twilight2000-digest Monday, March 6 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 118 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: new timeline Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Vote for your favorite RPG Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: response(Starvation) Game Settings (Red Dawn) Australis Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 01:15:39 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 09:44 PM 3/5/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >Red Dawn was a nuclear war! > It was? I don't remember 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 01:16:30 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 09:47 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Jesse LaBranche wrote: >> > Just an added point though, because I do get the feeling that you'll >all >> >blow the above question out of the water... How would YOU go about >> >explaining the situation in Red Dawn in such a way that you would not be >> >able to blow it out of the water just as easily? > >> I wouldn't. :) I just can't imagine anything plausible. And even >_trying_ >> something like that would risk a nuclear war. >> Scott Orr > > Thus, you would have the same problem no matter how they attempted to >create/explain such a scenario and thus either it should not have been done >in the first place, or no attempt at reality should have been made? >Not picking, just asking. > Well something more like Red Star/Lone Star, with a lot that goes on beforehand, I could maybe believe--but I can't think of any sort of surprise attack that would work. 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 01:19:19 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 09:53 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Jesse LaBranche wrote: > Wasn't the premise involved in that movie something along the lines of >Europe >already being engaged in war or something like that? (It has been awhile >since >I saw it). > As far as I can remember, the only premise was that the Soviets suddenly invaded--I don't recall there being any reason mentioned or even hearing Europe mentioned. But I could be misremembering--it was a long time ago that I saw it. 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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:25:17 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) The pilot told the kids the russians nucked the silos in the dakota.. I guess that makes it a nuclear war. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:24:19 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) - -----Original Message----- From: Jesse LaBranche To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Monday, 6 March 2000 4:53 Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) >> Isn't it terrible when someone asks you to put your money where your >> mouth is? > >Heh. something that I think I am doing much more of these days it would >seem. >A couple of questions/problems... > >> Campaign setting - Teenage Freedom Fighters! >> A hostile country decides to annex a small island country on which a >> university campus resides. Rather than relive Grenada, the US sends in the >> diplomats to sort it out - but the students have fled into the hinterlands >> after the first acts of unbelievable cruelty. > Any specific regions come to mind while you were writing this? Also, >what would you consider the reasoning for the "unbelievable cruelty" in >this scenario? Not really, you could put it anywhere but Asia and South America leap to mind. Africa is good one too. Hopefully it should be hard for the kids home country to stage an attack into, to give emphasis on the diplomacy stage (you could have radio broadcasts picked up by the kids detailing the progress of the talks). I'm not into upsetting too many sensibilities on the net if I can avoid it so you guys must be able to think of a few places near your resident bad guys. A couple of heavy atrocities to harden the kids against the enemy and maybe provide a nemesis (a must!) is always a good idea although a bit cliche'd. Maybe the CO on the ground is a sicko or it's just badly trained and disciplined troops. Anything to show them that sticking around is a bad idea. If the fumblingly manage to kill a soldier in a case of self defence while resistors are being shot in the streets should show them the logic of headin' for the hills! >> The island should be heavily populated and have a good relationship >with >> the kids facility, if the campus operated a clinic (provides an NPC doctor >> and medical training) the populace may well hide the kids activities. > > The clinic makes a lot of sense to me. Are you suggesting the high >populace so that it will be more difficult to figure out who is missing by >taking >a head count or for some other reason/s that I'm missing? Also, if the population is low they are likely to be placed under a lot of restrictions, even placed into camps (although this will happen to some anyway!) then they're no good for the local support that guerrilla's rely on. >> The invaders should be of a different ethnic type to the island >> populace. > Apparently for the purposes of helping the kids choose their targets >more easily? yep, let's give them a break! It can also be used for good effect if you want to pull a betrayal, as they're used to shooting ethinic type x and don't expect ethnic type y to put them in to the bad guys. >> The campaign would be short, but when you're dead it was long enough! >> The kids should have some sort of special intel that they should try >to >> get to the outside world, if the invaders know this they can step up their >> efforts to eliminate the group. > Lol. No concept that maybe if they are able to hold off long enough >either >a) Another military will be able to render aid, or