HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: titan: Warlocks
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:28:47 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


> Article <1992Apr7.084346.6868@uoft02.utoledo.edu> From: wjr@PHOENIX.SCH.Symbolics.COM

> In article <aflitney.702576446@adelphi> aflitney@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Integrator III) writes:
> > etb@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Elam T Birnbaum) writes:

> > >Ok, now, if nobody out there minds, I would like to bring up some new topics
> > >of discussion. First, how many people out there like building a warlock on the first turn if one rolls a six? I don't like it too much (takes up space, behind
> > >on building, etc.), but I would like to hear what others think. Second, has

> > When I started playing Titan I used to take the warlock on a roll of six on the
> > first turn nearly all the time. In one game I started with three sixes = three
> > warlocks. It was a long time ago so I cant remember what happened but I dont
> > think I won (it was a 5-6 player game as I recall). Now, on a six I use one of
> > the following stategies:

> Warlocks are very powerful an,d if used properly, can help you win many
> battles.  If I can get a warlock on the first turn, I will do so.  The
> question is do you want to wait around to recruit another?  In smaller
> games (3 players) you pay the price of having the opponents move their
> stacks while you are waiting.  In large games (5 - 6 players) it some-
> times doesn't matter because stacks get in the way of unrestricted
> movement.

> If you can get 2 or 3 warlocks by sitting and waiting I say go for it.


Interesting how this came up just when in the pbem Titan game
[ Interested in pbem Titan?
  contact Nathan Pfluger: npfluger@cssun.tamu.edu ]

I am involved with I rolled the following rolls: 1, 1, 6
The 1st roll, a 1, you go out of the tower and recruit
the 2nd roll, a 1, you go back into the tower and recruit a warlock
[ If you recruited a Ogr with a pair of Ogres or Cen with a pair of Cen's
 you could have also got a guardian ]
The 3rd roll, a 6, you teleport to another tower and get another Warlock.
Now you have a 7 high stack with cannon fodder and cannons.

However you are very limited in recruiting now - 3 of your seven
pieces are lords/demi-lords so you only have 4 pieces to recruit with.

Ideal for an aggressive player though.  I have thought about staying
in the tower, waiting of 6's and buiding up a stack with 1 Titan
and 6 warlocks.  Pretty good fire power especially in bad terrian
but difficult to recover from loses.
-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: WiF: barbarossa, save the russians.
Keywords: DoD/WiF,Barbarossa
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:20:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr10.124711.9135@odin.diku.dk>, surt@modi.diku.dk (S|ren Egmose) writes...
> 
>  I've missed to mention a few details:
> 
> 
>> I've resently played two games of dod/wif in which i've
>                                    ^^^^^^^
>> started barbarossa, After 3-4 turns the german tanks where within
> 
>upps, i meant impulses!!!

It should still be difficult for them to stay in supply at this rate of
advance.

Also, what year is it?  Has France been beaten yet?  If not, obviously
they need to attack immediately.

> 
>> The only reinforcements were 2-3 inf to russia so my opponents
>> choose to surrender the game.
>so this was the prodoction the month before the war

Well, there are presumably a few units in Asia that could be tapped
in an emergency.

> 
>>Now i must play russia the next time so i'm a bit worried, how to
>>setup the russians. Germany will have 2-3 offensive chits to
>I was playing the full dod/wif game 1936-??

2-3 offensive chits are pretty expensive.  That's equivalent to 6 ARM.
Hard to see how you can afford so many without unbalancing your army.
I suppose it is possible.

>So, a far back opening position is preferred/requered for the russians. 
>I've planned on doing the following:
>north:
>4 dobbel stacks between the baltics and pripet backed by 5 stacks
>with one(min 5 def or city to prevent overruns) in each. This
>should prevent a breakthrough in the first impulse.
>south:
>1 hex from german forces:
>dobbelstack in every second hex from odessa to pripet, backed by
>a line with one in each hex(min def 5). This should mean no
>breakthough in the first impulse.
>after 1st impulse try to make an eqivalent line 1 hex further back.
> 
>will this do it?

