twilight2000-digest Thursday, October 29 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 046 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) GMs Wanted! Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Re: Roll Call Re: Roll Call Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Re: Twilight 2k setting problems Re: Twilight 200 setting problems RE: Twilight 200 setting problems Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Opinions Wanted Re: Twilight 200 setting problems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 06:47:53 +0000 From: dragon@euronet.nl Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Well, seems like I've got some reactions going. Excellent. People do not seem to be convinced by the "experts" on the length of the conflict. It's interesting, but I would like to see some constructive arguments to support that. The last conflict we had, (gulf war), seemed to indicate a ferocious rate of advance. The closest thing to a mechanised conflict before that, Korea was limited by geography but still managed to sweep up and down the peninsula relatively rapidly. When the Russians finally managed to turn around in world war II, they advanced to berlin in under two years, wih considerably less technological basis than we have now. Remember, WWIII will be fought with what we have, not what we can produce. Modern military production has become too specialised for an easy switchover of industry to a military stance. The only nation which can replace military units at a worthwhile rate is Russia, which could replace all of its front line tanks with the next model in a single year. The USA had about a sixth of this production level. So far, all arguments seem to indicate, that either NATO wins with what it has before it runs out of peacetime stocks, or the Soviet Union would turn it into mush. As for the soldier's perspective which somebody added, I'm an ex-soldier, and think that argument could be a little more watertight. Four year wars may be believable, but is that because we're used to lots of wars lasting about four years, or because there's a logical basis for it? It's fine to use historical examples, but you can't say something will last this long because it lasted this long then. You have to look at WHY it lasted that long then and how those factors apply to a WWIII type conflict. The argument of the enemy always doing something unexpected is true, that's what you have contingency planning for. The problem however, is what the industries will do. Even without a nuclear exchange, fact remains that Russia can reequip units and men quicker than NATO can, and a Nuclear exchange means that the Russian capability to do this will be affected, as well as NATO's. In a Nuclear exchange, presumably the Soviets would meet the same peacetime stock problems although they probably have considerably larger stocks than NATO does (this is supposition). A too high level Nuclear exchange means that everyone is dead due to nuclear winter anyway. All in all, It does not appear to me that, however you cut it, a conflict could last more than say, six months at the most. The difference is, I guess that the Soviet union was a war economy even in peacetime, and NATO isn't. Right, that's it from me on this subject, what are people's arguments on why it would last four years? What does everyone think? (I love this kind of discussion...) Evert-Jan *************************************************************************** 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 15:59:35 -0600 From: "Randy, Rico & Monifa" Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) - -----Original Message----- From: dragon@euronet.nl To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) >Well, seems like I've got some reactions going. Excellent. > >People do not seem to be convinced by the "experts" on the length of >the conflict. It's interesting, but I would like to see some >constructive arguments to support that. The last conflict we had, >(gulf war), seemed to indicate a ferocious rate of advance. The >closest thing to a mechanised conflict before that, Korea was limited >by geography but still managed to sweep up and down the peninsula >relatively rapidly. When the Russians finally managed to turn around >in world war II, they advanced to berlin in under two years, wih >considerably less technological basis than we have now. Remember, >WWIII will be fought with what we have, not what we can produce. You cant really compare the "Gulf Camping Trip" (no disrespect to those that were there) to a war with a highly motivated well trained and equiped military force. The bulk of the Iraqui army had third rate Soviet equipment that was no match for the rest of the worlds forces. Also, it was one country against the world, a minor disadvantage here. The T2K war idea is roughly half the world against the other half with roughly equivelant military forces. >Modern military production has become too specialised for an easy >switchover of industry to a military stance. The only nation which >can replace military units at a worthwhile rate is Russia, which >could replace all of its front line tanks with the next model in a >single year. The USA had about a sixth of this production level. So >far, all arguments seem to indicate, that either NATO wins with what >it has before it runs out of peacetime stocks, or the Soviet Union >would turn it into mush. You have probably never seen the Tank Arsenel in Detroit, Michigan... its HUGE!!! >As for the soldier's perspective which somebody added, I'm an >ex-soldier, and think that argument could be a little more >watertight. Four year wars may be believable, but is that because >we're used to lots of wars lasting about four years, or because >there's a logical basis for it? It's fine to use historical examples, >but you can't say something will last this long because it lasted >this long then. You have to look