HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfterman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Subject: Computer Games (was Re: Hostility in Gamers)
Reply-To: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire)
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:49:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.235920.6927@oz.plymouth.edu>, sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>I can't stand computer games, either.  They seem like a waste of time.
>What I enjoy in a game is face to face human interaction, whether that
>comes from role-playing, a serious wargame, or a lighthearted
>beer-n-pretzels game.  I have good friends who are heavily into
>computer games (which include MUDs), and it saddens me.  Such a waste
>of good gamers.

Well, I tend to be somewhat of two minds. First off, computerized
RPG's I have a severe problem with, at least the totally computerized
ones. I prefer having a human GM organizing things, inventing things,
dealing with any curve balls we players come up with.

Computerized wargames I could have an easier time with, though there's
the real problem of spending the effort in order to get the computer's
skill level up to par. Until we get good self-teaching programs, a
computer opponent will not be as good as an experienced human.

The one thing that I do think would work very well, and for which we
have the technology today, and is slowly coming into vogue, is the
computer mediated RPG/Wargame. People have pointed out that rule
complexity is often the price for realism. TimeLords, which has one of
the best systems for dealing with damage, is almost too hideously
complex to be usuable, and it takes a real masochist to deal with it.

In some ways it would be simpler to let the computer handle all the
calculations and telling the human to merely roll to hit, roll for
damage, (optionally roll for hit location) and then let the computer
work out all the effects. I'm assuming that people still want to roll
their own dice, just to give some feel that their character isn't
being run for them. Also the GM may want to override the computer's
results in favor of making the game more enjoyable, keeping in line
with the current plot.

With wargames, certain concepts like not knowing where your opponent's
pieces are and having limited visibility rules, becomes much easier.
As are all sorts of complicating rules like delayed communications,
keeping track of which pieces can move and do what, etc. are much
easier. As before, you'd want some way to override the computer's
rules if some grey area in the rules comes up. The computer should
function as a bookkeeper.

A few games of these sorts are starting to appear. I look forwards to
the day they really come into their own.



-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mad Scientist, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
From: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Diplomacy Rules Query
Date: 7 Sep 1992 22:03:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) says:

>May I point out that the example you give does not seem to match the question
>you asked.  If you mean, "can you support a unit which is supporting
>another unit, such that the latter unit's support will not be cut by an
>unsupported attack?", then the example you want to give is:
>
>	Player 1:  A RUM-BUD, A SER S A RUM-BUD, A BUL S A SER
>
>	Player 2:  A GRE-SER, A BUD H
>                         ^^^
>
>...and the answer is *no*...no matter how much support the army in Serbia
>has, it's support is still cut by even the most completely, ridulously,
>absurd, miserable failure of an attack *into* Serbia.  The only exception,
>of course, is if it is supporting an attack into (in this case Greece) the
>province which is attacking it.
>
>Fred
>

As you pointed out I made a mistake in my example.  Thanks for the
clarification.

-- 
Joshua E. Randall
bz556@cleveland.freenet.edu
My motto:  "So little time, so little to do."  --Oscar Levant
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jerry@planck (Gerald Siek)
Subject: Titan - who does NOT like it?
Keywords: titan
Organization: Uni-GH Paderborn
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:29:55 GMT

Hello networld!

After reading all those articles about the "Titan" boardgame I now consider
buying it.  Unfortunately the game is rather expensive (in Germany) and so 
I'm not sure wheter I should get it or not.  So I'd like to hear some more
opinions on the game especially I would like to know if someone does NOT 
like this game and why.    Any answers are appreciated.

