HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Supremacy Summary?
Date: 19 Dec 1992 13:13:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hassink@cs.UAlberta.CA (Hassink Brian John) says:
>
>Anybody out there care to elaborate a little on the game of
>Supremacy? I've seen it around for quite some time and it looks
>interesting, but I'd like to get some other opinions before
>shelling out $70 (In Canadian dollars of course).

Don't bother.  

The game looks really neat until you figure out that it's unfixably 
broken because of the way the market works.  (And resource centers, 
and prospecting, and....)  There are several expansions available but 
none of them fixes the problem.

-- PTD --
-- 
Palmer T. Davis      ___
<ptd2@po.cwru.edu>   \X/   cthread.  cthread_fork().  Fork, thread, fork!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: pca8c@Virginia.EDU ("Phil Abel")
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
Organization: University of Virginia Secret Bomb Factory
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:34:12 GMT

The rule about being able to produce limited units on captured
ICs hurts one person: Germany! A pivotal part in their strategy
is taking Karelia and then using it to feed units in to finish
off Moscow. If Germany has the fortune to actually be able to
hold off the invading hoarde of allies, the least they deserve
is to be able to use the IC in Karelia to full capacity. If they
can only produce three units there once it's captured, Axis
victories would become even more remote.

And the thing is, all the other ICs are on territories valued
at 6 or more. Moreover, if any of these other ICs fall, the
game is pretty much over anyway. But Karelia is an IC that
is targeted in EVERY game.

Well, one more exam to go here then I'll be heading back to
Nebraska (don't hold it against me) for the holidays. I most
certainly am going to get in a few games of A&A, and hope that
I can try out some of the new strategies debated here in the
recent past in hopes of formulating some saving grace for the
axis. After all, it's called AXIS and Allies, not Allies and
Axis. I look forward to bearing witness to the upcoming Axis
and Allies "online grudge match" upon my return.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:19:57 -0500 
From: "Timothy C. Worsley" <tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
	<1992Dec10.203440.4511@uc.msc.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 10-Dec-92 Re: A&A - I think I
found i.. Robert Hanson@msc.edu (1220)

> This means you are leaving the U.S. transport untouched.  So on UK's
> turn I will
> by an IC and place it on Gibralter.  I will fly most of my planes from UK to
> Gibralter (depending on overall situation).  On U.S. turn, I transport two
> infantry into Spain-Portugal? (I don't have a board in front of me) and
> violate 
> neutrality efectively setting up Germany for a 2-front land battle that
> it cannot
> win.  If you do this you don't have to worry about buying transports for UK. 
> Has anyone else ever done something similar to this?


	Using the old A&A rules, we would often build an IC in Gibralter.  Now
that production is limited by IPC values, an IC in Gibralter is
worthless.

ZZnew guy
From: thpr_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Thomas Parker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Squad Leader information wanted
Keywords: scenarios, AFV counters,  help!
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:45:56 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec18.204757.9464@oclc.org> jmb@oclc.org (James Blight) writes:


>  A friend and I have started playing Squad Leader recently as a prelude to
>  learning and playing ASL.  We were looking through the stuff we bought and
>  were wondering a few things...

>  1) We have scenarios 1-40 from Squad Leader and the expansions and a booklet
>     of scenarios 91-100 from GI Anvil of Victory.  We were wondering where
>     scenarios 41-90 are and how to get our hands on them.

Scenarios 41-90 are in "Cross of Iron" and "Crescendo of Doom" two SL
supplements that AH had continued and discintinued a number of times.
I'm not sure of their current status.
One thing you could do is to get an AH catalog and try to order the parts.


>  2) We bought a lot of SL and ASL stuff in one large package.  There are
>     apparently some AFV counters missing or incorrect.  Specifically, for
>    scenario 3B with some Russian T-34s and German Sturmgesutz IIIs.  Some
>    kind soul was nice enough to email me a description of scenarios 3 & 9
>    but we cannot find the counters for the AFVs.  Could someone please email
>    me the stats for the AFVs in this scenario?  If these matches the one we
>    got the the counters are missing.  The STGIIIs both had the 105mm howitzwer
>    and the 75mm(?) guns.....

