HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: New STARFIRE revision
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:11:28 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon

In article <rreed.2z4e@terapin.com> rreed@terapin.com (Rick Reed) writes:
>Let me just start out by saying that I think TFG unnecessarily added much too
>much to what used to be a simple system!  I think the SFB mentality crept in
>too much in this latest revision...

I have not had the opportunity to look at the new version yet, but did
read the previous mini-review.

>There are some interesting changes, however.
>
>- The system now uses a 1d10 and 1d100 at times rather than 2d6.

This is indeed new.

>- Any weapon hitting an internal system (not armor or shields) rolls for a
>critical hit on 1.  A critical hit does double damage (As I remember, at least)

I'll probably disregard the 'Critical Hit' rule.

>- Projectile weapons do ten times as much damage if the target lacks an active
>drive field (running engines).  Says something about how engine distortion
>fields surrounding a ship cause projectiles to explode in the proximity of the
>target rather than by direct impact, unless of course there is no drive field
>surrounding the target!

This rule is at least as old as New Empires...had to do with
ballancing the low cost of space stations (as opposed to bases).

>- Engines are now reactionless drives rather than the ion engines they were
>previously stated to be (hence the "I" notation).  Additionally, they are now
>placed in engine rooms (looks like "(IIi)" or something).  The loss of an
>engine room causes the ship to lose a movement point.  Larger ship types now
>require multiple engines per movement point as opposed to the old single
>engine, variable cost & size system used before.

Engine rooms have been around since at least Nexus #12 and were
officially adopted with The Gorm-Khanate War.

>- Fighters' arc of fire is DIRECTLY in front.  No 60 degree fan, just a single
>hexrow!

Minor bummer here...did the cost increase the same way it did between
the original (Pocket edition) and 2nd (boxed) ed?

>There are a heck of a lot more rules, but I can't possibly remember them all! 
>Egad!!  I think I prefer the 2nd edition rules.  The manual's introduction
>states, "Old STARFIRE hands will find it does many of the things the older
>games did in different ways, but they will still recognize the clean "feel" of
>the system."  Yeah, right!  TFG may have another SFB on their hands!!!

Wait until they revise the strategic system...I also wonder if they'll
ever get around to printing TerraFire and GroundFire?

>
>        -Rick

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  kogoma@vesta.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
From: elric@imryrr.Eng.Sun.COM (Rick Heli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: good three-player games
Date: 30 Dec 1992 09:39:23 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: imryrr

>Another excellent three-player game (for the same reasons) is SOURCE OF
>THE NILE.  It's playable solitaire, and any more players up to six.
>Three appears to be the optimal number for an enjoyable game, however.
>Too bad it's out of print :-)

Same goes for Empires of the Middle Ages, i.e. great game for 3, but now
out of print and tough to find.

By the way, I'll be happy to take the Troll vs. Sorceress challenge for
the person who posted the Talisman ding.  Playing Chaos Bloodbath, you'll
be dead before you can steal your first follower.

--
						Rick Heli
						Internet:  rheli@sun.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters)
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies        
Cc: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:15:00 +0000

Michael Hall:
>Avalon Hill's failure to get Civilization "right" (mostly in terms of
>realism and balance) the first time was not so bad, because it was still
>fun, but then they didn't get it "right" the second time either and even
>made some problems worse, which was inexcusable.

Hartland Trefoil, designers of the orginal Civ game, do more playtesting per
game than SPI's entire line received.  Given that the AH version was, I
think, more or less identical to the original UK Civ, what are the
complaints?  Remember it's not meant to be realistic!

Certainly some of the "fixes" in Advanced Civ undo some of the careful
balancing of the orginal, eg the double edge of Mysticism.  (Two colours is
good at the start but the very low value is a pain at the end with a limit on
civ cards.  If you can have unlimited civ cards, Mysticism is perfect.)


My own nomination for "dumb move" is GDW's failure to hire a good graphic
designer instead of using someone with a fetish for muddy dark green colours.
Most of their modern products are good, but the 70s and early 80s ones look a
_mess_.  The current publishers of S&T would do well to find someone new too.

