I have been thinking (red alert!) - given my USAF slant, and John A's
cogent thoughts on Ortillery what is the purpose of 1)Ortillery 2)CSS 3)COS
and CAS (Close Aerospace Support)?
I differentiate the four as thus:
Ortillery, the process and equipment in DS2 and FT/MT (and by
implication
FB1/FB2 [the last of which I don't own - yet] allowing frigate or larger
Starships and PBMs {Planetary Bombardment Monitors (FTL and perhaps
non-FTL)} to attack positions on a planet.
Ortillery, based on the rules and the current short discussion, appears to be
a system designed more to destroy positions to dislocate planet to Space
defenses, cause rupture of major fortifications or positions of battalion
sized units heavily dug in, cause shock in the defenders (and terror in their
political leadership) precipitating collapse and surrender of governments.
This is not a typically tactical (as in SG) weapon, IMO. Beam use on a planet
surface would be a lighter form of weapon system with the same general
intended effect.
These weapons in these usages would be campaign material {or a reason for
a scenario ("escort the PBMs on a strike on Planet Hothman...")} but
would be unlikely outside of a specific scenario role (campaign or special
designed) in FT, would fit into DS 2 as specialized, super powerful (when
available) Area Bombardment (WHAT BDA [Bomb Damage Assessment, Beth] report!?)
weaponry. I liken it to a mass strike of a
flight of B-52's in modern terms except with residual radiation affect.
Clearly a WMD [Weapon of Mass destruction] in nature and effect that should be
considered an escalation into the borders of Nukes, Chemical weapons, and
Biological warfare. Using Ortillery on a foe equipped with NBC (or ABC,
depending on your generation) would invite response by WMD by the defending
force.
[Beth; ABC - Atomic, Biological, Chemical; NBC - Nuclear...]
Even in DS2 this should be a rare weapon available, scenario driven, IMO.
YMMV
So the opposite end of the spectrum is aerospace support from Starships
carrying fighters. There might be room to differentiate between the effects of
Standard, Fast, Heavy, Interceptors, Attack, Long Range, and Torpedo fighters
in CAS house rules but I don't think we have discussed such things on this
list in that arena very much.
In between I define CSS and COS. Are they different? Well, maybe.
I originally envisioned COS (years ago) as ships in the upper edge of
atmosphere providing PGM [Precision Guided munition] type support to the guy
on the ground [As John knows, that's the area where the Army and The Air Force
have the most divergent views of the application of Air power] and capable
(barely) of air breather (and similar) interception and where
i envisioned the most likely contact between Star/Spaceship carried
(space capable/specialized for non-atmospheric missions primarily)
aerospace vehicles and planetary "Edge of the Air envelope only" aerospace
Defense forces (Interceptors, fighters, and (attacking the PBMs) strike
vehicles.
CSS was more the vaguely defined arena where less precise (scatter!) and more
area oriented weaponry was employed beyond the effective arena where planetary
forces could, at great cost but with great reward possible, attack the
bombardment forces. It is at this level where I think
non-FTL
Spaceships (due to design and no need to have FTL engines, releasing more
mass for weapons - Thank you, Traveller) and where the Starships should
be at some disadvantage (additionally) operating in an 'unusual' combat
environment.
Ortillery takes some of my ideas on CSS and COS, applies it to tactical
operations (!) but with weaponry raised on Super Steroids.
Why use Ortillery?
1) You want to hurt the enemy but you don't necessarily want to occupy the
planet (at least long term) in most cases.
2) Planetary defense consume excessive amounts of the enemy's resources and a
strike there would strategically, financially and emotionally
(morale effects) injure the enemy forces/government.
3) The enemy defenses are too great to expend the lives/materials needed
(Invaders are limited to what is carried on ship or captured) to take
and control/occupy the point (pass, transportation net, resources) but
you want to deny the enemy that access.
4) Friendly casualties (weapons or radiation induced) are deemed worth the
destruction of the enemy elements targeted. Cold but true in some cases.
Why NOT use Ortillery?
1) You have to pass through that spot, regularly and possibly with unprotected
troops, civilians, and radiation affected goods.
2) Your enemy has many more WMD (and the will to use them) then you can defend
against and still carry out your mission.
3) Your geopolitical leadership will publicly have you drawn and quartered for
your "Crimes against Humanity".
