twilight2000-digest Monday, March 6 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 119 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Fortress America Re: Fortress America Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: u.s. defense spending [was 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: 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: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) SV: Game settings (Red Dawn) Geneva Convention Part 1/4 Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Vote for your favorite RPG Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:26:46 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Wow. Glad I decided not to drop the Red Dawn thing- this is getting good! Okay, paraphrasing and tightening up our little scenario a little bit here... Campaign- Teenage (Mutant :-) Freedom Fighters! Hostile country annexes small island nation that has a university campus on it. US sends in the politicians... Our island should be "politically entangled" enough that it would be a bit difficult for the US to just jump into, but not so much that an enemy could not invade. (Perhaps two protectorates, or something like that?) Now, the CO is not such a bad guy, but his "top" is a real dog- Psychotic and Sadistic. The nemesis who really runs the enemy army. Have the party as a group of friends. Maybe have a teacher, or someone fairly close to the characters kill one of the soldiers. The characters witness it and risk interrogation unless they head for the hills. Okay, the island is heavily populated and the University is heavily supported by the populace. It also has a clinic within it. Possibly give one of the PC's a Med score around 20 IF one chooses to be in some sort of doctorate program or what-not? > 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. Just as a side-note, this was in fact a major point that they brought out in Red Dawn as the father of 2 of the kids was in a detention center- the impromptu wire fence with a propaganda-style "movie theatre" for breaking morale. Okay, we want the invaders to be non-locals and want to see if we can't work in an NPC who will APPEAR to betray the group. This will throw them off and could be a real moral dilemma both when the betrayal becomes apparent, and later when it comes out in the wash where the intel REALLY came from. Should the group be able to hold off the enemy for "x" amount of time, or to really do some damage to them, we can bring in outside mercs to provide some training and supplies (great way to replace dead PCs too). Using the idea of "high pressure" we keep them running- and I really like your mix of stronghold, safehouse, and hideout, not just one- while the enemy slowly tightens the grip. A final confrontation with the "top dog" and his closer forces- maybe on the campus itself? Right back where it all begins would be a good place? Either a) the group is captured and awaits execution which is sure to be brutal and long, or b) they are about to be wholesale slaughtered by more troop arrivals when... US troops enter the scene to save the day, or not (Ref's call there). end scenario starter :-) Thoughts coming to my mind at this point are... 1.List suggestions on what would be good places to put such a scenario? Hawaiian islands with Middle-Eastern terrorists keeps striking my mind, but doesn't seem to "feel" right since right off the bat US intervention would be lightning fast. 2.The invaders. Should they be hired Mercs, Religious fanatics, or soldiers for some country? Whatever the case, do you think that "ethnic cleansing" might/should be a part of the scenario as well? I really like this so far. 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:34:39 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 10:47 PM 3/5/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >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. While I agree that they're not always applied, in most cases the laws of war, though made by politicians, are inspired by the experiences of real soldiers, and the horror that those experiences generated on the homefront. > >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. > The idea that you have to take prisoners or treat the population well is not some sort of universal human morality. If you look at the many cultures of the world throughout history, as a rule prisoners were only taken when they could be ransomed, and civilians were treated badly, used and abused for the advantage and at the whim of the military (sometimes even their own military). I think you actually have it backwards: the things you're talking about are taught to children precisely because they're the accepted laws of war today. >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. I think you'd have to get into an actual war to prove that one way or the other. 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 23:01:17 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Fortress America > > In a message dated 3/5/00 5:10:15 PM, baiya@geocities.com writes: > > << Actually, I was just asking if anyone else knew about the game. It was a > > decently fun game. Not as good as Axis and Allies, or even the Samurai game > > the produced (which has been re-released under a different name.) >> > > I used to have it. We didn't quite care for it. We thought it was drastically > unbalanced. > > -Billy Bob My original exposure to it, we had the same feeling. But think of it as USSR in Axis and Allies. America plays defencively, and holds out while giving up a few territories to consolidate defence further in. The early part of the game is to the invaders' advantage, the later part (if it gets the far) is to America. Later, after I got the game, my other group of friends liked it some. I have one friend who can find an imbalance in almost anything, often where none of us see it (even after he points it out and tries to explain it...) He liked the game. To me, that's enough to indicate that it's not that off balance. 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 23:04:27 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Fortress America > i found it nearly impossible to win as the invaders. i thought it had a > alot of promise till we played it. > > aaron > > > I used to have it. We didn't quite care for it. We thought it was > drastically > > unbalanced. > See, that was our deference. In my early group, it was too easy to win as the invaders. My later group only had difficulty as America if it was someone who didn't know to "hole-up." And even then, if the invaders played somewhat cooperatively, basically planned out sectors and stayed within their funnel, they could give the US player a big challenge. Again though, if they made it to the central or northern areas, they would start to fight over the big point territories. If the US player was still in somewhere, he might be able to mount up a reoffensive. 