twilight2000-digest Wednesday, October 28 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 045 The following topics are covered in this digest: Anti mine devices Re: Anti mine devices Vs: My web page Re: Anti mine devices Twilight 200 setting problems Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Rulebooks Re: My web page Re: Rulebooks Re: Twilight 200 setting problems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:13:36 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Curran Subject: Anti mine devices Greetings all, I was wondering if anyone out there know anything about the mine clearing devices currently in use by the US and other countries, or a web site where I could get that information. Thanks in advance - -S. B. Burzmali _________________________________________________________ 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, 27 Oct 1998 10:17:08 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: Anti mine devices Michael Curran wrote: > > Greetings all, I was wondering if anyone out there know anything > about the mine clearing devices currently in use by the US and other > countries, or a web site where I could get that information. Thanks > in advance On large scale stuff you have a MLRS which launches a charge into an area which it detonates-causing the whole minefield to go up...on the smaller scale you have tanks with plows and such. Don't know specifically of a site which deals with this but I'll keep looking for something... > > -S. B. Burzmali T.R. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:00:16 +0200 From: "Peter Himberg" Subject: Vs: My web page >At 12:11 27/10/98 +1100, you wrote: >>Greetings all, from a lurker. >>FYI: >>I now have a T2K webpage up and running. >> >>If you care to take a look its at >>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/4808/ Were you get so good picture/drawing for Ratel 20 IFV ? Are there any other IFV/MBT drawings like this one? Pietu Helsinki, Finland *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:08:23 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Anti mine devices At 07:13 AM 10/27/98 -0800, Michael Curran wrote: > Greetings all, I was wondering if anyone out there know anything >about the mine clearing devices currently in use by the US and other >countries, or a web site where I could get that information. Thanks >in advance > I don't have any information, but hte place to be asked would be the Usenet group news://sci.military.moderated Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:49:07 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Twilight 200 setting problems Hello everyone, I'm new on the list and have a couple of problems with the basic Twilight 2000 setting which I would like to share thoughts on. There are a number of things which just seem a little out of sync in the setting. What exacttly they are, I'll come to in a moment, but I would really like to know if anyone else has seen these problems and how they've handled them. Here are a couple of things that seem to need a little revision. 1. Length of the conflict. All military studies and simulations that I know of seem to indicate that the NATO powers could, under no circumstances sustain a WW III level conflict for more than a couple of months. The general thought was that NATO would have to beat back a soviet initial attack and hope that their inherent instability would cause their political system to collapse. All authorative reconstructions of the WW III conflict end in this way. Now, in the TW2000 setting NATO essentially falls apart, but that doesn't say anything about the endurance of the individual western european nations and the US. It seems to me, that the jump from a few months to a four-year clash is a little far fetched. On the other hand, they thought world war one would be "over by christmas", which also stretched to a few years. So, what are everyone's thoughts on this subject? 2. Agricultural output and power. This point is a little more fundamental to the realism of the game. There are a couple of points that should be made before I can demonstrate what I mean a. Rural, agricultural areas are not primary nuclear targets b. Farmers do not forget how to farm because a city got nuked (i.e. technical know-how does not disapear with the urbanised areas c. Current percentage of the population that works in agriculture in western Europe is +/- 5%, and there is heavy protectionisme by the EU, meaning that it is not possible or finacially interesting to export food to the EU. d. it is practicable to use either vegetable matter to make organic oil which runs perfectly well in diesel engines. (The inflatable craft company Zodiac circumnavigated the globe on the stuff, in a diesel engine). You can also use the methane gas which comes off animal manure as a fuel, as a matter of fact several Dutch livestock farmers do just that as we speak. All these facts demonstrate that the situation as far as food and fuels goes is highly pessimistic. The situation after World War II in a devastated western Europe demonstrated that it was the technical know-how of the working population which was neccesary for rapid build-up, not the fixed capital. As far as food goes, even a very marginal farm would produce at least five times as much food as the people who live on it can eat (which is still five times less than farms produce today), showing that, with at least half of the world population dead, there would probably be a vast excess of food, not a shortage since their is no means to transport it to other areas. Having identified these problems with the TW2000 setting, I am sort of wondering what to do with them. How to incorporate them into a setting is a little difficult though I have made an attempt which I can mail to whoever wants it. What I would really like to know is how the GM's out there deal with these