twilight2000-digest Tuesday, December 1 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 057 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Small Arms Questions Re: twilight2000-digest V1998 #55 Twilight 2000 WebSite Re: Nuke effect on Radios & Misc. Re: Small Arms Questions Re: Setting Problems Re: Twilight 2000 WebSite Re: Setting Problems Re: Small Arms Questions new gaming group challenges Re: Setting Problems Re: Small Arms Questions Re: Setting Problems Re: Setting Problems T2K Version 1.0 Re: new gaming group challenges Re: T2K Version 1.0 Re: T2K Version 1.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 15:35:50 -0700 From: Rogue09 Subject: Re: Small Arms Questions > > In order to prevent the start of a nightmare thread in the "I'm right your > wrong" vein I will start by indicating my source for the following > information. The answers to your questions were taken from "Small Arms > Today, 2nd Edition", 1988 by Edward C. Ezell who was the Supervisor of the > Armed Forces History Division and Curator of the National Firearms > Collection at the Smithsonian Institution. The date of this book somewhat > jibes with the era of the TW2000 Game System so that while there have been > changes to arsonels in recent years this info seems to typify the period in > which the game was written. You wouldn't have gotten such an inane line of dialogue from me, however I figure I should list where my data comes from in case people wonder why there are differences between ours. (Not that are any major differences) My information comes from the "Janes Infantry Weapons Of The World 96-97" edition, sprinkled with some information from Leroy Thompson's "The Rescuers: The World's Top Anti-Terrorist Units". So Kurt you can pick and choose the information you want to go with... 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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 17:39:23 EST From: TrooperJD@aol.com Subject: Re: twilight2000-digest V1998 #55 Hey well i got digest 55 and 56, i was wondering would it be ludicrious to ask for 1 - 54? and if so, could anyone instruct me on how to open a MIME file to view its contents. Thanks Troop *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:01:08 -0500 (EST) From: MIDNIGHTGUARD@webtv.net (Rob Lebowsky) Subject: Twilight 2000 WebSite Greetings, I just joined this mailing list. For my first message I send to it I am making a shamless plug for my WebSite. It is for the Play By E-Mail (PBEM) I'm currently running. It's call Twilight War and the URL is as follows... http://www.angelfire.com/ms/bloodtalon/index.html Please come and visit it. Feel free to drop me a line with any comments or suggestions you may have. Thanks. Rob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:02:34 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Nuke effect on Radios & Misc. I was always told that cars are the safest place to be in during a thunderstorm because of the rubber tires. Lightning looks for an easy path to ground in addition to the highest point. Although a car can be the highest point, it doesn't provide a good path to ground so I think the lightning would look elsewhere. I vaguely (I was born in 1966) remember that many cars made during the 1960's had grounding straps and this could even be more dangerous when it comes to lightning. A neighbor told me a story where he had a Chevy from the early 1960's where lightning struck the car in the hood because of the grounding strap and it left a burnt circle on the hood. I do see the concern if you are just sitting in the car with your leg on the ground because the human body can conduct electricity, a bit poorly, but it could provide a good path to ground. I guess the best advice is to remember your mother's advice and keep all your body parts in the car. B-) There is a pet peeve that I have is when the weather turns cold, I always get a static electricity shock when I get out of my car and touch the door as I close it. I think the car is building up static electricity as it goes along and when I stand on the ground, the static charge goes to ground through me thus proving your point. That really drives by bananas. About EMP, if you are really concerned, I guess I'd take out the ignition control box (or even buy an extra), put it in a grounded metal box and take it out when you think it's safe to do so. I guess you could ground the car too. Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. - ---------- > From: Scott David Orr > To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > Subject: Re: Nuke effect on Radios & Misc. > Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 1:50 PM > > At 12:31 PM 11/29/98 -0500, Chuck Mandus wrote: > > >Cars, well I'd > >keep mine shut down plus too the steel body would act like a Faraday cage > >because cars are very well grounded. I assume a lot of military vehicles > >are the same way. My sources tell me that VHF/UHF radios are not as > >susceptible to EMP as well. > > > Remember, cars are on rubber tires. :) So they're quite insulated--I > remember even being told as a child that it was dangerous to sit in a car > in a thunderstorm with your leg out the door touching the pavement, since > YOU would be the ground that way. > > Scott Orr > *************************************************************************** > 