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 23:14:39 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > "Guerilla" usually refers to a style of warfare, using hit-and-run raids > rather than trying to take and hold territory; it also usually implies that > you're living off the land, making use of support from civilians, and so > on. The VC did all of these things, even if they had orders and supplies > from outside (just about all successful guerillas have some supplies from > outside). Well, I would think of guerilla being the person who carries out that type of warfare, hence the term "gurilla warfare." But I understand your point. So, there should still be a separate term, and a non-hostile one (I don't want to hear "terrorists",) to describe specifically untrained civilian fighters. > Actually, Green Berets are trained specifically to train guerillas. They > do other stuff as well (long-range recon, training counterinsurgency > forces, and other things), but that's one of their main missions. > > Scott Orr Exactly. Which takes us way back to me very early comment that the kids in Red Dawn, and probably US youth in general, were not like your run of the mill gurillas. I don't remeber if it was you, but someone kept hounding that guerillas are not trained, have training centres, what not. But, they often actually do. There was, often a outside government sympathetic to the guerillas cause, and so would send in "advisors." The base camps would be training facilities (maybe not like regular forces; Fort Benning, etc...) So, in actuallity, guerillas are much more trained than plain 'ol civilian Joe. They may not start out that way, but usually don't take long to get that going (or be decimated first...) And how often do we call a uprising that is decimated: Guerillas? They usually have to be on going to earn that monikor. 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 23:20:51 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > > > 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? > > > One NPC is required, a former serviceman (not a SpecFor please!) to > > provide rudimentary training. Ideally he should be sick or disabled early, > > perhaps in the initial breakout. > > Lol. First thing that came to my mind as soon as I read "One NPC is > required" was a Green Beret as they are trained to instruct partisan forces, > then the rest of your statement hit me :-) > Okay, something along the lines of an ex-military history teacher, > injured > in the initial breakout might work out pretty well though, eh? > Actually, a similar scenario is presented in the Spanish Main module. Can't remember the full title. The island had a Grenada style medical school, the students had been running clinics. One of the NPCs was a retired, I believe, Green Beret. The Players basically wash-up on shore of the island, to find a major portion of it under a stranded Cuban Battalion's control, plus some sort of civil was between the pre-existing government, and I think Marxists. There was also another island with a large pirate army forming. It's an interesting scenario, and would fit most of that bill. 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 23:33:03 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) I was once told that the way a lot of weapons, including Nukes, get around the Geneva Conventions' rules about causing severe harm, it that they are said to attack equipment, not personnel. Just because the poor sod gets blown away with his equipment is not a violation. There is one thing, which I learned in Hunter's Saftey... The military uses jacket ammo. Is supposed to. My understanding is that as a soldier, you'd get into a lot of trouble if you loaded an expanding round. The reason I was told, per the GC rules, is that the bullet isn't suppose to kill, but just wound. Of course, Police load expanding rounds, but are not suppose to kill either. Their reason is to minimize the chance of the round passing through and hitting a bystander. Anyhow, it was explained that you hurt a military more by wounding soldiers than by killing them. It requires men to pull the wounded back, you must supply medical care, which includes personnel and supplies. So much easier to just bury a dead guy, neh? 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, 06 Mar 2000 02:44:02 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] At 10:57 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: >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. Actually, this is what the patent system is all about. A company that invents something new is guaranteed to have sole access to it for a number of years. BTW, this isn't about being focused on the short-term--I think the question is whether or not a company that does research will get more benefit from its research than other companies that can just copy-cat it. >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". Oil companies, for example, have always taken a long-term approach--they often think several decades into the future. Why wouldnt a high-tech company in the 1950's do the same thing if it had to fend for itself? > >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. > Many analysts of the auto industry would point out to you that the Big Three automakers lost a huge portion of their market share to Japan in the 1970's precisely because they had slacked off on R&D spending--and that they could get away with it until then only because they had an oligopoly on the U.S. market (that is, most economists believe that monopolies and oligopolies _discourage_ innovation, not promote it). They were finally forced to innovate when competition was introduced--and none of this required government intervention. (And yes, Ford DOES think 10 years into the future--they may not spend ALL their R&D budget on alternative fuels, but they certainly spend a good chunk, in the expectation that they may not see results for another decade or more).) In fact, some of the analysis of Japan had indicated that, despite all you hear about state assistance to industry, the industries that have been most globally competitive (cars, electronics, etc.) have been those in which the largest number of firms have competed. >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. You have a better argument I think with colonizing Mars--there the benefits (if any) are so far in the future as to be unforseeable. The same is true of basic scientific research. But I don't think that's the case of the things that have revolutionized technology for the past 50 years. 