twilight2000-digest Tuesday, October 19 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 071 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia [T2K]:Modivational tactics Re: [T2K]:Modivational tactics Re: [T2K]:Modivational tactics [Fwd: Fw:] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:37:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia > >In the case of nuked out craters that were once industrial centers, with > >little or no command left controling the fragments of what were their > >collective forces. Supplies become very important....he who has the most > >ammo wins. Several battle in WWII were won due to supply, in some extreme > >cases, literally, whoever run out of shells or bullets first. > > > >In the context of the game and area, those with the best production and > >numbers will win...it's only a matter of time. If someone with inferior > >numbers but good arty is around, it goes back to supply :) > > > It's only true in long, drawn-out wars that logistics win. In a short > conflict, a single battle decided by chance can turn the whole war. And > anything in a the post-Holocaust world could quite probably be short, since > the forces involved are small and the ability to support them for long > periods is also small, while the ability to manufacture new weapons is > practically nil. > Not necessarily, if you have little fuel to run your armor and you face well supplied armor, you are in trouble. If you face arty, the same. If you face 100 brigands armed with only 30 shots a piece, and you have 20 well trained men with a mortar and a forward observer....supplies count big time, no matter what battlefield you play on. Think lack of food, medical suppliies, etc. We are talking about fairly large forces here, maybe not by today's standards, but by t2k. Large. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 03:09:35 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia At 11:37 PM 10/6/99 -0700, Ray Wiberg wrote: >> >In the case of nuked out craters that were once industrial centers, with >> >little or no command left controling the fragments of what were their >> >collective forces. Supplies become very important....he who has the most >> >ammo wins. Several battle in WWII were won due to supply, in some extreme >> >cases, literally, whoever run out of shells or bullets first. >> > >> >In the context of the game and area, those with the best production and >> >numbers will win...it's only a matter of time. If someone with inferior >> >numbers but good arty is around, it goes back to supply :) >> > >> It's only true in long, drawn-out wars that logistics win. In a short >> conflict, a single battle decided by chance can turn the whole war. And >> anything in a the post-Holocaust world could quite probably be short, since >> the forces involved are small and the ability to support them for long >> periods is also small, while the ability to manufacture new weapons is >> practically nil. >> >Not necessarily, if you have little fuel to run your armor and you face >well supplied armor, you are in trouble. If you face arty, the same. If >you face 100 brigands armed with only 30 shots a piece, and you have 20 >well trained men with a mortar and a forward observer....supplies count >big time, no matter what battlefield you play on. > >Think lack of food, medical suppliies, etc. We are talking about fairly >large forces here, maybe not by today's standards, but by t2k. Large. > These things--none of them--matter in a short conflict. You don't even think about fighting until you've stored up enough for a battle or two--and even the poorest country can do that. It's having enough for the next battle that's always the problem. If you want some examples of this, look at what happened early in World War II: the Japanese and Germans ran all over the place, as long as their pre-war stocks were intact. Once those ran out, they were on the defensive--but it took months. At any rate, it's wrong ever to try to explain everything about a complex phenomenon like war by looking at only one factor. It's dangerously simplistic to believe that logistics is the be-all and end-all of warfare. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:31:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia > phenomenon like war by looking at only one factor. It's dangerously > simplistic to believe that logistics is the be-all and end-all of warfare. > > Scott Orr A war is a long tem series of battles, not a short conflict. Of course there are many factors. Supply is an important, as is luck, tech, and the size, training, and organization...that's obvious. When I said logistics wins wars, I meant it, but I didn't say there weren't other factors. I just didn't feel like going over them all, and typing as much as I just did over the last couple hours on a subject. Unless the battle for the margavate isn't going to be a series of struggles between scrounged up armies fighting with whatever they can get their hands on...then your right. The best armed troops have a significant edge. As well as do those who have the best production, and therefore better ammo, etc, etc. We can go on all night. Just what do you envision the battle to be like? 2 short minor conflicts? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:20:08 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia At 12:31 AM 10/7/99 -0700, Ray Wiberg wrote: >> phenomenon like war by looking at only one factor. It's dangerously >> simplistic to believe that logistics is the be-all and end-all of warfare. >> >A war is a long tem series of battles, not a short conflict. World War II was, and a few more have been. Many, many wars have been essentially one battle--and this was especially true in times like the Middle Ages when you had one little principality fighting another. The world of Twilight: 2000 is a lot more like the Middle Ages than it is like the middle of the 20th century. First off, neither of these little "states" has the resources to keep an army in the field for an extended period of time--so neither is likely to commit to a war that requires long-term combat. (Or to put it another way, logistics defeats both combatants). Second, the logistical factors that are important to modern warfare don't really apply here: the main needs are for food and for ammunition. Food can be obtained locally (since you're talking about small armies anyway), which means an army in hostile territory (or indeed, friendly territory) can go back to the historical practice of living off the land. Ammunition is slightly more problematic, but aside from the high-tech rounds, it's easy to make and not really that expensive--and to an extent, you can even get ammo from the local populace as well. Other supplies aren't really crucial: either they're not needed in large quantities (like fuel), or they simply can't be replaced (like armored vehicles). Third, we're talking about tiny "countries" here: one the advance and retreat after a single battle could well leave one of the states in control of the other one, because there's not much geographical territory at issue here. It's of course more probable they may fight over something less than total victory--like, say, a mine or factory somewhere between the two cities. But if that happens, the first factor above (no one's going to be willing to commit to a long war) comes into play. You might get sporadic raiding that goes on for some time, but that doesn't burn up huge numbers of supplies--at that point it might become a matter of logistics of a sort (who can afford to pay more soldiers to occupy a far outpost), but still, one quick battle could cripple one force and leave it unable to contest the objective for some time, giving the other side time to move in settlers and consolidate the area. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 08:21:14 PDT From: "matthew henley" Subject: Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia on the subject of long term vrs short term fight. remember that in the game we have bascley taken sevral steps back in time, so the consept of a fighting season would probley be in full efect. this means that if (a) you send your army(probley a large part of your man power pool)dring the early spring or lat fall then thay arn't around to help with the planting or the harvest and(b)fighting dering the winter is going to be almost imposbal becous every body is going to be hold up hoping there food suplys last till spring. so what ever you do you have to do it fast. >From: Ray Wiberg >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >Subject: Re: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:31:04 -0700 (PDT) > > > phenomenon like war by looking at only one factor. It's dangerously > > simplistic to believe that logistics is the be-all and end-all of >warfare. > > > > Scott Orr >A war is a long tem series of battles, not a short conflict. Of course >there are many factors. Supply is an important, as is luck, tech, and the >size, training, and organization...that's obvious. When I said logistics >wins wars, I meant it, but I didn't say there weren't other factors. I >just didn't feel like going over them all, and typing as much as I just >did over the last couple hours on a subject. > >Unless the battle for the margavate isn't going to be a series of >struggles between scrounged up armies fighting with whatever they can get >their hands on...then your right. The best armed troops have a significant >edge. As well as do those who have the best production, and therefore >better ammo, etc, etc. > >We can go on all night. > >Just what do you envision the battle to be like? 2 short minor conflicts? > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:19:37 +0200 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathias_K=F6ppen?