HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: GAME AUCTION UPDATE
Summary: Auction Update #1
Keywords: FOR SALE
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:30:30 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


Hi!  Well, this is how things stand after the first weekend of bidding:

        Item                    Bid                     Notes

3W  Modern Naval Battles        $5 aa699@freenet.carleton.ca

AH  Naval War                   $5

GW  Chainsaw Warrior            $10 bob@werple.apana.org.au
GW  Warhammer 40K               $11 daryl@math.uchicago.edu

LE  Pheonix Command:
      Advanced Damage Tables    $4
      Advanced Rules Supplement $4 DGBRUM01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
      Artillery Supplement      $5
      Combat System             $5              Early edition, well used
      Damage Tables             $3
      Hand-to-Hand Combat       $5
      Modern Military Weapons   $4              Well used
      Special Weapons           $4
      Wild West Supplement      $3
      World War II Weapons      $3

NOVA  Lost Worlds - Unicorn     $1 aa699@freenet.carleton.ca

SJG  Awful Green Things         $3 mmalak@looking_glass.Wonderland.Caltech.EDU
       From Outer Space                         Pocket Box edition, well used
     Car Wars                   $4              Pocket Box edition
     GEV                        $4              Pocket Box edition

TSR  D&D Player's Guide         $3              Red book
     D&D DM's Guide             $3              Red book
     Player's Guide (2nd ed)    $10             Excellent condition
     Tome of Magic              $12  DGBRUM01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
                                                Excellent condition
     Tome of Magic              $20             Misprint - excellent condition
                                                  Collector's Item!

??   Multiverse Sorcery         $150            Original green paperback version
                                                  autographed and hand-corrected
                                                  by author (David Harmer)
                                                  Very High Collector's Value!

Please send any bids via e-mail to: gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu
Buyers will be expected to pay shipping costs, if any.

Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I used to trust the media to tell me   |   I used to think that only America's
   the truth, to tell us the truth      |     way, our way was right
 But now I see the payoffs              |   But now the holy dollar rules

(.sig reduced to 4 lines)
                                        -Travis Works
                                        gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu


--
From: peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Duration and monster games
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:31:06 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

>>Civilization: 5-7 hours
>8 hours minimum.

I agree - 8 hours minimum. It can easily go to 10. (This goes for both
original Civ and Adv Civ.)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think I think, therefore I think I am." 
- Descartes' failed attempt to discard the notion of objective reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: gschlesi@scott.skidmore.edu (Christopher Robin)
Subject: Re: Do YOU play to win?  (was: Re: Winning isn't everything)
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:01:53 GMT

If you don't start a game with the idea that you want to win, then
there is no real joy in playing it.  A game isn't fun if you're
playing with people who aren't trying to win.  The competition and the
uncertainty of the game make it worthwhile.  It's basicly just a
question of keeping in mind that it is only a game.  Personally, I
play to win, and if I can't win I try to stop the person who has been
winning the whole time from winning.
From: bob@werple.apana.org.au (Bob Blanchett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: David Nalle Middle Passage games please contact.
Date: 24 Jan 1993 23:42:27 +1100
Organization: Werple, Public Access *NIX, Oz
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

David, 

You recently mailed me a catalog for the middle passage games and a game
called I think popes and princes. there was also a spanish main game in the
works.

I had my nephew format my hard disk and I lost your email, snail mail
address plus the cost P&P details for these games. Can you send me ordering
details costs etc for the "passage" games, popes and princes(?) and the
spanish main game if available. You have 2 aussies wanting to place an
order.

Many thanks,

bob.
From: dxb105@huxley.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Days of Decision Second Edition
Date: 27 Jan 1993 05:37:55 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.3.12
Keywords: WIF, DOD, ADG

Saw Harry Rowlands at CANCON on the weekend. The ADG stall was accepting orders
for something called (would I lie to you?) "Son of Days of Decision". I would
guess that name will be replaced with something a little more dignified in due
course. What I saw was laser-written sheets, stapled together.

The price was A$40, but that might have been a special convention price and I
understand the Australian prices are always cheaper than the US ones. For
comparison, the WIF 5th editions sitting beside it were $A56.

I've already mentioned that there are _lots_ of extra cards available (my
favourite is "Germany declares war on China"). Also, instead of being a two
team game like DOD1, DOD2 is either a three player game (Axis, Communist and
Western factions) or a multi-player game that works best with three (I wasn't
sure I understood Harry's explanation on this point). And it doesn't stop with
general war.