Keeping your units stacked and using cities is a good idea.


Dave Casper
CERN - Geneva
casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
From: irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Joshua Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: list of diplomacy stalemate lines?
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:42:28 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College CS Dept.
Originator: irilyth@ilium

In a prior article, Pat Plaisted (pat@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) writes:
> I am looking for a comprehensive list of the valuable stalemate lines 
> used in diplomacy.

Avalon Hill's _The Gamer's Guide to Diplomacy_ lists several useful ones.
The Guide costs four or five bucks, and has a lot of interesting information
about Diplomacy. A lot of the strategy is sound, though they do emphasize
some points a little too far (like the "Italy Must Kill Turkey" theory).
If you play Dip at all regularly, or have more than a passing interest in
the game, it's worth the investment.
-- 
irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu :: Copyright 1992, Josh Smith. All rights reserved.
Josh Smith '92 19081-1397 :: May not be reproduced outside of Usenet.
"Can I interest you in a well-dressed cup of coffee?"
"Right now, you couldn't interest me stark naked in a bathtub of lime jello."
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Sub Rules
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:41:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: bach.18802
Organization: University of Delaware

>Question: Can attacking submarines withdraw at the end of a combat round if
>they have just won the battle?  Example: German sub off Spain attack British
                                                                   s^
>battleship off Gibraltar and wins.  Can it then withdraw to Southern Europe?
>You could argue either way.
								Pete
>						morzinpl@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu


Yes, you could argue either way, until you get your hands on a copy of
the Rules Clarifications that Milton Bradley put out last year.  In that
four page list, it states "If an attacking sub destroys the enemy in a
sea zone, it cannot retreat or withdraw.  It is stuck in that zone."

Of course, you can always write house rules!

Hope this helps!!

Dewey Barich
barich@brahms.udel.edu
From: dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:16:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board

In rec.games.board, colorado@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Martin Snow) writes:

> In article <31282@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, otran@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oai Tran) writes...
> >hold.  If they do, the US ecomony will be able to by over 30 BRPs
> >worth every turn in asia to kick Japan off and lend aid to Russia.
> 
> Only 2 units per turn can be built in a new factory in China.  That's why 
> a UK factory in India (3/turn) is often a better choice.  RTFM, eh? :-)

  Excuse me?  I don't remember this restriction on factories.  What 
specifically does this rule say to restrict production placement this much?

DLC
 
> Martin Snow
> 
> snow@lyrae.dnet.nasa.gov
> snow@cololasp.bitnet
> msnow%cygnus@vaxf.colorado.edu
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Harpoon mailing list
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:22:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: rs733.NIGEL.92Apr15192228
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA

In article <1992Apr15.204959.5561@netlabs.com> jon@netlabs.com (Jonathan Biggar) writes:

>I have set up a mailing list alias for discussion of the Harpoon Modern
>Naval Wargames Rules from GDW.  Anything related to Harpoon is fair game:

>The mailing list address is harpoon@netlabs.com.  It is currently not
>moderated or digested.

>Jon Biggar
>jon@netlabs.com

I went back and checked the account again (the disk reappeared so it's
alive again)...the latest CZ I've recieved is dated March.  The request 
address is:

cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu

I believe that there is a ftp address where the CZ archive may be found.

Among other things CZ is read by someone from 360 and changes given in
SITREP appear there from time to time.

Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: gdewan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Geoffrey DeWan)
Subject: Republic of Rome cards
Summary: Missing a card
Keywords: Republic of Rome
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:09:36 GMT

Well, today I invitoried my cards in my Republic of Rome game and discovered I
am missing a card.  The componet list claims there are 192 (3*64) cards in the
game but I only have 191.  One of my cards says 2nd (damn, forgot name)
Conspiracy (it was the only consisperacy card in the deck) but no 1rst so I
suspect this might be the missing card.  If so, could someone type in the
contents of the card?  If not, could someone type in a complete listing of the
deck (just enough to identify the cards, I don't need the complete text of each
card)?