My set of SL counters as about 1/2 gone.  If you find out what you are missing
perhaps I could arrange for you to get what you are missing.

>  3) Can you convert Squad Leader scenarios to use ASL counters/rules?  We
>     haven't checked out the ASL stuff much,  other than note that the counters
>     had more values on them.

?
Never could afford ASL, so ...?


>   Thanks for your interest,

>        -Jim 

>  
Tom Parker
thpr_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ixanian@sco.COM (Ixanian Nichols)
Subject: GEV
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:58:55 GMT



	If anyone decides to run an OGRE/GEV miniatures game at
a con here in the SFBay area, I will play. I want to know about
it.


						- Ix

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: pepij00@DMI.USherb.CA (JEROME PEPIN)
Subject: Britannia highest score ???
Organization: Universite de Sherbrooke -- Dept. d'Informatique
Distribution: rec.games.board
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:07:26 GMT


       	What's the highest score you have made with Britannia, with witch
tribes, colors...

	I have made a score 195 with (saxons, romans, romano-british...)
in a game of three players.


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: starflt@athena.mit.edu (Derrick Kong)
Subject: Re: SFB: Starbase Augmentation Modules
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1g5rs3INNjc8@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> <77961@hydra.gatech.EDU>
	<1992Dec10.165118.3934@colorado.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:49:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.165118.3934@colorado.edu> wolniewi@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOLNIEWICZ RICHARD H) writes:

   In article <77961@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt2184c@prism.gatech.EDU (David E. Pope) writes:
   |> >Doesn't the HBM carry only six fighters??  If you only have two then only
   |> >twelve F-14s would be available.
   |> >
   |> >--Xourel
   |> 
   |> Ooops.  Yup, I looked it up last night.  The SB has a limit of two PAM, so
   |> the appropriate pods would be 4xHBM + 2xPAM.  I _knew_ SB's could have 24
   |> fighters.... :-|

   Doesn't the Fed SB generally have one of its modules converted to hold
   12xF-14 (and some A-10s, if I remember correctly)?  With 4xHBM this gives
   36xF-14, not a bad force in itself.

   Richard Wolniewicz
   wolniewi@cs.colorado.edu

Yes, the Fed starbase does get the #4 module converted to hold 12
fighters. (all A-10's, I believe.  My rulebook is at home.  Plus the 2
PAM become HBM's.)  However, this only occurs after the introduction of
PF's which is after the year the scenario is supposed to take place...

If you have the points, be sure to take 2 barracks modules.  (You cannot
have more than 2 according to an arbitrary restriction.)  The extra 60
boarding parties will make capturing any foolish enemy ship trivial.

Plus, if you are using the Advanced Boarding Party Combat System, they
make your life defending the huge number of sections of the starbase a
LOT easier...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a sucker born every minute.
		-P.T. Barnum			Derrick Kong
And they die about that fast too.		starflt@athena.mit.edu
		-Grimtooth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: gordon@delfin.com (Gordon Hua)
Subject: WiF, Question about national effort, pilots ?
Reply-To: gordon@delfin.com
Organization: Delfin Systems, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:05:19 GMT


A thought about national effort, should the termination of national effort 
be allowed?   Conditions required would be no enemy units in or adjacent to the Home Country.  The rationale would be 'now that we've repelled the 
invasion, the emergency is over, lets go back to business as usual." 

The Planes in Flames module does not address national effort.  National
effort allows only INF, HQ, and FTRs to be built, in PiF, FTRs are now 
composed of pilots and FTRs.  The rules have not been extended to 
explicitely allow pilots to be built while under national effort.  I 
would advocate a house rule to allow pilots to be so built.  What do
other people think ?


