twilight2000-digest Monday, March 6 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 120 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Laws of War Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: re:choppers Re: Game Settings (Red Dawn) Australis 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) Hague Convention on the Laws and Conduct of War (WAS: Re: Geneva Convention Part 1/4) 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: Geneva Convention Part 1/4 Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: new timeline Alternate setting (Long) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: SV: Game settings (Red Dawn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:32:36 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Laws of War Just a quick thanks for the input everyone. This is interesting, although a discussion that I have very little to put into. 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:34:57 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > > 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 True enough. Any particular suggestions on your part though? 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, 6 Mar 2000 03:32:03 -0600 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: re:choppers some interesting stuff on this page. aaron > Regarding choppers and the like I have Frank Frey's Air Module up along with > the 'real' stats for the Mi-24 Hind versions: > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/6480/T2K.html *************************************************************************** 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 00:37:20 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game Settings (Red Dawn) Australis > About 10 years ago my old group played through a > similar scenario... (middle cut for the sake of brevity) > Adam Hey Adam, That really sounds like a cool idea there. 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, 6 Mar 2000 00:40:38 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) (many good points/ideas snipped here) > 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. Sleep well Michael, I'll expect a full report in my box first thing tomorrow... Please? ;-) 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:42:49 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > Actually, a similar scenario is presented in the Spanish Main module. Can't > remember the full title... > Cor Gateway to the Spanish Main, I'll have to take a look over it again. 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, 6 Mar 2000 00:54:27 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > 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 Hmm... This is making me think that you're considering the events of the movie nearer the end when the kids started kind of falling apart and sort of gave up hope and felt the guilt over having to get rid of one of their own. Where the one brother went nuts and such. From what I recall, most of their earlier strikes were with total surprise on smaller forces who were less armed and they kind of escalated them from there. Also, something else that sort of hit my mind while we've been talking was that it's generally been accepted that such an operation would be squashed pretty quickly by the military. That got me to wondering just exactly how long the movie was supposed to have taken place in. I remember that they were in school when it started (probably be somewhere between August and October) and that they were into the winter when it ended (Guessing December to February). I think I recall there being a "Christmas" and possibly a "Thanksgiving" in there but I'm not really sure. Thus, taking the outside extremes here- say August through February, we've got about a 6 month period. With that in mind then, it doesn't seem to be as far-fetched for a survival rate since the "unit" was more or less disbanded by the attack by the choppers and it was very obvious that the "hunter" guy was more than able to cope with them in future altercations. Thus, in squashing them- 6 mos. isn't too bad especially considering that other bands were apparently taking up the call to arms as well. Just some more thoughts on it. 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, 6 Mar 2000 00:55:45 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Actually grunt comes from the sound an infrantryman makes when he lifts his loaded ruck:):) __________________________________________________ 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 01:00:20 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" 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 > > 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 True about the terrorists, except for one thing: Guerillas/freedom fighters/what not are often labeled terrorists by the opposing government. And, all things are political, so, even the act of fighting for your freedom, survival, whatever, would be an attempt to make a political advantage. Note that few terrorists call themselves terrorists, and if you were to ask a member of the IRA what they are fighting for, they would likely answer their "freedom." Doesn't that make them a guerilla then? And would car bombings against leadership be a method of harassing the enemy, by disrupting his command/control? I think the issue of naming terrorism is a matter of perspective. Granted, there can be little case made for blowing up a civilian airliner. But, I could just call that "total warfare." If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. Most militias have some form of training. You seldom hand a rifle to someone and say "go attack the enemy." The training may not amount to more than some basic target practice and arms safety, but that would still be more than what I'm seeking. Though, in the end, it doesn't take much to make a totally untrained civilian to a point of some training. Might as well target practice on the enemy, 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, 6 Mar 2000 00:58:52 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) >From experience in a firefight you just