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 02:47:17 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] At 10:57 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > >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. > One thing you're right about is that since Ford doesn't get _all_ the benefits of any new technology, even patents, then in theory they'll underinvest in R&D, not paying for as much as would be societally optimal. In theory, the goverment could fix this by paying for the R&D itself. However, the hitch is that there's no good way for the government (as opposed to the market) to predict what technologies will be valuable and what ones won't. This means that it's quite probable that the government effort is wasted, despite the theoretical possiblity of benefits. One possible compromise though is for the goverment to give tax credits (or whatever) for R&D in general, without specifying what it's used for. 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 15:45:33 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > 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. The laws of warfare are written by the same people who write history, the winners. That is, if the Axis countries won the war would their generals have been tried for warcrimes or seen as heros??? The problem with conventions is that they are just that conventions. Unfortunately as can you see from the Pinochet thing in England not all alleged war criminals are tried. Also you can really only be tried for war crimes if your counrty decides to let you be. > 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. This is true, but in the case of countries like Nigera, they were allowed back into the commonewealth by the English Head of State (from memory...correct me if I am wrong) Hence if Australia (seeing as we just went through this republican thing) became a republic, unless it asked for re-acceptance into the commonwealth, it would no longer be a member. The rest of the arguement is above re Geneva Convention. Apart from the nitty gritty about the convention would you agree with the previous statement in regards to how players may react in relation to the use of the laws? 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:54:05 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 11:20 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >Actually, a similar scenario is presented in the Spanish Main module. Can't >remember the full title. The island had a Grenada style medical school, the >students had been running clinics. The island was Grenada, actually. :) It was a good concept, but it's probably the worst of the TW2K modules I read--up to and including some rather inaccurate history of the Grenada invasion. 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 02:57:05 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 11:14 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >> Actually, Green Berets are trained specifically to train guerillas. They >> do other stuff as well (long-range recon, training counterinsurgency >> forces, and other things), but that's one of their main missions. > >Exactly. Which takes us way back to me very early comment that the kids in >Red Dawn, and probably US youth in general, were not like your run of the >mill gurillas. I don't remeber if it was you, but someone kept hounding >that guerillas are not trained, have training centres, what not. But, they >often actually do. There was, often a outside government sympathetic to the >guerillas cause, and so would send in "advisors." The base camps would be >training facilities (maybe not like regular forces; Fort Benning, etc...) >So, in actuallity, guerillas are much more trained than plain 'ol civilian >Joe. They may not start out that way, but usually don't take long to get >that going (or be decimated first...) And how often do we call a uprising >that is decimated: Guerillas? They usually have to be on going to earn >that monikor. > Yes, it was me. But in most cases guerillas aren't trained to begin with--they oftern get advisors later, but remember that guerilla warfare was invented long before guerilla warfare advisors were. :) In any case, many historical guerillas, despite knowing little at first, have shown considerably more sense than the kids in Red Dawn. If it was really supposed to be a movie about "heroes", I would expect it to depict guerillas who had a clue, rather than the dumb guerillas. My sense is it did the latter rather than the former because the people who wrote the script didn't know enough about the subject to know the difference. 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 15:57:15 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) I think the term you are looking for is Militia (unless or in the USA where the militia are formal units I think from what we see on the news here). Or you could even use the term GRUNT.... For the non-infantry people out there GRUNT originally stood for Ground Reinforcement UNTrained Ballistix > Well, I would think of guerilla being the person who carries out that type > of warfare, hence the term "gurilla warfare." But I understand your point. > So, there should still be a separate term, and a non-hostile one (I don't > want to hear "terrorists",) to describe specifically untrained civilian > fighters. Guerilla Warfare is a tactic used to disrupt and harass the enemy. Terrorism is those acts where violence is used in an attempt to make political advantage. So in essence they wouldn't be terrorists. You could label them Guerilla Fighters if you wished to use the term. Although I'd still be tempted to say that they are a militia unit, trained in guerilla tactics. 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:00:23 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) HANG A SECOND HERE......... This is starting to sound like someone has been watching too much Hamburger Hill for their own good :) Ballistix > Campaign- Teenage (Mutant :-) Freedom Fighters! > Hostile country annexes small island nation that has a university campus > on it. US sends in the politicians... > Our island should be "politically entangled" enough that it would be a bit > difficult for the US to just jump into, but not so much that an enemy could > not invade. > (Perhaps two protectorates, or something like that?) *************************************************************************** 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 16:04:23 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > Anyhow, it was explained that you hurt a military more by wounding soldiers > than by killing them. It requires men to pull the wounded back, you must > supply medical care, which includes personnel and supplies. So much easier > to just bury a dead guy, neh? This is very true, however it is a tactical situation thing. For example...If you were going to take and hold a hill, you would want to kill all the enemy on the hill. The reason being that if you didn't then (again if your bound by the Geneva Convention or follow it) you would have to look after the wounded enemy as well as the wounded friendlies. Similarly if you were just harassing an enemy position, you would want to injure the soldiers so that the enemy had to use it's valuable resources and manpower to evac them. 