twilight2000-digest Monday, May 8 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 143 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Merc2000 IRC campaign Re: Thinking Caps Re: Thinking Caps RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Thinking Caps Re: Thinking Caps Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Thinking Caps Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Thinking Caps Re: Thinking Caps Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Amplyfing digital signals Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. infra red sights Re: infra red sights Re: infra red sights Re: infra red sights Re: infra red sights NEW TWILIGHT: 2000 SITE!!! Re: infra red sights Re: infra red sights Re: infra red sights ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:01:26 +1000 From: "Richard Paine" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > > > >I agree. A CIWS for a tank? As soon as some idiot puts one on a tank, do > >you think it will be a week or a month before a HARM type Antitank missle > >would come out? If you put a CIWS-like radar on a tank, you might as well > >just put a big 'shoot me' sign in neon on top of it also. > > Supposedly, such CIWS would use passive radar (millimetric), which I think > is used on the lastest Hellfire missiles (or is being tested for use on > them). > > (I'm realy sorry for getting this thread started, but on a list for another > game system, some people think that CIWS mounted on tanks (in the next 15-30 > years) are perfectly reasonable and practical. I don't, and I'm looking for > arguements from others either way). So whos going to volunteer to be the poor infantry guy that just happens to be standing near the tank when the CIWS decides it wants to shoot down a missile? Thats a lot of stray rounds to be flying around in ones own lines. But i suppose it was the americans who invented friendly fire........ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:28:12 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Merc2000 IRC campaign MOrab46019@aol.com wrote: > IRC I'm not sure what that is?If it's an E-mail game I can play.Because > that's better for me than live play. Internet Relay Chat. So it is live play... I just can't get enough people together locally but it should be easier to get enough people on the computer at the same time. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:06:49 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Thinking Caps > SO what are you asking should you send in the bad guys again or have them > fight their way out or hide untill the others show up? Any suggestions right now would be good....had a really stressful week and the mind has jumped into neutral. > Right there are three > things you can do.If you don't want the team to be wiped out beofre the mercs > show have the the Fed if he can come up with ideas or the ex vet he could > think of think of things that other Vet's have said or talked about. Eventually I want to lead them into the military way of life as part of the merc unit a series of running battles etc in hot spots seems the easiest way to get them into the unit. 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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:20:57 EDT From: MOrab46019@aol.com Subject: Re: Thinking Caps Ok now how do you want to do that have the bad guys show up again or have one of the NPC?Do you have one if so that could help you out if not can have one show up and help out.I use them to help teams out.I would say you need something to push them out.What about an fire breaking out?And if they stay tell your players to make new ones because these became critters burned ones. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:22:30 -0500 From: "Billy Ingram" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. During my first hitch in the Army, as a mortar gunner, I was taught that we could fire about three rounds before counterbattery radar found us and we'd have to scoot! > >Do you guys realize that the 96R's (ground survellience radar operators, > >otherwise known a 'pop-up targets') that we went to school with had an > >estimated life expectancy of about 9 seconds after they pressed the 'on' > >switch, assuming the Soviets were the enemy. And they got to > dig a grave > >(I > >mean a fox hole) a hundred yards off from the antenna! Just go ask the > >Iraqi AAA gunners about putting radars on things and actually having the > >guts to turn them on ... > > 9 seconds? That little? Damn, that's incredibly efficient, even > by Western > standards, to triangulate the radar position, call up the artillery unit, > and have a shell impacting on the spot. > > Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit > with, say, > 500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:34:36 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Thinking Caps sound's like an ok deal. At the moment I had them picked up by people they think are mercs come to help the refinery. I'm looking at having them be some of the bad guys. So it's going to be an escape type of thing from here I'd say. I could then use the fire option etc once they get free. Ahh that's better the mind is starting to get moving now.... Thanks for the help. 