HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: coxa@ucs.orst.edu (huh?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:17:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: gaia.1iso60INN6fk
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucs.orst.edu

In article <ALLAN.93Jan11001256@sunk.hc.ti.com> allan@sunk.hc.ti.com (Allan Poindexter) writes:
>
>In article <C0no8M.6Bs@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong) writes:
>
>
>   Can anyone provide historical examples of a culture which was willing to
>   face  cultural anihilation in order to dismay a foe?
>
>Great Britain in 1914
>
>An attempt to justify "you may only play to win" in a game by appealling
>to historical accuracy just won't work.  History is far too complicated
>for that.  The motivations and actions of history would easily allow for
>things far more bizarre than "do this or I'll kill myself to get back at
>you".
>

Well, I am not a military historian but I know a few people who are.
The impression I get from them is that no country chooses a military
option without a perceived chance of winning with acceptable losses.
Every situation has slight differences but in all the nation has to 
have some idea of whether they will accomplish their goal or not.

To elaborate on the original question, find a situation in which
a nation DID give the ultimatum, "do this or I'll kill myself to 
get back at you".  You claim that history would allow it.  Please
cite an example.  The Great Britain situation was not one in which
the nation's existence was in jeopardy (at least the leaders did
not perceive that risk).  

I strongly beleive that suicidal actions are wholly illogical and 
only leaders who lack a sense of logic would attempt to employ
this tactic.  Try to convince me otherwise.

--Mark


-- 
Warm Fuzzy of the Week:  I am a very special person.
From: cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Need to identify an out of print game...
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:04:23 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1993Jan5.035705.26053@ils.nwu.edu> mccoy@ils.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.212709.14052@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>[regarding my game query]
>>
>>You are thinking of "Divine Right". [...]

I've never understood *why* this is such a collectable (I was one of
the ones who sold my copy recently for $85).  I played it twice and 
both times found it OK in the beginning, but full of holes in the
mid and endgame.  Our games always turned into a "who can raise the
biggest barbarian horde and squash the most cities" sort of a game.
By halfway through, people would start sacking their allied npc cities
just for the points.  By the end, usually the only cities left unsacked
were the player's capitols.  
	I mean, it seemed like it would be a good game, I wanted it
to be a good game, but...oh well.
	If I remember right, there were some buggy rules involved when
a country's capitol was sacked.  Doesn't the country become neutral, then
some of the armies come back if that neutrality is violated?  We used to 
have fun doing that over and over to rack up points for killing armies.

In my mind, it wasn't worth the time, even with the neat magical gizmos
and leaders and such.  (And it was only slightly better than my all-time
least favorite game:  King of the Mountain by Dimension Six--now there
was a true dog!)

If anyone can tell me what this game's appeal is, please do.  I never 
found it.  Perhaps I'm missing out on something good?

-Carl

-- 
	Carl J. Schnurr					1-919-684-8256
	Duke University Dept. of Physics        	cjs@phy.duke.edu
	Durham, N.C.      27706
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Multi-Player Game Poopers
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:13:41 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Frederick Scott <fred_s@netcom.com> writes:
> That's kind of a "pie-in-the-sky" comment.  I know of few if any multi-player
> games which are as interesting to a player in a clearly losing position than
> to one who still has a chance.

Poker.

All right, this isn't a board game, but it makes my point nicely I
think.  If there are still "points" (or money, or rank, or whatever) at
stake for the non-winning players, then they can be just as interested
in their game as the winning players.

Of course, for this to be the case you need (1) a scoring system which
rewards effort by both leaders and nonleaders, and (2) a reason for
nonwinners to to be interested in their score.  (This can be either a
social reason such as prestige, or a financial reason such as money
stakes, or something in between such as rankings based on average scores
over many games.)

                                        David desJardins

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: seidl@soda.berkeley.edu (Matthew L. Seidl)
Subject: SFB: is there a FAQ???
Summary: FAQ??? Mailing LIst???
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:43:56 GMT


I'm looking for the SFB FAQ, or the SFB Mailing list, if one exists.
I seem to remember seeing some traffic about one a while ago.  Thanks
for any help!


