HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM (Rick Wagoner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Looking for gaming stores in Silicon V
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:46:50 GMT
Reply-To: wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: georwell.ebay.sun.com

Griffin (yes it's spelled tis way) Games and Computers in Campbell has a good 
selection (though typically only one or two copies of each game) AND gives
a 20% discount!!

They are located on Bascom Ave. just south (towards the Pruneyard) of Hamilton.
Ask for Neal, but watch out for Dave!

408-371-9987 
---
+-----------------------------------------------+
+ Rick Wagoner					+
+ Sun Microsystems Education Dept.		+
+ 408-276-5658					+
+ 						+
+ email Rick.Wagoner@EBay.Sun.COM		+
+ or	rick.wagoner@Ebay 			+
+ or	rwagoner@sun.com			+
+						+
+ or whateverthehell the DNS server mangles my	+
+    address into!				+
+						+
+-----------------------------------------------+
+ Opinions: MINE!	Systems: Theirs!	+
+-----------------------------------------------+
+  Everybody likes to stir the excrement        +
+  but nobody likes to clean the paddle...	+
+-----------------------------------------------+
From: cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Axis&Allies Germany attacks error
Summary: Regarding redress on Germ taking Brit on turn 1.
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:20:37 GMT
Followup-To: A&A:  German attack error.
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego


	Thanks for clearing that up.  It was an interesting
proposition albeit a false one.  If you got any other novel ideas,
don't be afraid to open it up for discussion.  Any new ideas is
better than none at all.

					- The TaZ


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dmk@air31.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Screaming Eagles rules needed-REWARD OFFERED
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:47:10 GMT

Hi netters,
   Last weekend I went to a yard sale and picked up a Milton Bradley game
called Screaming Eagles for $1.50. Almost everything was there except for
the rules. If you have this game, could you please send me a copy of the
rules?
   As a reward to the first person to send me a copy of the rules, I will
send one of the following two games (your choice):

Escape from Altassar
The Warriors of Batak

   These are both Task Force games. The remaining game I will sell for
$2.50 (I pay shipping). Any takers???

Thanks,
Daniel Koppen
dmk@air31.larc.nasa.gov
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: The Fog of War and McClellan (Was Re: A Gleam of Bayonets)
Date: 9 Apr 1992 19:24:52 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

A really nice computer game that captures the fog of war is from SSG
(not SSI), their Decisive Battles of the Civil War series.  There are
at least 3 volumes out.  I've got #2, with Gaines Mill, Stones River,
Gettysburg, Chickamauga & Chattanooga.

It has the optional ability to only display enemy units that you see,
which gives the fog of war feeling already discussed in earlier messages.

Furthermore, it has an optional rule that you, the commanding general,
do not control all your units!  Each unit receives orders from its
general, and you can tell those generals overall goals (like Defend
Gettysburg, or March to McPherson's Farm) and they "decide" the actual
path over the map to take.  Some generals are smarter than others,
some are more aggressive than others.  Any unit which is real close
to you can be ordered directly.  The further you are from a given
unit, the less likely you will be able to order it directly.  All
orders are given, then executed en masse.  It's really quite a nice
system, and all completely computerized.  You can play with 2 humans
or against the computer.  (Even computer vs computer, I think, if you
just want to watch its strategies.)  And the program is pretty bugfree;
the only bad problem I've had is my 486 seems to confuse its timing
sometimes and it runs ridiculously SLOWLY; exiting and restarting once
or twice solves this odd quirk.

Oh, I should add that SSG uses the same (or similar) system in a variety
of wargames they publish, including a number of WWII ones.  I've only
played the CW one.

Also, there's no disk copy protection, for those who refuse to buy
copy protected games on principle...

Russ
From: cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:35:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr9.001220.2436@athena.mit.edu> cwk@athena.mit.edu (Charles W Krueger) writes:
>If the Allies really want to gang up on Japan, I suggest a Russian attack on Manchuria with a subsequent British attack on Kwangtung (transport two infantry from india, fighter support - lands in Sinkiang. Sure, the japs can take everything back, including India, but now find themselves very short of land units on the continent. I've seen more than one frustrated Japanese player following this opening.

	This one deserves a 'A' for innovation and one helluva of
kudos.  Can anyone propose a strategy that gives the Axis a half
decent shot at winning since the Axis is now practically playing
with both arms and legs tied together.

	I just remember why I thought all the original factory have
unlimited production for anyone.  After using the original and
correct rules, we discover that Axis needed a different edge to
balance the game thus we propose this rule and play it ever since.
There lies my mistake. 