Gordon
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:39:34 -0500 
From: Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
	<BzC7F2.A1v@NeoSoft.com>

>  Forgive me for my interuption, but I have a 1984 version of the game and
>certain rules that were brought up from the newer version make this
>impossible..  Since Karelias' IPC value is only 3 how can you build 8
>infantry in it?  And, if you leave Russia with only one take what is to
>stop Germany from attacking Caucaus with 1 fighter 1 bomber and 3 infantry
>then blitzing through it and attacking Russia with 2 fighters and 2
>tanks..  (Taking all of Russias money and basicly winning the game in the
>first round)

In answer to your first question:  Original factories have unlimited
production.
As for you your second question:  All combat movement is done before
battles, so Russia can not be attacked by any lan units.

>  If you two decide to play a game out on the net might I suggest another
>method of determining wins/losses in battles..  (This may have allready
>been stated, but I'll go over it anyway)
> 
>  Add up each sides attack or defense value of its' pieces, divide this
>number by 6 to determine the number of kills it inflicts, save any
>remainder to add to the next round of fighting (Unless there will be no
>other round in which case if the remainder is 4 or more it is considered a
>kill..)  An example:  3 inf 1 tank attack 1 plane 1 inf..

As I see it, this makes a large change between a force of 6 and 5
points.  Why not just say 5 points do 5/6 of a hit?


Erik
---=
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: hamilton@miki.pictel.com (Charlie Hamilton)
Subject: Fall of France rules
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:41:13 GMT

Does anybody have a copy of the rules to GDW's Fall of France?
I have the whole game, minus rules and OB charts. I would
appreciate it if I could get a copy of this stuff from one
of you kind souls in netland. Please reply via e-mail, 'cuz
most of r.g.b. doesn't get through to me.


Thanks,

Charlie (hamilton@pictel.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: WIF question: China attack limit
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.015042.4900@athena.mit.edu>, cwk@athena.mit.edu (Chuck Krueger) writes...
>Encountered a minor problem while playing WIF the other day. The 
>situation was that Japan had not yet declared a major offensive
>on the Chinese and the Chinese have all of their airforce built
>and they have access to sea zones in order to fly naval air 
>missions. Are the number of aircraft that China can fly into these
>sea zones at all limited by the China attack limit? If so, what about
>the Japanese player's ability to counter these moves with aircraft/CV's?
>I'm pretty sure this one's not spelled out in the rulebook (at least not
>clearly) so I'm willing to hear any thoughts people might have.
>Chuck

Chuck,

I think the rules say what air missions count, and naval air is not one of
them (for the Chinese or Japanese).


Dave
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Which 2-player games are best?
Date: 14 Dec 1992 06:52:13 GMT
Organization: The Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Club
Reply-To: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu
Originator: goldfarb@earthquake.berkeley.edu

In article <1797@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
)Does anyone out there think that the game as published is balanced?  I
)always find that even giving the green things every advantage (including
)the optional extra adult) they get completely clobbered.
)
)                                        David desJardins

	Hm. I always found that the Green Things had the advantange. It
basically always came down to the two area effect weapons: the comm beamer
and especially the fire extinguishers. If those weapons had a useful effect,
then the crew would win handily. If they didn't, the crew would get squashed.
Of course, there were usually more bad effects to choose from than good ones.

-- 
   David Goldfarb          | 
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  |      "Hey, mister! Your ninja's dragging!" 
goldfarb@UCBOCF.BITNET     | 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: 3W games
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:12:09 GMT
Organization: Biochemistry

I recently received some mail-order coupons for 3W games.  I have played
Roarke's Drift once, but am not familiar with their other games.  A couple of
their games sounded as if they might be interesting (Imperia comes to mind). 
Does anyone have thoughts/opinions/preferences/dislikes about 3W games?


Eric Roush			Deck us all with Boston Charlie
fierkelab@			Walla Walla Wash and Kalamazoo!
bchm.biochem.duke.edu	Nora's freezin' on the Trolley,
				Swaller Dollar Cauliflower Alla-ga-Roo!

