HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: WiF, Question about national effort, pilots ?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:48:06 GMT

In article <16DEC199215101244@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
 
>>A thought about national effort, should the termination of national effort 
>>be allowed?

>I'd say absolutely not.  National Effort is a last gasp desperation measure.
>Allowing it to be ended would invite abuse.

I think it should be possible to end national effort, but with serious
restrictions and probably a couple turns of very low production while
the factories retool.

In practice it won't make much difference.  Neither Germany nor Japan
can repel an allied 1944-1945 invasion.  Russia already gets cheap
infantry.  Italy might benefit, but it tends to fall quickly once
invaded.  If the Axis can land enough corps to force British national
effort, then they must have control of the sea and I don't see much
chance of an Allied victory even if Britain can eventually expel the
Germans.

A modification to the national effort rule that I like: 1 ARM per turn
may be built.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: zimdars@leland.Stanford.EDU (David Zimdars)
Subject: Re: Federation & Empire
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 02:11:58 GMT


Federation and Empire is one of those frustrating flawed masterpieces that
one every so often seems to run across.  There are a lot of nifty ideas in
F&E, but the problem is that there it is far too difficult to press the
attack, hence there isn't really any way to win.  The defender (or player
on the defensive) has far too many advantages.  The primary problem is that
the average number of ship casualties per turn is not proportional to the number
of ships involved in the battle because if two large fleets meet in one
combat hex, only a small fraction (one battleforce) can fight one round and
then the disadvantaged player can retreat.  Because of this and the
fighter "free lunch" it often turns out that only one ship is destroyed
per battle hex on each side, even if a fleet of 200 ambushes a force
of 40.  Thus the number of casualties is proportional to the number of
battle hexes (not ships) so the player on the defensive can limit his
casualties by reducing the number of fleets deployed in different hexes.
Futhermore, starbases are very effective defensively because they
effectively multiply the number of ships in your fleet since they
add "free" COMPOT well in excess of any possible attacking fleet.  Put it
this way, even if the attacker has 3-1 odds in ships attacking a starbase,
he most fight the battle as a series of 1-1.5 odds battles in combat potential.
It is a well known military maxim that an inferior force can defeat a superior
force if the inferior force can choose each engagement so that it has
an advantage at each battle.  This seems to be precisely the very
advantage the structure of the F&E rules themselves are giving the defending 
player.
-David Zimdars

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: daily@a.cs.okstate.edu (DAILY STEPHEN RICH)
Subject: Re: The makers of SFB
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 02:17:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.205535.3113@st-andrews.ac.uk> ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk 
(Colin Charles James MacDonald) writes:
>In article <1ga97cINN1o4@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> wongrr@NeXTwork.Rose-
>Hulman.Edu (Ryan R Wong) writes:
>>FASA? They don't make the game!
>>
>     [ Much Stuff Deleted ]
>
>AAAAAAAARGH!!!! No more flames please, my mailbox is groaning. I'm sorry,
>I truly am. I know ADB and TFG make SFB. It was late at night, I
>copied someone else's mistake, I was drunk, there was an earthquake,
>a terrible flood, locusts...
>
>-----
>COlin
>-----

Man...  I hate it when that happens to me.  :-)

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Ricardo.Sedan@launchpad.unc.edu (Ricardo Sedan)
Subject: Re: Battle of the Bulge (AH) request
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:35:43 GMT

thre's been the original BULGE ('65?)
BULGE '81,
and BULGE '91 (the smithsonian series one).
-rock

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Re: SFB vs GEV FAQ.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:00:42 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <ESCHNEID.92Dec11153637@sparc52.tamu.edu>, eschneid@sparc52.tamu.edu (Erich R Schneider) writes:
|> 
|> Second: "No more addenda" is also the rallying cry of the designers these
|> days. They have admitted, again and again, that producing a lot of addenda
|> for the "core rules" was a totally wrong-headed way to go about it.
|> The whole point of the Captain's Edition is that the rules are finished
|> and will not be mucked around with anymore. TFG is practically staking
|> its reputation on this.

Good, though in my case it is many years too late.  I REALLY liked the
original SFB but after I had collected piles of rules that contradicted
each other ("But wait, in addenda # 906 it says that rule 503 from
the magazine article in XYZ is overridden") I realized that I had
wasted a ton of money on a game that was losing its flavor.  The 
distinct differences between the early ship designs made them interesting.
The later much-too-similar designs ruined it.
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: A&A: Why does America fight Germany?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:33:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.223757.6013@Virginia.EDU> pca8c@Virginia.EDU ("Phil Abel") writes:
>If USSR attacks Eastern Europe, they have to send their three
>armour (2 in Moscow, 1 in Karelia), and the three infantry in
>Karelia, and the fighter in Karelia. Odds of winning with these
>items are 90%. Any less and the odds drop substantially. Now,
>this battle complete, recall that the rulebook says any unit
>which moves during the combat portion of a turn may not move
>during the non-combat portion (except planes). Thus all the
>USSR tanks are stuck in E. Europe, doomed to destruction in the
>German counterattack, and unavailable for use in recapturing
>Caucasus.