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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:46:15 +1200 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: Thinking Caps At 12:06 19/04/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: >> SO what are you asking should you send in the bad guys again or have them >> fight their way out or hide untill the others show up? > >Any suggestions right now would be good....had a really stressful week and >the mind has jumped into neutral. SNIP >Eventually I want to lead them into the military way of life as part of the >merc unit >a series of running battles etc in hot spots seems the easiest way to get >them into the unit. The group I am running is not so heavily endowed with combat skills either - - at least they aren't all special forces types (one pilot, one medic/hvy wpns, one mechanic/fixer, one ex-crim/army, one spec forces, one sniper). I haven't had too many troubles making up scenarios lately - a brief browse through a Time magazine or watching CNN/other news show for a while always turns up scenarios...... eg, last night the group did a job rescueing a white farmer from Zimbabwe. I have also been thinking of scenarios involving the UNITA diamond trade, working to capture war criminals in Bosnia, insurgency/protection missions in SE Asia (eg, Timor, Malaysia, ....), maybe something in Chechenya (this would be a bit hard to rationalise for my group of British Mercs), something involving Osama bin Laden or other terrorists, etc, etc..... Then of course there are the good old bush wars, etc, in places such as Dem. Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia/Ettria, Tutsis vs Hutus, ...... Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:03:58 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Stephen Dragoo wrote: > > > They might as well try to make an amphibious missile cruiser as > > > try to make > > > a CIWS for an MBT... > > > >I agree. A CIWS for a tank? As soon as some idiot puts one on a tank, do > >you think it will be a week or a month before a HARM type Antitank missle > >would come out? If you put a CIWS-like radar on a tank, you might as well > >just put a big 'shoot me' sign in neon on top of it also. > > He he... I can see the crews painting "Please shoot me HERE" all over the > antenna dome... > > >Do you guys realize that the 96R's (ground survellience radar operators, > >otherwise known a 'pop-up targets') that we went to school with had an > >estimated life expectancy of about 9 seconds after they pressed the 'on' > >switch, assuming the Soviets were the enemy. And they got to dig a grave > >(I > >mean a fox hole) a hundred yards off from the antenna! Just go ask the > >Iraqi AAA gunners about putting radars on things and actually having the > >guts to turn them on ... > > 9 seconds? That little? Damn, that's incredibly efficient, even by Western > standards, to triangulate the radar position, call up the artillery unit, > and have a shell impacting on the spot. > > Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit with, say, > 500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? You might as well give them a remote control and let them stand a mile away :) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:31:06 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >9 seconds? That little? Damn, that's incredibly efficient, even by Western >standards, to triangulate the radar position, call up the artillery unit, >and have a shell impacting on the spot. > >Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit with, say, >500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? You're still out an antenna, makes the whole purpose of the excercise void. Don't tell me you're going to lug a few of those around! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:09:18 EDT From: MOrab46019@aol.com Subject: Re: Thinking Caps No problem *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:02:38 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > >9 seconds? That little? Damn, that's incredibly efficient, even by >Western > >standards, to triangulate the radar position, call up the artillery unit, > >and have a shell impacting on the spot. > > > >Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit with, >say, > >500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? > > You're still out an antenna, makes the whole purpose of the excercise >void. Don't tell me you're going to lug a few of those around! Make the antennae really small, then pack the trunk of a Hummer full of them. Put 3 guys (or whatever the crew size is) into the Hummer, then keep placing new antenna whenever one is blown up. And no, I wouldn't recommend using a wireless remote control for it... not unless it's using maybe infrared (and even then I wouldn't recommend it at night :( ). Land wire would be better. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:02:11 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. At 10:31 AM 4/19/00 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: >>9 seconds? That little? Damn, that's incredibly efficient, even by >Western >>standards, to triangulate the radar position, call up the artillery unit, >>and have a shell impacting on the spot. >> >>Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit with, >say, >>500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? > > You're still out an antenna, makes the whole purpose of the excercise >void. Don't tell me you're going to lug a few of those around! > Presumably it's easier and cheaper to replace antennae than operators AND antennae. 