at WHY it lasted that long then and >how those factors apply to a WWIII type conflict. Vietnam lasted 15 years (officialy 1960-1975) >The argument of the enemy always doing something unexpected is true, >that's what you have contingency planning for. The problem however, >is what the industries will do. Even without a nuclear exchange, fact >remains that Russia can reequip units and men quicker than NATO can, >and a Nuclear exchange means that the Russian capability to do this >will be affected, as well as NATO's. In a Nuclear exchange, >presumably the Soviets would meet the same peacetime stock problems >although they probably have considerably larger stocks than NATO does >(this is supposition). A too high level Nuclear exchange means that >everyone is dead due to nuclear winter anyway. All in all, It does >not appear to me that, however you cut it, a conflict could last more >than say, six months at the most. The difference is, I guess that the >Soviet union was a war economy even in peacetime, and NATO isn't. Here I agree entirely, though I somewhat modified the nuke exchange to a strictly limited battlefield delivered version (low yeild artillery only). It was the only way I could feal cumfortable with the playability of this scenario >Right, that's it from me on this subject, what are people's arguments >on why it would last four years? What does everyone think? (I love >this kind of discussion...) Heheheheheh, I love this too. Oh, and my ideas arent the only ones that are correct, if someone gives me some that I feal are better (not uncommon), I use them. :) >Evert-Jan >*************************************************************************** >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 16:33:03 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: GMs Wanted! Greetings. I'm the RPG coordinator for MonCon '99, which will be held on March 19-21st at the Tinton Falls Hilton in Tinton Falls NJ. In that capacity, I'm looking for GMs (and players, too) for Twilight 2000 events at the convention. If you're in the NJ/NY/PA/MD area, and think you'd be interested in running such an event, please contact me -OFF-LIST- and I'll give you more specifics. Thanx for your time... - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - Alternate Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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 19:07:30 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) > From: dragon@euronet.nl > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) > Date: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 1:47 AM > > Well, seems like I've got some reactions going. Excellent. It's good to have a discussion, makes good ideas for us DM's (or refs if you prefer) that we could use in our games. > Modern military production has become too specialised for an easy > switchover of industry to a military stance. The only nation which > can replace military units at a worthwhile rate is Russia, which > could replace all of its front line tanks with the next model in a > single year. The USA had about a sixth of this production level. So > far, all arguments seem to indicate, that either NATO wins with what > it has before it runs out of peacetime stocks, or the Soviet Union > would turn it into mush. Russia favored quantity over quality, it's like if you stepped on a nest of yellow jackets, unless you run, they could hurt you terribly if not kill you. Yellow jackets are small, but a whole lot of them swarming at once attacking and stinging the same target, eventually, the target will wear down. However, I don't think production would enter as much into Russian tank superiority as it is their doctrine to store their old and obsolete tanks from "God knows when" because if they should lose a lot of their newer tanks like the T-72's, T-80's, T-90's, and so on, they will fall back to their old stocks of T-34/85's, JS-3's, JS-10's, T-54/55's, T-62's, T-64's, (maybe some of the old tanks we gave them under WWII Lend Lease) and so on as replacements. If NATO is hard up for tanks this would clearly put the advantage to the older tanks of the USSR, albeit still they would have to be wary of infantry units armed with anti-tank weapons. > The argument of the enemy always doing something unexpected is true, > that's what you have contingency planning for. The problem however, > is what the industries will do. Even without a nuclear exchange, fact > remains that Russia can reequip units and men quicker than NATO can, > and a Nuclear exchange means that the Russian capability to do this > will be affected, as well as NATO's. In a Nuclear exchange, > presumably the Soviets would meet the same peacetime stock problems > although they probably have considerably larger stocks than NATO does > (this is supposition). A too high level Nuclear exchange means that > everyone is dead due to nuclear winter anyway. All in all, It does > not appear to me that, however you cut it, a conflict could last more > than say, six months at the most. The difference is, I guess that the > Soviet union was a war economy even in peacetime, and NATO isn't. Well, they do have (had) the people to support it. One other interesting difference is that the Russians and Red Chinese still use and/or have in reserve old steam locomotives for their railroads. Fuel for the older locomotives would be easier to find, just find an old coal mine or send your men out in the field to chop wood and get water from a local river. Over here, we depend on diesel driven locomotives as you in Europe depend on electric ones. If your power grid is blown to smithereens and/or lack diesel fuel, that would be a problem there. Still I think things could still drag on, you'd have both sides armed with small arms fighting skirmishes, partisans running about, hunters and gun owners with their firearms, etc, so there could still be fighting that could go on for years. It's hard to say how long such a thing could last, we ever had a nuclear war before. > Right, that's it from me on this subject, what are people's arguments > on why it would last four years? What does everyone think? (I love > this kind of discussion...) I guess the chaos could prevent a speedy peace settlement. If peace is to be negotiated, well who would talk peace? Would the leaders survive? Would the leaders be seen as being a legitimate leader for everyone or would he just lead one small faction? We would have utter chaos. Well, it's good to be talking about something here, it's very interesting to say the least. body of the message. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:37:23 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) Randy, Rico & Monifa wrote: > > You cant really compare the "Gulf Camping Trip" (no disrespect to those that > were there) to a war with a highly motivated well trained and equiped > military force. The bulk of the Iraqui army had third rate Soviet equipment > that was no match for the rest of the worlds forces. Also, it was one > country against the world, a minor disadvantage here. The T2K war idea is > roughly half the world against the other half with roughly equivelant > military forces. I think you are underestimating what the Iraqis were. They didn't have modern equipment, but it was decent (T-72s, MiG-29s, etc). They had been fighting Iran for years. I don't know how good their training was, but I suppose war is pretty good training. You also have to remember that it took a while to build up the Coalition forces. Thing *could* have gone differently. *************************************************************************** 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 18:49:58 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Curran Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Length of Conflict) - ---Peter Vieth wrote: > > > > > I think you are underestimating what the Iraqis were. They didn't have modern > equipment, but it was decent (T-72s, MiG-29s, etc). They had been fighting Iran > for years. I don't know how good their training was, but I suppose war is pretty > good training. You also have to remember that it took a while to build up the > Coalition forces. Thing *could* have gone differently. > Well, your right, at that beginning of the war the Iraqi army was the FOURTH largest in the world, that's right fourth, they had a ridiculously huge standing army left over from their war with Iran. Also, Saddam Husein was no fool, well not a complete one, he had no intention of winning the Gulf War because of the size of his army. He intended to turn it into another Vietnam, and when the casualties got large enough for the coalition forces pressure from home would force the countries to sue for peace. Just my Two cents - -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: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:17:17 -0700 From: Steven Charlton Subject: Re: Roll Call Here - lurking quietly in digest mode. Anyone else here from Tucson? - --------- Steven T. Charlton scharlto@rtd.com I don't recall installing this "General Protection Fault" Screen Saver *************************************************************************** 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 23:58:36 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: Roll Call In a message dated 10/28/98 8:32:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, scharlto@rtd.com writes: << Here - lurking quietly in digest mode. Anyone else here from Tucson? >> Hey, Were you the one that posted an Order of Battle to this list awhile back? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 00:01:12 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems > 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. I am reminded of so many similar bold statements made in 1914...before the youths of many countries were tossed into the meat grinder...modern weapons then showed how long a modern war could last-and the death tolls from there validate your theory there Grim. It's hard to say if WWIII would last 4 years...but I doubt that it ouwld be 1 or less...as nowadays it takes some amoutn fo time to get geared up to deply your troops in large numbers...not to mention to get your ships sailing to the battlezone. > > >> > 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. And look at how many farms are going bankrupt and being sold these days...were experincing a farm crisis similiar to the bad days of the 80's...so the farmers retain that knowledge-but if the farmlands are being built on that limit's total output. > > 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! I think however the vegetable oil would be good for less crucial systems, heating for homes, etc. In a Twilight world you have lots of people in many countries that would give their right eye for heating oil and food... > > 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. Indeed...can you imagine the farmers in say Indiana or Ohio being told to send MORE of their crops to other areas (foreign or domestic)...especially as the war progressed...a lot of them might hold onto a bit extra as farmers did in Russia before Stalin killed a few hundred thousand of them to collectivize the works. > > > 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. Yes...geiger counters would be churned out in small work shops, farmers would need them to make sure their fields had not bee irradiated by fall-out blown in...and then there's the ground water you'd have to worry about...and of course we know about irradiated beef on the hoof and other game animals...them's is NOT good eating... > > 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. Worse really...the dark ages were bad...REAL bad...but a lot of people were capble of dealing with most small problems by themselves...today however that is not the case...imagine how bad it would