The political status chart has been replaced by a hexgridded area. Imagine an
equilateral triangle with side 2n hexes. I think n is about 5. The area is all
hexes within n hexes of an edge or vertex of that triangle. At the vertices of
the triangle are the hexes representing the ultimate factional personalities,
e.g. "Capitalist Republic". Democracies can't DoW each other, etc.

I am really hopeful for this game, in principle it's offering us most of what
I've wanted for a long time. One concept it doesn't have, as far as I know, is
"belligerency", a way to distinguish between countries like Belgium that don't
want to fight at all if they can help it, and countries like Poland that are
just trying to decide which side they should be on. But I won't complain. Much.
_______________________________________________________________________________
David Bofinger                                          dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Axis & Allies: Game Balance
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:16:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

wyattw@tekig1.pen.tek.com (Wyatt A Webb;629-1592;92-835;tekig1.pen) writes:


>Hi Dave!

[this is obviously a response to another letter]

>I would agree.  The problem I have though is that with the Russia
>no-attack rule, the USSR can reinforce Karelia (the obvious first
>battleground) and Germany is pretty-much forced to attack (if anything,
>just to wear the force down).  This may make it TOO lopsided, but what
>if the first turn simply started with Germany.  That would give the Axis
>the initiative and keep the USSR from overplaying the North...

The game is much more balanced if the Russia no attack rule is used.
This way, Germany usually keeps most of its air force intact.  Usually,
it seems to develop into an infantry-building war, though.

keith
From: mcsbc3maw@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Plasma bolt vs plasma torp against tholian
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:09:07 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

In article <1993Jan25.142040.22782@eua.ericsson.se>, etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg) writes:
> mcsbc3maw@dct.ac.uk writes:
> 
>>In article <1993Jan21.100455.25156@eua.ericsson.se>, etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg) writes:
>>>>etxaha@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Hallberg) writes:
>>> 
>>>>>byh@beaker.engin.umich.edu (Bartholomew Hsu) writes:
>>>>>>	Hello.  I am a inexperienced SFB player stuck in a scenario flying a
>>>>>>Romulan Skyhawk-A vs. a Tholian DD+web snare refit+Legendary Weapons officer.
>>> 
>>>>>You need to get on top of him and unload your torps so that he can't
>>>>>avoid them. 
>>> 
>>> If the Tholian is close enough for bolts to work, launched plasma should work
>>> better unless he (the Tholian) is moving very fast.
> 
>>I do not agree ! The DD has TWO snares remember ; these will degrade the F torps
>>to a very weak warhead before they get out of the web . His snares work once
>>per turn so forget hitting with launched plasma unless your plasma will
>>hit him in 3 Impulses or less (Web formation time) . Bolt or Nothing !
> 
>   Well, when I wrote "on top" I meant range 0 or 1 and launching the
> impulse before an impulse when the Tholian moves (impulse 32 e g).
> Snares won't help in that case.
>   Bolting and phasers will cause maybe 10 internals with luck.  If one
> or both bolts miss, you end up with a Tholian with a dented shield and
> plenty of time for subhunting.  He has webs, a legendary weapons
> officer and probably a T-bomb or two.
> -- 
> \Anders Hallberg (etxaha@eua.ericsson.se)
> 
> "Highly organized nonsense is of no more intrinsic worth 
>  than random nonsense." - Chris Williams


	If you bolt and then he tries to get you under cloak let him eat a NSM
because if he has Tbombs The rom has a NSM.Otherwise it'll be next to
impossible for him to do damage to the rom.

Mark 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: WiF house rules and variants.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:04:17 GMT

In article <1jkstqINNrom@manuel.anu.edu.au>
	dxb105@huxley.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger) writes:

> * First round of combat in the Pacific is always an air-to-sea. Not sure I like
>   the way this works. Well, I know I don't like it, just not sure what I would
>   like.

Here's a suggestion: any unsurprised side with at least a certain
number of air to sea factors may choose to launch an air attack.
After this (optional) combat the side with more air factors can choose
a surface combat.

I think it's wrong to say that having n+1 factors means you can
absolutely prevent the opponent from launching an air attack.  You
should have to fight him off.



--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White)
Subject: Re: Republic of ROME question, HELP
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:59:03 GMT

In article <1k522jINNnt0@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters) writes:
>
>Suppose the HRAO steps down to avoid influence loss (9.34). Suppose this
>happens before prosecutions. (for example: new RC has trouble electing a
>Censor and steps down; FC conducts Censor election.) When the prosecutions
>are over, does the HRAO preside again (which is the literal meaning of 9.46)
>or does the guy who was presiding immediately before prosecutions started
>preside again (which is what I think was more likely the intended rule)?