I invite more thoughts on Ortillery, CAS, COS, and CSS. I have been thinking
about how to tie FT (Ortillery) and DS 2 together in a campaign that I like.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> I differentiate the four as thus:
OK, I'm with you so far as the MT interpretation of Ortillery as above.
> NBC (or ABC, depending on your generation) would
At least that's how I'd view it.
> So the opposite end of the spectrum is aerospace
Someone's got house rules for those up on a website
somewhere--I've got them on my computer in the room.
> I originally envisioned COS (years ago) as ships in
Yeah. The Air Force doesn't believe in it anymore. But it's the second most
important thing they do. (The most important is reconaissance).
> and capable (barely) of air breather (and similar)
Now that's an interesting arena. I mean, I'd think
that planetary-based fighters would have to be
aerospace in order to be any good in the defense.
In-atmosphere, restricted to slow speeds and with
massive sensor signatures, they'd be easy meat for starship weapons systems,
at least the way I'm thinking. This is an area that requires further thought.
> CSS was more the vaguely defined arena where less
Why would the starships have a problem? They're operating in a low orbit
plinking at will.
> I have been thinking (red alert!) - given my USAF slant, and John A's
Considering the treatment of "ortillery" in DS (p 40) as mearly another type
of artillery, I'd think that the first three of those you listed could all
be grouped under the geberal heading of ortillery w/ the categories you
listed as subgroups. However, for this post I will stick to your
differentiations. Just commenting on terminology.
> I liken it [ortillery] to a mass strike of a
I would suggest that the description of ortillery given above is the upper end
of it's potential and would expect from thte DS ortilllery reference that it
could be somehow "dialed down" to produce an effect no greater than that of a
standard groundbased battery. As for the use of ortillery escalating a
conflict to WMD (years in forensics have made me hate that phrase) slinging
level, I personally couldn't see a government that
possesses WMD's not using them if they were going to be destroyed and/or
occupied by an opposing, external power. For reference, have we ever
(historically) had a WMD possessing power conquered by another power?
Therefore, the threat of escalation due to WMD-level ortillery might be
irrelivent as such escalation wouldn't be very unusual should a planitary
government be faced with the choice of using WMD's or ceasing to exist.
> Why NOT use Ortillery?
Asuming of course that the ortillery has a significant residual effect, which
it would appear to have from looking at MT, but would not appear to have from
the DS description.
> 2) Your enemy has many more WMD (and the will to use them) then you
Considering the power of shipmounted weapons, immagine what you could emplace
on a planet. Also, if you opponent has WMD's and your objective is to occupy
him, as I stated above, I'm sure he'd use them before allowing you to be
successful.
> 3) Your geopolitical leadership will publicly have you drawn and
If you strike civilien things, probably. Military targets only, I'm not so
sure. It's not your fault that your opponent chose to place legitimate
military targets within civilien population centers (aka Well, he shouldn't
have had anyone living withing 100 km of the target. Nothing we can do about
using civiliens to shileld military targets). You're using nuclear or worse
weapons on each other in space, why wouldn't that extend to the ground? Also,
I'm sure the peoples of Earth will be horrified to hear about millions of
inocent K'V being killed.
> I invite more thoughts on Ortillery, CAS, COS, and CSS. I have been
Honastly, I could never see how it would be practical to attempt to occupy
an entire planet w/ enough troops to keep a hostile population in check.
If
I was playing in a campagne and thought I was going to win long term, my MO
when dealing w/ enemy planets would be to ask them, politely, to
surrender. If they did so, they would be allowed lots of freedoms and their
own puppet government and all that and it would be attempted to make their
situation better than it was previously. If they refused, I'd blow them to
heck and back. It'd get the point across. If i didn't think i was going to win
long term, I'd just ignore ethe planets that failed to surrender. Similarly,
I'd think it'd be practicly impossible to controll an alien population with
which communication was difficult. Therefore, it would be expected that
interspecies wars would see alot more "genocide" than wars withing the same
species. And, it always must be remembered that there are nations who treat
WMD's as just another option and others who think like Tamerlane. For that
matter, the whole idea of "genocide" being bad as well as the so called "rules
of war" are rather modern inventions. It would be good (very good) if these
ideas would continue to be in vogue, but with humanity fighting for it's life,
how likely is that?