b) They'll be able to get >merc >type help from elsewhere? Actually, I'm assuming that the US will pull the bacon out of the fire. If it's an island the US will get sick of playing the diplomatic game and sail a tassk force up to it. The merc idea is a good one though, I hadn't thought of that. It would make a good campaign in it's own right. >> Possible variation. >> A tourist resort is good for this, they are often islands. Perhaps the >> mainland nation discovers a previously unavailable resource and sends in >the >> troops. > On this note, what would be the purpose of a fight by the locals though? If the bad guys are fundamentalists of some variety, you can push a lot of free thinking people to the wall very quickly. I mainly thought it would be an interesting twist that'd need a lot of development. > Also, in the same vein, doesn't an island seem to be a bit of a problem >as it >would be rather easy for a military group to "sweep" the island in a very >short >amount of time? Yep,if I've learned anything it's 'keep up the pressure'. Make 'em run from stronghold to hideout to safehouse etc. The enemy will slowly tighten his control over the island and the kids/mercs (I really like that idea!) have a harder and harder time. It stops being 'hit the enemy where it hurts' and becomes 'stay alive' until as they are running out of options, the US cavalry rides over the hill (well, hit's the beaches) and the nemesis, who like all good nemisis's has become fixated, makes one final effort to kill those damn kids! This results in a feverish denoument in some interesting location (jungle temple? shopping centre? somewhere cool) with good ol' nemesis showing his face as the kids try and pull once last mission (knock out missile battery etc) and you can wrap up the story. Jim *************************************************************************** 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, 6 Mar 2000 14:34:39 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Ok lets see what I can shed some light upon here... > Something else that always seems to bother me though is a > great deal of the things brought up in the Geneva Convention... > I have a lot of trouble with the concept that you're not allowed to > use weapons causing "undue pain and suffering". > On these lines, I recall that shotguns, glass, and frag weaponry > was generally off-limits. Yes you are right here, weapons here include things such as shotguns, flamers, rusty bayonets etc....On the bayonet side of things a bayonet may not have cerrated edges.....hence why they are now called combat knives, that convieniently fit onto a rifle. Fragmentation weapons are still useable under the convention. > What I keep wondering is what use are these types of regs and > why are they still part of the code? > I mean machineguns are used for clearing jungle...Shotguns to > get rid of snakes...Frags to scare off animals... > Is NBC warfare within, or outside, GC rules at this point? Ok now you get onto a very touchy subject...well at least for the Americans. NBC is actually outside of the laws set up in the Geneva Convention. However there are a few things to note.....If you have not signed the Geneva Convention then you are technically not bound by it. This applies to countries such as the USA. Yes you heard me right, the last time I checked the USA was not a signatree of the Geneva Convention. They do adhere to the convention to some extent but they have not signed it. Another point to note is that if a country that is a member of the Commonwealth (English) and that country becomes a republic, it has no longer signed the Geneva Convention. This was due to the fact that Britain signed the convention on behalf of the whole commonwealth. Once your no longer a member of the commonwealth then you are not bound by the conventions it has signed on you behalf. > Especially, if that conflict were "in my back yard". I guess I am > wondering what the current rulings are (if anyone knows) and what > everyone thinks of the individual rulings of the code. The exact rulings could in all reality be found somewhere on the net, I'm sure someone will have it floating around. However other than weapon restrictions it has a lot to do with the handling of prisoners and such. > Something like "I agree with it fully" or "It sucks" is of no real use > though. On a more T2kish note, how much do you think the code > would be followed during WW3? While people will argue, and I'm sure to be flamed for saying this, that the convention would have no bearing on anything the party does in the game I would disagree. The reason IMO is as follows; You treat your POW the same way you would like to be treated as a POW. This doesn't mean put them up in a luxury apartment etc...what it means is that you tend to their basic rights as a human being...those things being shelter, clothing, food, and medical. Why in hell would you do it like that you ask?. Well simple really...If you start torturing and treating your POW's like crap word gets around that you do....Then on that unfortunate day that you get caught, what do you think will happen to you...... As for the weapons part of the convention, you would be throwing that out of the window (IMHO of course)..Any weapon you can get to keep you alive is better than no weapon at all. Well there you go that's my 1 cent worth...I'd give you two cents but I'm being a tight arse today. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:34:51 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > Well something more like Red Star/Lone Star, with a lot that goes on > beforehand, I could maybe believe--but I can't think of any sort of > surprise attack that would work. > Scott Orr Fair enough. Using RS/LS as a basis, what would you suggest for a scenario such as Red Dawn? Would you use the basic premise of the movie setting it in Texas? Or address a situation specifically in Colorado? What kind of things would you do to actually make the campaign a bit more enduring than it would most likely be with a group of kids as shown in the movie, while still holding to the "flavor" of it? This is not actually directed at you Scott, I'm hoping to hear ideas from everyone- not just you ;-) Later. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:43:46 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: new timeline > It might be interesting if the list ran some sort of simulation of a > current day ww3-- using harpoon for naval and air battles and something > else for land. People on the list could roleplay the leaders of > countries. A sort of updated Axis and Allies but with something better > than two d6 for combat resolution. Then again this could take too long. > What do you all think? > It'd be interesting, but anything requiring everyone to buy the same game might be a little difficult. I know one game that would handle Company size battles was MBT, by Avalon Hill. It would be easier if someone digested down simple stats for units from T2K system, since we're all familiar with it. I'm sure someone has already done that or at least considered it for large-scale battles. And there seems to be enough research already down by those in the list to come up with a forces spec of the major nations. Anything too big would have to be very simplified, otherwise it becomes unwieldy. The best thing to do is keep it narrow to a single theatre, say Europe. Come up with some sort of resupply (there could be two games going, one to determine the battles in the Atlantic for NATO resupply.) Have someone playing presidents on NATO side, one on for non NATO sides, then each side with Theatre commanders, then maybe brigade commanders. The political leaders would decide when to fight, and maybe where ( what region Europe) and also when/how to send supply as well as the commitment of Nukes. The theatre commander would decide how to deploy his brigade commanders in that region, then the brigade commanders would decide how to commit their troops. One person would have to play God (or how'd you guys call HOG?) and determine the outcome of the battles. Perhaps he could also play non-aligned countries. (Doesn't it seem that large wars tend to cross the wrong borders sometimes?) I think it could be done, but take a lot of prep work first. It would need the full commitment of whoever is HOG, though the players can be replaced (and sometimes theatre commanders demoted while brigade commander is promoted. Hmmm....) The reason why I suggest Brigade instead of Division is that I think it would allow for a closer detailed game, while skipping the middleman of a divisional commander. That function could be on the Theatre commander. Just some of my ideas on that Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:46:21 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > At 09:53 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Jesse LaBranche wrote: > > > Wasn't the premise involved in that movie something along the lines of > >Europe > >already being engaged in war or something like that? (It has been awhile > >since > >I saw it). > > > As far as I can remember, the only premise was that the Soviets suddenly > invaded--I don't recall there being any reason mentioned or even hearing > Europe mentioned. But I could be misremembering--it was a long time ago > that I saw it. > > Scott Orr I don't remember exactly. I seem to recall that there was something going on in Europe, that's why we had no help from Allies. Also, I think the reason for the invasion was a bad harvest in Soviet Union. That's why the invasion took place in central US and California... That, and the old rule of divide and conquer (of course that also put the invaders into a two-front war) Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:45:34 +0100 From: "Carl Roger Nilsen" Subject: Vote for your favorite RPG This is a place to vote for your favorite RPG: http://www.freevote.com/booth/best_rpg (5 votes per day per IP) Last time I looked, Twilight 2000 had only 7 votes! Do you intend to lose this battle? Carl Roger Nilsen Sweetmorn, day 65 of Chaos, YOLD: 3166 (prowl) 0:03:13 (1) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:47:24 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) In response to MR. Orr's comments: My point is what good are legalities if one of the beligerents is not obiding by them.. It's against the laws of war to kill medics, but I recall our medics didn't wear red crosses because they made too goo a target. They also carried weapons "for the defense of their patients". It was illegal by laws of war to use shotguns, then why were they available for our forces... dual standards.. it wasn't the grunt that wrote the law, it was the politicians who had no idea what it was like in the trenches themselves. As to agrreing that it's something that you shouldn't do even to your enemy, does that include inceneration by napalm, or better yet a 1KT nuc. Yes laws are important, but the law of humanity is not taught in the service, it is something you learn as a child. In war you fight for survival, you back shoot the enemy if you get a chance, it's called an ambush for those of you not familiar with lands warfare, and you treat prisoners carefully... you tend there wounds, you feed the population, you treat them with respect if possible, but it's not the laws of war that make you do it. What keeps professional going is discipline, self discipline, and I have seen the professional "loose his cool". Why because he's human. Is revenge right, no, but it's a fact of life. As for officers.. most officers today are not warriors, they are "managers" and there is a BIG DIFFERENCE. ===== FORD Rangers! Lead the Way!!! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:55:53 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > China is a good choice for a bad guy (I never forgave them for Tienamin > square, shows doesn't it?). > They've got a way big army with enough nukes to dissuade the use of > nukes on our side (I'm assuming a pro-US Oz too) There's enough ethnic > chinese for rampant nationalism to alienate a decent sector of your > community to supply some 5th columnist's (communist fifth columnists?). If > they where to head an anti-US coalition and come into the west coast you > have a possible scenario, but there's no real foothold for basing and > resupply. Getting across the puddle is going to cost them everything as the > frightening US navy pulls the gloves off. Even if Mexico was supporting > their thrust (Canada wouldn't, I don't know much about Mexico so I'm giving > them the benefit of the doubt) and providing bases they're naval elements > aren't up to the task. > I think that the current situation has to change in a huge way before it > is remotely feasible to attack the CONUS with ground forces. (Manstien said > that about Russia too but Hitler didn't listen) > Jim > > *************************************************************************** I cannot see China mounting a large enough amphibious assault on the US, even without consideration of the US Navy. I have to interject one sort of funny here, about Canada. You do all know that Vancouver was on it's way to becoming New Hong Kong the few years preceding the hand over? But, considering the reasons why, I would say that China couldn't get in through there any more than they could start a fifth column here. Though there are loyalist Chinese students here, they are a minority of the Chinese community, many of which would hunt those loyalist down for any actions they might take against the US. Many ABCs either don't speak Chinese, or speak it badly (and are often looked down upon by mainland Chinese because of it; while at the same time the ABCs lookdown on the Mainlanders as poor hicks...) Most of those ABCs are of Cantonese, southern Chinese decent, while the official tongue of Mainland China is Mandarin. I see it as unlikely as any other scenario, and would require as many, or more, ducks being in row as the other scenarios. A more likely scenario would be an incursion by Mexico. Not quite a successful one, but still would qualify. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:57:42 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] well, i'm not going to try to argue a lot of this with you because you make some very well thought out points scott and i don't really have enough knowledge to know whether they're right or wrong (i'm sure in a lot of cases they are right). my point of taking the discussion down that tangent was to see what opposing viewpoints people would raise. thank you for providing some well thought out points. but as per the question of private industry being as able to fund the development of high technology as the govt, i'm of the opinion that the development process would have been a lot slower. one of the main problems with what we call free market capitalism that can usually only be addressed through monopolization or government subsidies (both taking the 'free' part out of the equation...a truly free market would self-destruct anyways) is the fashion in which the emphasis is placed on short-term profits over long term growth. without subsidies or the safety of a monopoly, there is absolutely no encouragement for a company to spend any more money than necessary on r&d. in fact, extra r&d spending in a competitive environment can make a company non-competitive and temporarily unprofitable to its shareholders. obviously, this sort of situation doesn't exist in the present high tech industries, whose whole eventual profitability stems from shareholders willingness across the board to take risks for a substantial return in the long term, but thirty to forty years ago, when the industries were in their infancy, this would have otherwise been a grave concern to the companies that, through govt subsidies, went on to develop all this "cool stuff". but for a present-day example of what i'm talking about, look at the big 3 automakers. if ford were to decide tomorrow that they were going to put most of their profits into developing hydrogen fuel cell technology (r&d spending on this currently accounts for just a tiny, tiny amount of their budget) so that MAYBE ten years from now they could market cars that run on that technology, their shareholders would rebel. because if ford were to embark on such an endeavour (whose success would be less than certain), they would lose much of their market share to chrysler and g.m., and wouldn't make any profits for their shareholders until atleast ten years from now. this is so, even though ten years from now we'd all be far better off because we would be driving non-polluting, hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars, and ford would have a leg up on chrysler and g.m. because this fuel cell technology would be proprietary, and eventually far cheaper than gasoline powered cars. this is why we have government subsidies, to ensure progress in what is otherwise very close to being a free market. same thing goes for colonizing mars. sure there is a huge short to midterm economic loss which makes it completely untenable from a free market capitalist standpoint. but in the long term, you have the possibility of huge resource deposits on mars to replace those being eaten up on earth, you have the very long term possibility of sending a large chunk of our population off to live there eventually, reducing population pressures here, and you have the development of new technologies that goes hand in hand with the continuing efforts to colonize and terraform mars. it's a huge moneypit, but maybe in the long run it could turn out to be the greatest thing the human species ever did. it's a roll of the die, just like most research in any sector. and somehow, eventually, there will have to be some sort of common ground forged between the short-term economic interests and in the long-term ones, so that we can move forward again. michael cook. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:22:18 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 10:08 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Jesse LaBranche wrote: > Something else that always seems to bother me though is a >great deal of the things brought up in the Geneva Convention... >I have a lot of trouble with the concept that you're not allowed to >use weapons causing "undue pain and suffering". > On these lines, I recall that shotguns, glass, and frag weaponry >was generally off-limits. > > What I keep wondering is what use are these types of regs and >why are they still part of the code? > I mean machineguns are used for clearing jungle...Shotguns to >get rid of snakes...Frags to scare off animals... The stuff on shotguns and using machine-guns on troops is kind of outdated. It's always struct me as a tad bizarre, and as far as I know no one seems to have taken it seriously. However, the issue has been raised again recently with the laser dazzle system (LDS), which is designd to blind a pilot--a weapon that's intended to maim rather than kill is considered inhumane (I think, because such weapons create a logistical and social mess, leaving problems that will stay around for decades). >Is NBC warfare within, or outside, GC rules at this point? > The _use_ of chemical weapons (and I assume biological weapons) was banned after WWI. Now, there's a treaty to ban manufacture and possession of them as well, but the U.S. Senate doesnt want to ratify it, for fear that some countries will have chemical programs that evade detection (why that would make it desirable for the U.S. to have such weapons, I don't know). 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:27:17 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 02:34 PM 3/6/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: >Ok now you get onto a very touchy subject...well at least for the Americans. >NBC is actually outside of the laws set up in the Geneva Convention. However >there are a few things to note.....If you have not signed the Geneva >Convention >then you are technically not bound by it. This applies to countries such as >the >USA. Yes you heard me right, the last time I checked the USA was not >a signatree of the Geneva Convention. They do adhere to the convention to >some extent but they have not signed it. Are you sure about this one? I know that many of the laws of war are binding whether or not you're a signatory (at least, crimes against humanity are)--but that may not apply to the Geneva Conventions. >Another point to note is that if a >country that is a member of the Commonwealth (English) and that country >becomes a republic, it has no longer signed the Geneva Convention. This was >due to the fact that Britain signed the convention on behalf of the whole >commonwealth. Once your no longer a member of the commonwealth then >you are not bound by the conventions it has signed on you behalf. One minor note--being a republic and being a member of the Commonwealth are not mutually exclusive. Canada and Australia still are legally constitutional monarchies, but other members of the Commonwealth, such as Nigeria, aren't. 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:29:38 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 10:34 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Jesse LaBranche wrote: >> Well something more like Red Star/Lone Star, with a lot that goes on >> beforehand, I could maybe believe--but I can't think of any sort of >> surprise attack that would work. >> Scott Orr > > Fair enough. Using RS/LS as a basis, what would you suggest for a >scenario such as Red Dawn? Would you use the basic premise of the >movie setting it in Texas? Or address a situation specifically in >Colorado? I don't see the Soviets having the airlift capability to pull a Red Dawn, especially not after the sh*t has already hit the fan like in RS/LS. I think RS/LS (especially something that has to use forces already in place) is your best bet. > What kind of things would you do to actually make the campaign a >bit more enduring than it would most likely be with a group of kids as >shown in the movie, while still holding to the "flavor" of it? Well, have them act like real guerillas. :) Emphasize that the most important thing is staying alive and in the field, and that hitting the enemy takes second priority. You can find lots of examples in history and in fiction to inspire specific missions. 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:45:00 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: response(Starvation) Also, Does anyone know if Australia has any nuclear reactors, where are they located, is this scenario possible there? Steve As far as I am aware there is only one nuclear plant in Australia, it is a small test reactor in the south of Sydney, It is very close to the coast but along way from any drinking water. It may be a problem for one of the local estuary's and the residential area's nearby but that's about it. Cheers Adam *************************************************************************** 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, 6 Mar 2000 16:19:17 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Game Settings (Red Dawn) Australis Hi All About 10 years ago my old group played through a similar scenario except it was Australia that was being attacked not the US, our characters were all around 17-18 just out of school. Most of our characters had been in a school cadet unit so knew how to use small arms and some heavey weaponry as well. The surmise was that it was a surprise attack on Sydney buy a combined Chinese-Indonesian force (2 Brigade of each roughly). 