for. Now, in that Kalitz(sp -- don't have the books here) > breakout all animals had to be left behind, the only transport > they have are vehicles. So they have at some point to decide > what to carry. > > The GM may see to it that later they may need to trade the ammo > for fuel, grain, food, parts&tools or other stuff they need. Or > the ammo might just get damaged in a fight. Or it gets stolen. > You see, there are many (realistic) ways to strip people of > having too much ammo. > > > Uff, that was long. > > -Wolfgang > > -- It would also be possible just to limit the amount of ammo the PCs start with, due to the overall supply situation. I mean, think about it, Higher Command isn't just going to give soldiers several thousand rounds of rifle ammo anyway, are they? I think also that the idea that the war has been raging for five years is a little unlikely. If this were so, in the modern battlefield, with the use of theatre nuclear and chemical weapons, the armies would have run through their reserves of man power in half that time. A much better timeline would see Kabiltz at less than one year after the commencement of hostilities in Europe. - -Michael _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:24:04 -0700 From: "Perry LaBranche" Subject: My adventures. >It would also be possible just to limit the amount of ammo the PCs >start with, due to the overall supply situation. I mean, think about >it, Higher Command isn't just going to give soldiers several thousand >rounds of rifle ammo anyway, are they? > I think also that the idea that the war has been raging for five >years is a little unlikely. If this were so, in the modern >battlefield, with the use of theatre nuclear and chemical weapons, the >armies would have run through their reserves of man power in half that >time. A much better timeline would see Kabiltz at less than one year >after the commencement of hostilities in Europe. >-Michael I know that I use availability rolls even at the start of the game. After giving characters their "basic load" and personal weapon/s, I roll availability for the first item, but then drop the availability by 5% (cum) per additional item of the same type until a minimum of 5% chance is reached. In that way even cases of ammo become more and more difficult to attain. I thought that the timeline was rather accurate (but I'm not a real expert on the what-ifs of WWIII). It seemed that Nukes were withheld as long as possible, then it wasn't an "all-out" offensive with them- but a little at a time with the occassional tactical strike counter-strike. Of course all of this is from the first edition timeline out of the Escape from Kalisz information and the boxed set, but... I was wondering how many of you use modified vehicles/equipment in your games and what types of modifications you give to them. Also, do you use only the skills listed- or have you added your own to the list? I'd have to say that it's been about 8 years since I played Twilight- but I've got some really fond memories of two of the games that I was involved in. For those who are bored by "other people's games" don't bother to read any further- that's all that there is from her on. The first time I played Twilight, my game group consisted of all Military (Navy) and Dependant personnel. We started the game with a LAV-25 and I played a Soviet Armor Commander whose unit was destroyed when the Artillery opened up on the 4th tank div. The character had the burnt out remains of a T-92 and "personal equipment". The group didn't have anyone with LCG skill and I had an 80% in it... Needless to say, after quite the humorous run-around of "allowing" a Soviet into the group we had a lot of fun with the game. We took the armor off of the LAV and killed the external load- then added the armor of the T-92 to it. There was a decreased armor value, but it was still much better than the LAV's... Well, the main crux of the little adventure is that we made it to Kalisz and set up our own little fortress in the bombed out outskirts of the city. Nobody could get us killed it seemed. The undoing of our party was actually an inside thing where we ended up on two sides of an issue and went to guns over it. The only person that survived was blocks away when the house, lav, a coupla stills, and an ammo dump all put a huge crater in the ground. The character that survived was a German "follower" type who just watched all of his dreams and friends go up in smoke, so he committed suicide. He was so dazed from the explosions' concussive force that he shot his helmet and didn't die, then he dropped a live grenade in his ammo stash (which included c4) and managed to die. The second game, I was running. Essentially it was a rather long campaign that ran via the modules. They got to Kalisz and arranged transport home, then got a brief R&R before getting deployed to the middle-east in RDF's... Essentially, they worked as a SF team of NightOps members until "going home" when they went back to face the challenges of New America. The campaign ended up getting a bit comical as the characters managed to design cyber-tech into their motorcycles which were armed with hmg's in the frames, and a mess of kevlar... Allied with two Chinese guys "Ching and Chang" who were Sergeants that had survived the Soviet invasions of China, then trekked to the middle-east and went "Home" with the characters along with the rest of the allied forces. That campaign ended due to transfers on everyone's part- but I remember them with a great deal of pleasure and I'm about to get a new 1st ed. box thanx to the wonderful members on this list :-) Can't wait for that. Well, I guess I've taken up enough of your mailbox with my "feckless meandering." Later. Jesse Vanquer@EMAIL.MSN.COM ICQ. 8004143 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 02:00:31 EDT From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: the WAR In a message dated 98-08-18 22:54:03 EDT, you write: << I think also that the idea that the war has been raging for five years is a little unlikely. If this were so, in the modern battlefield, with the use of theatre