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 08:57:24 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> I originally envisioned COS (years ago) as ships in
The Air Force likes to pretend it's Air Superiority (which *has* to be
#1
to allow some of the others to occur) followed by Interdiction (CAS past
the FEBA - Forward Edge of battle Area, Beth. I think,) reconnaissance,
transportation and __then__ CAS with what's left (Hence the Army's love
fest with VTOL's/rotary aircraft since the infamous 1950's agreement.)
In my simple mind I think the Air Force priorities should be (with flexibility
for tactical situations) Reconaissance (including space,) Air Superiority,
Transportation, CAS and then Interdiction. I am sure I left out a mission or
two in the above but I'm doing this without notes...
> and capable (barely) of air breather (and similar)
I see this as primarily a FT Fighter (optimized for space) versus fighter
(optimised for air and lacking all the weioght needed for space gear) followed
by fighter versus a spaceship who has to stay in low orbit (or
not be available in 0-5 turns - hence no manuvers and the SML carrying
strike craft thank you...) to provide expected support of the ground troops.
Leaving low orbit would be a 'mission kill' for the planetary forces. Not as
good as a ship kill but it might be vital to the defenders at some tactical
moment. In other words the spaceship is an
exceedingly predictable target (plusses to hit/damage for the attacking
Planet defense forces) because it's orbit is unusually fixed compared to
operations in deep space or even CSS status.
> CSS was more the vaguely defined arena where less
I question the '...plinking at will,,,' part but they should not be as
predictable as a COS mission.
You think the USAF guys don't like attacking into the teeth of ground
defenses? The guys in Space would be even less prone to get down into the land
forces dirty little world. When they pull out and 'come around' again it might
be after the time interval of a SG or DS 2 scenario...
Gracias,
> --- "Z. Lakel" <zlakel@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> phrase) slinging level, I personally couldn't see a
Both France and Nazi Germany had large stockpiles of chemical weapons during
WWII and did not use them. Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
did not use them either.
> Asuming of course that the ortillery has a
IMNSHO, the MT description is suited for particle beam usage, which is the
"canon" (From FT) description of human beam batteries. The DS description
indicates a differing, more specialized system.
> If you strike civilien things, probably. Military
Depends on the nation. Look at the gyrations we go to to avoid harming civvies
in the US of A's military actions at present. I have a feeling that some
superpower conflicts will take on a early 18th century
feel--deliberately limited wars for deliberately
limited gains using limited means. Fought, often, by professionals who are
ignored as much as possible by the locals. Since you want the locals to keep
ignoring you, living productive little lives extracting resources, engaging in
manufacturing, and PAYING TAXES instead of running amuck with kitchenware
slitting drunk soldier's throats behind brothels, you wish to avoid pissing
the locals off by killing
Great-Aunt Ethel.
> You're using nuclear or worse weapons on each other
Because people don't live in space, and if they do they live in big metal cans
that are radiation shielded. Because most food is not grown in space. Because
the Sierra Club can't get all hot and bothered about hard vacuum. Because the
radiation from a space battle won't linger on and cause trouble for the next
500 years.
> Also, I'm sure the peoples of Earth will be
Specious argument--the only ground battles vs. the K'V
have been on human-inhabited planets.
> Honastly, I could never see how it would be
Depends on how many inhabitants you've got. Beth ran the population figures
for New Serbia and came up with under half a million inhabitants. And it's not
a brand new colony. On the other hand, with really cheerful estimates New
Constantinople checked in at over 80 million. That's not going to be that far
from
the top end of non-Core colonies.
> I was playing in a campagne and thought I was going
"And thought I was going to win long term." Who, between the ESU and NAC is
going to win long term? I mean, they've been around for better than a century
and a half and have clashed intermittantly ever since. They aren't going to
topple each other barring some truly strange events. You're thinking in WWII,
Final Crusade To End Evil terms. I think the GZGverse portrays a world where
no one really can afford to think in those terms, instead reverting back to
Balance of Power concepts.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> In my simple mind I think the Air Force priorities
I like CAS more than I like Transportation, but then I'm heavy. If I fly to
war, it's in a charter airliner to meet up with a prepositioned set of
equipment.
