HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerry@uni-paderborn.de (Gerald Siek)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: 1830: Track construction
Date: 5 Jan 1993 12:07:04 GMT
Organization: University of Paderborn, Germany
Reply-To: jerry@uni-paderborn.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: planck-bb.uni-paderborn.de
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

A question on constructing track:

The rules say that the green tiles, once they are available can be used
to REPLACE existing yellow track tiles.   Is it possible to use a green
tile to construct NEW track?   Or do I always have to place a yellow
tile first and then replace it by a green one (and perhaps later by a
brown one) ?

Thanks for any help!

	Jerry
--
  Gerald Siek  -  jerry@uni-paderborn.de  -  University of Paderborn, Germany
From: lang@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (John J. Lang)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:18:34 GMT
Subject: Re: brigade series questions ...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board

In rec.games.board, lang@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (John J. Lang) writes:
> One question I have.  When attaching troops to a new corp, who
> is the order sent to, the old corp commander, the commander of the
> division being attached, or the new corp commander?

I called the Gamers this morning, and got an answer for my question.
You send the order to the old corp commander (since he is the person
losing something).  The rational is that the new commander is happy to
get the division, so needs no order, the old commander is the one that
must be ordered to give up the division.

Also, thanks to Rich Hamel for providing the same answer (just without
as much assurance :-).

John Lang
From: proberts@castle.ed.ac.uk (P Roberts)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Brittania Rules Question
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:17:35 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

garry@archsci.arch.su.edu.au (Garry Stevens) writes:
>I have a question on Brittania, the game of the conquest of Britain through
>the Middle Ages. Can anyone clarify the raiding rules? It is not clear when
>they have to return to sea to get victory points. The rules vaguely imply
>the very same turn, but provide no clear mechanism for this to happen.
  Surviving raiders return to sea in the same go that they arrived and
by the same route.  They do so immediately after their player has
finished their combat.  In effect, this means that they get two movement
goes.  They may have to fight their way out if you penetrated too deeply
and had an unsuccessful battle in the coastal province.

                    Paul
From: whutchis@sol.cs.bucknell.edu (wade hutchison)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Looking for Dragonriders of Pern Game
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:06:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.cs.bucknell.edu

The subject says it all.  Does anyone out there know anything 
about "The Dragonriders of Pern" game.  It was published by
Mayfair Games in '83.  Anyone have a copy that they would be willing
to part with?  Let me know.
	-----wade
		whutchis@sol.cs.bucknell.edu
From: pmenard@cse.unl.edu (Patrick Menard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Games for sale
Date: 12 Jan 1993 02:29:15 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

frank@hypnos.bssi.bls.com (moo) writes:

>I am cleaning out my games closet to make room for new acquisitions and will
>start a minor game auction. Shipping will be handled on a per case basis
>depending on size and weight. 

>Games:

>Mighty Empires-GW	Box is ratty, but good condition pieces.
bid=$15

>Blackbeard-AH		unpunched
bid=$12

Shadow
pmenard@cse.unl.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jennifer Schlickbernd)
Subject: Re: Multi-Player Game Poopers
Reply-To: jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:05:14 GMT

rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney) writes:


>It seems to me that a multi-player game that isn't as interesting to the
>losers as it is to the winners is a waste of time no matter what kind of
>etiquette you adopt.

>Bob Rossney
>rbr@well.sf.ca.us


I don't really understand this...assuming that you are playing the game
because it is interesting/fun/entertaining, then at least at the start, 
everyone is having the same experience.  Later, in many multi player games,
the winner(s) is doing more and the losers are doing less.  Are you saying
then that unless everyone is doing the same amount of activity throughout
the game, the game is a waste of time?  If so, I would have to disagree with
you.  For one thing, in many games, winners don't stay that way.  In Dip,
for example, you can be doing well in the early-mid game (winner) and someone
can come from a poor position and win in the late game.  In Republic of
Rome, your Senator can be on top of the world, hero of the century, etc etc,
and a bad chit draw at the start, and boom, he's dead and you are no longer
winning.

Ebb and flow has a lot to recommend it.  Original Civ has a problem in
that you can lose the game at the early stages and you're stuck in it
for another four hours...one of the reasons I so enjoy Adv Civ.  In this
case, I agree with you, it's bad game design to make games where you
are stuck in a poor position for most of the game because of a couple
of early decisions (and maybe this is what you meant?).

At any rate, I hope I haven't extrapolated what you meant too badly.  I
thought your position was interesting and wanted to respond to it.