				Walt Kelley
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Review wanted: Timjim games
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:20:33 GMT
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.


I see three new games listed by Timjim Games, though they may not yet
be out.  Has anyone seen any of the following, and are there any
opinions?

Age of Exploration

Mystic War

Time Agent

Thanks,

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ethan@cs.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Subject: Gaming cons
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:15:24 GMT


	Hi all. I'm interested in gaming conventions. I know
people who are familiar with the SF Con circuit, but, as someone
who likes games such as Civ and Dip, I would like to attend a con
with more-or-less continual gaming possiblities.

	Unfortunately I don't know names, times or places. I'm in
NYC, and can have a reasonable budget (having a student Amex does
nice things to airplane fares 8) but I can't spend a ton.

	So basically, I'm looking for names, places, dates and
reviews.

	Thanks,
	-- Ethan


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Hobie Orris <hobie@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Roark's Drift
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:41:00 GMT


I am currently playing the Lou Zocchi 1978 version of Roark's Drift, which
has a lot of rough edges.  I once saw a reprinting of this game, but I don't
know anything about it.  The one I have has a white cover with a line drawing
on the cover.  The reprinting has a full-colour box.

Has anyone played this?  I am interested to know if there are any rule 
changes in the later version.  For instance, is it possible to melee from
the roof to the ground?  We are assuming that this is possible.  The 1st
edition also states that all obstacles obstruct LOF, including the ditch 
and the 2-foot north ridge.  We have opted to make our own sighting rules
a la PanzerBlitz, taking into account the elevation of both attacker and
target.  Does the 2nd edition amend the sighting rules?

Hobie Orris

P.S. For those of you totally mystified by this posting, I'll explain that
Roark's Drift is a re-creation of the action in the 1978 movie "Zulu" which
itself re-creates the 1879 attack of 4000 zulus on a British trading post
defended by 100 riflemen.  Scale is 10' to the hex, single-man counters for
the Brits and 5-man counters for the zulus.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert)
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:53:18 GMT
Summary: I think it's fun

In article <1992Dec15.100238.25391@sol.UVic.CA>, rhorner@ugly.UVic.CA (Roger  Horner) writes:
> How is CW?  I bought it used about 7 years ago and haven't had a chance to play

Well, I think it's fun.  It's very easy to adapt for PBeM, which is a big
plus for me since that's all I can manage.  Naturally, the north has a huge
advantage, but playing the south and trying to thwart the union onslaught
is interesting (but frustrating).  It's hard to say how realistic it is, but
it does give you a flavor of what it's like to coordinate the whole war effort.
Each turn is filled with choices and things build slowly, so poor strategic
decisions haunt you for a long time.  Tactical considerations are minimal.

	Steve Albert
	ssa@usl.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: A&A Question: Placement of Ships
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:42:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.133915.45760@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2huwbeach@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>	In my 1984 version of A&A, Britain is to place a Battleship at
>Gibraltor at the beginning of the game.  Also Germany is to place a sub in 
>the Southern Europe Sea Zone.  The problem is that both Gibraltor and 
>Southern Europe share the same sea zone.  I know there is also a rule stating
>that a ship cannot pass through the Gibraltor/North Africa Sea Zone unless
>it owns the countries on both sides of the sea pass.  So what we usually do is
>place the British battleship in the sea zone just west of Gibraltor and place
>the German sub in the Southern Europe sea zone just east of Gibraltor.  But
>neither of these ships can pass through the Gibraltor strait since neither
>Britain nor Germany own both sides of the strait.  Is this correct?  Was this
>an oversight in the rules?  Opinions are welcomed.

You've got a mistake here.  The German sub is in *Western* Europe, not
Southern.  The UK battleship is in Gibraltar.  