=" Subject: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia >Yes, but supplies don't win wars, Troops do. American troops are very >good but the technical hardware makes them even better. There are only 4 >things that can beat the american soldier. > >1) American bureaucracy - like Vietnam. >2) Ego - Our troops are not John Wayne/supermen/etc but this spoon fed to > them every day in the military >3) Numbers - The lack of size of our military/the size of others (#1 >example is China) >4) In T2K, the fact that the US is no longer supporting them in the fine >(LOL) American manner they are accustom to. I'd like to add a point or two here: 5) Well trained and well motivated guerilla troops, with area knowledge. This type of "army" can beat almost anything a modern army can throw at them. 6) Public opinion (not in T2K though...). Mathias Köppen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 17:31:26 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia At 02:19 PM 10/8/99 +0200, Mathias Köppen wrote: > >>Yes, but supplies don't win wars, Troops do. American troops are very >>good but the technical hardware makes them even better. There are only 4 >>things that can beat the american soldier. >> >>1) American bureaucracy - like Vietnam. >>2) Ego - Our troops are not John Wayne/supermen/etc but this spoon fed to >> them every day in the military >>3) Numbers - The lack of size of our military/the size of others (#1 >>example is China) >>4) In T2K, the fact that the US is no longer supporting them in the fine >>(LOL) American manner they are accustom to. > > >I'd like to add a point or two here: > >5) Well trained and well motivated guerilla troops, with area knowledge. This type of "army" can beat almost anything a modern army can throw at them. >6) Public opinion (not in T2K though...). > Public opinion always matters. :) If the peasants are restless and think they're wasting their produce and sons on reckless military adventures, taxable produce starts to disappear, kids slink away from military service, and stuff like that.... Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 18:11:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia > >>Yes, but supplies don't win wars, Troops do. True but poorly supplied troops are crappy opponents. Not to mention that troops without decent supplies can't really win a war. Supplies don't have to be high tech equipment.Guerilla troops are included in this. If the Guerillas have hardly any ammo or explosives...or even a network of distribution...they are screwed. Logistics n. 1: A branch of military science that deals with the transportation, quartering, and supplying of troops in military operations. 2.: the handling of the details of an operation. If you can't house, equip, or feed your troops well...you are screwed. I still say those with the best line of support will have a significant advantage. "Logistics wins wars" still stands...without it, you can't. This does not mean there are not other factors. As I have said already. American troops are very > >>good but the technical hardware makes them even better. There are only 4 > >>things that can beat the american soldier. > >> > >>1) American bureaucracy - like Vietnam. See both logisitics, and below Guerilla. > >>2) Ego - Our troops are not John Wayne/supermen/etc but this spoon fed to > >> them every day in the military > >>3) Numbers - The lack of size of our military/the size of others (#1 > >>example is China) This is true to a point. I read at CNN.com military anylysts' reports concerning Taiwan's ability to defend itself versus the Chines Army. It was predicted that in the taking of the island or it's attempt, the Chinese would sffer heinous casualties, and in all likelyhood, would not be able to take it. This was due to two major facts. Chines equipment is outdated, and Taiwan has been preparing for the fight for years. Even the Chinese can't win em all. Also...in the late sixties at the northern border between China and the USSR there were a few battles. The Chinese had better numbers but lost due to the armor and support the Soviets had. > >>4) In T2K, the fact that the US is no longer supporting them in the fine > >>(LOL) American manner they are accustom to. Which brings you back to my point about support breakdown and nuked out industrial centers. > > > >I'd like to add a point or two here: > > > >5) Well trained and well motivated guerilla troops, with area knowledge. > This type of "army" can beat almost anything a modern army can throw at them. Not always. Well...it depends on what trained means. Sure, in Afghanistan and Vietnam this was true. In Africa many times this has not mattered. Partisan activites againt the Germans during WWII did not really have much success other than intelligence gathering and some assassinations, they did not drive their occupiers out. It took the allied armies to do this. > >6) Public opinion (not in T2K though...). > > > Public opinion always matters. :) If the peasants are restless and think > they're wasting their produce and sons on reckless military adventures, > taxable produce starts to disappear, kids slink away from military service, > and stuff like that.... > There are exceptions to every rule. Next time Scott, I'll try not to make a sweeping generalization, but I wasn't expecting a public forum on it ;) Ray *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 22:50:19 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia At 06:11 PM 10/8/99 -0700, Ray Wiberg wrote: >This is true to a point. I read at CNN.com