-- 
Jennifer Schlickbernd  Technology Utilization Office  J. P. L.
jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!jennifer@csvax.caltech.edu
72466.3413@compuserve.com  Voice:(818) 354-2241
From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Subject: Re: Multi-Player Game Poopers
Organization: Nerds On Parade
Distribution: rec.games.board
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:28:39 GMT

rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney) writes: 

>It seems to me that a multi-player game that isn't as interesting to the
>losers as it is to the winners is a waste of time no matter what kind of
>etiquette you adopt.

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.  You may have a better attitude about playing
out a losing position than some of the rest of us, though.  If so, more power
to you but you should understand that others don't necessarily feel that way.

Fred
From: hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: is there a FAQ???
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:16:57
Organization: /rubin/hcobb/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: fly2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: seidl@soda.berkeley.edu's message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:43:56 GMT


	Q:  What is SFB?

	A:  Star Fleet Battles is a systems-based, impulse movement with
turn-modes board game based loosely on the Kirk's Trek.

	Q:  And what does all that mean?

	A: It means that my cruiser is bigger than your frigate because it has
more shield boxes, more weapon boxes and more engine boxes.  that we take
turns pushing our ship counters forward a hex at a time and get to turn every
so often.  And lastly that Mr Niven should never have let the cats out of the
bag. 

	Q:  What's it play like?

	A:  A cross between the battle of Jutland and Migs in space.

	Q:  Can I play it at Tournaments?

	A: Sure, they even have a yearly tournament book giving special rules
and conditions.  (Mostly a straight-forwards cruiser duel with the Kzinti
chopped down a bit and everybody else fluffed up to that level.)

	Q:  How much is it?

	A: Hard to say, a full set comes up to over $300 these days, but the
$12 intro set is OK for getting a feel for the game. (Cadet Training Manual) Be
sure and pick up the Captain's set.  It'll be in two boxes: Basic Missions and
Advanced Missions, along with a pile of soft packs: New Races I, New Races
II, Fighters (module-J) Fast Patrol Ships (module K), etc.  Note that the SSD
and Rulebook softpacks will be included in this pile.

	Q: Huh?

	A: Basic Mission box plus Advanced Missions box plus New Races I plus
New Races II == Rulebook softpack plus SSD softpack plus maps plus counters
plus boxes.  Modules J & K are extra. 
 
	Q:  And what is your part in all of this mr Cobb?

	A:  I run two mailing lists and a (of this moment defunct) PBeM game.
The lists are called "The SFB Tactics list" and "The SFB Battleline", the
game I ran was called the Frigate's game. (80 BPV limit...).  I'll start
posting the setup for the next game on the Battleline soon.

	If you have questions on rules or general tactics then ask me to add
you to the Tactics list.  If you would like to follow battles hex by hex then
ask me to add you to the Battleline. (The games I ref are posted there.)

	If you would like to startup another PBeM game then I will happily
send you my notes, advertise your game on the battleline and post your
results there.

	Q:  Why do you do all this?

	A:  It reduces the load on rec.games.btech by 0.6%. ;-)
--
	Henry J. Cobb	hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu	SFB Tyrant
	"A const pointer is a steady reference,
	while a pointer to const is a pledge not to tinker."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lydick@pecan.cns.udel.edu (William Lydick)
Subject: Re: Civilisation on a Sun or a Mac
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:30:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.203051.24625@news.arc.nasa.gov> nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH) writes:

>What surprised me when I saw the game Civilization for the computer was
>that they omitted the multiplayer option.  

Actually, from what I've seen (I own a legit copy of CIV), it's just an enhanced
version of the older computer game, EMPIRE.  Therefore, the mechanics of making
CIV a multi-player game would be difficult, at least.  The other problem is this
...   Who wants to sit around for twenty minutes per other player and wait for 
them to put in their moves?

$0.02

WML
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 3rd Fleet
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:45:37 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <19515.2b4c099e@ecs.umass.edu>, by sulaiman@ecs.umass.edu:
> 7th Fleet:
> Huge map. Needs lot of space to set up fully. However action is 
> concentrated in a very narrow band so most of the map is blue sea
> and generally waste.

I have to agree.  The reason why I bought 7th Fleet over 3rd Fleet was
that I wanted a large sea area to play with (I generally like games on
the Pacific for that reason).  However, even in the advanced scenario,
there is not that much interaction between the north and south halves
of the map, and apart from up north, the Soviets usually have only a
few subs and perhaps recon planes on the eastern half of the map.  I
was a bit disappointed by this (but we did manage to have two large
task forces pounding each other to pieces over several days out in the
northeast corner).