> I see this as primarily a FT Fighter (optimized for
Would be an interesting matchup--although to achieve
the speeds they'd have to be going in space, those FT fighters are going to
have whopping big engine and a big edge in speed. Aerospace fighters will have
to
make up for it in maneuverability--and pray that they
don't have to deal with OTH missles. Because if you think an AWACs airplane
make air combat too easy, just wait until you can put it in space and have it
cover a whole hemisphere.
> You think the USAF guys don't like attacking into
Urm... True. I imagine supressing planetary
defenses would be the first step of any invasion--just
like plinking coastal defenses would be step of an amphibious operation (at
least those coastal defenses capable of sinking an LST). This is the realm of
those cloaked destroyers armed with SLMs with
land-attack warheads that I was advocating yesterday.
John Atkinson said:
> Because people don't live in space,
Hey!
> and if they do
And rocks.
> Because most food is not grown in space.
I'll betcha we'll hear something from someone about "the pristine environment
of the asteroid"...
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> John Atkinson said:
OK.
"_Normal_ people don't etc."
> > and if they do
With radiation shielding, no?
> > Because most food is not grown in space.
Do you _know_ what the NRE does to environmentalists??
Exiles them to whatever environment they were protesting in defense of. You
love artic tundra so much? Here's a free winter coat. Enjoy the trip.
:P
> Both France and Nazi Germany had large stockpiles of
I conciede that the France and Nazi Germany example has relevance. However it
illustrates only one situation and I was speaking in generalities. Therefore,
I should ammend the strength of my statement to say that such a goverment
would be likely to use WMD's. As a counter example, do you think Isrial(sp?)
would hesitate to use any weapon they possess top defend themselves from their
neighbors should it come to that? Concerning Iraq, were they really threatoned
with ceasing to exist by the U.S.? I mean, it's the same government in power
now as it was then.
> IMNSHO, the MT description is suited for particle beam
Point Taken. As I don't have MT, what are the rules/stats for the
specialised ortillery system?
> Depends on the nation. Look at the gyrations we go to
"Some" being the opperative word here. Certianly a portion of actions will
occur as you suggest, but non-limited wars will happen, and while the
U.S.
abhores harming noncombatents, not everyone does, and that is the key. You
assume a given code of conduct which cannot be assumed as given to apply to
all nations.
> > You're using nuclear or worse weapons on each other
Ah, the nuclear depth charge argument. However, couldn't the ample use of
nukes in one setting reduce the psycological blocks for using them in another?
If nuclear weapons are never used and are seen as something untouchably
deadly, it's much harder to convince yourself it's ok to use them on someone
when compared to if they are routeenly used? how much easier is it to order a
weapon that you allways fire to be target at a different target than it is to
use a weapon that you never use? Psycologically that is.
> > Also, I'm sure the peoples of Earth will be
Even better, make that "How many K'V civvies will be horrified to hear about
millions of innocent Hu'Mon being killed?"
> Depends on how many inhabitants you've got. Beth ran
How many troops would it take to controll pops of those sizes?
> "And thought I was going to win long term." Who,
First, allow me to appologise for not clerifying that I was speaking
not-in-
canon. As far as balance of power, I don't think such a thing exists. Instead,
I feel that nations are either becoming more powerfull or decreasing in power.
Their power never remains static as is implied in the BoP theory. All (all
being inclusive within reason and expecting statisticly outlying events)
apparent balances of power are brought about by
all the nations involved believing in the BoP theory--it's a
self-fuffilling
prophesy. An excelent historical example is the Alexandrian successor
states. They all engaged in little wars w/ each other w/ limited
objectives
and _Republican_ Rome rolled right over them (not quite that simple, but
still). The reason for that is that Republican Rome fought wars w/ 2
possible ends--the destruction of their enemies, or their own
distruction. A state following the BoP theory does quite well until it meets
someone that
refuses to believe in its little fantasy. As for the GZG-verse, asuming
the NAC and ESU continue hostilities and still exist after the KV go away, I'd
expect a lesser power (UN perhaps?) to gradually expand and mess w/
their ongoing war. BoP thinking causes nations to stagnate and lose power
while
more victory-oriented thinking causes said nations to gain power, and
how
could a nation _not_ afford to think in the term that will best help it
increase its strength?