want to put the enemy down and the harder the better. __________________________________________________ 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 00:58:42 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" 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 Hey Ballistix, this is somewhat humorous on a double count. Unless some things have changed that I am unaware of, we don't have "Militia" as a formal unit- It's the Military. Also, the term "Grunt" over here is generally referring to infantry troops. So, calling our infantry soldiery "Ground Reinforcement Untrained" in light of the stereotype of Americans wanting to fight our own battles as opposed to letting the military do it was kind of funny :-) 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:58:48 -0000 From: "Roger Stenning" Subject: Hague Convention on the Laws and Conduct of War (WAS: Re: Geneva Convention Part 1/4) Delurking for a moment... Ballistix wrote... > 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 You might also find this of interest: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague/hague2.html It's the Hague convention governing the laws and conduct of land warfare. Have a good week! Best regards, Roger Stenning Webmaster, the Impossible Scenarios Group www.the-isg.co.uk *************************************************************************** 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 08:13:15 -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 01:03:47 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" 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 Okay, this is sounding like a good scenario to work from as well. Can someone supply some reasons that this would not work and maybe we can kinda work out a better Red Dawn here than the movie was, eh? 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, 6 Mar 2000 01:11:31 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > 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 Which was my point: If the people making the film didn't know any better, than how can you expect American youth to? I also question the case on how guerillas get started. Many people may say "something should be done." But it usually takes some one to tell what to do. That would be a leader. Often, these leaders have some form of formal military training. In the case of Central and South America, they often been to the US War College, even if that wasn't our intent for them to use it. But even if he only has academic military knowledge, that is much more than the dumb civilian. He then leads the guerillas/partisans, so they aren't just running around shooting. Often, he'll provide some preliminary training (how to handle the firearm, maybe a half day of target practice if ammo isn't a concern,) before going on their first "mission." As I stated earlier, we could hope that one of us that are more knowledgeable would be leading, instead of the tuff guy. It's one thing to have the strength of body to charge a MG nest. It's another to have the knowledge to outflank it. Though there are many of us without the military training, we do have academic knowledge. And though book knowledge will often not be as good as real life experience, it's a lot better than no knowledge at all. I'd say the last time there were completely untrained people waging war, was before nations. Back when one group of primitive man picked up some thigh bones and charged another group... Since then, I'd wager that there has always been a leader with enough knowledge to bestow upon his group before actually engaging the foe. 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 01:16:33 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" 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 You know, I had an idea like that once. First, China would ship vehicles and heavy equipment in containers, to a holding company here in California, where they'd stay unopened at the docks. Or whatever large, west coast port. Then troops would infiltrate in by way of civilian traffic. Make their way to the docks, open up the containers, start the assault. Of course, I won't go into my World Domination neurosis that was behind this plan... I like China... 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 01:23:59 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) In tribal societies, there usually the war chief, not necessarily teh tribal chief __________________________________________________ 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 21:04:31 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Geneva Convention Part 1/4 - -----Original Message----- From: Ballistix To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Monday, 6 March 2000 7:24 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 I play a UN soldier in a PbEM, I had to download the lot! 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 21:08:15 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" 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 I've heard that Grunt is the deragatory name for infantry because that's the sound they make when a bullet hits them. I've always considered it in particularly bad tatse though. 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 02:22:06 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) - ----- Original Message ----- From: GRAEBARDE To: Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 01:23 Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > In tribal societies, there usually the war chief, not > necessarily teh tribal chief > __________________________________________________ Was this in response to my primitive man comment? You would have to apply the term "tribal society" very loosely to what I was talking about. In fact, I can tell you there was no war chief, because there was no war, or words for that matter. I was talking about way back, pre-Neanderthal. Pre-tool using (or just the beginnings, such as the thigh bones I mentioned...) If you consider the devices used to bring down prey weapons, then I would postulate that the first tools were weapons. But, I digress. You missed my point. I wasn't mearly talking about what we would consider primitive cultures. I was talking pre-history. When a tribe, if it can be called that, wasn't much different than a pride of lions. They were mostly related to one another, cooperated to better survival, and often the strongest one led. If were talking about a time before the concept of war, how could there be a war chief? My example was about what would likely have been the first battle by tool-using people. My point was that since then, anyone fighting another would have some form of training. Be it nothing more than how to simply use a weapon, or as advance as strategy, using cover, directing multiple points of assault, etc. 