Thanks in advance!
	Jerry
-- 
  Gerald Siek  -  jerry@uni-paderborn.de  -  University of Paderborn, Germany
Xref: sparky rec.games.board:8517 rec.games.frp.advocacy:2073
From: jfzeigl@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Jon Zeigler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hostility in Gamers toward Certain Games
Summary: I've observed it, too
Keywords: gamers, gaming clubs, parochialism
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:10:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

(In response to Steffan O'Sullivan's post on parochialism in the gaming hobby,
which is far too long and insightful to quote here:)

Well, yes, I've seen this too.  A little background: I run a largish gaming
club on the East Coast (the Washington Metropolitan Area Gaming Society, or
WMAGS).  We're quite diverse, and I've spent a fair amount of time trying
to get in contact with other gaming organizations, so I've seen a lot of
what you're talking about.

I personally will play just about anything.  I'm primarily a role-player, but
that's mostly because I don't have time to teach others the historical board
games I like, and I don't have the money *or* time to build up a decent
miniatures army.  Still, I don't restrict myself to any one major section of
our hobby.

I've seen many people who do, though.  For example, many RPG players will
not pick up a boardgame or miniatures system above a certain (low) level of
complexity -- the free-form nature of most RPGs makes them impatient with a
large collection of nit-picky, complex rules.  Also, they tend to view all
games as role-playing, and find the roles involved in strategic games to be
less personal and more abstract than they like.

Another example -- historical miniaturists are often downright standoffish
when it comes to the other sections of the gaming hobby.  Wargames are
acceptable, abstract multi-player games less so, and RPGs are generally
considered juvenile and rather asinine.

It's all a matter of taste, I suppose.  Everyone has a set of games they
enjoy -- some sets are more inclusive than others, and some sets are disjoint.



-- 
* Jon F. Zeigler (jfzeigl@afterlife.ncsc.mil)                           *
*  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Emerson    *
* The US Government and the Department of Defense are not responsible   *
* for my opinions.  In fact, I try not to let them know I have any.     *
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: 1/2400 Sailing Ship Models
Reply-To: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 13:59:34 GMT

Does anyone know of a source for 1/2400 sailing ships?  I have some
1/1200 scale (GHQ), but, with the bases, they're a bit too big for my
table if I do more than 2 ships a side.  :-(

So I'd like to go to 1/2400 scale, which I know was made at one time,
and may still be manufactured for all I know.

Anyone know of a company that makes them (and a distributor who carries
them)?

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: Battle tech stuff
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 07:55:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User

In article <trent-110992134611@128.95.123.185> trent@mailhost.hsas.washington.edu (Sigfried Trent) writes:
>> >The Supra-Locust
>> NAME         Tons Pow  W/R/J  Arm H  Cen  Side Arm Leg HS Weapons
>> LCT-S+ Locust 20* 200X 10/15/0 68 8 8/4 7/3 6 8 20* ML ML ML ML SL
>> 
>> Sorry, but you just ran out of crits.  There is a reason that small mechs
>> don't have double heat sinks.  That 200XL engine gives you but 8 "free" 
>> heat sinks.  You have to allocate 6 crits for the other two.  What with
>> the 6 for the XL, 14 for Endo, and 14 for Ferro, you just plumb ran out...
>
>Once again I am afraid you are mistaken.  In the compendium rules
>they changed how free heat sinks are allocated.  Under the new rules
>all mechs get 10 free heat sinks regardless of what their engine size is.
>And in keepikng with the locust frame the supra-locust has no hand
>or lower arm actuators.  Thats 10 crit spaces you hadent accounted for.
>6 for the free heat sinks and 4 for the missing actuators.  Plenty of room.
 
     _
    (_ heck your Compendium again.  Nowhere does it state that you no
 longer have to allocate any of the 10 heat sinks that come with your
 engine.  Specifically, check p. 112 and 113, under "Complete Critical
 Hit Tables."
 

>By the way you missed the masc.  The speed is 10/15/20.  Thats what
>makes it a great design.

    ___
     |ry to show MPs with MASC as 10/15(20) or 10/15[20].  Otherwise
 it looks like you're saying the mech has 20 Jump MPs.