I interpret stepping down to mean that the present HRAO is considered
"unavailable" by choice until new Consuls are elected.

Now we get to a sticky question: what if the HRAO steps down and the
same senator eventually becomes next on the list because of low
family card number?  Is he still unavailable?  I would say he is *not*
available.

>Now suppose the HRAO steps down after prosecutions, and suppose the presiding
>dude gets sent off to war. He's not the HRAO, so the Senate Phase doesn't end,
>if we take the book literally. Is this a mistake? I.e., when it says "Passage
>of any measure sending the HRAO to War ends the Senate Phase" (middle of 9.65)
>should "HRAO" read "presiding magistrate"?

I think that "HRAO" is generally synnonymous with "presiding magistrate".

>Let's assume, in this latter case, that there is no mistake. Then when the
>(non-HRAO) presiding magistrate is sent to war, does control of the meeting
>drop to the next guy (e.g. from FC to Censor), or does it jump back up to the
>HRAO? I would say the former, but the book doesn't cover this.
>
>In effect, my opinion here is equivalent to saying that anyone who has stepped
>down is no longer "Available" that turn, thus making another exception to the
>usual definition.

If the FC (or RC) is presiding and sent away to fight a war, Senate
is immediately closed, save for proposals promptly made with tribunes.
I think that the rules do cover this with the quoted passage.  The
position of HRAO never jumps around, except for the appointment of
a Dictator who is chosen by Consuls in Rome.  Typical shifts are only
down the list, due to assassination or choice by HRAO.  I consider
"HRAO" to be synnonymous with "presiding magistrate" because I would
describe them as semi-permeanant in the context of reading the rules
and play.  Changes, other than by elections, that do occur are really
the exceptions that prove the rule.


--Peter
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Game Balance
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:08:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

rpc@moscom.com (Robert Colbey) writes:



>f12008ad@triton.unm.edu writes:

>A quick summary of my game-balancing rule modifications:

>NO new industrial centers. This favors the Axis because it keeps the Allies'
>lines of supply longer than the Axis', at least until the Axis has expanded
>it's territory.

I think this tends to favor the Allies, actually.  Most Japan players
end up building a few ICs on the mainland.  The only allied IC that seems
to be commonly built is perhaps an English IC in India.

keith
From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Mutual annhiliation (was Re: An interesting question)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:27:10 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

In article <BTRUSSO.93Jan20134805@squarethru.ads.com>, btrusso@squarethru.ads.com (Brad Trusso) writes:
|> In article <1jjv78INNg91@crabapple.cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
|> 
|>    From: farrell@cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell)
|> 
|> 	   Ummm...  As valid an example as MAD is, please note that we never 
|>    carried it out.  Such threats have existed for a long time ... the real 
|>    question is has anyone ever followed through.  There is a *huge* difference
|>    between the threat of force and the use of force.
|> 
|> 						   Chris
|> 
|> I beg to differ.  The real question is:  Does the threat work?  If I
|> threaten you, and you back down (because you believe or fear that I have 
|> the means and the will to carry it out), my threat was a great success.  
|> If you go through with your plan anyway (because you think I'm bluffing),
|> and I carry out my threat, and the next time you (or others) back down
|> to avoid the consequences you (or they) now believe will follow, my
|> threat was a success in the long run.  In either case, I successfully
|> modified the behavior of you or others to further my own goals.
|> 
|> If I try to carry out my threat and fail (because I lack the means),
|> I may still achieve a partial success if it causes you (and others)
|> to think twice before messing with me the next time.  The same is
|> true if I "let reason prevail" and reduce my revenge to bloodying your
|> nose a little, while preserving some of my strength and trying to
|> avoid last place.  In fact, my threat is more credible if I threaten
|> "reasonable" revenge in the first place.
|> 
|> On the other hand, if you ignore me and I was indeed just bluffing,
|> my threat was a dismal failure.  Not only did I fail this time, but
|> you (and others) are much less likely to believe any future threats I
|> might make.  

The question is NOT "does the threat work."  According to that mentality,
if you make one move that gives you a good recruit only on a roll of "4"
as opposed to an alternate move that gives you a good recruit on any roll
except a "4" and you roll a "4" next move, then you made the right choice.

If you're in a tournament (or playing a game in a tournament mentality), you
should forget about the threat unless it will be to the person's advantage to
follow through with it.