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 05:54:13 EST From: CMarkChester@aol.com Subject: Re: new timeline Funny you should mention about using a game to work out the history of the T2000 universe. As far as I remember, way back in the days of Traveller 2300, it said in the front cover of one of the rulebook that the Timeline in T2300 was designed using a game. So there you go it can work :-) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ----------------------------- "I can't go in there. I have a problem with confined spaces. Theres a medical name for it!" "Yes it's called cowardice" (Villa talking to Jenna - Blake's 7) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ----------------------------- *************************************************************************** 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 02:58:15 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Alternate setting (Long) Hey Everyone, I really sort of put myself into a jam and was hoping that you guys could help out with ideas. I have been running a Sci-fi game that draws heavily upon a historical era known as the "Corporate Wars" these were, in essence WW3 in an alternate universe. Now, the only real T2k relevancy is that I am using the 1st edition rules to run the game and that it is only slightly in the future tech-wise, so most of the eq/skills will be the same. My players decided that they wanted to play a campaign revolving around the Corporate Wars and did up characters as per the T2k rules- with a little deviation. I was hoping that I could give the basic premise of the wars, what the characters were, and the things that have already been established in my other campaign, and get some help from the list in "fleshing out" details for running this. Suggestions on which modules/resources would be good in gathering ideas would help too, since I have everything that I have ever seen in the way of T2k materials. If anyone has a problem with me posting this to the list, let me know and I will take it to private mail, but I kind of thought that it would tie in to the historical era threads that we've been discussing and may give some of you ideas or food for thought. Also, it's using T2k rules- so the statistical data would be much easier to convert than if I took it to something like the Traveller lists. Okay, so here goes... The Group There are 5 PC's and they are all Special Forces with a 2nd occupation as well. (Munchkin because I have some real rough ideas already in the works). 1.Combat Medic with most points in sciences. 2.Tank Crewman 3.Cavalry Scout 4.Intelligence Interrogator 5.Support Specialist (Gets ACM, MEC, and ELC all at 1/2 cost) I haven't managed to find an appropriate vehicle, but I have been looking at something in the neighborhood of a FAV built for 5. The closest thing I am coming up with is a Hummer, any ideas? They will be somewhat light on the EQ and fuel won't generally be a problem as presented in T2k. Basic Background Corporations had grown in power until many were in effect small nations of their own (Help/suggestions are welcome in all areas of this project). Industrial sabotage became more and more common until the small attacks became the mainstream and eventually- the Corps went to war. The war began using small strike-teams on manufacturing and supply areas. It was not long until bots came into use. Things like small spider-like machines for injecting knock-outs into guards and such. As the wars increased, full combat bots (Like the ABC bots seen in Judge Dredd or other such things) began to appear on the industrial battlefield. Not long thereafter, with increases in Electronic technology and warfare, the Ultimate killing machines- "T's" came into production. T's are a bot series more along the lines of the movie Bladerunner. At the same time that bot technology was increasing, Cyber implants were put on many field soldiers and Cyborgs began to emerge as well. Eventually, the subtle war between Corps had escalated into a full-scale Global event bringing governments into the fray as well. Bots were delivered and release virtually everywhere in mass numbers. Some of these had been designed as "builders" to actually create armies within occupied territory, others had been given AI programming. Soon, the realization struck that new bots were being created that were not in direct control of anyone and everyone realized that they would become a threat to humanity. The problem was not that they could not be destroyed, only the "T" had the learning capacity and capabilities to make that truly difficult. They were producing faster than they could be sought out, and losses were high because of the general "stealth" nature of so many of them. At this point, military units were created with specific training and equipment to destroy bots. These worked well and managed to reclaim many areas. The corporations recalled their bots as well and disassembled them, or reprogrammed them to more "mundane" tasks. The problem came that the "T's" took disassembly and reprogramming offensively and mounted their own campaigns- some completely reprogramming others. To solve this problem, a special operations group was established. This group were the "T-teams". These are the groups that the PC's belong to. While their primary purpose is the destruction of the "T-bots", they are also responsible for battling infestations just about everywhere that