be without power...we're too used to being able to get most things solved by hoping into our cars and going to a store or hospital...imagine what happens when that isn't possibile...looting, hoarding, riots, etc. > > But as you can see, in a country where the "stuff" has hit the fan, food > shortages will occur. And blood will fill the streets... Until Later 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: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:22:05 -0500 From: Hound Subject: Re: Twilight 2k setting problems >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. Being a farmer is less than an enviable position along the contonment fronts in Europe by the year 2000. Most farmers find that a majority of their product is being "requisitioned" away by "friendly" troops, usually without compensation (except protecting your remaining slim stocks from other "friendly" and "hostile" "requisitions"). This leaves you with enough grain to survive the winter and to plant a new crop in the new year. Away from the fronts things get a little less predictable. While many farms can provide food and distilled alcohol fuels for the remaining small cities and towns, many others are overrun by military units on the move who take all that is edible, as well as the horses... and well get to horses in a paragraph or two. The remainder are sadly the targets of marauder units who are generally unskilled at farming and who require large amounts of food to maintain their non-productive population - especially through the winter months. Many other farms have been lost to the effects of the war - nuclear strikes do wonders to crop-lands, leaving them littered with highly radioactive tank husks... and the first time you try to plow a field that was the target of a FASCAM strike you gain a new respect for modern weapons of destruciton. >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. I follow that. Having grown up on an organic farm we've been using somewhat more labour-intensive systems than most other farmers (having no access to pesticides or chemical fertilizers). But even our type of farming would be a hell of a lot harder to do without machinery. Basic cropping would be impossible on a large scale (greater than say 200 acres for a single family), and trying to maintain livestock would be incredibly difficult (try to bring in enough hay for the winter without a 'bine, baler and a tractor to bring the bales to the barn). Most farmers would be hard-put to make their basic wheat and corn crops grow well after the first year as they suddenly have significantly less fertilizer in the soil without the regular infusions of chemical fertilizers. I also agree that there will be regular surpluses of food in some regions, but distributing this food to the front where the shortages exist will be next to impossible. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:22:11 -0500 From: Hound Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems >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! I have to object to this statement - Canola Oil, previously known as RapeSeed Oil is one of the best lubricants in thew world, used routinely in many industrial applications as it doesn't break down as quickly as petroleum based oils, and works very well in extremely hot conditions (We use it throughout the steel mill). Although I am not certain as to it's useability in extreme cold. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:45:20 +0100 From: "Ronald Aas" Subject: RE: Twilight 200 setting problems It is quite usable for fuel too, exept for the coldest periods of the winter. And as far as i know it doesn't cause any excess wear on equipment either. Farming of rapsseed has been done for many years in sweden (a test project) with good results. During very cold periods it must be blended with a petrolium based product (parafin in norwegian...) to keep it from freezing, just like diesel. For use as fuel it has shown to be as effective as diesel. A friend of mine from the norwegian cavalery (leopard I tanks) sad those engines could run on oldmost anything, including diesel, petrol,parafin, rapsseedoil and vegetable oil (imagine smelling frenchfries from a tank...). Ronald A - -----Original Message----- From: owner-twilight2000@lists.MPGN.COM [mailto:owner-twilight2000@lists.MPGN.COM] On Behalf Of Hound Sent: 29. oktober 1998 16:22 To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems >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! I have to object to this statement - Canola Oil, previously known as RapeSeed Oil is one of the best lubricants in thew world, used routinely in many industrial applications as it doesn't break down as quickly as petroleum based oils, and works very well in extremely hot conditions (We use it throughout the steel mill). Although I am not certain as to it's useability in extreme cold. *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:17:04 -0500 From: Matt Geisler Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems Vegetable oil often works better than gasoline as a fuel, it is more energy dense, but more expensive (and harder to regulate and own a monopoly). University of Toronto designed a car which uses vegetable oil for fuel and lubricant. Retrofitting a gasoline engine to run on vegetable oil should be DIF:Mec, and requires some parts and tools. Also Vegetable oil can drive both turboprop and Jet engines. One of the fatal flaws of Tw2000 is the statement that lack of fuel has grounded aircraft. In Japan (WWII), they used pine resin and vegetable oil to run their aircraft towards then end. It was simply too expensive to keep it up for long. In Tw2000 terms, Vegetable oil will probably run 10-20$ per litre, and be principly used as food. (modern price of 1-2$ per litre compared to gasoline at 0.25$/L) Also in WWII, Germans built gassifiers when fuel was scarce. It basically converts wood or coal into carbon