  //\/\/  iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk

>>>MATRIX version  1.21e
From: bjm@rommel.UUCP (Brad McMahon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re:  Ad Civ....Short Games?
Distribution: world
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:55:22 +1030
Organization: Private


In article <71100@cup.portal.com> DukeJ@cup.portal.com (Chris - Janus) writes:
>  While reading the "bad games-reasons" discussion I was struck with an Idea
>for playing a quasi-variant of  Advanced Civilization......short games.
>  You have to admit ...Advanced Civ is a long game. Most of my groups games 
>end prematurely as someone has to leave, etc.

     No, I don't believe Advanced Civ (AC) is a long game, it doesn't take any
longer than normal Civ. I find with six or seven players we can get a game over
in a days play (about six or so hours I guess), not long at all really,
after all we are condensing several thousand years into a turn!!


> Have any of you Advanced Civ 
>players out there ever set out DELIBERATELY to finish the game early, perhaps
>halfway across the AST, or some other arbitrary point?

If someone has to leave, we leave their pieces on the board as a neutral
country to conquor. Admittedly this places some countries at an advantage.

>   I was wondering if something like this might radically change countries'
>strategies (my feeling is it must), and thus make  Ad Civ into, essentially,
>myriads of  sub-games, each requiring different playing strategies DEPENDING
>ON WHERE YOU HAD DECIDED TO END THE GAME!

Try playing to a time limit - say three hours... speeds up the game no end :-)


--
********************************************************
* Brad McMahon               - bjm@rommel.UUCP         *
*                      my own node soon!               *
* "There's just a fine line between stupid and clever" *
*                                   -Spinal Tap        *  
********************************************************
From: arkoff@sun.lclark.edu (Gary Arkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Anyone Have the Rules for Titan?
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:00:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Dec27.190038.20765
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

Is there someone out there who would be so kind as to snail mail me a copy
of the rules to Titan by Avalon Hill?  I have the game but seem to have lost
the rules.  Thanks in advance,

Gary L. Arkoff
9050 SW Scholls Ferry Rd.
Apt 301
Tigard OR
97223

P.S.  Yes, I did publish this same article some months ago.  I got a few
responces then, but no-one sent a copy of the rules, so I am trying again. 
-- 
"The question is not, can animals reason? Nor, can they talk?  But, can
they suffer?"    -Jeremy Bentham, philosopher, 1748-1832.

                   Gary Arkoff --   arkoff@lclark.edu
From: kschroe2@ua.d.umn.edu (Kurt Schroeder)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Fire in the East
Date: 22 Dec 1992 08:58:11 -0600
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
NNTP-Posting-Host: ua.d.umn.edu
Summary: How large is a non-overrunable force?

Perhaps to stimulate discussion on the Europa series of games, let me ask
a question.

Fire in the East is of course remarkable for the German onslaught at the
beginning of the game.  The set-up of the Russian forces and the play at the
beginning can be analyzed from many standpoints, but one principle the 
Russian player needs to follow is to set up stacks of units which can not be
over-run by the German player.  Failure to do this will allow the German
player to break through lines and  penetrate the delaying defense of the
Russians.  My questions are these:

1. How large a stack does the Russian player need in order to guarantee that
it will not be over-run.  Since the German player 
needs to attain 10:1 odds to over-run, this question resolves into the
question:  How large a stack can the German player construct on Game Turn
One?  60 points? 

Divisions: 3 x 12-10 Panzer divisions =             36
Non-divisional units: 3 x 5-10 Pz XX breakdowns =   15
Artillery: 2 x 5-8 motorized artillery =            10
						   ____
Total                                               61 points

Can anyone construct a stack which reaches 70 points?

2.  Is this 60- or 70-point stack attainable everywhere along the front, or
can the Russian player stack less than 7 points along some portions of the
front (i.e., south of Pripet marshes)?

This problem could probably be solved by analysis, although I have never
tried.  It probably smacks too much of game mechanics to suit the critics of
Europa heard on this net, but some of you might have done some analysis along
these lines.  Has anyone investigated this, or does anyone know of published
sources of analysis?  It is roughly the Europa equivalent of calculating the
value of all possible three-move openings in chess.