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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 22:24:48 -0500 From: negril@mindspring.com (C. Webb) Subject: Re: Small Arms Questions >>You wouldn't have gotten such an inane line of dialogue from me, however >>I figure I should list where my data comes from in case people wonder >>why there are differences between ours. (Not that are any major >>differences) My information comes from the "Janes Infantry Weapons Of >>The World 96-97" edition, sprinkled with some information from Leroy >>Thompson's "The Rescuers: The World's Top Anti-Terrorist Units". So >>Kurt you can pick and choose the information you want to go with... >> >>T.R. Dear T.R., You're right. My intro concerning the weapons source was inane. I was feeling a bit defensive after having replied to the technology thread. Sorry for the gibbering... -Best, Chris *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:20:55 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Curran Subject: Re: Setting Problems - ---"C. Webb" wrote: >> > With regard to the Gulf War let us never discount the fact that the > Coalition Forces were the best trained, most professional soldiers on earth > backed with tremendous logistical support. As for technology, no matter > how you cut it, Iraq did not have equally advanced equipment both in the > air or on the ground and that played a huge role in determining the outcome > of that war. I hate to break it to you, but Iraq was not the far behind the Coalition forces in technology. Yeah, the scuds were old, but how many did our high tech Patriot Missile Systems miss, and what if only one of those misses had contained a biological agent? I the way of tanks, the Iraqis were sporting mostly Russian tanks from the T series, which are quite capable of destroying a M1 (after maybe 30 or so rounds). And they were also armed with up to Mig 29s, but they were mildly ineffective when they don't get off the ground. In the way of training, what percent of American forces actually had war experience? Now compare that to Iraq. What swung the war in our favor was not technology or training, but our willingness to spend some 4 billion dollars a day to spank a little runt in the Middle East. - -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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 22:43:25 -0500 From: "Loonz" Subject: Re: Twilight 2000 WebSite Me too Me Too http://pages.prodigy.net/loonz857/t2k.htm It's gotta life of it's own Cheers Loonz - -----Original Message----- From: Rob Lebowsky To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 7:39 PM Subject: Twilight 2000 WebSite Greetings, I just joined this mailing list. For my first message I send to it I am making a shamless plug for my WebSite. It is for the Play By E-Mail (PBEM) I'm currently running. It's call Twilight War and the URL is as follows... http://www.angelfire.com/ms/bloodtalon/index.html Please come and visit it. Feel free to drop me a line with any comments or suggestions you may have. Thanks. Rob *************************************************************************** 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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 22:45:42 -0500 From: "Loonz" Subject: Re: Setting Problems Im thinkin radios, body armor, the Venazuelan OOB and nuclear pasta makers. :-) Loonz - -----Original Message----- From: Michael Curran To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 9:42 PM Subject: Re: Setting Problems > > > > > >---"C. Webb" wrote: >>> >> With regard to the Gulf War let us never discount the fact that the >> Coalition Forces were the best trained, most professional soldiers >on earth >> backed with tremendous logistical support. As for technology, no >matter >> how you cut it, Iraq did not have equally advanced equipment both in >the >> air or on the ground and that played a huge role in determining the >outcome >> of that war. > > I hate to break it to you, but Iraq was not the far behind the >Coalition forces in technology. Yeah, the scuds were old, but how >many did our high tech Patriot Missile Systems miss, and what if only >one of those misses had contained a biological agent? I the way of >tanks, the Iraqis were sporting mostly Russian tanks from the T >series, which are quite capable of destroying a M1 (after maybe 30 or >so rounds). And they were also armed with up to Mig 29s, but they >were mildly ineffective when they don't get off the ground. In the >way of training, what percent of American forces actually had war >experience? Now compare that to Iraq. >What swung the war in our favor was not technology or training, but >our willingness to spend some 4 billion dollars a day to spank a >little runt in the Middle East. > >-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. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 22:47:15 -0500 From: "Loonz" Subject: Re: Small Arms Questions In with good air, out with the bad. :-) Loonz - -----Original Message----- From: C. Webb To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Small Arms Questions > >>>You wouldn't have gotten such an inane line of dialogue from me, however >>>I figure I should list where my data comes from in case people wonder >>>why there are differences between ours. (Not that are any major >>>differences) My information comes from the "Janes Infantry Weapons Of >>>The World 96-97" edition, sprinkled with some information from Leroy >>>Thompson's "The Rescuers: The World's Top Anti-Terrorist Units". So >>>Kurt you can pick and choose the information you want to go with... >>> >>>T.R. > >Dear T.R., > You're right. My intro concerning the weapons source was inane. I >was feeling a bit defensive after having replied to the technology thread. >Sorry for the gibbering... > -Best, > Chris > > >*************************************************************************** >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: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 22:31:09 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: new gaming group challenges I'm wondering what the sizes of peoples gaming groups are out there... I started with only one player and have gotten up to 7(!!!). Usually only 4 or 5 are around and I can accomodate all 7 well in the game but I'm beginning to wonder what I will do if the group grows. Space wise (and also with supplying food) its getting hard to take all the players. Maybe someone out there has some input? also with about half of the group going of to colleges in a few months it looks like I may be left with either none of the players (in which case the campaign ends) or two of them. BTW, one other thing. Has anyone used the WebRPG program? I was wonder what complaints people have about it (besides that its Java and is the slowest program I have ever seen). I'm still working on mine (got it to work through IRC). *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 04:20:00 -0500 From: negril@mindspring.com (C. Webb) Subject: Re: Setting Problems I don't understand how you can discount the personnel, equipment and strategy by simply stating that the Coalition's answer was to throw money at the situation. What do you think all that money bought? Sure tons of money was spent to make that happen but that money translated into a definable war machine. The bottom line is that the Iraqi forces were as you put it "spanked". The spanking occured due to personnel, equipment and strategy. There is a reason why their planes never got off of the ground. There is a reason why we literally bull dozed dug-in lines and there is a reason why we blew the bejesus out of their com bloc armor. You make it sound like this was some accident. Yes the Iraqi's had fought a ten year war with Iran and the Coalition did not. Who cares. Its almost incidental. Just how effective was their veteran force? And if the Coalition Force's collective lack of combat experience is somehow supposed to equate to a lack of professional ability then explain the resounding victory. Who flew the planes? who manned the guns? Who made the ordinance hit the targets? As far is the Patriots go yeah, alot of them missed. You conveniently ignore the dozens of other systems that were used tens of thousands of times that did'nt miss which is a big part of why those 29's never got off of the ground. We can chalk some of that up to our "inexperienced" pilots. I know a Gulf War veteran who was pitted directly against the Iraqi's in combat. He was one of the "cherry" Coalition soldiers who happened to light up some T's from the M1 he was in. I guess it was beginner's luck...or something. The T's and their respective tactics did'nt come close when the shooting started. Not even in the same ball park. Like I said before it was brutally decisive. Look at the facts concerning the ground war. Now that happened for a reason just like all of the other factors in the war. The Coalition did'nt stumble to victory. If it is'nt a matter of personnel, equipment and strategy then it must be martians because little green dollar bills don't fight wars. We spent billions on a miltary force that faught the war better than the enemy, PERIOD. And yes, training and technology were major factors. You might not like it but then again its not for us to like. > I hate to break it to you, but Iraq was not the far behind the >Coalition forces in technology. Yeah, the scuds were old, but how >many did our high tech Patriot Missile Systems miss, and what if only >one of those misses had contained a biological agent? I the way of >tanks, the Iraqis were sporting mostly Russian tanks from the T >series, which are quite capable of destroying a M1 (after maybe 30 or >so rounds). And they were also armed with up to Mig 29s, but they >were mildly ineffective when they don't get off the ground. In the >way of training, what percent of American forces actually had war >experience? Now compare that to Iraq. >What swung the war in our favor was not technology or training, but >our willingness to spend some 4 billion dollars a day to spank a >little runt in the Middle East. > >-S. B. Burzmali *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:03:36 +0200 (EET) From: Janne Kemppi Subject: Re: Small Arms Questions > Kurt Stogrin wrote: > > > > Hey does anyone have info on what small arms these armies use: > > Denmark, Sweeden, Finland, Norway, Greece > > What is the GPMG for Canada in Twilight would it be the MAG or M60? V1.0 lists > > the MAG and V2.0 lists the M60. > FINLAND: > Lahti M35, FN HP-35, S&W Model 19 Used by some Special Operations Units > Jati-Matic, Suomi M31, Sumoi M44, H&K MP-5 & Uzi Used by some Special > Operations Units > Sako M90, Valmet Model 76 > Sako TRG-21, Vaime SSR Mark I > Valmet Model 78 SAW, RPD, Valmet M60/M62 GPMG, PK GPMG > DShK & NSV HMG > 60mm Tampella, 81mm Tampella, 120mm Tampella, 120mm M43, 140mm M43 > M72 LAW, SS-11 ATGW, TOW ATGW, TOW II ATGW, Apilas, SM58-61 95mm RCL There are several errors in this list. I cannot really make a comment on what special purpose people use but for infantry some important weapons are missed and some 'extras' added. I'll dig up the Arma Fennica's part about army small arms to get more appropriate list. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:26:09 -0800 From: Hale Subject: Re: Setting Problems Michael Curran wrote: > I hate to break it to you, but Iraq was not the far behind the > Coalition forces in technology. Yeah, the scuds were old, but how > many did our high tech Patriot Missile Systems miss, and what if only > one of those misses had contained a biological agent? Well since it would most likely have been aimed at the Israels, I think that most of the middle east, at least Iraq, would be a glowing; radioactive; parking lot. > I the way of tanks, the Iraqis were sporting mostly Russian tanks from the T > series, which are quite capable of destroying a M1 (after maybe 30 or so rounds). Talking with friends that were there, they said that, when they would advance on Iraqi tanks; they(US) would start firing at a range of about 3000 to 4000 meters. Usually at about the same time the Iraqis would start shooting and you could see the Iraqi rounds impact anywhere from 1000 to 2500 meters short. While the US rounds were actually defeating the Iraqi armor at these ranges. > And they were also armed with up to Mig 29s, but they were mildly ineffective when they don't get off the > ground. Mildly ineffective. That is the under-statement of the decade. Iraqi air-power was UTTERLY, COMPLETELY, TOTALLY ineffective. I cannot think of a single engagement they won against coalition air-power, nor can I recall a single incident of Iraqi air-power providing any support for there ground forces. > In the way of training, what percent of American forces actually had war > experience? Now compare that to Iraq. The Iraqis had much more experience under fire, however, they had no experience against a well trained western army. If the coalition had employed Russian/Eastern Block tactics, the war would have been much longer and casualties much higher. While on the other hand most of the coalition forces had spent the past 50 years training to defeat Russian/Eastern Block Tactics. > What swung the war in our favor was not technology or training Actually, yes it was these two factors. Training as noted above. Technology in that without our abilitiy to locate the bulk of the Iraqi forces via spy satelite. Blind their ability to "see" us, by taking out Radar, & C3 ability with radar, TV, Laser, radio, etc guided smart bombs. Storm'in Norman Pointed this out on CNN the same day as the ceasefire. > but our willingness to spend some 4 billion dollars a day to spank a little runt in the Middle East. A valid point. Can't dispute this at all. And were're still spending. TTFN Ron Hale *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:52:53 -0600 From: "Brian K. Flood & Ann Marie Henke" Subject: Re: Setting Problems Just a few sparks to keep the fire ignited: - -----Original Message----- From: Hale To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Monday, November 30, 1998 2:35 AM Subject: Re: Setting Problems >Michael Curran wrote: >> I hate to break it to you, but Iraq was not the far behind the >> Coalition forces in technology. Yeah, the scuds were old, but how >> many did our high tech Patriot Missile Systems miss, and what if only >> one of those misses had contained a biological agent? > >Well since it would most likely have been aimed at the Israels, I think >that most of the middle east, at least Iraq, would be a glowing; >radioactive; parking lot. True -- it is US policy to respond to the use of weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) with a nuclear weapon. That one little policy probably had a lot to do with their decision NOT to use NBC-armed scuds. They would have gotten off about one shot of NBC agents before nuclear-tipped tomahawks started flying toward their assembly areas (not their population centers, as they would target their WMDs). >> I the way of tanks, the Iraqis were sporting mostly Russian tanks from the T >> series, which are quite capable of destroying a M1 (after maybe 30 or so rounds). > >Talking with friends that were there, they said that, when they would >advance on Iraqi tanks; they(US) would start firing at a range of about >3000 to 4000 meters. Usually at about the same time the Iraqis would >start shooting and you could see the Iraqi rounds impact anywhere from >1000 to 2500 meters short. While the US rounds were actually defeating >the Iraqi armor at these ranges. And, oh by the way, one of the major tank battles took place in one of Iraq's major training areas -- and the Iraqis still lost. It would be like somebody attacking the US Army at the National Training Center (NTC) in California. >> And they were also armed with up to Mig 29s, but they were mildly ineffective when they don't get off the > ground. > >Mildly ineffective. That is the under-statement of the decade. Iraqi >air-power was