military anylysts' reports >concerning Taiwan's ability to defend itself versus the Chines Army. It >was predicted that in the taking of the island or it's attempt, the >Chinese would sffer heinous casualties, and in all likelyhood, would not >be able to take it. This was due to two major facts. Chines equipment is >outdated, and Taiwan has been preparing for the fight for years. The main Chinese problem in taking Taiwan is that the Chinese lack any significant amphibious warfare capability. This, of course, has nothing to do with Twilight: 2000. The importance of logistics is something that began a few hundred years ago, with the development of nation-states and the large armies they spawned. It hasn't always been true, and it probably wouldn't be true in the world of TW2000. >> >6) Public opinion (not in T2K though...). >> > >> Public opinion always matters. :) If the peasants are restless and think >> they're wasting their produce and sons on reckless military adventures, >> taxable produce starts to disappear, kids slink away from military service, >> and stuff like that.... > >There are exceptions to every rule. This isn't an exception: this is an important thing that's always been true. Public opinion is a factor even in feudal baronies and dictatorships. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:49:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia > The main Chinese problem in taking Taiwan is that the Chinese lack any > significant amphibious warfare capability. > > This, of course, has nothing to do with Twilight: 2000. I am simply following the lead of other examples, and the past few emails have drifted from the orginal post...I was merely replying to them. The importance of > logistics is something that began a few hundred years ago, Actually I imagine them as far back as the first legions, or maybe even the Persian army of Xerses. Even in the chaotic and primitive dark ages, you still had to keep your men fed and housed. Make sure your archers had arrows or qurrels, etc. I readily admit this was usually done at the expense of the poor serfs (like everything else in the end). I agree that t2k is alot more feudal in nature. Wars are not things of years but a series of several battles fought over some prize usually having to do with resources...I'm with ya. I just think production, supply, and shelter are really important. with the > development of nation-states and the large armies they spawned. It hasn't > always been true, and it probably wouldn't be true in the world of TW2000. For the French it is...for any army food, ammo, and housing are important. Whether it's 100 or 100,000 men > >> >6) Public opinion (not in T2K though...). > >> > > >> Public opinion always matters. :) If the peasants are restless and think > >> they're wasting their produce and sons on reckless military adventures, > >> taxable produce starts to disappear, kids slink away from military service, > >> and stuff like that.... > > > >There are exceptions to every rule. > I meant this as the saying only...it was not meant to be applied to your public opinion bit. It merely came at the end. Public Opinion is super important in today's world. The opinion of the serfs the Middle Ages wasn't (or some areas of t2k possibly) always so important. > This isn't an exception: this is an important thing that's always been > true. Public opinion is a factor even in feudal baronies and dictatorships. Before you even bother writing out a rebuttal. I agree with you. :) Ray aka Jack Frost *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 03:34:00 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia At 10:49 PM 10/8/99 -0700, Ray Wiberg wrote: >> The main Chinese problem in taking Taiwan is that the Chinese lack any >> significant amphibious warfare capability. >> >> This, of course, has nothing to do with Twilight: 2000. > >I am simply following the lead of other examples, and the past few emails >have drifted from the orginal post...I was merely replying to them. > > The importance of >> logistics is something that began a few hundred years ago, > >Actually I imagine them as far back as the first legions, or maybe even >the Persian army of Xerses. Even in the chaotic and primitive dark ages, >you still had to keep your men fed and housed. Make sure your archers had >arrows or qurrels, etc. I readily admit this was usually done at the >expense of the poor serfs (like everything else in the end). I agree that >t2k is alot more feudal in nature. Wars are not things of years but a >series of several battles fought over some prize usually having to do with >resources...I'm with ya. I just think production, supply, and shelter are >really important. For soldiers to _live_ (so long as you're talking about professional soldiers and not militias or levees), supplies have always been important. But this isn't the same thing as the modern notion of logistics, which refers to moving supplies to the front and keeping an army supplied in the field. This just wasn't a concern before a few hundred years ago: armies didn't take food with them most time, but rather foraged