	S O R R Y   F O R   T H E   I N C O N V E N I E N C E S

	    		- So Long and Thanks for all the fish

				 	- The Tasmanian Devil
From: seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: WWII:PTO units missing from O.B.
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:34:21 GMT
Reply-To: "Bill Seurer,905161 " <billseurer@vnet.ibm.com>

I carefully checked and the 3 Australian 3-3 infantry brigades and the 6
U.S. 2-3/3 one step naval air units for the light carriers are missing
from the O.B.  There is no mention of them in any errata I have seen.

Based on the other scenarios, I would say that...

One of the Australian brigades enters the force pool in each of '43,
'44, and '45.  There are definitely none in '42 and 2 in by '44.

The U.S. light carriers enter the force pool in '42 (and maybe some in
'43?) and take a year to build so the air units should probably be added
to the '43 force pool.  This makes sense as well since all the naval air
in '42 starts with 2 quality while all in '43 has 3 quality.

- Bill Seurer    Language and Compiler Development     IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com          America On-Line: BillSeurer
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 07:35:57 MST
From: <ICECW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject:    Sorceror King/Knights of Camelot

Anyone know any info on two games:  Sorceror King by Wotan Games and Knights of
Camelot by TSR.  Are they enjoyable, relative worth, playability, playing ad-
vice, anything!  Thanks!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.frp
From: brandon@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Garland Operator 7-G)
Subject: Re: WH40K:  Space Marine Chapter Names
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Anime Doujou
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:52:00 GMT

In article <foo>, plt@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Pete Taylor) writes...
>Anyway, I was wondering if
>there is a listing of Space Marine Chapter names so that I could use some 
>names besides the ones that appear in Space Hulk.
> 
>If there are any other names from other WH40K material please send them to 
>me or tell me where I might be able to track them down.

A place I remember that had Space Marine info. Was White Dwarf #101.
In it they had a whole bunch of Space Marine chapters and their Armor designs
(including special desert and arctic cammoflage designs for certain chapters).
This information may have all been reprinted though.

A friend of mine took the Ultramarine U decals and turned them upside down on
his marines and called his chapter "The Omega Marines".

Domo. Ja na.

Brandon Freels (Garland Operator 7-G)
brandon@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu  -or-  brandon@uokucsvx.bitnet
"I'm witty naturally, I don't need quotes."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: hayden@elp.aero.org (william l. hayden)
Subject: Conquest Inquiry
Summary: Any interest in 4-player Conquest by Mail ?
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:58:58 GMT

I'm new to the net so I hope this posting works.

Are there any Conquest players out there ?
I'm specifically looking for interest in trying the 4-player version 
(with partners} by mail (electronic or normal).
From: falcon1@vipunen.hut.fi (Petri M Suominen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: WWII:PTO & ETO Compatible? (was: Re: WWII:PTO errata (British set up)
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:20:10 GMT
Reply-To: falcon1@vipunen.hut.fi (Petri M Suominen)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology

Having now seen that PTO-players are reading this group, I would like to ask
this:

I own WWII:ETO (2nd ed.) and would like to add Pacific Theater into my games.
It says in the rules of ETO, that ETO can be linked to PTO, but someone told
me they are not really compatible (something to do with the ground unit sizes
I guess). Is this true?

And one more thing. Where could I find Axis&Allied? Haven't seen it for a
while. They still make it, don't they ?


-- 
Petri Suominen  | Falcon Team Games  | Ruotsinkielisten etuoikeudet
JT 1 B 209      | P.O.Box 66         | Suomessa on poistettava !
02150 ESPOO     | 64101 KRISTIINANK. | Email: falcon1@vipu.hut.fi 
FINLAND         | FINLAND            | puhelin/telephone: +358/0/468 2279
From: dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A House Rules
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:41:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpfcso.9770108
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA


  Jeeze!  I wouldn't even recognize the game from these rules!  Just go out
and buy Stellar Conquest.  Almost the same rules and tech developments, but
all players are on their own.

DLC
From: starflt@athena.mit.edu (Derrick Kong)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Romulan SparrowHawk Carrier
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:45:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: air-traf.STARFLT.92Apr16154507
	<1992Apr13.200508.49786@yuma.acns.colostate.edu>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr13.200508.49786@yuma.acns.colostate.edu> dunger@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Dallace Unger) writes:

   In article <1992Apr13.125241.16351@corax.udac.uu.se> aha@meryl.csd.uu.se (Anders Hallberg) writes:
   >In article <eJHXiB2w165w@angus.mi.org>, thx1138@angus.mi.org (Scott Abfalter) writes:
   >> I tell you, for 4 BPV a fighter carrying a Type-F Plas is a _scary_
   >> thing.  Consider that you can buy three times the cost of F-14's in 
   >> Romulan fighters.  
   >
   >4 BPV for a plasma-F fighter!?  As far as I can recall there are no
   >fighters that cheap, at least not in Captains Edition.  Or do you mean that
   >a plasma-F fighter cost 4 BPV more than a plasma-D fighter?
   >
   >	/Anders Hallberg

   The G-I cost 4 BPV!  (It does not have a phaser-III.)