                         -- Geoffrey DeWan

--
===============================================================================
                                  Geoffrey DeWan -- gdewan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
From: johnl@gss.com (John Light)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Eurorail/Empire Builder
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:27:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: gss.1992Apr6.192710.21684
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Apr04.000527.37650@yuma.acns.colostate.edu> bb740597@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (bill barth) writes:
>I have recently had my first opportunities to play Eurorail and Empire
>Builder, and I was very pleasantly surprised at how entertaining these
>games were.  I'll admit that the idea of playing with crayons to draw
>out new rail lines made me wonder if the game would have much quality,
>but it seems to have a wonderful blend of both strategy and luck.

I like it, but it tends to bore my friends after a few games.

>Anyway, on to my questions.  I'm wondering about strategies people have
>pursued in this game and their relative effectiveness.  I played the
>games with three and four people, and obviously the number of people 
>affects the strategy considerably.  I did notice however that in
>Eurorail trips to England seemed somewhat unproductive due to the
>waits on the ferry and subsequent half-speed on the following turn.
>Of course, that may be simply because I went only to London and two
>other towns.

I don't think there is a strategy.  The game is so capital intensive at
first that all you can do is play the cards you've got.  Once you fall
behind, it's tough to catch up.  The closest thing to a strategy I've got
is several some favorite routes.

>Anyway, any suggestions/ideas would be welcome.  I was also struck that
>different strategies might be necessary in the two games as Empire Builder
>seemed to have a more compressed map with cities closer together, as 
>befits the differences in the maps and locations of cities.

Others have posted variations to the rules that make the game a little
different.  I don't have a file handy, maybe someone else will post.
My favorite is to modify the movement rules to allow a train to go two
extra units for each empty circle.  It speeds up the game, and makes you
think harder about speculation.

John Light
From: ds0c@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DAVID M. STENGLE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Empires of the Middle Ages/Sword and the Stars
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:54:47 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I have watched the thread on these for a bit, and thought I'd comment.

First, there is a nice shareware version of the game for the Mac.  It's does
not perfectly follow all the rules (you can't add more than 14 gold to support
an action, for example), but it is very nice.

I find the campaign unplayable, but it certainly is true that raiders
invalidate the otherwise powerful SW Europe part of the map.

The games main flaw, IMHO, is it rewards banking far too much.  The campaign
games (and even the longer scenarios) we played resulted in accumulating vast
(campaign > $500) fortunes and spending them in a blitz at game end.

It also suffers from an explicit game end which encourages last turn crazy
moves.

I recommend the following:

1)  Introduce a variable game end.

The algorithm we used was 2 turn before the static game end, the turn ends on
a 1 on a D6.  Every two turns, subtract 1 from the roll.  A modified 1 ends
the game.  This discourages low odds wierd moves at game end.  A natural 6
always continues the game.

2)  Introduce some decay function in the bank - we didn't have a standard
agreement here, but lots of things would discourage banking:

e.g.    1) 1/2 treasury when king dies
        2) 1/2 income when bank balance over N $

Also, Sword and the Stars doesn't have 1 differences in Race, only 2
differences which makes for a duller map.  Stargates are the most significant
change, which permit all players to smash a breakaway game leader, an option
not available in EOTMA.

I like the system.  Note that the computer game is better than either board
game which suffers from the fate of all multi-action card games, events travel
in pairs.  Leader death checks map to certain results.  In a perfect world,
leader death is independent of the result of, say, a ruling action.

Email me if you want info on the mac game - it's at home.
-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.