as they went. In fact, a lot of times they weren't even "paid" in the traditional sense (or were paid very little), and they were expected to be compensated with booty taken from their enemies. For pre-modern armies, once an army was in the field, logistics wasn't that big a concern, even for food (at least, not in the sense of moving supplies from the home base to the front--getting ahold of enough food was always a problem), and of course ammo was never a concern (for the few weapons that needed it, soldiers made their own, nor was replacing or repairing equipment (most equipment was easily repaired, and there was simply no way to replace it in the unlikely event it got lost). Even back home, most soldiers weren't professional, but rather part-time: "logistics" was often handled by giving soldiers land and letting them feed themselves. In a sense, then, how powerful your force would be depended, not on logistical skill, but on making sure that all your soldiers showed up for battle. Even in the modern era, where logistics is critical, I wouldn't want to overemphasize its importance: the saying "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics" is something I've heard many times, but I've never heard it from a professional soldier. Professional soldiers do in fact spend a great deal of time studying strategy and tactics, and good strategy and tactics can influence not only an individual battle but the course of an entire war. You do have cases like World War II, where the U.S. had such a tremendous economic capability that once it got rolling, the other side had virtually no chance--but that's the exception, not the rule. To take a counterexample, the U.S. very nearly lost the Korean War, despite its logistical advantage, because the other side skillfully executed a surprise attack. And later in the war, when the Chinese attacked, the UN forces very nearly fell apart, despite good logistics, because (aside from the U.S. Marines) they weren't trained in tactics suitable to fighting the Chinese. > > >>with the >> development of nation-states and the large armies they spawned. It hasn't >> always been true, and it probably wouldn't be true in the world of TW2000. > >For the French it is...for any army food, ammo, and housing are important. >Whether it's 100 or 100,000 men > I suspect that even the French don't have much capability of supplying troops at a large distance from their home bases, but I think you're right that they'd come closest. In any case, we were talking about southern Poland, in the heart of the war zone. >> >> >6) Public opinion (not in T2K though...). >> >> > >> >> Public opinion always matters. :) If the peasants are restless and think >> >> they're wasting their produce and sons on reckless military adventures, >> >> taxable produce starts to disappear, kids slink away from military service, >> >> and stuff like that.... >> > >> >There are exceptions to every rule. >> > >I meant this as the saying only...it was not meant to be applied to your >public opinion bit. It merely came at the end. Public Opinion is super >important in today's world. The opinion of the serfs the Middle Ages >wasn't (or some areas of t2k possibly) always so important. > Ah, okay, I wasn't sure which statement that applied to. You'd be surprised though how important the peasants are: they're downtrodden, and their opinions don't matter most of the time, but they have a lot of ways of sabotaging things, and there's always that fear that if you treat them _too_ bad you're going to get a peasant revolt. A guy named James Scott wrote a book about this called Weapons of the Weak. >> This isn't an exception: this is an important thing that's always been >> true. Public opinion is a factor even in feudal baronies and dictatorships. > >Before you even bother writing out a rebuttal. I agree with you. > >:) > Rats! Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 03:19:50 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia Well, this has become an interesting debate on the importance of logistics and public opinion. However, just to take a quick stab at the original question, I don't think either the Free City of Krakow or the Margravate of Silesia have the strength to totally defeat the other in a war, barring some total incompetence on the part of their leaders or outside influence by someone like the Russians or Czechs. However, in a relatively small-scale battle, like the sort either side would be able to initiate in Twilight:2000, the outcome of the battle would be more a question of tactics. Clearly, logistics and public support would be critical to a longer term effort, but I don't see those two forces fighting anything resembling a "conventional" war. Skirmishes and raids, with possibly one or two larger battles to seize key objectives, but that's about it. Part of the point of having such powers in the Twilight:2000 setting is to give the PCs something to get involved with. If one side or the other was clearly dominant, it wouldn't be as interesting a situation to adventure in. On the subject of logistics and such, I recommend reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". It abounds with advice that applies very nicely to a Twilight:2000 setting (warlords, limited supply, etc). It also provides evidence that some of these issues were of vital concern to ancient military operations, not just a phenomena of the last few hundred years. - -Rob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 10:29:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: SV: [T2K] Re: Free City of Krakow vs The Margravate of Silesia > On the subject of logistics and such, I recommend reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of > War". It abounds with advice that applies very nicely to a Twilight:2000 setting > (warlords, limited supply, etc). It also provides evidence that some of these > issues were of vital concern to ancient military operations, not just a phenomena > of the last few hundred years. > I own it and many others. :) In fact a great book to look at Feudal lifestyle as well and dark ages "logistics" is "Daily Life in the World of Charlamagne". Which deals in part with how troops got their food and moved during warfare. It's just a good read in general and takes you quickly to a back to basics look at life. Prost, Ray *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:54:51 EDT From: REBEL P ENGLISH Subject: [T2K]:Modivational tactics The other day I rented a video game For N64 called Army Men: Sarge's Heros. If you want to get phyched for Twilight2K give it a try! A Must!! Warning: a hardcore gamer has arrived.... But I'm not Spooky... ...Yet! ? Rebel P.E. Esq. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:22:02 -0400 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: [T2K]:Modivational tactics i agree. don't let the name fool you. it is not too bad a game for combat. there is army men air war or something similar coming out soon too. aaron > The other day I rented a video game For N64 called Army Men: Sarge's > Heros. > > If you want to get phyched for Twilight2K give it a try! A Must!! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:19:06 EDT From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: Re: [T2K]:Modivational tactics If you want a really cool game to psyche you up for T2K. Try "Warzone: 2100" for the Playstation. There is also a PC version. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:59:32 -0600 From: Jim Subject: [Fwd: Fw:] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------502C9CAC44B30C91BD1C8B3B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - --------------502C9CAC44B30C91BD1C8B3B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <380D254F.A33EEE57@dmea.net> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:13:35 -0600 From: Jim Organization: none X-Mozilla-Draft-Info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; uuencode=0; html=0; linewidth=0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VWDragon , Sue Mundy , Steve and JoAnne Batman , Lori DOCKERY , Kelly and Janette Goodwin , Judy Ball , Jon and Alicia Miracle , John Mundy , Jill Baker , Jeff and Lonetta Patterson , Gynetta McLean , Gwen Treat , Frank Jones , David Stiles , Dave and Diann , bear@dmea.net, Barry McCutchan Subject: Fw: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >Looks like Hanoi Jane may be honored as one of the "100 > >> >Women of the Century". JANE FONDA remembered? Unfortunately > >> >many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how > >> >Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our "country" but the men > >> >who served and sacrificed during Vietnam. > >> > > >> >There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Jane > >> >Fonda's participation in what I believe to be blatant treason, is > >> >one of them. Part of my conviction comes from exposure to those who > >> >suffered her attentions. The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. > >> >The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1978, the > >> >Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a former POW in Ho Lo > >> >Prison-the "Hanoi Hilton". > >> > > >> >Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in > >> >clean PJs, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American "Peace > >> >Activist" the "lenient and humane treatment" he'd received. He spat > >> >at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and dragged away. During the subsequent > >> >beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant's feet, > >> >accidentally pulling the man's shoe off-which sent that officer berserk. > >> > > >> >In '78, the AF Col still suffered from double vision (which > >> >permanently ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col's frenzied > >> >application of wooden baton. > >> > > >> >From 1983-85, Col Larry Carrigan was the 347FW/DO (F-4Es). > >> >He spent 6 years in the "Hilton"-the first three of which he was > >> >"missing in action". His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. > > His > >> >group, too, got the cleaned/fed/clothed routine in preparation for a > >"peace > >> >delegation" visit. They, however, had time and devised a plan