monoxide, which it pipes into a gasoline engine. Works fine, but power output is quite low (they had to push loaded trucks up hills etc). Takes up about 1/2 ton of space, uses around 100# wood or 20# coal per period travel, and should cost around 2-5000$ to build- and can be built by scrounging for parts (old oil drums, pipes, fittings, regulators, etc). Hound wrote: > >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! > > I have to object to this statement - Canola Oil, previously known as > RapeSeed Oil is one of the best lubricants in thew world, used routinely in > many industrial applications as it doesn't break down as quickly as > petroleum based oils, and works very well in extremely hot conditions (We > use it throughout the steel mill). Although I am not certain as to it's > useability in extreme cold. > > *************************************************************************** > 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: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:28:02 -0500 From: "RC" Subject: Opinions Wanted Hey all, while some discussion is in fact happening now I would like to ask for some opinions. What of the fate of the U.S. 5th Mechanized Division that was involved in the last NATO offensive? The U.S. Army Vehicle Guide states that as of July 1st, 2000 the division had 3000 personnel, 9 M1, 21 M1A1, and 12 M1A2 plus all the accompanying lesser vehicles and arty. The Rulebook states that this division was the spearhead for the German 3rd Army's offensive into Poland. The Division then got smoked by advancing Soviet units. The map in the rulebook shows that ELEMENTS of the 5th are still lurking in Poland. Now, the Escape from Kalisz adventure states that the division lasted until July 17th. So, what I'm wondering is what the other players/GM's think about this. I'm especially interested in hearing about how other GM's have handled this (if applicable). Could it be possible that the Division was routed, but after a short period the Division's officers have managed to rally a sizable amount back together? Or do the remaining elements turn marauder, as other units have? Or do the elements remaining conduct "rear area diversionary actions"? Looking forward to hearing about this. RC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:59:48 -0500 From: "RC" Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems - -----Original Message----- From: Rogue09 To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: October 29, 1998 2:12 AM Subject: Re: Twilight 200 setting problems (Major snipping) >I think however the vegetable oil would be good for less crucial >systems, heating for homes, etc. In a Twilight world you have lots of >people in many countries that would give their right eye for heating oil >and food... I would have to disagree with the vegetable oil/heating thing. I think that the majority of people would go back to the traditional methods of wood heating. It is far easier to construct a wood burning stove from an old metal drum to heat a moderate area and then gather some wood for the fuel then it is for people to gather the material and process it for heating oil. In a setting where time could be better spent on food production or foraging, I think most would go the easiest route. >> Basically, I'd have to say that lack of Federal funding for the farmers, Farmers were able to produce food before there was any such thing as Federal funding. >> shortages of workers (because of the draft and such), A surprising amount of food can be produced with a small amount of people. A whole family (say six or seven people) that worked together, without distractions such as outside jobs and school that are a normal part of our life now, could devote all of their time and resources into sowing and harvesting and preserving and could "put by" a large amount. 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. Don't forget a lack of good drivers. >> Those people would have a tough time of it. Food would be a lot shorter in >> those areas. Take into account though that people can be surprisingly quick to adapt to different situations. Sure a lot of people would die, but those that could adapt quickly and take advantage of the what the local environment has to offer would be sure to offset some of the hardship. For example, the growing interest in back to the land alternative lifestyle would allow some of the people to have a greater knowledge of local flora and fauna and they would be able to live of the land. I'm sure that they would teach others. (Some more snipping) 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. I really don't think that food would be hijacked by "survivalists". Survivalists would have a supply of food in storage, with the means to produce more. In fact, the survivalists would probably be the closest thing to an "island" of stability in an otherwise chaotic area. As a follower of survivalist "philosophy" if it should be called anything, I can testify that most families (it is mostly families that prepare) have a six month to five year supply of food in storage. This is food that can store for long periods. Some of it is commercially packed (like MRE's) but the majority of it is in fact everyday regular foodstuffs, like dehydrated vegetables that have been packed in nitrogen gas for long term storage. The Mormon's, who practice a philosophy of preparedness have a basic four list of foods that they encourage their members to store (up to five years worth per person). This list consists of wheat (for making flour, for making bread and a product called "gluten" which can be made into a meat substitute), sugar or honey, powdered milk and salt. There are lots of other items that will store for just as long a period as well. Believe it or not, a person can survive on these four items alone. Not only do survivalists store food, but they go out of their way to set up their houses so that