Now, Western Europe actually is adjacent to 4 sea zones:  The UK sea
zone, the German sea zone (directly north of the Germany territory), the
Gibraltar sea zone and the one that the sub goes in, which has the word
"atlantic" written in it.  If you look at it this way, there is no
discrepancy regarding where the sub goes, as 2 of the 4 sea zones have
enemy ships in them, nad the other has the German sub and transport.  If
the lone sub in Western went there, it would have been listed with the
German units, not Western Europe.

OK?   Just trying to explain the whole thing for ya!  :-)

This gets cleared up in the 2nd edition rulebook, as does the
following.  The UK sub that is in Syria goes in the sea zone to the
*North* of Egypt.  That is, it goes in the Mediteranean sea, not in the
zone that includes the Persian Gulf.

How's that?

Happy holidays!!!!

>		/ Refighting WWII since 1989	/
Hah!   I've been going at it since '84.  nyah nyah.  :-) :-) :-)

Dewey
From: ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB : scenario question
Date: 19 Dec 1992 13:07:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, spz@fys.ruu.nl (Portegies Zwart) says:
>In <sks1.724370692@Ra.MsState.Edu> sks1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Sujay Shaunak) writes:
>
>>	Hey all, our group was thinking about running a large
>>scenario along the following lines :
>>		1) Each player has close to 600 points in ships.
>
>You might think about putting some limits on ship classes.
>[list of suggestions deleted]

Basically, what this boils down to is ``enforce the provisions of (S8.0)''.
If you don't have a copy of the Doomsday edition, get your hands on one,
and read (and enforce) the ``Patrol Scenarios'' rule that was added to
prevent abuse in ``buy your fleet from X BPV'' games.  That should eliminate
most or all of the really absurd cases that you want to avoid.

It should be noted that (S8.0) is *not* an optional rule.
-- 
Palmer T. Davis      ___
<ptd2@po.cwru.edu>   \X/   cthread.  cthread_fork().  Fork, thread, fork!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: helen@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu (Helen Rapozo)
Subject: Re: SFB: Best ship talk/ BPV
Organization: Honolulu Community College
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:42:05 GMT

In article <78115@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works) writes:
>In <1ga8b3INNek6@agate.berkeley.edu> felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (Felix Hack) writes:
>
>>  War isn't about
>>being fair, and neither side in a conflict would remotely dream
>>of volunteering for a 'fair' battle in which either side could win.
***********
I remember one time I arranged a SFB game using the Kzinti Civil War mini-campgain
from Captain's Log 1 (or was that 2) with the rest of gang I gamed with.

This scenario had each side with a CC, 2 CLs and 3 FF.  During the 1st turn's
movement one of my friends noticed that each side had the same amount of
ships and remarked about it and said to the effect that "only skill was
the only factor in winning this game".

My reaction was "so what?"

In any event everyone just stopped playing.


Honolulu Community College            cs_rapozo@hccadb.hcc.hawaii.edu
874 Dillingham Blvd.                  helen@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu
Honolulu, HI 96817                    rapozo@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Ph#: (808) 845-9202
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren)
Subject: Federation and Empire
Organization: National Science Center Foundation
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:08:42 GMT

All these posts on F&E!!

I'm amazed. I really like the game, but I have never managed to play one
through.

The last time we tried (with DF&E), each "turn" took somewhere in the
vicinity of 4-6 hours. My partners only made it through turn 3 or 4,
about the time the Hydrans and Kzinti were one-hex races with partially
devastated capitals. Me being the Coalition, I thought things were just
about to get interesting, but they gave up.

Does it take this long for you guys to play? If not, how do you speed things
up any?

Warren.
From: S_SCHOLL@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Harald Scholl)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: RE: SFB Frax
Date: 15 Dec 1992 11:38:52 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe (FRG) - Informatik Rechnerabt.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: irav1.ira.uka.de
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

OK,sameone asked for the physical makeup of the Frax.
Here it is,they are all bits and bytes,because they "exist" only
in Klingon Battle simulation computers.The Frax are a Klingon
exercises for teaching the fight against unsual races or so
Hope it helps 

Harry