David M. Stengle, Lehigh University Student Macintosh Representative
Email:   ds0c@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
Home Phone/Fax: (215) 691-6958
School Phone:   (215) 758-3761
From: v077mdph@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (John of Gaunt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:12:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr9.150346.27504@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes...
>In article <1992Apr8.123815.3702@exu.ericsson.se>, exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek) writes:
>>In article <9770105@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Only 2 units per turn can be built in a new factory in China.  That's why 
>>>> a UK factory in India (3/turn) is often a better choice.  RTFM, eh? :-)
>>>
>>>  Excuse me?  I don't remember this restriction on factories.  What 
>>>specifically does this rule say to restrict production placement this much?
>>>
>>>DLC
>>>
>>
>>The rules he's referring to are the second edition rules. This revision also
>>includes that vital rule that Russia CANNOT attack on the first turn.
> 
>What?!
>The rule that USSR cannot attack on the first turn is an OPTIONAL rule, along
>with the rules on Axis weapons developments, no new industrial complexes, and
>placing new naval units in occupied sea zones.  Good god!  The Axis will win in
>short order if USSR does not (or is not allowed to) attack Manchuria and the
>Baltic Sea.

	Exactly!  The Japanese strategy I posted earlier almost depends on that
optional rule!  The Axis should win a lot of games that way.  It is, however, a
very poor way to try to balance the game.

>								Pete
>						morzinpl@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
> 
>>                                                          -Tom

Snoopy
From: jon@netlabs.com (Jonathan Biggar)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Harpoon mailing list
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:49:59 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.
Originator: jon@clamp.netlabs.com

I have set up a mailing list alias for discussion of the Harpoon Modern
Naval Wargames Rules from GDW.  Anything related to Harpoon is fair game:

Rules Q&A
Play by E-Mail rules discussion/development
New Scenarios
New real-life military equipment specifications in game terms
etc.

You can subscribe to the list by sending a request to:
harpoon-req@netlabs.com.

The mailing list address is harpoon@netlabs.com.  It is currently not
moderated or digested.

Jon Biggar
jon@netlabs.com
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Game Collapse
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:57:09 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

gdewan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Geoffrey DeWan) writes:

>Are there any game besides Republic of Rome where the players are essentially
>at odds with each other but may require the players to cooperate to keep events
>from causing everyone to lose?  I am talking about outside events, not several
>players engaging in Mutual Assured Destruction.

Merchants of Venus. The object of the game is to be the first to
accumulate a certain amount of cash. However, every time a one
is rolled, a "nasty" enters the board somewhere. If a certain
number of nasties are on the board, the game ends, and everybody
loose. To defeat the nasties, you need equipment, which cost money.
The only way to keep the game from winning is to be VERY cooperative
in the beginning.

Klaus O K
From: pckyip@athena.mit.edu (Patrick C Yip)
Subject: Re: Request reviews: AH "Science Fiction" games
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:23:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.064421.17655@CS.ORST.EDU> yousten@nyssa.CS.ORST.EDU (Ken Yousten) writes:
>
>I don't know the Stock Ticker reference, but maybe you mean "Isaac Asimov's
>Star Traders" (as opposed to some other game called just Star Traders) by
>Steve Jackson Games.  Actually, I like this one.  It's rather simplistic, the
>space bit has little to do with it beyond surface.  If "megawar miniature"
>things are at all attractive to you though, this is not for you.

Actually which is better? Merchant of Venus, Star Traders, SPI's Startraders
and SJG's Trailblazers?

Patrick
From: v077mdph@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (John of Gaunt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:22:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <DLW.92Apr8095956@falcon.bcm.tmc.edu>, dlw@falcon.bcm.tmc.edu (David Louis Williams) writes...
>In article <31443@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?) writes:
> 
>   Build the factory
>   in Kwangtung on the first turn, it is invulnerable to any invasion.
> 
>Kwangtung general falls on the first turn in our games.  The Brits invade with
>the fighter and 2 INF from India. This leaves only a fighter guarding India
>and they lose the transport (although I've seen it survive before) but the
>Japs have lost everything but Indo-China and the US generally clears that up
>on their turn.  If Japan uses their fleet against the US then they can't
>retake all the land lost in asia.  If they forgo the US navy then the US is
>just that much closer to building up a strong navy in the pacific with which
>to invade Japan.
> 
>Has anyone else tried a Japan first allied strategy? I find that a Germany
>first strategy wins more often but a Japan first can be interesting.