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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:31:58 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >>> >>>Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit with, >>say, >>>500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? >> >> You're still out an antenna, makes the whole purpose of the excercise >>void. Don't tell me you're going to lug a few of those around! >> >Presumably it's easier and cheaper to replace antennae than operators AND >antennae. >From my understanding of electrical signals, you can't just increase the distance from the antenna to the signal processor indefinately. Especially if its a doppler radar, but I don't know if the GSR's are doppler or not. My point in mentioning the GSR thing was simply to provide an example of why it's dangerous to emmit anything on the battlefield. As for armchair quarterbacking an engineering fix to the problem ... well, we could all speculate the problem to death. But for game purposes if someone wanted to increase the remote cable length: I'd make them build an amplifier in addition to getting the cable. Then I'd make the radar less accurate, more prone false signals and temporary noise interferring with it, and maybe reduce the range a bit. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:00:08 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Thinking Caps >Now where to go from here....ideas would be welcome. Maybe one of these will sound interesting to you: Maybe a news organization could hire them as protection for a journalist investigating the 'enemy' strong man? Or a war crimes investigator might need protection to return to a hot spot for evidence gathering. Or break out a journalist that was caught snooping where he shouldn't. Oil companies could hire them as protection for a pipeline or other facility. Guerillas could have kidnapped some peace corp's workers, one of whom is a kid of a rich guy who will fund the retrieval operation. Pirates could have attacked a boat with a vacationing family on it off the coast of country XX. The dad could have brought his laptop with him to do work occasionally which has XXXXX info on it. The laptop is now in the hands of the pirates and must be retrieved. Million dollar reward for stolen laptop! But competing interests have heard of the loss too, so there is more than one team out there looking for it, watch your back ... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:37:01 -0600 From: Christopher Webb Subject: Re: Thinking Caps At 16:46 4/19/00 +1200, you wrote: >I haven't had too many troubles making up scenarios lately - a brief browse >through a Time magazine or watching CNN/other news show for a while always >turns up scenarios...... eg, last night the group did a job rescueing a Same strategy I've used. I check the Reuters news wire two or three times a day while I wait for firmware to recompile, and I gather a few articles from there. Some other recent international events that might make good material for Merc 2000 are the Pakistan/India and China/Taiwan tensions. I had quite a few dirty overseas ops in the pipeline, then I discovered that I had an abnormal player party -- they were altruistic! (Most parties I've been in or refereed have been primarily mercenary with little or no moral motivation) They still aren't quite shining knights or cowboys with White Hats, but they have been making a lot of efforts to be "good guys" -- knocking out drug dealers, et cetera. Most of the early adventures I have run/will run are modified from the sample adventures in M2K and Special Operations. I've also started working on importing several adventure modules from the first edition T2K -- things like Satellite Down, Airlords of the Ozarks, Kidnapped, and so on. I've been tempted to put a major catastrophe in the near future, something like the comet impact from Niven & Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer, just to provide the major event New America needs to try to take over. But there are many potential story lines in the international news that require very little "touch up" work to import them into a M2K scenario. - -Christopher Webb - ---- http://users.ctos.com/~cwebb/ Furby Military Academies: http://users.ctos.com/~cwebb/furbymain.htm Heard in Psych 100: "The Sympathetic Nervous System is associated with all the arousal functions. Or as we say in Psychology, the 3 F's: Fleeing, Fighting and Reproduction." - --Steve Yalowitz, Professor of Psych at Colorado State University *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:36:01 +1000 From: "Richard Paine" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > From my understanding of electrical signals, you can't just increase the > distance from the antenna to the signal processor indefinately. Especially > if its a doppler radar, but I don't know if the GSR's are doppler or not. > My point in mentioning the GSR thing was