problems in the system. So, anyone who has any ideas, let me know. Evert-Jan Duindam dragon@euronet.nl *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:37:34 -0600 From: "Randy, Rico & Monifa" Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems War never goes as the 'experts' expect when its an even match. From the soldiers prospective (yes, I am one), a war against a Soviet doctrine enemy could very well last several years. They have the numbers, we have the quality, now pray. As far as the farming thing goes, feal free tio change them as you like. No one is going to fault you for trying to add realism. I have essentially done the same with the small arms stats and a few other combat rules. Have Fun :) - -----Original Message----- From: dragon@euronet.nl To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 5:56 PM Subject: Twilight 200 setting problems >Hello everyone, > >I'm new on the list and have a couple of problems with the basic >Twilight 2000 setting which I would like to share thoughts on. There >are a number of things which just seem a little out of sync in the >setting. What exacttly they are, I'll come to in a moment, but I >would really like to know if anyone else has seen these problems and >how they've handled them. Here are a couple of things that seem to >need a little revision. > >1. Length of the conflict. >All military studies and simulations that I know of seem to indicate >that the NATO powers could, under no circumstances sustain a WW III >level conflict for more than a couple of months. The general thought >was that NATO would have to beat back a soviet initial attack and >hope that their inherent instability would cause their political >system to collapse. All authorative reconstructions of the WW III >conflict end in this way. Now, in the TW2000 setting NATO essentially >falls apart, but that doesn't say anything about the endurance of the >individual western european nations and the US. It seems to me, that >the jump from a few months to a four-year clash is a little far >fetched. On the other hand, they thought world war one would be "over >by christmas", which also stretched to a few years. So, what are >everyone's thoughts on this subject? > >2. Agricultural output and power. >This point is a little more fundamental to the realism of the game. >There are a couple of points that should be made before I can >demonstrate what I mean > a. Rural, agricultural areas are not primary nuclear targets > b. Farmers do not forget how to farm because a city got nuked (i.e. > technical know-how does not disapear with the urbanised areas > c. Current percentage of the population that works in agriculture in > western Europe is +/- 5%, and there is heavy protectionisme by > the EU, meaning that it is not possible or finacially > interesting to export food to the EU. > d. it is practicable to use either vegetable matter to make organic > oil which runs perfectly well in diesel engines. (The inflatable > craft company Zodiac circumnavigated the globe on the stuff, in > a diesel engine). You can also use the methane gas which comes > off animal manure as a fuel, as a matter of fact several Dutch > livestock farmers do just that as we speak. All these facts >demonstrate that the situation as far as food and fuels goes is >highly pessimistic. The situation after World War II in a devastated >western Europe demonstrated that it was the technical know-how of the >working population which was neccesary for rapid build-up, not the >fixed capital. As far as food goes, even a very marginal farm would >produce at least five times as much food as the people who live on it >can eat (which is still five times less than farms produce today), >showing that, with at least half of the world population dead, there >would probably be a vast excess of food, not a shortage since their >is no means to transport it to other areas. > >Having identified these problems with the TW2000 setting, I am sort >of wondering what to do with them. How to incorporate them into a >setting is a little difficult though I have made an attempt which I >can mail to whoever wants it. What I would really like to know is how >the GM's out there deal with these problems in the system. So, anyone >who has any ideas, let me know. > >Evert-Jan Duindam >dragon@euronet.nl > > > >*************************************************************************** >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, 27 Oct 1998 21:39:31 -0500 From: "RC" Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Hello. I would like to enter into the discussion of the setting problems. (some snipping) 1. Length of the conflict. All military studies and simulations that I know of seem to indicate that the NATO powers could, under no circumstances sustain a WW III level conflict for more than a couple of months. The general thought was that NATO would have to beat back a soviet initial attack and hope that their inherent instability would cause their political system to collapse. All authorative reconstructions of the WW III conflict end in this way. Now, in the TW2000 setting NATO essentially falls apart, but that doesn't say anything about the endurance of the individual western european nations and the US. It seems to me, that the jump from a few months to a four-year clash is a little far fetched. On the other hand, they thought world war one would be "over by christmas", which also stretched to a few years. So, what are everyone's thoughts on this subject? I think that it is important here to point out that although studies and simulations can help prepare plans and reactions, the enemy is always going to do something that will mess up them up. First, in response to NATO being able to stand longer than estimated. It should be taken into consideration that the Soviet military had begun to reorganize many of the motorized divisions