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: erwinrd@sumax.seattleu.edu (Richard D. Erwin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: VG's _LEE VS GRANT_
Date: 24 Jan 1993 00:02:48 -0800
Organization: Seattle University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sumax.seattleu.edu

I'm looking for a very experienced player of Victory Games' _Lee vs.
Grant_ to provide an article to go with our review of _Stonewall Jackson's
Way_ in Paper Wars #9.  THe reviewer will be paid upon publication.

Please contact me directly for details.


Thanks in Advance,

Rich Erwin
From: gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: GAME AUCTION UPDATE
Summary: Game Auction Update #3
Keywords: FOR SALE
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:06:50 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Hello again!  Here's how the auction's going so far.  The bidding is going
pretty good, but I think I'll end it after this week.  The * on the Phoenix
Command bids indicate that $30 has been bid for the entire collection.

        Item                    Bid                     Notes

3W  Modern Naval Battles        $5 aa699@freenet.carleton.ca

AH  Naval War                   $5 yaj@cc.gatech.edu

GW  Chainsaw Warrior            $11 JOSHUAF@EARLHAM.bitnet
GW  Warhammer 40K               $12 mcs52867@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

LE  Pheonix Command:
      Advanced Damage Tables    $4 *
      Advanced Rules Supplement $4 *
      Artillery Supplement      $5 *
      Combat System             $5 *            Early edition, well used
      Damage Tables             $3 *
      Hand-to-Hand Combat       $5 *
      Modern Military Weapons   $4 *            Well used
      Special Weapons           $4 *
      Wild West Supplement      $3 *
      World War II Weapons      $3 *

NOVA  Lost Worlds - Unicorn     $2 irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu

SJG  Awful Green Things         $5 ahahn@sdcc13.UCSD.EDU
       From Outer Space                         Pocket Box edition, well used
     Car Wars                   $5 ahahn@sdcc13.UCSD.ED    Pocket Box edition
     GEV                        $4 ladd@cs.unc.edu  Pocket Box edition

TSR  D&D Player's Guide         $3              Red book
     D&D DM's Guide             $3              Red book
     Player's Guide (2nd ed)    $10 JOSHUAF@EARLHAM.bitnet   Excellent condition
     Tome of Magic              $12 DGBRUM01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
                                                Excellent condition
     Tome of Magic              $20             Misprint - excellent condition
                                                  Collector's Item!

??   Multiverse Sorcery         $150            Original green paperback version
                                                  autographed and hand-corrected
                                                  by author (David Harmer)
                                                  Very High Collector's Value!

Send bids via e-mail to: gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu
Buyers will be expected to pay shipping, if any.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I used to trust the media to tell me   |   I used to think that only America's
   the truth, to tell us the truth      |     way, our way was right
 But now I see the payoffs              |   But now the holy dollar rules

(.sig reduced to 4 lines)
                                        -Travis Works
                                        gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu


--
From: cscoging@unpcs1.cs.unp.ac.za (Chris Scogings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Fire in the East airbases
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:09:06 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, UNP
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc092.cc.unp.ac.za

Thanks to all who answered my questions a while ago.  Another question...

The chart says a city can base 6 air units.  Is that a CITY or a city HEX ?

eg: Can Moscow base 6 air units or 42 air units ?

Chris

Never try to teach a pig to sing
It wastes your time and annoys the pig
                               - Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lambert@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Doug Lambert)
Subject: Re: EIA: Naval Question
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:55:42 GMT

In article <C1GvAH.3FI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.135012.3704@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel) writes:
>
>>     Is the corps identity known and the strength secret or is the strength
>>     of the corps known but the location on the board secret (i.e. you can't
>>     turn over another nation's corps)?  We've played both ways and we were
>>     wondering if either or neither were correct.
>
>Both strength and identity are secret until battle occurs, when they must
>be revealed.
>
A clarification:  "Public knowledge" means that everyone can look at a
player's corps sheet, and know the strength of each corps, but you can't
tell which corps on the map is which, until they are involved in a battle.


===============================================================================
||  Doug Lambert, Purdue University         ||  "God is dead."  --Nietzsche  ||
||  lambert@sage.cc.purdue.edu              ||  "Nietzsche is dead."  --God  ||
===============================================================================
From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Mutual annhiliation (was Re: An interesting question)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:37:31 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

Of course, if you play with a bunch of ignorant wimps, you can probably
get away with a lot of threats like that.  Or you may be able to convince
the person that it will be advantageous for you to carry out your threat
even though it really isn't, but I was assuming optimum conditions (in my
mind) where everyone is an expert at the game and is playing to win.

-- 
================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board