Yours 'til the Second Front---

Kurt Schroeder


-- 
Kurt Schroeder                  kschroe2@ub.d.umn.edu (Internet)
Dept. of Geography / 328 Cina   KSCHROE2@UMNDUL (BITNET)
University of Minnesota-Duluth  (218) 726-6226
Duluth  MN  55812               On the cutting edge of the normal curve.
From: drcheng@sales.GBA.NYU.EDU (David R Cheng)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Dragon Pass/Chaosium
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:56:13 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <1992Dec31.174307.12234@samba.oit.unc.edu> nwave@phoenix.radonc.unc.edu (Ninth Wave) writes:
>Now that my son is ten, I have "rediscovered" all my old Chaosium board games
>(three editions of White Bear/Red Moon!). First a couple of questions about
>Dragon Pass:
>1) concerning melee casualties - CF losses are taken from a stack top-down.
>Does this mean that if I lose 12 CF in a battle and my stack has a super-
>hero (20CF) as the topmost unit with three 4CF units stacked beneath it, then
>this stack suffers no losses?

Yes.

>2) The Dragon Pass unit The Twins is a spirit that is not bound to a magician.
>Do The Twins act in all respects as other disembodied spirits?

Yes.

>3) Can skirmishers fight twice in a given combat phase: i.e. on the attack,
>make a missle attack in the missle fire phase and than use their CF in the
>melee phase; and on the defense use defensive missle fire and then apply
>their CF to the defensive counterattack?

Yes.

>And now some general questions about Chaosium:
>1) I have Nomad Gods, first edition: was there ever a second edition? an
>errata sheet? (lots of errata needed, but the game is wonderfully imagina-
>tive).

There might have been more than one printing, but it never went through
any major revision like WBRM=>Dragon Pass.  I would have to check some
old _Wyrms Footnotes_ to see if errata ever appeared.

>2) For years Chaosium talked about Shadows Dance as the link between
>WB/RM and NG: did it ever appear as a standalone or as an expansion? [Dragon
>Pass has several rules covering NG areas such as support and chattel property;
>perhaps the DP rules are sufficient?]

Shadows Dance never saw print.  However, if you have Trollpack, you will
notice the section on military & mercenary units is described in terms
that indicate the info was being prepared _for_ Shadows Dance.  When
it talks about the Torch, a and the Shadowsance, note the distances cited:
they strangely correspond to the hex scale of the WBRM & NG maps...
Hmmmm...

>3) Then there was the third game of the trilogy, Masters of Luck of Fate; 
>anyone know its fate?

Masters of Luck and Death was being developed, but never saw print.
A friend of mine, Charles Morehouse, developed his own version.  I brought
it with me to Convulsion, and Stafford was in on one of the games.  He
said he thought it had promise.  Charles is currently (as we speak) working
on developing it further, for possible publication.

>4) Is Greg Stafford still in the game business? How about Krank, Edhara,
>Church, Oliff, Willis, Turney, Johnson and the other Chaosium people?

Stafford and Willis are still owners of Chaosium.  Charlie Krank still 
works there, as far as I know.  Tadashi Ehara took Different Worlds with
him to Sleuth Publications, many years ago.  From what I read on GEnie, 
Sleuth has many angry people trying to find them.

>-- Larry Margolese-Malin   nwave@radonc.unc.edu   (919) 929-8894

-David Cheng
 drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu
From: jjk@astro.umd.edu (Jim Klavetter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: CIVILIZATION, differences from ADVANCED CIV
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:45:51 GMT
Organization: U. of Maryland @ College Park, Astronomy

Thanks to all who responded about my previous CIVILIZATION questions.
I've now had the chance to play a couple of games with different
amounts of people.  There is NO doubt that 6 is better than two, but
even two is fun.  

My present question is would someone be so kind as to post or email a
SMALL summary of the differences/additions of ADVANCED CIVILIZATION.
I like CIVILIZATION so much that I'm wondering if AC just adds layers
of complexity without really making it more fun (as someone wrote to
me).  So I'm asking for a summary, but your opinions are also welcome.