to > >> >get word to the world that they still survived. Each man secreted a > >> >tiny piece of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When > >> >paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, > >> >shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: > >> >"Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the > >> >humane treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this HAD > >> >to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took > >> >them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once > >> >the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she > >> >turned to the officer in charge...and handed him the little pile. > >> > > >> >Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col Carrigan was > >> >almost number four. For years after their release, a group of > >> >determined former POWs Including Col Carrigan, tried to bring Ms. > >> >Fonda and others up on charges of treason. I don't know that they > >> >used it, but the charge of "Negligent Homicide due to Depraved > >> >Indifference" would also seem appropriate. Her obvious "granting of > >> >aid and comfort to the enemy", alone, should've been sufficient for > >> >the treason count. However, to date, Jane Fonda has never been formally > >> >charged with anything and continues to enjoy the privileged life of > >> >the rich and famous. I, personally, think that this is shame on us, the > >> >American Citizenry. Part of our shortfall is ignorance: most don't > >> >know such actions ever took place. Thought you might appreciate the > >> >knowledge. Most of you've probably already seen this by now... > >> >only addition I might add to these sentiments is to remember the > >> >satisfaction of relieving myself into the urinal at some airbase or > >> >another where "zaps" of Hanoi Jane's face had been applied. > >> > > >> >To whom it may concern: > >> > > >> >I was a civilian economic development advisor in Viet Nam, and was > >> >captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Viet Nam in > >> >1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary > >> >confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a > >> >"black box" in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately > >> >poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium > >> >in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the > >> >Cambodian border. At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. > >> >(My normal weight is 170 lbs.) We were Jane Fonda's "war > >> >criminals." > >> > > >> >When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp > >> >communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane > >Fonda. I > >> >said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs > >were > >> >receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by > >> >the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and > >> >lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my > >knees > >> >with outstretched arms with a piece of steel placed on my hands, and > >> >beaten with a bamboo cane every time my arms dipped. > >> > > >> >I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours > >> >after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me > >on > >> >TV. She did not answer me, her former husband, Tom Hayden, answered for > >> >her. She was mind controlled by her husband. This does not > >> >exemplify someone who should be honored as "100 Years of Great Women." > >> > > >> >After I was released, I was asked what I thought of Jane Fonda and > >> >the anti-war movement. I said that I held Joan Baez's husband in very > >> >high regard, for he thought the war was wrong, burned his draft card and > >> >went to prison in protest. If the other anti-war protesters took this > >> >same route, it would have brought our judicial system to a halt and > >ended the > >> >war much earlier, and there wouldn't be as many on that somber black > >> >granite wall called the Vietnam Memorial. This is democracy. This is > >> >the American way. > >> > > >> >Jane Fonda, on the other hand, chose to be a traitor, and went to Hanoi, > >> >wore their uniform, propagandized for the communists, and urged > >> >American soldiers to desert. As we were being tortured, and some of > >> >the POWs murdered, she called us liars. After her heroes-the North > >> >Vietnamese communists-took over South Vietnam, they systematically > >> >murdered 80,000 South Vietnamese political prisoners. May their > >> >souls rest on her head forever. Shame! Shame! ( History is a heavy > >> >sword in the hands of those who refuse to forget it. Think of this the > >> >next time you see Ms. Fonda-Turner at a Braves game). > >> > > >> >Please take the time to read and forward to as many people as you > >> >possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she > >> >needs to know that "we will never forget". Lest we forget..."100 years > >> >of great women" Jane Fonda should never be considered. > > > > > > > - --------------502C9CAC44B30C91BD1C8B3B-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #71 ************************************