> --- "Z. Lakel" <zlakel@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> counter example, do you think
It almost did in 1973. But even when the defenses on
the Golan Heights were down to about a half-dozen
operating tanks, they didn't use them. I doubt Israel would use nuclear
weapons unless the Arabs broke through and were burning kibbutzes to the
ground. Furthermore, Israel faces an enemy with an avowed goal not of removing
it's government, but of killing every Jewish man, woman, and child in
Palestine. This is a truly abberational situation.
> Concerning Iraq, were they really threatoned with
Just because we made that decision does NOT mean that it was predictable that
we would have made that decision.
> Point Taken. As I don't have MT, what are the
I don't have the book on my, but Glen posted a summary yesterday.
> Ah, the nuclear depth charge argument. However,
Wouldn't working in a slaughterhouse and killing steers by the hundreds reduce
the psychological blocks for killing human beings by the hundreds?
Answer: Theoretically, but most normal human beings have a sense of
proportion.
> How many troops would it take to controll pops of
Depends on how politically active they are, how well armed they are,
settlement patterns (if 40% of the planet's population is in one urban area,
then they are much easier to control) and a host of other factors.
> First, allow me to appologise for not clerifying
We're discussing doctrine, which cannot be removed from it's political
context.
> As far as balance of power, I don't think
Really--how would you describe the 17th-19th century
situation in Europe? No one (except Napoleon) went about conquering their
neighbors and installing new
governments--and Napoleon found that when he started
doing that, all his neighbors ganged up on him and took him down. Further, he
was not able to sucessfully conquer his major enemies (Austria, Russia,
Britain) and replace their governments. And when he was defeated, what did the
Allies do?
Re-installed the old dynasty that Britain had been at
war with before the Revolution. And the Brits, French, Germans, and Russians
went back to competing for colonies.
> Instead, I feel that nations are either becoming
Balance of Power doesn't presume totally static situation. It presumes a fluid
situation, but one in which only small adjustments are possible. My power
shrinks today because I lost a province, but I'll get it back next year.
> and _Republican_ Rome rolled right over them (not
Not always true. And specious argument. Balance of power implies that no one
has the ability to wage wars of conquest against major states. Not that no one
wants to.
> A state following the BoP theory does quite well
Presuming, of course, that that someone has the ability to throw off the
balance of power. No one
wants a balance of power and works to maintain it--you
merely acknowledge a situation that exists. Balance of power is maintained by
the various nations constantly striving to increase their own power, but
not having the ability to commit to an all-or-nothing
conquest attempt.
G'day,
One question (once again sorry if I've missed this already due to the sodding
link being down), but...
Why are we assuming that ortillery will have to have a nuke like radiation
signature with it? Wouldn't kinetics alone have enough energy to do MAJOR
damage and thus not require you to "waste" stuff by actually using a nuke? I
can understand that using a beam weapon may have some radiation signature, but
how like a nuke would it be (sorry its been a long time since I did physics of
that kind and I can't remember much of it)? As for things just hitting the
ground at speed that shouldn't have much of a nuclear like
radiation signature after the initial shockwave/heat etc passed right
(at least the idea of the dinosaurs glowing in the dark as a result of a KT
event has never come up in the stuff I've read)?
Cheers
> Why are we assuming that ortillery will have to have a nuke like
No reason. The Ortillery Rules (pg 40) say it's just like other artillery
except deviates more. Unless I've missed something.
> Wouldn't kinetics alone have enough energy to do MAJOR damage
Yep.
> physics of that kind and I can't remember much of it)? As for things
None, I don't think. You'd certainly get visible light and IR plus blast
effects, but you wouldn't get the "hard" radiation.
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:03:29 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> Do you _know_ what the NRE does to environmentalists??
LOL! I love it when people act as if the 'natural environment' was a copy of
Eden. Usually they haven't camped (in a tent, not a tin house on wheels!) a
week in it and tasted 'all' it's 'pristine nature'!
But then I think "Traditionals" have a major reality block, too. That's going
to get me some flack if it gets off list....
Mainstream Middle Class America ain't perfect but I *like* my toys (not to
mention freely available, (relatively) quality controlled, mass
produced medicines - even if I was told by my Peditriacian, "Well, you
won't have to ever worry about a third dose of Penicillin..." and being able
to go to all the beauties of this country's environment without
worrying about waking up with [fill in your Pre-Columbian traditional
rival group, for me it's Creeks] raiders acting as the "morning wake up call."