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: gletty@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bruce Gletty)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:44:51 GMT

cracicot@us.oracle.com writes:

>I have a moderately philosophical question for all you net-folk.

>Is it a reasonable game action (in game of your choice) to threaten
>someone as follows, then carry through if they call your bluff:

>"If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
> the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
> badly it wrecks my position."

I don't like it, but it is a valid threat. If you see that player A
doing thing B is going to cost you the game, it may be the only plan
you have to try to win. And, if you make the threat, you have to 
follow up, or no one will ever believe you.

>The same guy did something similar in diplomacy (where I can almost
>see it as a valid ploy).  He said "If you don't break the alliance
>you are in immediately, I am going to give total control of all my
>forces to your biggest enemy for the remainder of the game.  I don't
>care if I win or lose as long as I take you with me."

This is not that uncommon in diplomacy if you have been stabbed. 

>Under what circumstances do you think such things are reasonable actions?
>I can give one example where it might actually be justified.  If I am
>obviously in dead last place, and someone is about to attack me and
>put the last nail in my coffin lid, I can see myself issuing such a
>threat, since I don't have anything to lose at that point, since it
>would be fruitless to try to play for a better position than my
>assured last place.

The one ploy I hate the most is someone that is losing picking a player
at random and trying to throw the game to him. I would much rather the
player just quit. I have walked out on games where this has happenned as
I saw no reason to play on.
-- 
This post is mine, and does not necessarily reflect the views of C.C.S.O.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dutta@cognex.uucp (Paul Dutta-Choudhury)
Subject: Divine Right Game Auction
Organization: Cognex Corp., Needham, Mass
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:56:49 GMT

I have a received a number of solicitations for my copy of the game
Divine Right (more than I expected).  Therefore, the only fair thing
to do is to run a mini-auction for this game.

I will utilize the excellent format used by Wade Hutchison in his
auction and will start the auction with this posting.  Again my copy
of the game is in near mint condition.


----------------------------------------------------
Game			Min Bid		Current Bids
----------------------------------------------------

Divine Right		25.00		NONE


All those who sent me e-mail please submit your bids at your
convenience.  I will update the state of the auction every few days or
as the number of incoming bids dictates.  A winner will be declared on
2/1/93.



Paul Dutta-Choudhury
Cognex Corp
Needham MA
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:30:39 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1993Jan7.000751.1@us.oracle.com> cracicot@us.oracle.com writes:
>Is it a reasonable game action (in game of your choice) to threaten
>someone as follows, then carry through if they call your bluff:
>
>"If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
> the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
> badly it wrecks my position."

It is possibly reasonable in terms of improving ones position in a game. It
is, however, extremely poor sportmanship (whatever that means). It is also a
position that intelligent opponents CANNOT allow you to get away with, to
the extent that they should and must call your bluff when it occurs (at
least in the case of groups that meet semi-regularly).

This is blackmail, pure and simple, and one CANNOT afford to give in to
blackmail.

>Under what circumstances do you think such things are reasonable actions?
>I can give one example where it might actually be justified.  If I am
>obviously in dead last place, and someone is about to attack me and
>put the last nail in my coffin lid, I can see myself issuing such a
>threat, since I don't have anything to lose at that point, since it
>would be fruitless to try to play for a better position than my
>assured last place.

Any group that I will play with for any length of time does NOT tolerate
this behaviour. In high school, a group I was in had one player who tried
this tactic several times, our response was to ensure that if he did this he
came in last. No matter how foolish a move was in terms of maximizing ones
position the blackmailer ALWAYS got nailed by EVERYBODY else first until he
was absolutely dead. After several games where he a) didn't get what he
wanted and b) came last he got the message.