Thanks.

jjk@astro.umd.edu also for Athabasca and Reudi
Jim Klavetter
Astronomy
UMD
College Park, MD  20742
From: bl375@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian G. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Talisman questions
Date: 31 Dec 1992 01:26:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bl375@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian G. Greenberg)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu () says:
>
>>
>>|  In light of this, does anyone else feel that the Prophetess is over-
>>|  balanced for the game?  Not only does she always maintain a spell which
>>
>>The only time we play the Prophetess is against the Monk. Normally we
>>leave them out as too good, and we leave out the dwarf elf and
>>halfling as too poor.
>
>
>ARE YOU KIDDING?????  The Dwarf and Elf are average, AT LEAST.  In particular,
>the Dwarf can go for a quick win if he can just get a couple extra points of
>Craft and Strength (especially if the craft is from an item and thus can't be
>lost by failing to get through the Portal of Power).  The Elf's ability to
>teleport at will from Woods to Woods is very powerful, especially if something
>good happens to pop up on a woods space... and the Halfling's ability to reroll
>anything related to Craft is nothing to sneeze at.  Personally, the Dwarf is
>one of my favorites.
>
>IMHO, the three weakest characters (including all cards-only expansions plus
>the Dungeon) are the Ghoul, the Pilgrim, and the Minstrel, and none are
>unplayably weak (yes, I've won with the Minstrel).  The Ghoul's ability to make
>a combat Psychic can be a big equalizer, the Pilgrim's ability to send spirits
>to other places on the board is nice if there are low-craft characters about
>(and is just as good as evading, anyway, if not better), and the Minstrel is in
>great shape if he happens to get a Giant Lizard, Lion, or Bear as a follower to
>add THREE to his strength.
>
>I must chastise you for not including the Warrior of Chaos and the Philosopher
>in your list of gross characters.  While not on a par with the Prophetess,
>they're still pretty nasty (especially the Philosopher with a small number of
>players).

I must agree with you about the Pilgrim, but I think that the Ghoul and
Minstrel aren't too bad.  I would rather have one of them over the
Minataur, Zulu, or the Pirate.

One of the most powerful non spell casters IMHO is the Centaur.  Not only can he
fire his bow (with his strength) at another character but he can move an
extra two for movement.   Another great character is the Swashbuckler.


Now for a quick question:  Can you use a horse and a horse and cart? 
Remember with the horse and cart you can go an extra one.  With a horse you
can go an extra three if you leave the followers behind.  Now how can you
go an extra three and say that your horse and cart is carrying your
followers?

Thanks,
-Brian
-- 
| Brian G. Greenberg:                   | "You can do more with a kind word |
| Summer : bl375@po.cwru.edu            |  and a gun, than with just a kind |
| Fall : bg4nsanu@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu |  word." -Al Capone                |
|     bggreenberg@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu |             GO BROWNS!!!          |
From: stratton@sumax.seattleu.edu (Paul Stratton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 1853 Errata?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 16:54:35 -0800
Organization: Seattle University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sumax.seattleu.edu

In article <1992Dec22.205130.29302@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes:
>	Does anyone out there know of any official errata for 1853? If I've
>got my info right, that's the one in India. A friend has it, and says the setup
>info is not very good.

The rules are very poorly written.  It took us half an hour to figure out
how to do the setup.  They have a leap of logic that makes you go huh!

It is interesting though.

Paul Stratton
From: Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: New STARFIRE revision
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:40:33 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Rick compares the new Starfire rules with SFB and says that there are a heck
of a lot more rules than in 2nd edition Starfire.  I have to disagree with
him here, and I hope that nobody will be persuaded not to purchase the game
because of his statements.  The new Starfire has a heck of a lot more
ship's systems, and the rulebook is a heck of a lot larger.  That much is
true.  However, there are only a relatively minor amount of new rules.  The
last 16 pages of the book is a background section.  More pages are taken up
with ship control sheets, a reference section, scenarios, etc.  The actual
rules are less than 40 pages.  The old rules have been expanded through
examples and clarifications.  Most of the real additions to the system come
in the form of new ship systems.  This can be easily gotten around by simply
playing at a tech level lower than 9.  The introduction of more complicated
and powerful systems with higher tech levels provide a perfect way to limit
the game or learn it in steps.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com (harry campbell)
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies
Reply-To: harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:20:19 GMT