nuclear and chemical weapons, the armies would have run through their reserves of man power in half that time. A much better timeline would see Kabiltz at less than one year after the commencement of hostilities in Europe. -Michael ______ >> You comments prompted me to reply to this as a seperate topic. I think that a 5 year war is feasible, mainly because that while the initial losses would be staggering, the fighting would lessen as the "greener" troops are moved into combat, and thus the casualties would also lessen. Initial fighting would cost the lives of thousands of soldiers, but as the honchos that orchestrate the war realized that they weren't going to have any troops left to push around on a map, they would be more careful with their most precious and hardest to replace resource--manpower. The idea behind Twilight is that the countries are, in fact, down to the barest of minimums of soldiers and manpower. No large scale battles occur anymore, because there just aren't enough troops to wage large scale operations. And after five years of war, I think ANY country would have problems both economically and resource-wise. This makes it so that there are no countries that are "stronger" than any other country. As a whole, the idea of a five year war is a huge idea when you consider the losses that would occur, but it definitely makes the whole situation a "survival of the fittest" situation. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:48:05 +0800 From: Benjamin Barton Subject: Re: Twilight boxed set At 13:21 17/08/98 -0600, Kurt Stogrin wrote: >Last time I was at my local used game store in Edmonton Canada I saw that they >had three Twilight 2000 1st edition boxed sets. If anyone needs one I could >pick them up for around $15 dollars. I also have doubles of most of the first >edition modules and challenge magazines. I would be willing to trade some of >them in exchange for a 1st edition heavy weapons guide or a 2nd edition twilight >V2.2 rulebook or a 2nd edition Soviet vehicle guide. I am intrested in some of the challenge mags, what numbers do you have? even if its just a copy of some of the articles. V2.2 Rulebook i think i have seen some copy in one of my local game shops, as well as some of the other stuff, But i live in Australia,Perth Wa. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:14:04 +0800 From: Benjamin Barton Subject: Twilight like book. Has any one read any of the ZONE books by James Rough, first book HARD TARGET. It set in the Near Future about a war in EUROPE between Nato and Warsaw Pact. Across the hellish strip of Western Europe known as The Zone, a chemical and germ infested wastland potted by the odd nuke. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:27:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: the WAR - ---Grimace997@aol.com wrote: > > You comments prompted me to reply to this as a seperate topic. > > I think that a 5 year war is feasible, mainly because that while the initial > losses would be staggering, the fighting would lessen as the "greener" troops > are moved into combat, and thus the casualties would also lessen. > > Initial fighting would cost the lives of thousands of soldiers, but as the > honchos that orchestrate the war realized that they weren't going to have any > troops left to push around on a map, they would be more careful with their > most precious and hardest to replace resource--manpower. > > The idea behind Twilight is that the countries are, in fact, down to the > barest of minimums of soldiers and manpower. No large scale battles occur > anymore, because there just aren't enough troops to wage large scale > operations. > > And after five years of war, I think ANY country would have problems both > economically and resource-wise. This makes it so that there are no countries > that are "stronger" than any other country. > > As a whole, the idea of a five year war is a huge idea when you consider the > losses that would occur, but it definitely makes the whole situation a > "survival of the fittest" situation. 5 years works too, I guess it all depends on the quantity and target of NBC weapons usage. Unfortunately, as Category A units were replaced by B and C units, the use of theatre weapons would have to move from the battlefield to the units approaching the front (Since the reserve units lacked quality NBC protection). Unfortunately, the one thing the Twilight timeline leaves out (As far as I know) is the situation at sea. I'm sure you've read Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy, which demonstrates just how important the Atlantic Front is. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 17:16:15 +0100 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Twilight like book. At 22:14 19/08/98 +0800, you wrote: >Has any one read any of the ZONE books by James Rough, first book HARD TARGET. > It set in the Near Future about a war in EUROPE between Nato and Warsaw >Pact. Across the hellish strip of Western Europe known as The Zone, a >chemical and germ infested wastland potted by the odd nuke. Yeah, but I lost the whole damn series in the move to my flat four or five years ago: AAAAAAAGH! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) (Ex-Corporal, Royal Military Police, British Territorial Army) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It ALWAYS goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 (Not used very often!!) _____________________________________________________________ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:45:35 +0200 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Newbee Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, firestorm_2020@yahoo.com produced: > It would also be possible just to limit the amount of ammo the PCs > start with, due to the overall supply situation. I mean, think about > it, Higher Command isn't just going to give soldiers several thousand > rounds of rifle ammo anyway, are they? Well, having been in service (and "in combat") for more than a year most soldiers would have some reserves --- and in that breakout you'd grab some ammo and vehicles. (your