However, I do NOT think it is poor sportsmanship to decide how to die when
you are almost certainly going to die and to try and cost the person killing
you the most possible. For example, in Titan if my Titan stack is attacked
by a stack that is sufficiently superior that I don't believe I have a
significant chance of beating then I do think it is perfectly fair for me to
try and cost the victor as much as possible, even if this destroys what
little chance that I have (so I will sometimes concede the battle even
though theoretically I could win unscathed). I also think that it is
perfectly fine for somebody who is behind to take a long shot that might get
them back into the game even if the most likely result is to harm/help a
random third party.
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: ROR: Rules questions
Summary: 2 questions from a recent game
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:50:59 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

We recently played a game of Republic of Rome, and we had a few questions:

(1) Are rolls made for random events during *each* initiative or only during
    the first (HRAO's) initiative?

(2) When can the intrigue cards be played?  Is there any general prohibition?
    Tribunes have prohibitions printed on the card and assassin cards fall
    under the assassination rules.

Perplexed in Plano, Texas.

-- 
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
   "I want to lie ship-wrecked and comatose, drinking fresh mango juice."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: ROR: Rules questions
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:17:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.185059.20399@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel) writes:
>We recently played a game of Republic of Rome, and we had a few questions:

No surprise there.  We all did.
>
>(1) Are rolls made for random events during *each* initiative or only during
>    the first (HRAO's) initiative?
>
Each initiative, not just HRAO.

>(2) When can the intrigue cards be played?  Is there any general prohibition?
>    Tribunes have prohibitions printed on the card and assassin cards fall
>    under the assassination rules.

It depends on the card.  Blackmail is clearly played during a persuasion
attempt, the card where you steal someone else's card is (i think) the
revolution phase, but I'd wait for someone else to confirm that, as it
may be a "play any time" card.  Death of a tribune obviously follow the
play of a tribune card, et cetera.

I think this is listed somewhere in section 7 or 9 of the rules
somewhere.  Look in the index under "red cards" or "cards, red"
>
>Perplexed in Plano, Texas.
>
Don't worry.  Just treat the first few games as a learning experience
and expect to screw up until you all get the hang of it.


Mel


Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: zweije@slc9 (Vincent Zweije)
Subject: Re: O to play 1-1
Organization: Department Of Mathematics and Computer Science
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 08:45:23 GMT

In article <C0D3oC.KD4.1@cs.cmu.edu> Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
||  24 23 22 21 20 19 | | 18 17 16 15 14 13
||   O  O  O  O  O    | |
||   O  O  O  O  O    | |
||   O           O    | |
||               O    | |
||                    | |
||                    |X|
||   X  X             | |
||   X  X             | |
||   X  X  X  X  X    | |                       +-+
||   X  X  X  X  X    | |                       |2|
||   1  2  3  4  5  6 | |  7  8  9 10 11 12     +-+
||
||  Money game:  O to play 1-1
||
||  O (a good player) played 24/off 24/off 24/off 20/21, which I think
||  is a horrible play.  He couldn't be right, could he?

Some thoughts:

 1: O is going for gammon, and bearing off as many men as possible. If
    X enters on 24, he may not be able to escape immediately.  Still, I
    the odds aren't enough in favor of gammon for O to risk an unlucky
    next roll (6-5) and be hit.

 2: O wants protection from 6-6 as next roll from X, which otherwise
    would bring X only two men behind in bearing off.  But then again,
    only one roll out of 36 is a 6-6, and two men behind is too much to
    stand a reasonable chance of winning.  This is even worse than
    option 1.

 3: The money game is really a *virtual* money game, and O is not
    paying attention, or O is not such a good player after all.  :-)

No, I can't find a real reason either to bear off three men from 21.
I'd safely play 20/22(2), or, if I didn't feel 5-5 or 6-6 for my next
roll as a threat, 20/21 20/22 24/off.                          Vincent.
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rob@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: X to move 2-5
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:04:47 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

What do you do in this situation?