Btw, the General issue that contained the article on the interactive
movement system was 27-2.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jlb@engin.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey)
Subject: Re: New Mayfair Games
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 16:05:02 EST
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

I've seen some ads for a game called "Alibi" that sounds suspiciously like
the description given of "Murphy."  Are these the same?  If not, anybody
out there seen Alibi?
-- 
Jeff Bailey, jlb@ccs.itd.umich.edu (Open 24 Hours a Day!)
Standard disclaimer - If you wanted U/M's views, you came to the wrong place. 
"The owner of the game deals and plays first." -- Nuclear War/Escalation
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: Nerds On Parade
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:22:41 GMT

lerouxm@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Markie Mark) writes: 

>Look!  The guy has obviously become predictable in every game he
>plays.  You know what he will do so take advantage of it.
>
>If you want to, just declare at the beginning of the game in
>which you are playing with him, "I am going to destroy you no 
>matter what the cost to myself or others.  Nothing matters
>to me except that you must lose."

So you'll lose, too....this is a new way of defining the phrase "take
advantage" that I'd never heard before.

Fred
From: ali@hicomb.hi.com (Shaheen Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 3rd Fleet
Date: 7 Jan 1993 09:13:44 GMT
Organization: Hitachi Computer Products, OSSD division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: asterix.hi.com

	Has anyone ever played the game "3rd Fleet", or 2nd or 6th or any of those
	games?

	I'm wondering how good they are.

	I'd assume that since there are a lot of them, that they might be good,
	but appearances can be deceiving.

	What are the better and worse points of these games? Are they accurate?


	Warren


I have 6th, 2nd, and 7th Fleet.  My favorite is 2nd Fleet.  Basically,
2nd Fleet uses simple movement rules.  The game has a definite abstract
operational feel.  There is no battle board for tactical movement.

The major focus of the game is allocation of assets and then execution of 
missions.

The beginning of the game, air units are allocated for each sea area to hunt
down enemy naval assets, drop mines, intercept enemy recon, etc.  These
missions are resolved.   The remainder of the day is played out in three phases.

There are three types of forces on each side: surface, submarine, and air.
Each player can move all of one type of force during one of the three phases
in a turn.  Each player chooses what asset he will move/fire in that phase and
then a die roll determines who will move first.  Each asset has its own attack 
tables (torpedo, ASW, guns, SSM, bomb) and different method of attack.  Submarines
can move then fire or fire then move.  Surface ships can fire move and final fire.
Air units can move and fire anytime during their move.

All in all, I think it is a good system.  However, realism and detail level are
pretty low.  The simple rules however, helps make large games very playable.

6th Fleet is the first game in the series (Meditteranean Sea), 2nd Fleet covers
the North Atlantic and I think has better thought out rules (IMHO).  I got
7th Fleet because I loved the system so much, but I don't think I will get any
more of the Fleet games.  The idea of this system being applied to simulate
a campaign against Cuba or Grenada seems pretty silly.

If you can't tell by what I have written so far, I recommend the game.

Happy Hunting,

Shaheen

-- 
Shaheen H. Ali		 ali@hicomb.hi.com, !hicomb!ali
System Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products,
1601 Trapelo Rd., Waltham, MA 02154	 (617) 890 0444
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cracicot@us.oracle.com
Subject: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:07:51 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

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."

Someone I occasionally play games with (who doesn't have net access)
did this in a 4 player game of 1830 recently.  When it became obvious
that he really was going to do it, we immediately conceeded the game
to the one player not on his shit-list, who was pretty obviously
going to win since before it all happened he was doing best anyhow.
(The player who issued the threat was just about tied for first place
 with the player who eventually won by concession before the player
 in third place did action X which messed up the threat-player's
 long-term strategy.)

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."

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.
From: hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: OGRE/GEV: is there a FAQ???
Date: 10 Jan 93 11:23:26
Organization: /rubin/hcobb/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: fly2.berkeley.edu


--------------------GEV FAQ List--------------------

	Yes, I know that nobody ever asks about GEV, but here's the answers
anyway.

	Described as "Tactical Ground Combat in the 21st Century From the
World of Ogre", GEV is a simple and small scale board game in which each
counter represents one vehicle or handfull of infantry.

	The Sci-Fi twist to this game is that a super strong (nanotech
based?) armor has been developed that can withstand anything sort of a
atomic blast, hence all units are armed with (mostly) tactical nuclear
weapons.  In addition to the usual battlesuited stormtroopers, tanks and
Hovercraft (Ground Effect Vehicles == GEVs) there are also a few
extra-large computer controlled Cybertanks, called OGREs.