-- 
    ________________________________________
   /  -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex  (: /
  /  lunatic@netcom.com  CI$:  76170,672  /  <----- Note new
 /  GEnie:  LUNATIC    AoL:  <canceled>  /  Internet address
/_______________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Bo-Yin Yang)
Subject: Re: Marsh/Plains
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: titan
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Bo-Yin Yang)
Organization: The Cosmic Titan
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 15:10:47 GMT

[Dan Shoham: on Minoaturs vs. Warbears]
>>...in one of our player's immortal lingo: "A Warbear is a Wuzz!"

I have been reminded that this should spell "Wuss" (Hi Brett!).

>Mino's are better. They rangestrike, and get a decisive terrain advantage
>in the hills/mountains. Bears get a tiny advantage in the Tundra and no
>advantage in the Wood. Mino's also have a higher skill (they walk farther).

Which also means that they get less of a DISadvantage in unfriendly
terrains--- Deserts, Greenery and Wet terrains... in the latter a
rangestrike becomes even more important.

Personally, I would rather defend in the woods with a Unicorn plus a pair
of Minotaurs than a Unicorn plus a pair of Warbears.  At MIT, the coven of
bloodthirsty warriors, we joke about the "native DISadvantage" of Woods
natives (note that none of them flies or rangestrikes) and note that three
or four Rangers makes mincemeat out of Warbears in the Woods.....

>While in plain one-on-one combat bears have a SLIGHT advantage, the other
>advantages that the Mino's have more than compensate.

In case anyone is wondering, yes, Dan is one of the MIT crew...

[Frankly this was one of the motivation behind the design of the Dryad in
the Bo-Yin expansion set-- something that TRULY wreaks havoc in a treed
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:33:55 -0400 
From: "Timothy C. Worsley" <tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Marsh/Plains
	<1992Sep14.000040.25460@galois.mit.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 14-Sep-92 Re: Marsh/Plains Bo-Yin
Yang@ccvax.as.edu (2549)

> I thought we were comparing Minotaurs and  Warbears, not Trolls and Lions.
> There is no doubt in general that Lions are not as good as Trolls.  Titan
> is a well-balanced game precisely because of this aspects-- Centaurs are
> better than Ogres but Lions aren't as good as Trolls and Cyclopses are
> better than both....

	I was originally trying to explain why Marsh is better than Plains (as
in the header), and particularly on turn one.  Warbears are a direct
line from Trolls, so they naturally got brought up.

>>Another advantage of the woods is that the trees to a lot to block
>>range-strikes, and, as woods natives, don't range-strike, they don't lose
>>anything by it.

>Au contraire-- a restrictive terrain is a BOON to rangestrikers since in a
>mutually locked position they can often force the opponents to come out (or
>be executed by rangestrikes) into 2-on-1's.  Both the usual directions from

	There's a cetain amount of truth to that.  Certainly, range-strikers
love the marsh.  However, in the woods, the trees also block
range-strikes.  If a group places an angel in a good location, it
becomes nigh-invulnrable to range-strikes.  The woods can be very
interesting tacticly.

ZZnew guy
From: dddawson@lpl.arizona.edu (Doug Dawson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH - machine gun mechs
Keywords: mechs BattleTech machine guns rules
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:14:53 GMT
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.

In article <1992Sep10.131025.2320@HQ.Ileaf.COM> hal@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Hal Wadleigh) writes:
>The rule of 2 weapons per magazine has been there from the beginning.  It is
>often missed because it is mentioned under the limits of construction and
>component placement, rather than under weapons.
>
>I don't like the munchkin approach of designing a 'mech for one specific 
>situation and the munchkinizer who realizes that he can only fire two of his
>30 machine guns gets so frustrated that he never does it again.

Once more, just where is this rule?  I have just scoured my Compendium's
costruction rule without seeing it.  I went back to my basic rulebook
and found the old rule about 1 ton per weapon, but that seems to have
been overruled pretty conclusively.  Can you give page number?