Gracias,
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:56:14 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> John Atkinson said:
Too close to home?
> and if they do
Pristine means non-existent now?
I would not mind having a cabin in the Sierra Nevadas, a cottage on the
beaches of early 1950's Southern California shore, or even a vacation house in
Western Washington but a sealed updated Quonset Hut on
Philistine 28465? Nyah.
Gracias,
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:05:54 +1100 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:36:49PM -0500, Z. Lakel wrote:
Here's a thought. If you're invading a planet, you have to carry along
all your materiel - and given the huge costs of streamlining in the
GZGVerse, you're expecting to shuttle it to the surface.
So why not uprate some more conventional munitions such that they can be
deployed directly from orbit?
I'm a big fan of the Thoth missile concept - forward observer with a
designator of some sort, big aircraft away from the battlefield rolling
out missiles - and I think it could easily be adapted here. We've
established, I think, that kinetic weapons are the way to go if you want mass
destruction, but I certainly don't think that that's the only desired or
possible role for orbital fire support.
My vision is of a tactical missile - bigger than IAVRs, the sort of
thing you'd normally see on heavier aircraft - stacked in bundles of 4-6
and wrapped in a reentry shroud and expendable booster. The bundle is
rolled out of the ship, de-orbits itself, splits the shroud when high
over the battlefield, and the missiles find targets as required.
My own FT campaign rules, and others I've read, assume that if you're the only
power with ships over a planet the inhabitants will do what you
tell them. Partly this came from not wanting to write ground-combat
rules, but mostly it seems that:
- the attackers have complete choice of timing of their attacks;
- the attackers probably have better repair facilities (depends on
whether the planet has a dockyard), though supply is likely to be a
problem
- the attackers only have a problem at all if they're aiming to keep
some of the population alive
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:03:29 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
<snip>
> Do you _know_ what the NRE does to environmentalists??
> Exiles them to whatever environment they were
Certainly a dire threat to the common urban middle-class
environmentlist.
Rather less so for those local folks who don't want something nasty done to
their backyards, hunting grounds or fishing waters.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
Not to mention the college-student-protester types.
> Rather less so for those local folks who don't want
That sort of environmentalism I can understand.
[quoted original message omitted]
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:48:17 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> Rather less so for those local folks who don't want
As per my example, I expect KH has spent a few hours enjoying nature oriented
activities in less the unadorned beauty it has unlike some of my Southern
California H.S. and college classmates who became so
'environmentally aware' from their safety/comfort/insulation in a
resort...
Lots of people concerned about the state of the nature they enjoyed in the
past are willing to sacrifice to insure the same for the next generations but
some of the publicity seekers sound like the guys in "Rainbow Six" at times.
To bring this on topic - Who has a scenario (SG/DS2/FT/FMA) where the
troops have to try and not destroy or let the opposition destroy the terrain
they are defending? Anything similar? That would be a twist to the standard
seek and destroy or defend Fort Apache 2181 format!
Gracias,
G'day Glenn,
> You're welcome. Sorry I thought I caught CAS in the original post.
You did thanks, but due to the dopey link here I only got it (and upto 4
multiples of other posts, when CSIRO juggles posts in cyber land it really
juggles!) this morning.
Thanks
G'day,
> To bring this on topic - Who has a scenario (SG/DS2/FT/FMA) where the
Well I've found myself defending/trying to take a research
facility/power
plant/vault a few times and it fits into that category I guess (and not
always in separate games.... "OK guys we seem to have *misplaced* that village
we'd better go back and *find* it again before anyone finds
out!")
Cheers
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> To bring this on topic - Who has a scenario
IIRC, the only major time I've introduced that worry in a scenario was when I
was trying to blow a bridge and the enemy wanted to take it in one piece.
> Eric Foley wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
I thought it was the brits that said that they would respond to any weapon of
mass destruction with their own weapons of mass destruction, but lamented that
all they had were nuclear weapons, no chems, no bios.
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:20:48 -0500 Richard and Emily Bell
<rlbell@sympatico.ca> <snip>
> I thought it was the brits that said that they would respond to any
British sense of humor (or I guess I should say 'humour' to... well, humor
them.)