Right.  This is why I always attack Ukraine instead.  You have an extra
5 infantry to take Ukraine with, while only having to fight an extra
armor.  this is definitely worth it.  The argument for attacking Eastern
is that it cuts the Germans off and prevents a turn 1 assault on
Karelia.  I don't think it's that much of a concern, actually.  By
capturing Eastern, you only prevent 2 extra armor from reaching (since
by taking Ukraine you kill an extra).  Those 2 armor are not *too* big
of a deal.  If no aircraft attack, and Ukraine is taken, not Eastern,
then the Germans can attack 2 fighters and 12 infantry (I attack Ukraine
with 8i 3a, thus moving 4i from Russia to Karelia and then producing 8
infantry in Karelia) with a force of 6 infantry, 5 armor.  This has only
a 4% chance of being successful!  Now, it takes at LEAST 4 of the 5
remaining German aircraft in the attack to make it favorable to the
Germans, and that leaves the UK fleet intact.  I would gladly trade a
dismal attack (using all 4 remaining fighters and a bomber, germans can
only leave 3 armor in Karelia, 85% of the time), for the UK fleet.  I
say dismal because even if the Germans sacrifice some of the fighters
to leave armor, the UK (assuming the fleet was ignored in order to win
this battle anyway) fleet can attack Karelia with 2i 1a plus whatever
aircraft it sees fit to use.  Then, there are 4i 3a of the USSR's still
in Ukraine, which will then be able to take Karelia back.  This is not a
good situation for Germany.  So, why go after Eastern and sacrifice your
planes?  I've never heard a good argument for this....
 
Dewey
From: starride@silver.ksu.ksu.edu (David Chase)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Epic Space Marines
Date: 18 Dec 1992 05:15:52 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: silver.ksu.ksu.edu

jrzorn@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:


>Some more Epic questions:

>	Continuing on the theme of wave serpents. What happens when the
>irresistable wave meets the immoveable force field of a mekboy speedsta or
>impenetrable mekboy gargant?

	The anwser is that the mekboy speedsta and the mekboy gargant do get 
pushed to one side and are unable to do anything. But they will never receive
any damage from the wave or wave attack.

>	On the theme of forcefields. Can an eldar tremor canon, which
>propagates its attack through the ground, do damage to the mekboy speedsta
>and gargant, or do their fields in some way block attacks through the
>ground. If the latter is the case, how do they affect mole mortars?

	Yes, because the tremor cannon causes the the stand to be shaken and
receives damage from that. Mole mortars cause damage from making holes and   
exploding on the target. One could argue that even if the force field stopped
the explosion damage the falling damage still applies.

>	Any responses will be greatfully read.

	Your welcome and I hope this helps.
From: hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Starfire: Easy vector movement system.
Date: 12 Dec 92 04:35:30 GMT
Organization: /rubin/hcobb/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: fly2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu's message of Fri, 11 Dec 92 15:18:22 GMT


	When you combine Starfire combat with Mayday movement you do tend
to notice the bogosities of both systems.

	When I was playtesting with Stevie in the early 80's, he was using
just a "present" and "future" counter, and using his finger to keep track
of the vector jump.

	For Maximum effect you should fold the acceleration phase into a
impulse based "move & fire" phase (Ala SFB) with limited weapons arcs and
turn modes.

	In this case I'd limit each weapon to a 120-degree arc, specified
during construction, and restrict acceleration to just being able to "push
the ship straight forwards".

	One envisions ships with high acceleration and lots of
medium-ranged weapons in forward arcs circling their targets at high
speeds.  (When they wish to disengage they simply turn off their engines
and "fall" away from their targets...)

	But that might be pushing the cardboard a bit hard, any further and
electronic assistance is suggested.
--
	Henry J. Cobb	hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu	SFB Tyrant
	"Once it becomes possible to do something, it gets very difficult to
undo it.  Whether its automobiles, computers or nuclear weapons, invention has
always been the mother of necessity."
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 12:05:40 -0500 
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
	<1992Dec10.050506.1@vax.sonoma.edu>



>> and they are helpless, since you are using the dice of Joe.
>
>Read above.  NO "dice of Joe", just AT MOST, slightly(and I mean slight)lucky.
>NOT A BAD RISK.