Also, I'm not sure what your problem with designing mechs for one
purpose is.  We tend to play that you don't really know what the
situation is going to be until yo've built your mech, so if you guess
right, you're allright, but single-purpose mechs out of water are a bad
mistake.
d
From: staats@athena.mit.edu (Dick)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A Glossay of Stereotypes (was Hostility in Gamers...)
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:54:09 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Excellent post!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters)
Subject: Re: Supremacy
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:44:20 GMT

carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:

>I finally managed to play a game of this (and got stomped). The
>problem was that the player who won the first die roll for Selling
>sold everything and pocketed $12G and drove the prices down so that
>none of the other players could make any significant money. This
>monetary advantage was sufficient to keep him dominant for the rest of
>the game (for instance, he could easily afford to develop and build
>L-stars right off and have more than anyone else). Is Supremacy
>unstable this way, or did we read the rules incorrectly?

No you've read the rules correctly. Supremacy does have this problem. Try
the following variant: The player who sells first can only sell one kind
of commodity to the market, then the second player can sell one kind, and
so on; and when everyone who chose to sell has had a chance, the first player
can do further selling to the market at the new (lower) price, etc. (I think
this variant is "official" - but I don't have the game or any of the 
expansions.)

>Some questions on moving forces. Can you move armies into any
>unoccupied territory?  Do you conquer a territory you move into? Can
>you airlift into vacant territories in other player's home countries?

Yes to all three, I think. (I'm not absolutely sure about the second - maybe
you have to end a phase in a territory to conquer it, so marching through
doesn't count. I'm sure someone will answer this, though....)

Drin
--
-----------------
Gutted - Flame NA
From: webber@gbm.ocunix.on.ca ( Andrew or Patti Webber  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 1/2400 Sailing Ship Models
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 09:14:38 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Games by Mail, Ottawa, Ontario

In article <1992Sep5.135934.29037@oz.plymouth.edu> 
(Steffan O'Sullivan) writes: 

> Does anyone know of a source for 1/2400 sailing ships?  I have some
> 1/1200 scale (GHQ), but, with the bases, they're a bit too big for my
> table if I do more than 2 ships a side.  :-(
> 
> So I'd like to go to 1/2400 scale, which I know was made at one time,
> and may still be manufactured for all I know.
> 
> Anyone know of a company that makes them (and a distributor who carries
> them)?
> 

Valiant Miniatures used to make a line.  I thought they were long out of
production, but I saw them at a hobby store's booth at a convention this
summer [Bayshore Hobbies, 789 King St. W., Hamilton, Ontario  L8S 1K2
(416) 524-2334].  I don't know if they were new or old stock; I'll see if
I can find out more about them.

Andrew

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Subject: Re: Star Fleet Battles: strategy
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 03:05:03 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon

In article <BuF6sr.6qv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych) writes:
>quirk@pioneer.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep10.133138.2286@wkuvx1.bitnet> traveja@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>>All SFB players,
>>>
>>> I want to know if anyone knows it I can launch
>>>these drones from my D-7D cruiser, tractor them at speed 20, and ram
>>>my hapless opponent with them. 
>
>>Tractoring your own drones breaks the lock-ons, rendering them useless.
>>(Re-read the Drone and Tractor beam rules.)
>
>Just for my edification, can someone explain why tractoring _your_ drone causes
>it to lose tracking, while tractoring your _opponent's_ drone doesn't?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this was an offering to the
all-might god of game design, Play Ballance. ;-)

However, the 'official' explanation goes something like this.

Since (standard) drones home on sensor energy painted on their targets
(similar to laser guided munitions), and your tractors are tied into
the same sensor system.  Tractoring the drone provides multiple sensor
beams to 'track' which confuses the guidance package.  It takes the
easy way out and shuts down completely.

>Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  quirk@pioneer.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: wesm@mbunix.mitre.org (Miller)
Subject: 1/2400 Sailing Miniatures
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, Ma.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:31:36 GMT

I still see Valiant miniatures around also. But, these are 1/2000 scale. I find
them a bit small, and the sails/masts are extremely fragile.