In article 72672@cup.portal.com, Patrick_Andrew_Barnes@cup.portal.com () writes:
> Well, just
> compare their non-AD&D releases to other releases in the same genre by other
> companies.  TSR loses every time.  TSR released the first role playing game
> and grabbed the lion's share of the gamers while the industry was still
> in its infancy.  They had virtually no competition and established a niche
> for themselves.  But if you look at everythign they have done since then,
> they are utter failures.  If TSR had been started up a couple of years after
> it was, and Chaosium or GDW had gotten there first, then TSR would now be
> a dead company. 


Wasn't Traveller from GDW out well before D&D got really big?

Didn't anybody else play TOP SECRET??!!  My friends and I thought that game was
excellent (played it almost as much as D&D), but TSR stopped supporting it and let
it die then ressurected it in it's hideously contorted present form (which sux).

BOOT HILL never caught on, lack of demand and people's wild west imagination, but
I think it was the best "old west" role playing game made.  The combat system worked
extremely well, maybe the best TSR ever did.

Harry E. Campbell
harry@dseg.ti.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: New STARFIRE revision
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 13:39:06 GMT

In article <v3nr9s+@lynx.unm.edu> kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma) writes:
>In article <rreed.2z4e@terapin.com> rreed@terapin.com (Rick Reed) writes:
>>Let me just start out by saying that I think TFG unnecessarily added much too
>>much to what used to be a simple system!  I think the SFB mentality crept in
>>too much in this latest revision...

>>There are a heck of a lot more rules, but I can't possibly remember them 
all! 
>>Egad!!  I think I prefer the 2nd edition rules.  The manual's introduction
>>states, "Old STARFIRE hands will find it does many of the things the older
>>games did in different ways, but they will still recognize the 
>>clean "feel" of
>>the system."  Yeah, right!  TFG may have another SFB on their hands!!!
>
>Wait until they revise the strategic system...I also wonder if they'll
>ever get around to printing TerraFire and GroundFire?
>
>>
>>        -Rick
>

A friend of mine that played the older versions says there is not much
that is new, the d10's are the biggest change.  The only differences he
noted were things to clean up some old patches.  Of course, he had every
published change or addition in existance.  As for another SFB, it would
take major work to bring Starfire up to the complexity of SFB.  The lack
of SSD's and Energy allocation make it an order of magnitude easier than
SFB even if you were to add an equal number of rules.

I heard someone talking about a vector movement system, does anyone know
anything about this?


Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
From: bill@frog.CRDS.COM (auspex1)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Sante Fe game review
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:10:38 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

I just player Sante Fe last night for the first time.  We liked it.
(Our group is a great fan of 1830.)  It is relatively short (we played
2 games and explained the rules in 3 hours) but it seems interesting.

Short Summary:

Sante Fe is set in the Western US.  There are 5 railroads that ALL players
expand.  Each city has a point value and there are cards for each city.
You get points for connecting new cities and connecting particular railroads
into particular cities.  You can also play city cards.  At the end of the
game you get points for each railroad that connects into one of your cities.
The player with the most points at the end of the game wins.

The track and city cards are balanced so that all of the city cards can
be played.  However players can play "2X" cards to lay twice as much
track and double their connecting bonuses.  If you play a 2X card then
you cannot play a city card.  You also move the balance so fewer city
cards will be played.  Both of the games we played had about a third of
the city cards unplayed.

There is a constant pressure between short term gains and long term
gains.  (The high point cities are one the west coast.)  Do you connect
a city for points now or do you push a connection to your cities for
the end of the game.

(In the US it was expensive, $52, at Games People Play in Cambridge, MA.
The game is published in Germany so it should be cheaper in Europe.)
-- 

bill masek		charles river data systems, inc
(617) 275-4565 (h)	(508) 626-1122 (w)
mit-eddie!frog!bill	eddie.mit.edu!frog!bill
Newsgroups: rec.games.board