in the west into "machinegun artillery" configurations, essentially making them defensive units and not offensive units in 1990. At this time the Soviets also began to withdraw troops from Poland and Czechoslovakia. They have therefore "diminished" the massive strike capability that they had there when the studies and simulations were conducted. Second, in 1995 the war between the Soviets and the Chinese begins. The Soviets begin to draw units from the western military districts for use against the Chinese. It is at this time that the Soviet Union begins to collapse from the inside out, initiating the system's collapse. Additionally, Poland sends a motorized division, thus taking even more out of the western strategic direction. The punch that the experts have been planning on the Warsaw Pact being able to deliver is reduced to a hard slap. I'm not sure whether NATO "falls apart" or rather batters itself against the still formidable Warsaw Pact. (more snipping) b. Farmers do not forget how to farm because a city got nuked (i.e. technical know-how does not disapear with the urbanised areas) I agree that farmers would not forget how to farm. But 20th century farming is highly reliant on petroleum (fertilizers are petroleum based, machinery is fuelled and lubricated by petroleum distillates, etc..) and when it no longer starts to become readily available, the farms must begin to make the transition from machine-assisted operations to labour intensive operations. With the mobilization of both sides, the labour pool that the farmer must draw his work force from reduces dramatically. c. Current percentage of the population that works in agriculture in western Europe is +/- 5%, and there is heavy protectionisme by the EU, meaning that it is not possible or finacially interesting to export food to the EU. Isn't it also true that Europe has a limited amount of land available for food production? I think that the small numbers of agricultural workers would become smaller when some of them would report for military duty, and reduce even further when the respective government's start to draft citizens for military duty. Exporting food to Europe would probably be a lower priority for military logistical planners, because of the demand for war materiel. Due to the amounts of currency being spent on war production and naval activity in the Atlantic, I don't believe that food export operations would even be attempted. Those ships carrying grain would be easy pickings for Soviet subs and would place enormous strain on NATO naval units that are tasked with protecting the convoys that those merchants ships would need to belong to. it is practicable to use either vegetable matter to make organic oil which runs perfectly well in diesel engines. (The inflatable craft company Zodiac circumnavigated the globe on the stuff, in a diesel engine). You can also use the methane gas which comes off animal manure as a fuel, as a matter of fact several Dutch livestock farmers do just that as we speak. The vegetable matter fuel (ethanol and methanol) and alternative fuels are far less efficient than the distillate fuels. This results in shorter ranges (for travel) and reduced usage time. I believe that substituting these fuels in engines that were designed for burning diesel or gas would result in additional wear and tear on the equipment it is used in. This results in more maintainance time, more frequent breakdowns and more common equipment "dying". All these facts demonstrate that the situation as far as food and fuels goes is highly pessimistic. The situation after World War II in a devastated western Europe demonstrated that it was the technical know-how of the working population which was neccesary for rapid build-up, not the fixed capital. I'm sure that the pumping of U.S. dollars under the Marshal Plan had a lot to do with helping recovery as well. As far as food goes, even a very marginal farm would produce at least five times as much food as the people who live on it can eat (which is still five times less than farms produce today), showing that, with at least half of the world population dead, there would probably be a vast excess of food, not a shortage since their is no means to transport it to other areas. There probably would be a surplus. But given the conditions of the dawn of the 21st century, farms being switched from machine-assisted to labour intensive (with the accompanying shortage of labour), available farmland being turned into battlefields (driving the farmers from the area, and in some cases being subject to chemical/nuclear/biological attacks), military cantonments drawing off the supply of food produced in order to feed the remaining personnel, and marauder attacks on farms, I think that the food that is available is only a fraction of what it was. And while I'm thinking about it, many 20th century farmers only know how to farm with machinery. The necessary time to develop the knowledge to farm without fertilizers and pesticides, if the farmer is even able to survive the learning period, would cause the supply to reduce for a period of time. All this coupled with the fact that many farmers would perish in attacks by marauders, be caught in actions between military units, and not having medical attention available when they become ill would serve to drastically reduce the numbers of farmers in total. (additional snipping) I think that the setting is as "realistic" as it can get. Comments? RC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:21:24 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems In a message dated 98-10-27 18:14:29 EST, you write: << 1. Length of the conflict. All military studies and simulations that I know of seem to indicate that the NATO powers could, under no circumstances sustain a WW III level conflict for more than a couple of months. The general thought was that