UTTERLY, COMPLETELY, TOTALLY ineffective. I cannot think >of a single engagement they won against coalition air-power, nor can I >recall a single incident of Iraqi air-power providing any support for >there ground forces. Actually, quite a few warplanes got off the ground -- but they were still ineffective. That is because most of their warplanes escaped to Iran (which is interesting as Iran is a former enemy). Over 50% of Iraq's Air Force's planes are STILL in Iran (Iran refused to let them return). Those that DID attempt to engage US aircraft were soundly defeated. Our pilots had trained for years at Red Flag in Nevada. The Aggressors there fly surrogate Soviet aircraft using Soviet tactics; they also employ soviet ADA and AAA systems. Yeah, the Americans may have had a lack of 'real' air combat experience, but that is why places like Red Flag and NTC were developed -- to train in combat in conditions that are actually HARDER than a real war. >> In the way of training, what percent of American forces actually had war >> experience? Now compare that to Iraq. > >The Iraqis had much more experience under fire, however, they had no >experience against a well trained western army. If the coalition had >employed Russian/Eastern Block tactics, the war would have been much >longer and casualties much higher. While on the other hand most of the >coalition forces had spent the past 50 years training to defeat >Russian/Eastern Block Tactics. AND the Americans had developed the NTC to train on warfare against a soviet foe. Like Red Flag, NTC's Opposing Forces (OpFor) use surrogate soviet equipment and soviet tactics. And they deliberately create an environment that is tougher than combat. You see, the US has this habit of losing the first battle of every war (Kasserine Pass, TF Smith, etc). Back in the early 80's, they realized that -- in the Europe scenario -- there simply would not be time to reinforce the allied forces if the Soviets were allowed to win the first battle. So, they created places like NTC, JRTC (for light forces), and CMTC (in Germany) to allow the US to fight (and most often lose) the 'first battle' BEFORE they were sent to combat. >> What swung the war in our favor was not technology or training > >Actually, yes it was these two factors. Training as noted above. >Technology in that without our abilitiy to locate the bulk of the Iraqi >forces via spy satelite. Blind their ability to "see" us, by taking out >Radar, & C3 ability with radar, TV, Laser, radio, etc guided smart >bombs. Storm'in Norman Pointed this out on CNN the same day as the >ceasefire. > >> but our willingness to spend some 4 billion dollars a day to spank a little runt in the Middle East. > >A valid point. Can't dispute this at all. >And were're still spending. Yes and No. It wasn't so much the money we poured in DURING the Gulf War, but rather the money we poured into our forces BEFORE the Gulf War that won it. The $$ we spent on modernizing our forces and training our forces to defeat the SOVIETS is what payed off. For years, we equipped and trained our forces to defeat a larger, soviet-equipped force. Saddam provided just such a foe. Saddam's biggest mistake was to test US (and Allied) resolve at a time immediately after the Cold War when the Allies had a) huge standing militaries (compared to now) and b) no-one to fight. Hell, the US forces sent to the Gulf from Europe had already been earmarked for deactivation -- and they STILL deactivated after the war! It was further Saddam's mistake to a) not to immediately continue his attack to sieze Saudi Arabia (thus denying the US a port of entry), b) to test US resolve by remaining in Kuwait, and c) to allow the Allies a HUGE build-up of forces so that they went from a defensively-oriented posture, to an offensively-capable force. The 'little runt' brought it on himself by violating the sovereignty of a foreign power and threatening a great portion of the world's oil supply -- and by testing US resolve to allow him to do so. Saddam had studied history; he expected to fight a protracted ground war (such as that which the US fought in Vietnam or that TW2000 depicts). He knew that the American people would not stand for such an attrition. He had already suffered through just such a slaughter (of both sides) during the war with Iran -- he was prepared to send his soldiers to die again. What he did not account for was that unlike Vietnam, Pres. Bush was able to put the weight of the American public behind the forces (by inspiring the public as well as by immediately calling up the reserves). Also, the generals that fought the Gulf War were the lieutenants, captains, and majors that fought the war in Vietnam and had prepared to fight the Soviets the remainder of their careers. They, too, had no intention of recreating Vietnam on the desert sands of the Middle East. Just my two cents, Brian K. Flood CPT, US Army >TTFN >Ron Hale >*************************************************************************** >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, 30 Nov 1998 07:54:44 -0600 From: "Dave" Subject: T2K Version 1.0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1C36.B17689A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anyone know I could get my hands on a complete box of T2K Version 1.0 Mine has slowly disappeared and I would like to