they are encountered. Notes Okay, now I know that some of this is going to come out a bit hokey, but I am shooting for as much realism as I can get, and a much more "detailed" background of events leading up to the war itself. Equipment is virtually the same as we see today, with the exception that electronics have (obviously) advanced considerably. Also, most of the soldiery finds the idea of cyber-implants to be distasteful to say the least. Cyborgs are generally going to be portrayed in a "bad light" within the game, and are not something that the PCs will be trying to get- thus, there is little concern about rules involving such. I plan on running the game in the continental US, probably somewhere in the West (Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington all generally come to mind). Most cities have been fairly well decimated by the use of conventional and electronics warfare and most of T2k's conditions ring true here as well. I was hoping that you guys could give me a LOT of ideas and here are a few of the things I could use some help in... 1. Ideas for "bot" designs, or just how to design them in general. What sorts of stats would be good to use? 2. What kind of "special electronics" have you seen/heard of recently or ideas do you have that could be turned into useful stuffs for this game even if given just a bit more tech than we currently have. Some of the bot design notes that I was thinking that might be important would be something along these lines... 1.Sensory Input 2.Targetting capabilities 3.Guidance systems 4.Remote operations 5.Communications/Connectivity 6.Armor, Appearance, Size 7.Locomotion- methods and speeds 8.Armaments and Magazine capacities 9.Power sources along with capacities and consumptions. 10.Cargo capacities. 11.Insulation/Jolt/Concussion factors 12.Hit locations and capacities. I do expect casualty rates to be really high compared to most of my campaigns and fairly high for those which are more combat than role-play oriented. At least that will be until the players become a bit competant at working as a team and using some tactics other than "charge" which they do now waaaay too much. Then I intend to give them several pieces of "high-tech" equipment that should make killing bots easier, however that is also when I intend to introduce them to the dreaded "T's". This leads to the other two questions- first off, what are some of the thoughts that you guys have for "high tech" equipment? and ideas to help players (who just botched the standard-L ambush) learn to operate as a team and use tactics? I got to talking to my group about T2k again and most showed their usual (lack of) interest. Later, we were playing the other campaign and discussing the Corporate Wars when one of them says- now those would be cool. I said that the only way I could possibly run something like that was if I ran with the T2k rules and everyone decided that this would be a really good idea so they stopped and did up characters. I figured, no problem, I've got the EQ here- some pretty decent ideas for bots, a little tech to throw in, and a pre-made world and history. Well, when I started working on this stuff I realized that I don't have nearly enough to run this game more than a mission or two at best. Also, with their general tactical knowledge/ability and usual methods of (NOT) working together- they'd get incredibly frustrated trying to go anywhere with this. I would not even bother with it except that this is a really good RPing group and I would rather be running T2k than the James Bond system any day. Finally, I think that I can really get them interested and involved in the game if they get a shot at something that interests them about it. Well, the heat is on- hope y'all can help out here. Thanks. 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, 6 Mar 2000 03:27:42 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Infantry call themselves grunts, but it's derogatory if somebody else calls them a grunt because of the way it's usually said. They're also refered to as gravel crunchers, amoung other things.. In the Nam era they were (in the USA) refered to as 11Bush and 11Bangbangs after the their MOS 11B .. earlier wars had them as dogfaces, now THAT could be derogatory :) FORD [fat old raggedy dog]:) __________________________________________________ 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 03:30:03 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) very primitive society ROGER! __________________________________________________ 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 12:04:20 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > 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. Worth noting about Pinochet is that certain politicians in the UK believed that he should have been released, in fact not even detained, because of the assistance Chile gave to the UK during the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands. This goes to show that it's not the crimes commited that are the deciding factor in such prosecutions (or attempted extraidition to face prosecution) but on whose "side" the perpertrator of the attrocities is. Does anyone believe that in 10 or 20 years time if a western nation managed to detain Saddam Hussein he would be excused extradition for "ill health"? How would we feel if some Iraq friendly nation detained him and refused our requests for extradition because of help he had given them some time before? The concept of a "war crime" or "human rights abuse" hinges upon who did it not what was done. Regards, Mark *************************************************************************** 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 04:53:27 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: Re: SV: Game settings (Red Dawn) - --- Carl Roger Nilsen wrote: > > 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." > "we will act multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must." (Madeline Albright) terrifying really, and downright disgusting. 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 #120 *************************************