officers would see to it that it was almost fair and that everyone got some ...) But of course, barring special circumstances, your average soldier would not carry *several* thousand rounds --- they tend to become heavy. > I think also that the idea that the war has been raging for five > years is a little unlikely. If this were so, in the modern > battlefield, with the use of theatre nuclear and chemical weapons, the > armies would have run through their reserves of man power in half that > time. A much better timeline would see Kabiltz at less than one year > after the commencement of hostilities in Europe. We had more than one war raging over prolonged periods[1] and note that after some time the combat intensity went way down; though the ears went not cold. Think of it: the last offensive was slowed because the German soldiers were not finished bringing in their potato harvest in time. [1] both world wars, the first one with chemical weapons used in combat for quite some time; Korea and Vietnam (both did not end because of man or weapon shortage nor victory); Afghanistan was/is a combat region for > 10 years now, the Iran/Iraq wars, perhaps even ex-Yugoslavia can be counted in. And certainly more I have forgotten, like the 30 years war (or the US civil war, or even the North Ireland conflict). Also the war (mainly the Chinese-Russian one) went for 2 years and a bit before the first nuclear weapons were used --- the war in middle Europe was a spin-off of the casualties endured in that war. Then the nuclear war took long to slowly escalate, destroying the commercial, the infra- and the political structure without getting into an all-out nuclear war. (BTW, I do not remember the use of chemical weapons.) Re running out of reserves of manpower: You know how much human life was lost in the 2. World War by the Russians? Or that the British expeditionary forces lost about 60.000 men per day during the Somme-Assault (over 500.000 soldiers in less than a fortnight)? That is another reason why the armies recruited everyone they could --- and why the war went to a much lower intensity after a time. Without the long war the supply situation would not be like it is (bullet casings are valuable, no new vehicles aviable exect bikes, almost all fuel reserves depleted (no aviation), living off the land, etc.) You should not imagine the combat as ubiquitous even for soldiers in the later stages of war; it was not like this in Vietnam, either, AFAIK. Now, with marauders abound this is likely to change a bit, though. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". If you've nothing at all to hide, you must be boring. Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. Is our economy _so_ weak we have to tolerate SPAMMERS? I guess not. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:50:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Newbee - ---Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > We had more than one war raging over prolonged periods[1] and > note that after some time the combat intensity went way down; > though the ears went not cold. Think of it: the last offensive > was slowed because the German soldiers were not finished > bringing in their potato harvest in time. > > [1] both world wars, the first one with chemical weapons used > in combat for quite some time; Korea and Vietnam (both did > not end because of man or weapon shortage nor victory); > Afghanistan was/is a combat region for > 10 years now, the > Iran/Iraq wars, perhaps even ex-Yugoslavia can be counted > in. And certainly more I have forgotten, like the 30 years > war (or the US civil war, or even the North Ireland > conflict). > > > Also the war (mainly the Chinese-Russian one) went for 2 years > and a bit before the first nuclear weapons were used --- the > war in middle Europe was a spin-off of the casualties endured > in that war. Then the nuclear war took long to slowly escalate, > destroying the commercial, the infra- and the political > structure without getting into an all-out nuclear war. (BTW, I > do not remember the use of chemical weapons.) > > Re running out of reserves of manpower: You know how much human > life was lost in the 2. World War by the Russians? Or that the > British expeditionary forces lost about 60.000 men per day > during the Somme-Assault (over 500.000 soldiers in less than a > fortnight)? That is another reason why the armies recruited > everyone they could --- and why the war went to a much lower > intensity after a time. > > Without the long war the supply situation would not be like it > is (bullet casings are valuable, no new vehicles aviable exect > bikes, almost all fuel reserves depleted (no aviation), living > off the land, etc.) You should not imagine the combat as > ubiquitous even for soldiers in the later stages of war; it was > not like this in Vietnam, either, AFAIK. Now, with marauders > abound this is likely to change a bit, though. > > > -Wolfgang > Well, though I'd love to argue this some more, I guess it's all pretty futile, since Twilight: 2000 is such a great setting the way it is. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:59:13 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: I am back again! Hi pals, At my summer holiday, I have been invent some new rules to TW:2000 with my brother ( Again..). New rules are about; 1) Bleeding, a new wound rule. 2) Quick scenario maker table. ( Final preparation are in progress... ) Are you interested? I also need some help with quick scenario maker table, if you have some Very twisted scenario ideas and odd scenario-places ( Like lighthouse, monastery...), LET US KNOW! Mr. Pietu *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 01:06:00 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Newbee Well... a steady escalation to nuclear war seems silly, i'm sure the soviets would want the initiative... but the storyline works :) BTW, I've been busy the past few weeks and didn't feel like answering my mail for anyone who sent any. Michael Cook wrote: > ---Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: hmm well i snipped it - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:59:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: I am back again! - ---Pietu wrote: > > Hi pals, > > At my summer holiday, I have been invent some new rules to TW:2000 with my > brother ( Again..). > New rules are about; > > 1) Bleeding, a new wound rule. > 2) Quick scenario maker table. ( Final preparation are in progress... ) > > Are you interested? > > I also need some help with quick scenario maker table, if you have some Very > twisted scenario ideas and odd scenario-places ( Like lighthouse, > monastery...), LET US KNOW! > > Mr. Pietu > > So how do you do bleeding? - -Michael _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 16:58:37 EDT From: Jedi750@aol.com Subject: Re: I am back again! I am interested in it. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:41:36 +1000 From: Damian Robinson Subject: Re: Twilight like book. >Has any one read any of the ZONE books by James Rough, first book HARD TARGET. > It set in the Near Future about a war in EUROPE between Nato and Warsaw >Pact. Across the hellish strip of Western Europe known as The Zone, a >chemical and germ infested wastland potted by the odd nuke. >Yeah, but I lost the whole damn series in the move to my flat four or five >years ago: AAAAAAAGH! Yep. I've got three of them! a bit far fetched but still a good read and excellent for getting the right feel to twilight. pity the weapon's stuff was a bit unreal at times though. Oh and hello All I'm new. cheers Climax *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:02:09 +0200 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: the WAR Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, firestorm_2020@yahoo.com produced: > 5 years works too, I guess it all depends on the quantity and target > of NBC weapons usage. Unfortunately, as Category A units were replaced > by B and C units, the use of theatre weapons would have to move from > the battlefield to the units approaching the front (Since the reserve > units lacked quality NBC protection). Unfortunately, the one thing the Lets see: Readyness II/III/mobilisation-only I assume to be B/C/D units 1995 USSR-China war begins, Great initial losses. 'Brother-countries' are to send help. 1996 USSR B units thrown in battle. More losses, more help needed to send. September: West German troops enters East Germany. European War Theatre partial NATO breakup 80% of USSR Northern fleet lost in 3 weeks battle in North Sea, but commerce raiders bring havok to the Atlantik December: Action in Romania, Jugoslavia&Turkey assist 1997 Greeks attack Turks over Cyprus unrests Last USSR Commerce Raiders destroyed Finnland defends successfully against NATO fleet, heavy losses, fleet shattered. USSR D units enter battle in Romania Greece & Italia fight NATO India-Pakistan war 9. June first tactical nuclear weapons in the west, massive use in the far east theatre September NATO: deep nuclear strikes against COMM units Oktober: Gradual increasing nuclear strikes, obliterating mostly everything in the process, fizzles out early december. Pakistan-Indian nuclear strikes, war fizzles out due to no economy left for supplies. 1998 Civilian losses 15% up to now. very cold winter, famine, diseases after snow melts: 50% of population killed since 1995. Armies paralized by lack of everything, combat divisions size 8.000/2.000-4.000 (NATO/USSR) Peace not possible since no politicans left. Mexico invades US over refugee killings Juni: Fighting in Europe continues. Winter: Fighting only at skirmish level 1999 2 governments: a civilian *and* a military try to rule US. Local clashes. Static fronts and infiltration raids in Europe. A few reinforcements from the US arrive Civilians help army for protection, marauders appear. 2000 No civil authority left, cantonment system. Local recruiting extensive. Early summer: Last offensive begins > Twilight timeline leaves out (As far as I know) is the situation at > sea. I'm sure you've read Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy, which > demonstrates just how important the Atlantic Front is. See above, it is mentioned, though since there is little on the ocean later on, that front does not matter much. The one thing I thing is not really belivable is the West Germans attacking russian troops in East Germany on a military (not political) agreement .... but maybe it was a political agreement after all. *shrug* - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". If you've nothing at all to hide, you must be boring. Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. Is our economy _so_ weak we have to tolerate SPAMMERS? I guess not. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:44:09 +0200 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Newbee Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, Fitek@ix.netcom.com produced: > Well... a steady escalation to nuclear war seems silly, i'm sure the soviets > would want the initiative... but the storyline works :) Actually they started the nuking to regain the initiative. :-) They were on the retreat on both fronts. But they did not overdo it in the west as the retaliation would have been deadly for them, too -- unlike in the far east theatre, where the chinese retaliation fizzled over prepared troops, ABM and a strong air defense. And yes, for *most* parts the storyline is quite sound. They even got the Pakistan-Indian nuclear exchange almost right (end of 1997). Now, half a year off is not bad, is it? :-) - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". If you've nothing at all to hide, you must be boring. Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. Is our economy _so_ weak we have to tolerate SPAMMERS? I guess not. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:49:24 EDT From: SimHild@aol.com Subject: Re: I am back again! I am interested in a Quick scenario maker table as I have made some for all my other role-play games but could never be bothered to make one. SIM ENGLAND , SIGNING OFF END TRANSMISSION........ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #36 ************************************