they are not reliant on energy (no electric or gas heating). They may purchase generators for small amounts of electrical energy, but it wouldn't be wasted on heating. They store non-hybrid seeds and gardening tools. Some even have greenhouses on their property with hydroponic set ups that are run off of solar charged batteries. They also store medical supplies, arms and ammunition, books (technical mostly but I'm sure there are others as well -- I have included classics in mine), tools and other stuff that could be useful to them when they are cut off from "civilization". Many survivalists are informed about emergency treatment and medicine, they can live off the land if they had to, and a lot of them can produce what they need to live a relatively comfortable life. Just don't ask some of them about the gov't (hehe). >Indeed...can you imagine the farmers in say Indiana or Ohio being told >to send MORE of their crops to other areas (foreign or >domestic)...especially as the war progressed...a lot of them might hold >onto a bit extra as farmers did in Russia before Stalin killed a few >hundred thousand of them to collectivize the works. I can agree with you about asking them to "send" their surplus to other areas. I can't see that going to well. But they would be more than willing to "trade" their surplus for items that they may need or want. Farmers in a situation like Twilight would first make sure that they had a supply of food for themselves to last until the next harvest. Then they would keep some extra for sowing the next year's crop, as well as livestock feed. Whatever is left is surplus and tradeable. >> 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. Ground burst nukes are the highest threat. The radiation tends to linger. Air bursts are certainly damaging, but the radiation has a short lifespan. Water has a way of cleaning itself, unless it is standing water like a pond or marsh or it is brackish. Not only that but the radiation will settle to the bottom and if your careful (and if you have a large supply of Iodine) you can use it as a drinking supply. Ground burst nukes are bad. Even worse is chemical and/or biological weapons. The effects of some of these weapons tends to make your day a very bad one. Really bad is outbreaks of disease and sickness. Without the medicine to counter them, they can and will wipe out a big area. >Yes...geiger counters would be churned out in small work shops, farmers >would need them to make sure their fields had not bee irradiated by >fall-out blown in...and then there's the ground water you'd have to >worry about...and of course we know about irradiated beef on the hoof >and other game animals...them's is NOT good eating... Geiger counters are good for detecting radiation, but to my knowledge they don't measure the amount of radiation, and that is where the danger is. People can safely be exposed to small amounts of radiation over time, but they cannot be safely exposed to levels that can quickly accumulate to dangers amounts. Same thing with animals. Fields can be decontaminated (although this is very hard to do and it's really not in the ability of general population). The best thing that can be done is to stay away from contaminated areas and let nature do it's work -- or look for somewhere better to go. >> 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. That would be me (I guess, but not to the extent that you are supposing). >Worse really...the dark ages were bad...REAL bad...but a lot of people >were capble of dealing with most small problems by themselves...today >however that is not the case...imagine how bad it would be without >power...we're too used to being able to get most things solved by hoping >into our cars and going to a store or hospital...imagine what happens >when that isn't possibile...looting, hoarding, riots, etc. I think about these things everyday, and you are entirely correct. If it was to get as bad as Twilight, many people around the world would die. First from the effects of war. Then by diseases that are released from the dead and starvation. Once the winter comes around, more would die from the elements. Likely in Twilight there are pockets of stable areas. Not all cities, towns, villages and surrounding environs were subject to terrible effects. If power was lost for an interminate amount of time, there would be initial panic and chaos, but people would adapt. Many folks would find that one day they were successful lawyers, bankers or professionals and the next they may find themselves slogging through a half meter of pig shit so they can "earn" the day's meal. >> But as you can see, in a country where the "stuff" has hit the fan, food >> shortages will occur. > >And blood will fill the streets... Maybe for a short time. Food riots are nothing new. They have happened and they will happen again. The question is, will it? Some areas have planned for extreme changes and they are prepared for it. Some are arrogant enough to believe that in this day and age, nothing bad can happen (except for their favorite soap opera or sitcom to be cancelled). It's a fact that rural communities have an advantage in coping with extreme changes, where large metropolitan cities are virtual death traps. Like the book says, some areas were hit hard and some were relatively unscathed. I guess anywhere that has a history of disaster will have a better chance of coming out ok (unless they were smacked with a nuke or had seen military action) because they have the experience to prepare ahead of time for bad situations. The people know that they have to cooperate or they will sink quicker. In areas with military units close by, there is less chaos because they fear the troops. >Until Later > >T.R. Nice talkin' to you RC *************************************************************************** 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 #46 ************************************