NATO would have to beat back a soviet initial attack and hope that their inherent instability would cause their political system to collapse. All authorative reconstructions of the WW III conflict end in this way. Now, in the TW2000 setting NATO essentially falls apart, but that doesn't say anything about the endurance of the individual western european nations and the US. It seems to me, that the jump from a few months to a four-year clash is a little far fetched. On the other hand, they thought world war one would be "over by christmas", which also stretched to a few years. So, what are everyone's thoughts on this subject? << Sorry, theory is exactly that. Theory. When it all comes down to it, no one can predict how long a war is going to take, because they never know all of the variables that can come into play. I think a 4 year war is believable, and would result in the type of massed destruction that is in the book. Any less time in war, and you'd still have countries with good infrastructures and stable economies. None of the wars in the past have ever gone as long as people initially expected. The Civil War was supposed to be over very quickly. Same with World War I. World War II was one of those "it'll never happen again" wars, that ended up lasting quite some time. Actually, it lasted a very long time considering the advancement of combat tactics from WW I to WW II. Experts nowadays say that tactics and weapons have advanced to such a stage that war lasts a short time. I laugh at that notion. The advanced weapons and tactics only mean that people die in greater numbers. Now I'm no expert, by any means, but as far as I'm concerned, AT LEAST 4 years is how long a World War III would last. >> 2. Agricultural output and power. This point is a little more fundamental to the realism of the game. There are a couple of points that should be made before I can demonstrate what I mean a. Rural, agricultural areas are not primary nuclear targets b. Farmers do not forget how to farm because a city got nuked (i.e. technical know-how does not disapear with the urbanised areas << True. However their ability to harvest the mass of food with less people, and less machinery/fuel (because of wartime demands) will result in less food being produced. >> c. Current percentage of the population that works in agriculture in western Europe is +/- 5%, and there is heavy protectionisme by the EU, meaning that it is not possible or finacially interesting to export food to the EU. d. it is practicable to use either vegetable matter to make organic oil which runs perfectly well in diesel engines. (The inflatable craft company Zodiac circumnavigated the globe on the stuff, in a diesel engine). You can also use the methane gas which comes off animal manure as a fuel, as a matter of fact several Dutch livestock farmers do just that as we speak. All these facts << Well, vegetable matter oil wouldn't work worth beans (excuse the pun) in the winter time, as the oil would freeze up too quick. And as someone else mentioned, this type of oil is not as reliable as petroleum based oil, so it would break down faster, thus resulting in more down time for the vehicles, and may result in more vehicular breakdowns as well. Imagine how fast an M1 would burn through the vegetable oil! >> demonstrate that the situation as far as food and fuels goes is highly pessimistic. The situation after World War II in a devastated western Europe demonstrated that it was the technical know-how of the working population which was neccesary for rapid build-up, not the fixed capital. As far as food goes, even a very marginal farm would produce at least five times as much food as the people who live on it can eat (which is still five times less than farms produce today), showing that, with at least half of the world population dead, there would probably be a vast excess of food, not a shortage since their is no means to transport it to other areas. << Basically, I'd have to say that lack of Federal funding for the farmers, shortages of workers (because of the draft and such), lack of fuel or machinery, and any other natural elements (dry weather...too wet weather...whatever) would all combine to take it's toll on the food production. Yes, some areas would be swimming in the food, but other's would not. Imagine trying to ship food to the East coast of Maine, or up to Alaska, with the lack of fuel for shipping trucks, or lack of trucks as a whole. Those people would have a tough time of it. Food would be a lot shorter in those areas. Other areas, such as the Midwest and such, would probably have a much better supply of food, but might be lacking something else (say fuel, which those Alaskans would have a lot of, just not much food). In all, the system would just be broken down to a slow crawl. And any little thing could throw the whole chain into a schism. Imagine a shipment of food destined for Maine, that gets hijacked by some "survivalists" in Pennsylvania. Then Maine gets no food at all that month. That's where the shortages come from. >> Having identified these problems with the TW2000 setting, I am sort of wondering what to do with them. How to incorporate them into a setting is a little difficult though I have made an attempt which I can mail to whoever wants it. What I would really like to know is how the GM's out there deal with these problems in the system. So, anyone who has any ideas, let me know. >> You also have to remember that while the nukes did not hit the agricultural areas, the radiation might still drift around to that area. Contaminated water might not do much good to a crop of corn. If you want an idea of what Twilight is supposed to be like, as far as the mayhem, then find one of those people that think the U.S. (and other countries) is going to slip back to the Dark Ages when the Year 2000 rolls around. Some people view that time as a true "survival of the fittest" event, and mayhem will ensue as the planes, trains and automobiles, as well as communication and money, all stop working. Heck, some even think that all power and water will be lost. Now if that doesn't cause a national riot, nothing will. But as you can see, in a country where the "stuff" has hit the fan, food shortages will occur. As someone else suggested, if you really don't like the way it's handled, then just change it to suit your taste. Till Later! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 01:15:06 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Grimace997@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 98-10-27 18:14:29 EST, you write: > > << > 1. Length of the conflict. > All military studies and simulations that I know of seem to indicate > that the NATO powers could, under no circumstances sustain a WW III > level conflict for more than a couple of months. The general thought > was that NATO would have to beat back a soviet initial attack and > hope that their inherent instability would cause their political > system to collapse. All authorative reconstructions of the WW III > conflict end in this way. Now, in the TW2000 setting NATO essentially > falls apart, but that doesn't say anything about the endurance of the > individual western european nations and the US. It seems to me, that > the jump from a few months to a four-year clash is a little far > fetched. On the other hand, they thought world war one would be "over > by christmas", which also stretched to a few years. So, what are > everyone's thoughts on this subject? > << > Sorry, theory is exactly that. Theory. When it all comes down to it, no one > can predict how long a war is going to take, because they never know all of > the variables that can come into play. I think a 4 year war is believable, > and would result in the type of massed destruction that is in the book. Any > less time in war, and you'd still have countries with good infrastructures and > stable economies. None of the wars in the past have ever gone as long as > people initially expected. The Civil War was supposed to be over very > quickly. Same with World War I. World War II was one of those "it'll never > happen again" wars, that ended up lasting quite some time. Actually, it > lasted a very long time considering the advancement of combat tactics from WW > I to WW II. Experts nowadays say that tactics and weapons have advanced to > such a stage that war lasts a short time. I laugh at that notion. The > advanced weapons and tactics only mean that people die in greater numbers. > Now I'm no expert, by any means, but as far as I'm concerned, AT LEAST 4 years > is how long a World War III would last. If nukes started flying every which way I don't see how the war could carry on for 4 years and why anyone would want it to carry on that long. Perhaps for a few months, but eventually I think everyone would be more interested in their own survival. > >> > > Basically, I'd have to say that lack of Federal funding for the farmers, > shortages of workers (because of the draft and such), lack of fuel or > machinery, and any other natural elements (dry weather...too wet > weather...whatever) would all combine to take it's toll on the food > production. Yes, some areas would be swimming in the food, but other's would > not. Imagine trying to ship food to the East coast of Maine, or up to Alaska, > with the lack of fuel for shipping trucks, or lack of trucks as a whole. > Those people would have a tough time of it. Food would be a lot shorter in > those areas. Other areas, such as the Midwest and such, would probably have a > much better supply of food, but might be lacking something else (say fuel, > which those Alaskans would have a lot of, just not much food). In all, the > system would just be broken down to a slow crawl. And any little thing could > throw the whole chain into a schism. Imagine a shipment of food destined for > Maine, that gets hijacked by some "survivalists" in Pennsylvania. Then Maine > gets no food at all that month. That's where the shortages come from. > Assuming they survive the first part of the war, I seriously doubt the ability of most people in the U.S to grow enough of their own food, etc (hell if people dont feel safe drinking tap water and buy water I have to wonder what would happen if they had to drink out of creeks and stuff) Also assuming there was no organization I imagine once people with no food started getting hungry they'd get violent towards people with food. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:55:58 PST From: "Adrian Trollip" Subject: Rulebooks Hi all I'm new to the twilight 2000 game, I've been playing AD&D for a while, but I am very impressed with the Twilight and Merc game systems. I am looking for places to get the rulebooks and any other game reference material, being in South Africa we don't have much access to the stuff. Are there any online shops that supply it ? Also, how do I get access to the files in the twilight2000 index, it says it is a private resource and I am not a member, how do I become a member ? Thanks for the help. Adrian (Opsmed South African Defence Force) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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, 28 Oct 1998 09:15:05 -0500 From: Hound Subject: Re: My web page >Fer cryin' out loud, impement the geoguide across the ENTIRE site, would >you? Those pop-up's are a pain in the butt (check out my geocities site - >all pages - indluding the index page - have the geoguide present)! The much simpler and incredibly less iritating option is to set the site up at XOOM where there are no banners, no pop-ups, no crappy "geoguide" and no watermark. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:04:59 -0700 From: Kurt Stogrin Subject: Re: Rulebooks Welcome aboard Adrian I could get you a Twilight 2000 boxed set 1st edition and about quite a few of the first edition modules. The Boxed set cost's $17.00 Canadian and the modules cost $7.00 each. If you or anyone else needs a listing of the modules I have just wirte me back. I don't have any exact cost's on shipping and handling cost's to South Africa but I know that it cost's $1.00 for each module to send to Australia and they weigh about a hundred grams. I would assume that the shipping cost's are quite similar Adrian Trollip wrote: > Hi all > > I'm new to the twilight 2000 game, I've been playing AD&D for a while, > but I am very impressed with the Twilight and Merc game systems. > > I am looking for places to get the rulebooks and any other game > reference material, being in South Africa we don't have much access to > the stuff. Are there any online shops that supply it ? > > Also, how do I get access to the files in the twilight2000 index, it > says it is a private resource and I am not a member, how do I become a > member ? > > Thanks for the help. > > Adrian > (Opsmed South African Defence Force) > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > *************************************************************************** > 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: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:57:21 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems > From: dragon@euronet.nl > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Twilight 200 setting problems > Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 6:49 AM > > 1. Length of the conflict. > All military studies and simulations that I know of seem to indicate > that the NATO powers could, under no circumstances sustain a WW III > level conflict for more than a couple of months. The general thought > was that NATO would have to beat back a soviet initial attack and > hope that their inherent instability would cause their political > system to collapse. All authorative reconstructions of the WW III > conflict end in this way. Now, in the TW2000 setting NATO essentially > falls apart, but that doesn't say anything about the endurance of the > individual western european nations and the US. It seems to me, that > the jump from a few months to a four-year clash is a little far > fetched. On the other hand, they thought world war one would be "over > by christmas", which also stretched to a few years. So, what are > everyone's thoughts on this subject? I really don't know, it seems like the conventional wisdom is that such a war could last that long. One concern is it would be so much chaos where it would get to the point is who would be around to negotiate treaties, peace, agreements, whatever because a lot of the governments have split. Look at the U.S. under the TW2K history, you have a CivGov faction, a MilGov faction, and many smaller fiefdoms too add into the mix. If you are a Russian leader, who would you talk peace with, not to mention the fact that Russia would have the same problems too. Perhaps peace ill come, but like herding cats, it'll take a long time to bring it about. The war would drag on with most of the fighting going on in the summer and fall. When winter rolls along, things tend to slow down and in springtime, perhaps planting crops would take priority. I seem to remember that in the America Revolution, the war did slow down somewhat in the winter. > 2. Agricultural output and power. > This point is a little more fundamental to the realism of the game. > There are a couple of points that should be made before I can > demonstrate what I mean > a. Rural, agricultural areas are not primary nuclear targets > b. Farmers do not forget how to farm because a city got nuked (i.e. > technical know-how does not disapear with the urbanised areas > c. Current percentage of the population that works in agriculture in > western Europe is +/- 5%, and there is heavy protectionisme by > the EU, meaning that it is not possible or finacially > interesting to export food to the EU. Someone else brought this up too that some agricultural areas may receive fallout. To add to the matter, nuclear war isn't very "ozone friendly" so you'd have to grow crops that would grow under heavy UV conditions AND not suck up a lot of radioactive fallout from the soil. Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 would be a big concern again. Strontium 90 mimics calcium due to similar chemical bonding properties and tend to find its way to the bones of any who consume it. It will be found in the milk of cows and goats who graze in areas of high radioactivity I do remember back in the 1970's, when I was a kid, that there was some concern over that when the Red Chinese were conducting above ground tests. Cesium-137 finds it's way into the muscle tissue which is a problem with those same animals that graze and would eventually find it's way into people as they consume the meat. I don't think it would be an automatic death sentence for most people, but the problems would be there. Overall, it is better to eat and assume the risk than just starve to death. > Having identified these problems with the TW2000 setting, I am sort > of wondering what to do with them. How to incorporate them into a > setting is a little difficult though I have made an attempt which I > can mail to whoever wants it. What I would really like to know is how > the GM's out there deal with these problems in the system. So, anyone > who has any ideas, let me know. I guess what I do is read up a lot on certain things and implement them in the game as realistically as I can. I'm a ham radio operator so I tend to add to the rules of radio communications for example. Chuck DE KA3WRW *************************************************************************** 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 #45 ************************************