	A friend of mine and I tried a Japan-first strategy in an Axis and 
Allies tournament.  It worked very well.  Our game was over in turn five.  One
of the other three games resulted in a military victory by the Axis ( the team
that eventually defeated us for the championship ), and the remaining two were
virtually undecided until turn eight.
	There is, however, a killer strategy for Japan.
	Buy an industrial complex on the first turn if Britain failed to attack
French Indo-China Burma.
	On the first turn, move all but one infantry unit from Manchuria into
China.  Move in the infantry from Kwangtung, and both the fighters in Asia.
Retreat, if you must, to French Indo-China Burma.  After the battle, move at 
least two fighters, plus the infantry from the Phillipines, to French Indo-
China Burma.  Also, move at least one battleship to that sea zone.  An 
amphibious assault on the Soviet Far East is optional, and you should attack 
Hawaii with the minimum necessary to destroy the American units there. 
	Place the complex in French Indo-China Burma.
	Russia will probably take Manchuria, and maybe Kwangtung, but you will
soon have enough units in Asia to overwhelm the Allies, and force the fall of
Moscow.

>David Williams
>dlw@cmb.bcm.tmc.edu

Snoopy
From: watson@clark.edu (Dennis Watson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Willow-Game ??
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:36:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Apr8.173629.4132
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

My gaming group and I have played Willow several times.  I don't think the rules
were playtested!  Some of the rules appear to exist strictly to make the game
have the same components as the movie.  The Bad Guys ALWAYS win!  They start out
strong and stay strong, the good guys start out WEAK and get a little stronger.
Each character in the game builds strength by using cards, similar to War of
the Rose.  But the evil cards are better than the good cards and the evil
player(s) get more each turn!  We are trying to make some house rules to fix
this lop-sidedness, because we think there is a good game lurking in there
SOMEWHERE!
Dennis Watson
watson@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: colton@bqnwh24.BNR.CA (Kevin Colton)
Subject: A&A Rules (was Re: Re: Japan ...)
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Reply-To: colton@bqnwh24.BNR.CA (Kevin Colton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 01:31:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.201554.28552@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:

|>The last time I read the rules, if an ally liberates your terratory, it's 
|>ownership returns to you(they liberate it for you.)

This reminds me of a couple rule problems we've never quite figured out:

If a country (say Russia) has its home territory wiped out, can the UK 
and US collect $$ for any Russian territories they occupy?  We play
yes they can, but should Russia get back in the game these territories
revert back to Russian control.

Not really related but:  during an amphibious assault can attacking
cargo ships be removed as casualties?  I seem to recall a conflict in
the rules where two rules seemed to apply - one said you could remove
them, the other said you couldn't.  We've lost our rules so we can't
argue anymore, we just say you can't  :-)

Comments?

Kevin
colton@bnr.ca
From: cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Axis&Allies Germany attacks U.K.
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:26:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr2.124646.645@gacvx2.gac.edu> josh@gacvx2.gac.edu writes:
>Axis & Allies !
>Tank and Infantry from Libya.  Should Germany bring a tank or
>2 Infantry over on the transport??
>   You should take 2 Infantry
>over 1 tank.  Attacking with 1 tank and 3 Infantry you win 94.45%
>of the time, but attacking with 2 tanks and 1 Infantry you
>only win 89.69% of the battles.

	Not always.  Personally I prefer the tank.  Here's the
Reason:  tanks can blitz through empty territories therefore
capturing territories quicker and more efficiently.  The extra 5% is
an acceptable risk to take but the efficency of taking territories
and the attack factor 3 of the tank makes preferable to the 2
infantry.  If that makes you nervous bring in a fighter or a bomber.
Historically, Rommel commented that he rather have an extra division
than being a field marshall.

					- The Tasmanian Devil

P.S.	Like I said before, if you don't know the blitz rule,
	look it up.  It'll save you a lot of headaches and win
	you a few games.