3 Brigades came ashore in our local area, and an airborne brigade dropped at strategic points around the city. Local forces caught by surprise are ordered to fall back to the mountains behind Sydney, whislt other forces amass in Wollongong and Newcastle (mostly army reserve). Our characters had been on a weekend exercise and were armed but only with a single magasine of live ammo each for their rifles (L1A1 SLR) we were immediately conscripted by the local military and became engaged in a running battle, in which we were eventually cutoff and disappeared into the populace. We proceeded to move back to our home area which was now close to a large supply dump. We holed up in some of the old WW2 fortifications on one of the headlands defending the harbour and waited for a couple of days. We managed to get in contact with Sydney HQ and were given basically suicide orders (or so we thought) to assault and destroy the supply dump. Using only player knowledge (and a science book) we set about making homemade grenades and raided the local Commando unit's HQ for additional weapons. Our inventory was - - 8 L1A1 SLR's - - 1 LAW - - 16 Homemade Grenades - - 16 Smoke Grenades - - 5km Manpack Radio - - Fireworks (Chinese Bungers) - - Long fuses for the fireworks - - 3 Chlorine Pipebombs We used the fireworks to divert attention away from the main group then we rushed in during the confusion and set about blowing up as much as possible, we lost two buddies to enemy fire and one because he tossed a grenade amongst some HE 155mm Rounds when he was two close. The remaining 5 ran for it, eventually linking backup with Australian forces north of the city. We were all between 17 and 19 when this was run and appart from some skills with firearms we only used what knowledge we had. All in all it was a good campaign to play. Cheers Adam *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:26:31 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) - --- Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > > >> after the first acts of unbelievable cruelty. in the case of a university, the students would likely be among the first to protest the invasion. a heavy handed invasion commander might just decided to put the demonstration down by force, or one of the invading soldiers that would be undoubtedly sent at the very least to contain the demonstration might make a mistake or panic or misunderstand orders or whatever, start shooting (ala national guard troops at kent state), and things just go out of control from there. or it could be a gradual increase in violence, from a few isolated incidents. in Red Storm Rising, soviet troops offloading equipment in reykjavic (sp?) harbour shoot a resident of the city (i can't remember why offhand). but even an incident like that could start a gradual escalation of events. > > Lol. No concept that maybe if they are able to > hold off long enough > >either > >a) Another military will be able to render aid, or > b) They'll be able to > get > >merc > >type help from elsewhere? > beyond that, the kids might simply be motivated by short term survival, if they've made the mistake of killing a few of the invasion troops in an altercation or whatever, and then panicked a run off into the center of the island. they think they'll be tortured and executed if they give themselves in, so they just keep running and fighting whenever necessary. eventually it might coalesce into something more, but the first bit would likely be influenced more by the necessity of survival than anything else. > > Also, in the same vein, doesn't an island seem > to be a bit of a problem > >as it > >would be rather easy for a military group to > "sweep" the island in a very > >short > >amount of time? > well, if the island was large enough, and the population spread out enough, then it would be easy enough for the military to control the territory, but not all the nooks and crannies, if you know what i mean. Also, if this invasion is part of a larger scale conflict, the invasion forces might not be terribly substantial, just enough to capture the island and pacify it for the short term. in Red Storm Rising, a similar situation happens on Iceland (only with air base personnel instead of university students). now, iceland's fairly big as far as islands go, but you could use some of the stuff in that section of the red storm rising plot as seed material for campaigns occuring on Dominica or Jamaica... or if you scaled down the forces lots of other islands in the caribbean or south pacific. jungle cover can obviously make it a lot easier for a guerrilla force to operate in, as can a mountainous center to the island. and the kids, if they've been at university there for more than a couple months are likely to be far better able to make use of the terrain than the invasion troops, know good hiding spots, etc, atleast right away. in lots of places, you have several islands close enough together that the kids could move between islands by small boat (under cover of night) or even, if they're in good enough physical shape and the currents are right, swim the distances. it's 2:30 am... there's probably more i can think of, but my brain's shot now. this is a really interesting idea we've got going here, something i'd never really considered before. it'll be interesting to see over the next few days how we develop it out. michael cook. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** 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 #118 *************************************