   Dallace

Although the G-I may cost only 4 BPV, I would much rather take a couple
of F-14's than triple their number of G-I's.  The F-14, with a decent
speed and armament which can actually help defend itself, is much
likelier to be able to catch and inflict damage on a target.

Against G-I's, I'd send in a squad of admin shuttles.  The poor Romulan
pilots have a choice of unloading their plas-F's on shuttles, running
away, or getting phasered to death by mere 1 BPV shuttles... :->

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a sucker born every minute.
		-P.T. Barnum			Derrick Kong
And they die about that fast too.		starflt@athena.mit.edu
		-Grimtooth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ckessel@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (Chris Kessel)
Subject: Fiend folio worth?
Organization: /local/lib/rn/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:06:37 GMT

> Fiend Folio: $25 (first ed with the blue cover)

This isn't the first time I've seen the FF being sold at greater than
cover value. Why is it so valuable? Seems everyone I know bought it 
along with Monster Manual 2, etc. Are any of the other 1st ed books
of value?

Chris
ckessel@cs.uoregon.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: c9106225@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Matt McLeod)
Subject: Re: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Organization: Dept of Management, Uni of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:40:29 GMT

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.
> 
> 
>                                                           -Tom
-- 

Actually, I think you'll find that the latter rule is *optional*.

Matt

---
Matt McLeod                            c9106225@brolga.newcastle.edu.au
Info Sciences undergrad                c9106225@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Uni of Newcastle, Australia            mjmcleod@maria.wustl.edu
From: emullins@vesta.unm.edu (Eric Mullins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Sub Rules
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:53:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.qjsj30_
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Scott Zimmerman) writes:

>>I've played that the subs may withdraw, and land forces need not occupy.
>>I think it makes sense for land forces -- why should they have less
>>flexibility after *winning* an attack than after a failed offensive?
>>(Okay, I can think of some reasons but they're not very compelling).

It might make sense, but it makes fighters much less useful.

>If you have used your complete movement spaces getting to and entering a
>combat zone, you cannot retreat them after knocking out all enemy.  This 
>would be like traveling across the entire zone to clean up any enemy 
>opposition.
>
>For example...Germany attacks Karelie with all tanks and infantry it can.
>No infantry can pull out after winning because they have only 1 movement
>point and have used that traversing to the east end of the Karelie.  Like
>wise, any German tanks that came from Berlin or Southern Europe must also
>stay because they through 2 complete zones - first through Easter Europe,
>and the COMPLETELY through the Karelie to clean out all enemys.  However,
>the German tanks that attacked from East Europe, Finland and the other 
>territory could withdraw to one adjacent  territory.  The logic - they used
>1 movement point to travel to the east border of Karelie and 1 movement 
>point to travel BACK to the western border.  
>
>this would make sense to me in a realistic sense.
>
>What do you think?

See above.  Basically, it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not because
it reduces the effectiveness of fighters.  In fact, if I could retreat
tanks, why would I need fighers?

With current implementation, tanks are good if you don't need to defend
territory after capturing it.  Otherwise, fighters should be used.  Infantry-
fighter combinations are very powerful.  If tanks are to have the ability
to retreat after combat, then they should cost more.  What cost makes the game
playable?  Who knows, that's what playtesting is for.  I volunteer!! :)
-- 
   Eric Mullins			Internet: emullins@hydra.unm.edu
Mars the God of War		Bitnet:   emullins@unmb.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: barry@playfair.Stanford.EDU (Barrett P. Eynon)
Subject: Re: Game Collapse
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:52:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.191246.2200@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 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.

Arkham Horror has this structure: the Investigators are competing to close 
the largest number Gates and kill the most monsters, but if too many Gates
have a chance to open, the damage to the fabric of the universe is 
irreparable...
--
Barry Eynon
barry@playfair.stanford.edu        

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: c9106225@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Matt McLeod)
Subject: Looking for game based in 1066
Organization: Dept of Management, Uni of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:59:34 GMT


Is there a game based on the events of 1066, preferably taking into account not
just the English/Norman conflict, but also the Norwegian-Scottish offensive in
the North, and the various political pressures in Western Europe at the time?

(Sorry if that seems a little long-winded...  It's just that, in my opinion,
1066 would be a great timezone for a wargame)

Matt
 
---
Matt McLeod                            c9106225@brolga.newcastle.edu.au
Info Sciences undergrad                c9106225@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Uni of Newcastle, Australia            mjmcleod@maria.wustl.edu
From: SMacbeth@mindlink.bc.ca (Steven W. Macbeth)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Talisman questions...
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:59:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.11409
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I recently played a game that involved much arguing over rules.  Perhaps I
could get some of your opinions on them.