get another fukll = copy if possible. Thanks Dave - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1C36.B17689A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anyone know I could get my hands on = a complete=20 box of T2K Version 1.0 Mine has slowly = disappeared and I=20 would like to get another fukll copy if possible. Thanks Dave - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1C36.B17689A0-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:20:55 -0500 From: "Loonz" Subject: Re: new gaming group challenges Your a lucky one. Mines 2 sometimes three. They usually buy the food or atleast the soda. Live it up while ya got it. Cheers Loonz - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Vieth To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Monday, November 30, 1998 1:44 AM Subject: new gaming group challenges >I'm wondering what the sizes of peoples gaming groups are out there... I >started with only one player and have gotten up to 7(!!!). Usually only >4 or 5 are around and I can accomodate all 7 well in the game but I'm >beginning to wonder what I will do if the group grows. Space wise (and >also with supplying food) its getting hard to take all the players. >Maybe someone out there has some input? also with about half of the >group going of to colleges in a few months it looks like I may be left >with either none of the players (in which case the campaign ends) or two >of them. > >BTW, one other thing. Has anyone used the WebRPG program? I was wonder >what complaints people have about it (besides that its Java and is the >slowest program I have ever seen). I'm still working on mine (got it to >work through IRC). > >*************************************************************************** >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, 30 Nov 1998 19:28:41 -0500 (EST) From: MIDNIGHTGUARD@webtv.net (Rob Lebowsky) Subject: Re: T2K Version 1.0 - --WebTV-Mail-184695469-859 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A local hobby shop in the town I live in happens to have two box sets of T2K (V1.0) and two rule books for T2K (V2.0). I saw them yesterday and they have been there for at least the last six months. As for how much they are asking for them...at most, cover price. Here is the address and phone number of the hobby shop. The UnderWorld 1202 South University Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 998-0547 I hope this helps you out. Rob - --WebTV-Mail-184695469-859 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.91) by postoffice-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 06:07:38 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by mailsorter-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id GAA29507; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 06:07:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA17932; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:55:28 -0500 Received: by lists.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:55:11 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17888 for twilight2000-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:55:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM: majordom set sender to owner-twilight2000@lists.MPGN.COM using -f Received: from Mithril.MPGN.COM (Mithril.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.8]) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17873 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:54:45 -0500 Received: from intellisys.net (intellisys.net [205.228.199.20]) by Mithril.MPGN.COM (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id IAA24930 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:53:59 -0500 Received: from dave (dialup83.intellisys.net [205.228.199.83]) by intellisys.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id HAA06157 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:54:09 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000901be1c68$fceb2d00$53c7e4cd@dave> From: "Dave" To: "T2K" Subject: T2K Version 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:54:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1C36.B17689A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-twilight2000@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM Reply-To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1C36.B17689A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anyone know I could get my hands on a complete box of T2K Version 1.0 Mine has slowly disappeared and I would like to get another fukll = copy if possible. Thanks Dave - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1C36.B17689A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anyone know I could get my hands on = a complete=20 box of T2K Version 1.0 Mine has slowly = disappeared and I=20 would like to get another fukll copy if possible. Thanks Dave - ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BE1C36.B17689A0-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. - --WebTV-Mail-184695469-859-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 07:39:11 -0600 From: "Dave" Subject: Re: T2K Version 1.0 I appreciate it Rob, I will give them a call later today! Dave *************************************************************************** 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 #57 ************************************