simply to provide an example of why > it's dangerous to emmit anything on the battlefield. > > As for armchair quarterbacking an engineering fix to the problem ... well, > we could all speculate the problem to death. But for game purposes if > someone wanted to increase the remote cable length: I'd make them build an > amplifier in addition to getting the cable. Then I'd make the radar less > accurate, more prone false signals and temporary noise interferring with it, > and maybe reduce the range a bit. > > Walter If the signal was analogue this would almost certainly be true, but, and I am assuming, military radar's are digital, you cant amplify a digital signal, as it has only 2 states, on or off. With a digital signal you need to reconstruct the original signal and resend it after a certain amount of distance. With fibre optic cable that distance is about 2km for some of the cheaper fibre optic cable types, other types of cable have less max distances but you just need a simple electronic circuit to reconstruct the signal. Because a digital signal is only a binary signal you don't get interference or noise from other signals (when using fibre optic, copper cables get interference from magnetisim), so the only false signals or noise would be from the radar itself. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 05:39:27 +0200 From: Antenna Subject: Amplyfing digital signals Well, actually you can amplify a digital signal, but you don't use transistors... If I remeber right the chip was called Schmidt-trigger (10 years ago I took a electronics class in high school =/) Now the name of the device could be wrong, but I know that I build a larger device that had that chip inside itself to amplify a digital signal. Antenna - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are three types of people Antenna's law of regulation Those who use math, The use of any law, and those who don't... affects only those who follow them. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:44:32 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. I don't know what frequency the radar signal is that is sent down the cable to the control unit but being a ham radio operator, I know as you go higher in frequency, the more signal loss you get from the cable. Sure if you are going to use frequencies that are in the HF band such as a CB radio, at 27 Mc, your losses will be very slight, but when you reach up into the VHF range, say for 2 meter amateur radio (144 Mc) you get more and when you hit the UHF range, say 420 - 450 Mc amateur radio or 460 Mc for police radio, it is prohibitive. Even a coaxial cable of 100 feet in length will not be good at UHF frequencies and marginal at best for VHF use. Then you get into what types of cable do not cut the signal down as much. RG-8 cable is the cheapest but only good for HF work, maybe VHF if you keep it short. RG-58 would be better for VHF work. I have to look at my charts for the various coaxial cable types and the losses per 100 feet. Depending on the types of cable, 500 yards, the signal might not make it to the control receiver/box very well if at all and if you amplify it, you might pick up ambient noises from the cable since it is long enough to pick up stray longwave and mediumwave AM signals along with RF interference from thunderstorms, the Earth's magnetic field, manmade interference, and so on. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Rebsch" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 9:31 PM Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > >>> > >>>Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit with, > >>say, > >>>500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? > >> > >> You're still out an antenna, makes the whole purpose of the excercise > >>void. Don't tell me you're going to lug a few of those around! > >> > >Presumably it's easier and cheaper to replace antennae than operators AND > >antennae. > > >From my understanding of electrical signals, you can't just increase the > distance from the antenna to the signal processor indefinately. Especially > if its a doppler radar, but I don't know if the GSR's are doppler or not. > My point in mentioning the GSR thing was simply to provide an example of why > it's dangerous to emmit anything on the battlefield. > > As for armchair quarterbacking an engineering fix to the problem ... well, > we could all speculate the problem to death. But for game purposes if > someone wanted to increase the remote cable length: I'd make them build an > amplifier in addition to getting the cable. Then I'd make the radar less > accurate, more prone false signals and temporary noise interferring with it, > and maybe reduce the range a bit. > > Walter > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:21:36 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > > If the signal was analogue this would almost certainly be true, but, and I > am assuming, military radar's are digital, you cant amplify a digital > signal, as it has only 2 states, on or off. With a digital signal you need > to reconstruct the original signal and resend it after a certain amount of > distance. With fibre optic cable that distance is about 2km for > some of the > cheaper fibre optic cable types, other types of cable