1)      When using the city does does a character that becomes one of the
special characters retain his native powers?
2)      When the ending is hercules belt can you add your magical items
to the strength?
3)      Can you fight with craft instead, if you have the ability?


Thanx.

--
Steven W. Macbeth
Macbeth Development Corp.
Vancouver NeXT User Group Executive

SMacbeth@mindlink.bc.ca    (Internet)
72520,3055                 (Compuserve)
(604) 299-2186             (Phone)
From: ace@lacey.cs.mcgill.ca (Arthur CHAN)
Subject: Re: Re: Axis & Allies: Germany's only chance!
Keywords: BOMBERS!!!!!!
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:52:19 GMT

In article <31446@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)  
writes:
> Legit testIn article <9770104@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis  
Clark) writes:
> >In rec.games.board, cchiang@sdcc13.FC.HP.COM writes:
> >  Because if you don't force the USA to spend money on that Pacific fleet it
> >DLC
> 
> 	Why would Yank pay for a Pacific fleet??  I still hate the
> ideas of Bombers, aren't there any cargoship diehards anymore.
> 
> 	Jees, more bombers.  What Yank needs is an Atlantic fleet
> and a bunch of cargoships.  It'll bring the Axis to their knees
> quicker and more consistently (trust me, I've lost enough times to
> Normandy invasions to count).
> 
> 					- The Tasmanian Devil
> 					cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu

The thought of Germany getting >$36 EVERY round is appalling to
most Allied players.  Therefore, the usage of bombers is obvisious.

Yes, the US buys an Atlantic fleet ( and bring its surviving Pacific
battleship , if still afloat, to escort the US transports ) but
all this should occur after the third round. ( After US have bought
Bombers! ).

Bombers, Bombers, Bombers !!!!!  - The key to limiting the Germans.

-The Mad Bomber

--
                 
                     ^                ^
                   -##\              /##-
                -######\   (    )   /######-
             -#########//  |\^^/|  \\#########-
          -###########//   (@::@)   \\###########-
        /############((     \\//     ))############\
      -###############\\    (oo)    //###############-
     -#################\\  / ** \  //#################-
   -######/-\[^]-:/:-[^]-:/ -[^]-\:-[^]-:\:-[^]-\######-
  -#/|####<=---=====---=====---=====---=====---=>####|\#-
  |/|#/\##<<^>           Arthur Chan         <^>>#/\#| \|
  ' |/  \V<<^>    ace@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca   <^>>V  \|  '
    '     <=---=====---=====---=====---=====---=>    '
          \-\[^]-:\:-[^]-:\ -[^]-/:-[^]-:/:-[^]-/
                         | |    | |                     
		        (VVV)  (VVV)
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Tactical Question - answer
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:31:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.11395
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I don't think the abstract tactical question of how to penetrate a uniform line
of defence can be answered without details.  Put another way, the answer may
differ according to the rules of the game being played, as well as the overall
situation.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Scott Zimmerman)
Subject: Re: A&A House Rules
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:49:05 GMT

Sorry about my rather lengthy previous posting, I meant to put a warning in the
beginning but it was sent by accident.  

A bunch of people mailed me about getting a list of optional rules and techs
together, so here they are.  

A little clarification should be given on these tech developements.

These are designed to be SPECIFIC tech developement.  Meaning, you develope
what you want - not randomly.  You are allowed to buy up to 2 die per turn 
at the stated cost.  If you buy 2 dice and state that you are rolling 2
dice for the same tech, and happen to roll 2 sixs, you only get 1 tech level
and the extra 6 is wasted.  But, you can get 2 different techs of different
types in the same turn.  By this, I mean you cant develope Jets 2 and 3 in 
the same turn.

Also, to spark the developement, I have played a game with mandatory tech
developement by everyone - at least 1 die per turn.  To combat the cost,
each country is given 3 extra IPC a turn to put towards tech developement.
Using mandatory weapons developement worked pretty good in the game I played.
This eliminated the problem of the go for broke and try for Heavy bombers
strategy.  I also think that specific tech developement is a little more
realistic because it allows you to develope something that you actually need
and could impliment in an existing strategy.

The techs are also designed so that if a person gets a good tech, someone
else could possibly get a tech to offset the new one - like AA vs jets.
This way, no one can get a tech that is impossible to defend against like
heavy bombers in the origanal 2nd ed rules.  

BTW, I didnt include any Bomber techs, if you have any good ones besides
HEAVY bombers, let me know.  

Sorry about the long-winded explanations.  Let me know how they work!
any clarifications or questions,
either email to sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu or 
leave question on this newsgroup - someone else may have the same Question.

Thanks again, Mike


Newsgroups: rec.games.board