	OGRE, published in 1977 was the first modern "MicroGame", and
launched the career of lawschool dropout Steve Jackson; he later authored
GEV as a sequel to OGRE.  A lot of water has gone under the bridge since
then and Mr Jackson now has his own company called, surprisingly enough,
"Steve Jackson Games".

	Currently SJG offers two (IMUO) worthwhile titles: The OGRE/GEV
combined edition ($10) with the maps, rules and counters from the two
seperate games and the Ogre Miniatures Book ($15) with all the rules and
units from the board game and more recast into miniatures rules.

	Mr Jackson used to have a magazine called "The Space Gamer" which
published a lot of material on OGRE & GEV, the best ideals from this have
made their way into the Miniatures book.  One of the missing pieces is an
article Mr Jackson wrote around a unit design formula that I provided.
However I made a mistake and now have to redo it.  (Mr Jackson has yet to
ask for his $5 back.)

	SJG also runs a BBS (2400b at 512-447-4449, when it's not being
seized by the Feds ;-), but if you don't have a modem handy you can write
me and ask to be added to the GEV Tactics List.  When I'm not blowing
simple Algebra (heck, I only have a BS in Math...), I also run a PBeM game
over my GEV e-mail list.
	
--
	Henry J. Cobb	hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu	SFB Tyrant
	"A const pointer is a steady reference,
	while a pointer to const is a pledge not to tinker."
From: mrose@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: WANTED: Broadsides and Boarding Parties
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:06:11 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services





	I am looking to buy a copy of Broadsides and Boardding Parties in good
to excellent condition. Email responses.

			Matt Rose
			Univ of Kansas
			Remote Sensing Lab
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:05:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.000751.1@us.oracle.com> 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."

People who rely too heavily on this threat will fall victim the ' I thought
<name> told you we were playing last night' ploy; although, in games that do not
take days or weeks to arrange or play (risk annd Nuclear <blank> come to
mind), the threat is acceptable, and is often considered in planning an
attack.  In Nuclear War, Nuclear Escalation, and Nuclear Proliferation, if
you do not threaten to expend your entire efforts to destroy an opponent who
nukes you, you are playing it wrong.
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com (harry campbell)
Subject: Patton's Best Combat Calendar...WHERE THE @#$% IS IT??!!
Keywords: Screwed, Avalon Hill, pissed
Reply-To: harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:23:16 GMT

I just bought Patton's Best, Avalon Hill's solitare WWII tank game.
I think it's a pretty neat concept, and I enjoyed playing a practice scenario:
although my gun malfunctions on the first shot I take at the Panther tank
that suddenly appears in front of me, and on the second turn a lucky hit
from a panzer-schreck (or is it panzer-faust) lights off the excess ammunition I
have in the tank, resulting in a catastrophic explosion killing me and the rest
of my crew (why do you think they called em 'Ronson Lighters'), alright so
don't take me to Vegas, but I'm saying "WOW, what a game!" &~O

The rules say the the game gives it's best feeling for the combat experience
of a tank crew when one plays the entire campaign (or something like that).
Then the rules refer to something called the "Combat Calendar."  Have you ever had
that sinking feeling you get when you've just about solved a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle,
and you start to realize that one piece is missing, and it goes right in the center
of the whole puzzle.  Have you ever had a twinky that didn't have the filling inside?
Have you ever driven you car with no oil in the motor?  Basically, the most important
thing in the game wasn't there, the "Combat Calendar!"  I think someone may have made
a similar post before.  If anyone has the Combat Calendar, or any information about
it (i.e. It was in General # bla), I would really appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks
Harry Campbell
harry@dseg.ti.com


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: hughes@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Lucian &)
Subject: AH's Alexander the Great Game
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:14:20 GMT

Anyone got a copy of this there interested in selling? Failing
that anyone know where I can find a copy?

   Thanks,
     Lucian
From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Up Front
Date: 7 Jan 93 07:38:35 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com (harry campbell) writes:
: I've looked at Up Front in the game shops, and I'm thinking about buying it.
: What do people think about it?
: Do you have to know how to play Squad Leader to play it?
: Can it be played solitaire?
: 
: Thanks
: Harry Campbell
: harry@dseg.ti.com

Up Front is very fun to play and it requires no knowledge of
Squadleader at all. It's not suitable for solitaire play
(unless you're desperate).

Robert Maglica
roma@pe.chalmers.se
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:06:49 GMT

In article <1iso60INN6fk@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, coxa@ucs.orst.edu (huh?) writes:
|> 
|> 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

I doubt whether a country/empire would choose a suicidal course of
action on purpose, but in a lot of cases, conflicts get out of hand
and end up as 'There aint room enough on this planet for the two
of us.'

Newsgroups: rec.games.board