have less max > distances but you just need a simple electronic circuit to reconstruct the > signal. Because a digital signal is only a binary signal you don't get > interference or noise from other signals (when using fibre optic, copper > cables get interference from magnetisim), so the only false > signals or noise > would be from the radar itself. > If only all this were true ... my life would be much easier at times. I write industrial automation, data acquisition, signal processing, and robotic control software for the oil tools and bio-medical industry in Houston. So I do have quite a bit of experience with signals, but I was hoping to avoid boring everyone with talking about them very much. But since there have been a couple responses, maybe there is a LITTLE interest. Clarification on a few of your points for those that are interested: you can amplify digital signals, conversion of analog signals to optical fibre and back is non-trivial, digital signals are subject to noise, and fibre optic's are relatively immune to outside noise sources. The underlying idea in Richard's comments (if I get it right) is that digital signals are easier to send longer distances and are more noise resistant. This is true for the most part, but I have no idea if this applies to GSR's or not. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:25:34 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >If only all this were true ... my life would be much easier at times. I >write industrial automation, data acquisition, signal processing, and >robotic control software for the oil tools and bio-medical industry in >Houston. So I do have quite a bit of experience with signals, but I was >hoping to avoid boring everyone with talking about them very much. But >since there have been a couple responses, maybe there is a LITTLE interest. > >Clarification on a few of your points for those that are interested: you >can >amplify digital signals, conversion of analog signals to optical fibre and >back is non-trivial, digital signals are subject to noise, and fibre >optic's >are relatively immune to outside noise sources. > >The underlying idea in Richard's comments (if I get it right) is that >digital signals are easier to send longer distances and are more noise >resistant. This is true for the most part, but I have no idea if this >applies to GSR's or not. Have to agree. The question, though, is whether or not the GSR sends the analog data as is to the display, or if it converts it to digital format for signal processing and display. If it's the former, then they need to add the digital capability now. If it's the latter, then all you need is a decent fiber optic cable, some universal jacks and plugs, and a separate display unit to keep your radar crew far enough away from the radar set. Bottom line: In wartime, the Army will have the money to spend on additional radar antennae, no matter how expensive each one is. It won't have the time to train new GRS crews everytime a crew gets blown into chunky salsa. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:51:47 +1000 From: "Richard Paine" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Yep thats what i was getting at :) > If only all this were true ... my life would be much easier at times. I > write industrial automation, data acquisition, signal processing, and > robotic control software for the oil tools and bio-medical industry in > Houston. So I do have quite a bit of experience with signals, but I was > hoping to avoid boring everyone with talking about them very much. But > since there have been a couple responses, maybe there is a LITTLE interest. > > Clarification on a few of your points for those that are interested: you can > amplify digital signals, conversion of analog signals to optical fibre and > back is non-trivial, digital signals are subject to noise, and fibre optic's > are relatively immune to outside noise sources. > > The underlying idea in Richard's comments (if I get it right) is that > digital signals are easier to send longer distances and are more noise > resistant. This is true for the most part, but I have no idea if this > applies to GSR's or not. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:08:09 -0500 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: infra red sights how do you guys handle infra red sights. my group of mercs has to attack a base and there is a large open area. i am concerned that the enemy may have night sights etc. is there any ways to fool them? aaron *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 02:16:59 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: infra red sights Night sights are the same as the human eye basically. Good cam discipline and night movement will help the PC's. Also the amount of ambient light will help or hinder them. The more moonlight there is the easier it will be for the enemy. This also highlights the use of shadows, if a PC keeps to the shadows then they will be alright. This includes for example undulations in the ground. If they have to cross open ground as you say they can use these undulations to provide not only cam, but also to provide protection from fire. So what does this all mean to the GM. If you use nightsights for the enemy then you can have them