    13 14 15 16 17 18       19 20 21 22 23 24
   +------------------------------------------+ X: iceman - score: 0
   | O        X  X    |   |  X  O  X        O |
   | O        X  X    |   |  X     X          |
   |             X    |   |  X                |
   |                  |   |  X                |
   |                  |   |  X                |
  v|                  |BAR|                   |    3-point match
   |                  |   |                   |
   |                  |   |                   |
   | X           O    |   |     O             |
   | X     O     O    |   |  O  O             |
   | X     O     O    |   |  O  O  O          |
   +------------------------------------------+ O: Chauncey - score: 2
    12 11 10  9  8  7        6  5  4  3  2  1

   BAR: O-0 X-0   OFF: O-0 X-0   Cube: 1
iceman rolls 2 and 5.


I have absolutely no idea...

--
+----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|Rob Chauncey - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|rob@cs.oberlin.edu- - - - - - - - - - - |- - - - Available for $4.95 - - -|
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| - - - Exclusively at Sears. - - |
|-"Freak me out, Frank. Freak me out!" - |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
+----------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
From: schurech@nightcrawler.fnal.gov (kurt schurecht)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: X to move 2-5
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:18:30 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia IL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nightcrawler.fnal.gov

In article <ROB.93Jan11120447@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>, rob@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey) writes:
|> What do you do in this situation?
|> 
|>     13 14 15 16 17 18       19 20 21 22 23 24
|>    +------------------------------------------+ X: iceman - score: 0
|>    | O        X  X    |   |  X  O  X        O |
|>    | O        X  X    |   |  X     X          |
|>    |             X    |   |  X                |
|>    |                  |   |  X                |
|>    |                  |   |  X                |
|>   v|                  |BAR|                   |    3-point match
|>    |                  |   |                   |
|>    |                  |   |                   |
|>    | X           O    |   |     O             |
|>    | X     O     O    |   |  O  O             |
|>    | X     O     O    |   |  O  O  O          |
|>    +------------------------------------------+ O: Chauncey - score: 2
|>     12 11 10  9  8  7        6  5  4  3  2  1
|> 
|>    BAR: O-0 X-0   OFF: O-0 X-0   Cube: 1
|> iceman rolls 2 and 5.
|> 
|> 
|> I have absolutely no idea...
|> 
|> --

Unless I'm missing something it looks pretty obvious.  You're ahead in the
race so you don't want to leave a blot.  So distribute builders.  I play
12-17 19-21.

Kurt
From: erb@world.std.com (ed r baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: O to play 1-1
Date: 5 Jan 93 07:32:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Looks like a close call to me...

hm..
From: bshields@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Bill Shields)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: O to play 1-1
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:40:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

tesauro@watson.ibm.com (Gerald Tesauro (8-863-7682)) writes:

>Also from the same session, here's an even more
>spectacular play by the same player:

>24 23 22 21 20 19 | | 18 17 16 15 14 13     +-+
> X  X  O  O  O  O | |  O  O  O              |2|
> X     O  O  O  O | |  O  O                 +-+
> X           O    | |
> X                | |
>                  | |
>                  | |
>                  | |
>       X  X       | |
> X     X  X  X    | |
> X  O  X  X  X    | |
> 1  2  3  4  5  6 | |  7  8  9 10 11 12

>Money game:  X to play 3-1

>X played 5/2* 24/23 !?  Any comments?

Basically I think it is the only move to play.  The 24/23 is a necessity
because even though it is not too likely that O will make the 23 point,
X will come in on a 5/9 chance which is ok but if he doesn't hit the 23
point (11/36 chance of hitting) then O needs to roll a 6 or 7 to make
the point (assuming he hit from the spare piece on 20) or whatever.
Having the prime on the 23-17 points is really really bad for X.  As to
what to do with the 3,  5/2 is also the only alternative.  Getting hit
at this point (on 5 or 2 when O comes back in) is fairly irrelevant and
stacking a third piece on the 1 point is pointless.