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: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 03:13:15 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 03:45 PM 3/6/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: >> 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. > >The laws of warfare are written by the same people who write history, >the winners. That is, if the Axis countries won the war would their generals >have been tried for warcrimes or seen as heros??? Probably not, but most the laws of war, unlike the crimes against humanity for which the Nazis were tried, were written _before_ anyone was tried for them. > >The problem with conventions is that they are just that conventions. And like all conventions, they have a real impact. >Unfortunately as can you see from the Pinochet thing in England not all >alleged war criminals are tried. Also you can really only be tried for war >crimes if your counrty decides to let you be. True. BTW, Pinochet isn't really a "war criminal", since his actions were mainly aimed at political dissidents--he was accused I think of crimes against humanity. >Apart from the nitty gritty about the convention would you agree with the >previous >statement in regards to how players may react in relation to the use of the >laws? > Which statement? 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 03:08:28 -0600 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) i beleive it comes down to the individual. if he believes in the convention and has not seen anything to cause undue hatered of the enemy then he may still follow many of the laws. aaron > On a more T2kish note, how much do you think the code > would be followed during WW3? *************************************************************************** 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 09:15:58 +0100 From: "Carl Roger Nilsen" Subject: SV: Game settings (Red Dawn) >Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:54:32 +1100 >From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" >Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Note: Everything said here is to be taken with a few pounds of salt. It is not an attempt to flame Jim Lawrie, but rather an indication that the unlikelyhoods he named aren't _that_ unlikely. The statements are not my own opinions, but opinions that exist. This is not an attempt to start a political debate, I'm just informing of some common attitudes. > >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? >>Jesse. > > Mate! I'm frightened of that question! Last time I went into US >scenarios I started a Constitution/Gun Rights/ Loyalty bun fight that went >for a l-o-o-o-o-ng time. It was very boring for us Non-US citizens and when >someone mentioned that we were roundly abused. I even prefaced it with a >call for civility! Still, everyone seeme very civil nowadays. > For a hostile power to invade the US, the most powerful nation on earth, >you need a lot of factors. I'll try for two scenarios. > > Scenario 1 > The US changes it's foriegn policy to some form that many others find >disagreeable. (Not likely) - -"Oh, I'm sorry, is this your war? Well, now it's ours! You don't want Big Bro to help you out? Sorry, but you really don't have any choice..."; Hugo the Slav, Wyatt Name, ... - -Yes, all the nations supported the US bombings which were unauthorized by the International Security Council. Oh yes, indeed. Respect my authoritah! > A large coallition forms against the US but the US alienates it's >allies. (Unlikely) "We don't care what you guys think. China and Russia wouldn't allowed such a bombing to take place, so we ignored the International Security Council, but you shouldn't be doing that." Carl Roger Nilsen "Never overlook something that seems to be simple" Sweetmorn, day 65 of Chaos, YOLD: 3166 (prowl) 12:02:02 (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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:17:56 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Geneva Convention Part 1/4 Ok I've found the Geneva Convention and I'll attempt to summarise it for you all to look over. It's in 4 parts in all, each one dealing with a different aspect. Actually I have changed my mind, cos it's huge you can find it at; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1958/21.html#1 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:21:41 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > Which statement? The one about the members of a party reaping what they sow in regards to whether or not they follow the geneva convention. It was something along the lines of if you don't treat your prisoners right etc then when one of you becomes the prisoner then you'd end up with the same treatment if not worse. Also it helps the party to be seen as humane, you know fair and just etc when dealing with people. 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 03:14:34 -0600 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: Vote for your favorite RPG all the rpg's i play are way down on the list, maybe in hindsight that is a good thing. what the hell is fading suns. seems popular. aaron > This is a place to vote for your favorite RPG: > > http://www.freevote.com/booth/best_rpg > Last time I looked, Twilight 2000 had only 7 votes! > *************************************************************************** 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 16:33:20 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Ok this may be a spanner in the works, and it may also play upon some of those paranoia tendencies some people have, so take it with a pinch of tabasco sauce. Why does the enemy in the Scenario have to come from just outside the USA???. If the US is anything like Australia it would be relatively easy to start having people enter the country as immigrants. This would have to be a long term plan of course.... That way when the desired timing is there, a trained Militia unit(s) could lead the attacks upon the area. This civil unrest combined with the external forces could make for the upheaval necessary to allow success of the plan. Ballistix *************************************************************************** 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 #119 *************************************