make an observation roll to spot the PC's. Some modifiers would be like; PC moving quickly : easier +2 or such Full Moon : +3 Half Moon: +1 No Moon: -1 They are just suggestions. Ballistix - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fugitivus" To: Sent: Sunday, 7 May 2000 09:08 Subject: infra red sights > how do you guys handle infra red sights. my group of mercs has to attack a > base and there is a large open area. i am concerned that the enemy may have > night sights etc. is there any ways to fool them? > > aaron > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** 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, 7 May 2000 14:10:41 EDT From: MOrab46019@aol.com Subject: Re: infra red sights In a message dated 05/06/2000 8:22:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cell-66@softhome.net writes: << how do you guys handle infra red sights. my group of mercs has to attack a base and there is a large open area. i am concerned that the enemy may have night sights etc. is there any ways to fool them? >> You could have your merc group armed with IR flood light would blind the enemy sights or throw a lot of smoke they are not like Themo sights where you need cold water to cool your self down so your heat would not be picked up. *************************************************************************** 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, 07 May 2000 12:22:41 -0600 From: Rogue09@Sprynet.com Subject: Re: infra red sights MOrab46019@aol.com wrote: > not like Themo sights where you need cold water to cool your self down so your > heat would not be picked up. Ironically enough there are military grade developments for camo suits that dampen one's body heat to reduce the signature of the wearer... Russia in particular has made certain strides in this regard. The US government is reportedly working on projects to this end as well but info is HARD to track down on this end though... T.R. *************************************************************************** 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, 8 May 2000 07:36:11 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: infra red sights For passive night vision such as image intensifiers the UK kept the Argentinean stuff out of action in 1982 by continuous use of flares. *************************************************************************** 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, 7 May 2000 21:47:23 EDT From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: NEW TWILIGHT: 2000 SITE!!! Has your campaign bogged down into one gunfight after another? When you roll in a T-80 platoon do your PC's just yawn? Ever think about staging a scenario like the Omega Man? How about Night of the Living Dead? ...Or maybe on The Planet of the Apes? Sometime you need to thrown in a left hook. The Dark Place RPG Site features scenario ideas and adversaries for a more unconventional Twilight: 2000 setting. Also, there you will find articles on other games like Call of Cthulhu, Behind Enemy Lines (a WWII rpg) and soon, Alternity. I hope you enjoy! http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/StrategySt/calibur1/index.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: Sun, 07 May 2000 22:09:50 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: infra red sights At 12:22 PM 5/7/00 -0600, Rogue09@Sprynet.com wrote: > > >MOrab46019@aol.com wrote: > >> not like Themo sights where you need cold water to cool your self down so your >> heat would not be picked up. > >Ironically enough there are military grade developments for camo suits that >dampen one's body heat to reduce the signature of the wearer... Russia in >particular has made certain strides in this regard. The US government is >reportedly working on projects to this end as well but info is HARD to track down >on this end though... > Aren't standard BDU's treated to reduce the IR signature? Or am I imagining this? 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, 07 May 2000 23:20:35 EDT From: "shaari ladue" Subject: Re: infra red sights Scott, It's been a little while, but to the best of my knowledge U.S. BDU's do not reduce thermal signature. I know that they are fire retardant, but believe that someone clothed in BDU's vs standard civi gear would have about the same heat sig. However, I'll be the first to admit that I'm by no means any kind of expert, so if I'm wrong, someone let me (and the rest of the list) know. Shaari Ladue ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 01:38:58 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: infra red sights >Aren't standard BDU's treated to reduce the IR signature? Or am I >imagining this? > Anyone remember those weird looking poncho like things the US Army distributed during Desert Storm? It was sort of a medium green color and had this dark green grid pattern with random dots of the same dye on it. Thought I read somewhere at the time that the dark green dye was IR inhibiting and was supposed to help break up the wearer's heat signature so he wasn't immediately recognizable as a person. JC *************************************************************************** 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 #143 *************************************