Just my thoughts
Billy Shields
alias Gorg
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: X to move 2-5
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:06:51 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <ROB.93Jan11120447@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> rob@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey) writes:
>What do you do in this situation?
>
>    13 14 15 16 17 18       19 20 21 22 23 24
>   +------------------------------------------+ X: iceman - score: 0
>   | O        X  X    |   |  X  O  X        O |
>   | O        X  X    |   |  X     X          |
>   |             X    |   |  X                |
>   |                  |   |  X                |
>   |                  |   |  X                |
>  v|                  |BAR|                   |    3-point match
>   |                  |   |                   |
>   |                  |   |                   |
>   | X           O    |   |     O             |
>   | X     O     O    |   |  O  O             |
>   | X     O     O    |   |  O  O  O          |
>   +------------------------------------------+ O: Chauncey - score: 2
>    12 11 10  9  8  7        6  5  4  3  2  1
>
>   BAR: O-0 X-0   OFF: O-0 X-0   Cube: 1
>iceman rolls 2 and 5.
>
>
>I have absolutely no idea...
>

You're way ahead in the race, and both back men are escaped.

Wimp out bigtime.

Play 12-17 19-21.  The 19-21 increases your chances of building another landing
pad [point to play onto] with a future otherwoise-awkward roll such as 5-1 .

-dk
From: johnsson@sara.cc.utu.fi (MIKA JOHNSSON)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: O to play 1-1
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:10:50 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland


> In article <C0D3oC.KD4.1@cs.cmu.edu> Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> ||  24 23 22 21 20 19 | | 18 17 16 15 14 13
> ||   O  O  O  O  O    | |
> ||   O  O  O  O  O    | |
> ||   O           O    | |
> ||               O    | |
> ||                    | |
> ||                    |X|
> ||   X  X             | |
> ||   X  X             | |
> ||   X  X  X  X  X    | |                       +-+
> ||   X  X  X  X  X    | |                       |2|
> ||   1  2  3  4  5  6 | |  7  8  9 10 11 12     +-+
> ||
> ||  Money game:  O to play 1-1
> ||
> ||  O (a good player) played 24/off 24/off 24/off 20/21, which I think
> ||  is a horrible play.  He couldn't be right, could he?
> 

In article <1993Jan5.084523.28443@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>, zweije@slc9 (Vincent Zweije) writes:

> Some thoughts:
> 
>  1: O is going for gammon, and bearing off as many men as possible. If
>     X enters on 24, he may not be able to escape immediately.  Still, I
>     the odds aren't enough in favor of gammon for O to risk an unlucky
>     next roll (6-5) and be hit.
> 
I think it may be worth playing for gammon, because O doesn't risk very much
taking 3 men off

if X has to come out on 6 O has at least protected his lead in race. If X comes
in on 1 he has to jump over with 15 and 16, so same applies as above. if X roll
11, 12, 13 or 14 he has to break one point in his 5 point board. If X stays 
out O's gammon chances has raised. If X stays out or stays on 1, it is true
that O may leave a blot with 65 next roll (and maybe other shots later) but at
that point X has already at least 7 men off and even if hit O has still to roll
very well to turn the game (note that to become to this point it is much 
less prabable than X rolling 66 immediatelly). And if not hit immediatelly i 
think there wont be many future shots since X is forced to run soon (and if he
doesn't run soon gammon chances will be higher).

so i think taking 3 off can't be a big mistake, it may be the inferior move,
but definitely not by wide margin.

-Mika

>  2: O wants protection from 6-6 as next roll from X, which otherwise
>     would bring X only two men behind in bearing off.  But then again,
>     only one roll out of 36 is a 6-6, and two men behind is too much to
>     stand a reasonable chance of winning.  This is even worse than
>     option 1.
> 
>  3: The money game is really a *virtual* money game, and O is not
>     paying attention, or O is not such a good player after all.  :-)
> 
> No, I can't find a real reason either to bear off three men from 21.
> I'd safely play 20/22(2), or, if I didn't feel 5-5 or 6-6 for my next
> roll as a threat, 20/21 20/22 24/off.                          Vincent.
From: erb@world.std.com (ed r baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Money game:  O to play 6-2
Date: 5 Jan 93 07:29:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

11-5, 5-3, hitting both men.

"It is almost always a mistake not to put two men on the bar" - Ed