						Wes Miller

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: BTECH - machine gun mechs
Keywords: mechs BattleTech machine guns rules
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:56:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.153622.1388@HQ.Ileaf.COM> hal@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Hal Wadleigh)
writes:
>Check all those massive machine gun 'mechs for legality.  A magazine can feed
>no more than two weapons and must be at least 1/2 ton minimum.  I doubt that

I do not remember this rule. Which book is this from?

>those munchkin machine gun purcupines follow this rule.  Also remember that a
>'mech can jump no farther than it can walk.
>
>These are the most frequently-ignored rules.  It's great fun in a game against
>a munchkinner to let him put his 'mech on the board, then restrict it to the
>rules.

It seems to me that it would be _much_ better to trash the "munchkin mech" with
good play and a stock(i.e. book version) mech, rather than using the "rules"
against them. How hard is it to stay outside of 3 hexes away from an unit?  In 
one-to-one battles, I have found that this is an easy thing to do.
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Xref: sparky rec.games.board:8529 rec.games.frp.advocacy:2081
From: djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer Games (was Re: Hostility in Gamers)
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:49:03 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

>>Such a waste of good gamers.

Well, there are a few big advantages to computer games.
First, they're useful when you want to play a game, and there's
no one around to play with (you live in the boonies, or all your
friends are grad students, etc).
Second, they're very useful to play while waiting for a compile...
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
    Macintosh - you can buy better, but you can't pay more!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Vehicles (was Arrow IV)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:18:32 GMT

m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland) writes:

>I don't really think that the clans would have withheld veichles if
>they had them veichles are far more useful than elementals. This not
>saying the clans couldn't learn to use veichles again. The more
>openminded clans (like Clan Wolf) surely would consider that giving
>some real reason to do so, but the other clans would probably think
>veichle duty as a grave mark on their codex and thus avoid it at any
>cost.

A very real reason is that 'Mechs are illsuited to providing fast
artillery. As it is, the artillery branch is woefully lacking on
both sides. The hover Arrow/Thumper carrier would greatly improve
the artillery branch, and free up valuable resources being used
to create 'Mechs like the Naga which are illused by the current
command structure. Given that the vehicle crews would most likely
be freebirths, I can see a means of increasing the artillery 
arm while at the same time utilizing an untapped resource of 
warriors. (BTW, never make the mistake of thinking that the
second line units are weaker in the Clans. Lacking the frontline
warriors attitudes toward honor, they have an irritating tendency
to concentrate fire in combat. Add Clan technology to this tactic
and you can see the difficulty such a unit poses to the opposition.)

The use of hover APCs (5 ton Skimmers with an XL engine replacing
the current model and the small laser removed) to transport elementals
was seen in Wolfpack. (I have no idea on the stats of the vehicles from
the book, but the above adaptation was my best guess.) The speed which
such a vehicle gives to Elemental commanders is deadly in the right
hands. 

The use of VTOL's to move battlearmor is also a very valid use of
vehicles, although wise commanders leave their movements via helo
to the night (much like modern day commanders do) when they will
be much less of a target. 

Perhaps the most effective troop carrier is the Omnifighter.
Given that an Omni may go from high orbit to low orbit in one move,
 (I have assumed the pilot can bring it down from orbit with some
 precision), the Omnifighter can quickly penetrate the enemy
 perimeter and make one very slow and low pass over the LZ. The
 Hercules variant of the Kirghiz can deploy up to 10 points of
 battlearmor. This is with a respectable loadout of weapons.
 Stripped down to the bare bones and escorted, the Kirghiz
 can carry 56 points of Elementals.           

Will we see more effective use made of vehicles, air assets and
infantry in the upcoming future? I wouldn't bet on it, as FASA tends
to ignore these elements in their gaming. Most likely this is due to
the fact that these elements don't sell games the way big robots 
beating each up do.

Axly

Newsgroups: rec.games.board