Well Erik, the last 2 times I played A&A I won as the Axis.  I
attacked Russia as soon as possible, won in Karellia, then took Russia
itself.  No problem, I just attacked them and won.  I guess you just
wouldn't understand the abilities of the "dice of Joe".

	Joe
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:03:35 GMT
 <BzC7F2.A1v@NeoSoft.com><b#arqbk@lynx.unm.edu> <WYATTW.92Dec17130427@tekig1.pen.tek.com>
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <WYATTW.92Dec17130427@tekig1.pen.tek.com>, wyattw@tekig1.pen.tek.com (Wyatt A Webb;629-1592;92-835;tekig1.pen) writes:
> In article <b#arqbk@lynx.unm.edu> f12008ad@triton.unm.edu (Student Class Account) writes:
> 
>    >> OK, I have said many times what they do:
>    >> They build 8 inf in Karelia, put only 1 inf in the Caucuses.  They have
>    >> 19 inf, 3 tanks, 2 fighters in Karelia, 1 tank in Russia.  Please tell
>    >> me what you build, and what you put where to make it so hard on them. 
>    >> You will not tell me, I do not know why.
>    > 
>    >  Forgive me for my interuption, but I have a 1984 version of the game and
>    >certain rules that were brought up from the newer version make this
>    >impossible..  Since Karelias' IPC value is only 3 how can you build 8
>    >infantry in it?  And, if you leave Russia with only one take what is to
>    >stop Germany from attacking Caucaus with 1 fighter 1 bomber and 3 infantry
>    >then blitzing through it and attacking Russia with 2 fighters and 2
>    >tanks..  (Taking all of Russias money and basicly winning the game in the
>    >first round)
> 
> 	The rule limiting the production of units to the IPC value of the 
>    teritory applies only to newly built factories.  All factories on the board
>    prior to turn 1 have unlimited production.
> 
>    -- 
>    David Saville          :  It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger 
>    f12008ad@triton.unm.edu:  man to laugh at that man.
> 			  :                    - Jack Handy 
>    ***************************************************************************
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but according to the second edition
> rules original factories only have unlimited production to the original
> owner.  If Germany takes Karelia, it can only produce 3 units per turn
> there.
> 
> Here's the relevant chunk from the rule book:
> 
> (page 21)
> 
> ...Original complexes (ones you started the game with) give you
> unlimited capacity - you can place any number of newly purchased items
> in a territory with such a complex; new complexes (ones you purchased
> and place or captured) give you limited capacity per turn...
> 	     ^^^^^^^^

I never liked this rule.  I have aVERRRY strong suspicion that the original
rules allowed the AXIS to win more often(largely due to this and multiple
flak) and they got a lot of flak about "NAZI's WINNING WWII" from somewhere.

The new rules seem to make it almost impossible(and I DO mean that) as the
game is originally set up.  You HAVE to resort to something like the No-Russia
first-attack rule JUST to make it MORE even(It still is not quite).

WHAT'S UP?  I feel that a NEW revision should be put out that makes the game
even.
 
Joe
From: S_SCHOLL@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Harald Scholl)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Starbase Mudule
Date: 17 Dec 1992 09:28:40 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe (FRG) - Informatik Rechnerabt.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: irav1.ira.uka.de
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

>Actually, the latest Tholian web trick (as of the CL #10) is called
>the 'Tholian Buzz-saw'.  Picture a 2-armed spiral of web with the
>base at the center.  Since you've set up in an asteroid field like any
>sane Rockhead, you have several good choices of anchor points, just
>make sure that each 'arm' wraps around far enough to provide you with
>at least 2 layers of protection.  Since the base is connected to each
>arm, the outer web as strong as the base and associated ships can
>maintain it.  For more fun, fill each 'alley' with mines to taste.

>(If this is illegal, go bug TFG, they published it as the 'best
>term-paper'.)


The Buzz-Saw is not 2-armed,it`s 3-armed.It because you must leave
one hex between 2 web hexes,that leave a corridor of one hex in between.
Fill that with mines, especially captor-mines,command-mines.

Harald , German SFB Tyrant
From: spz@fys.ruu.nl (Portegies Zwart)
Subject: Re: SFB : scenario question
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:09:24 GMT

In <sks1.724370692@Ra.MsState.Edu> sks1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Sujay Shaunak) writes:



>	Hey all, our group was thinking about running a large
>scenario along the following lines :
>		1) Each player has close to 600 points in ships.
>		2) Each player will have ships unique to one race.
>		3) We will have a "drawing" for objectives (we will have
...
>		4) We were thinking about either giving one person a large
>                   base, or some Tholians/Neos with some asteroids. And
...

>	We were planning on making it an all day (and possibly night)
probably night!

>thing.  Has anyone else out there run something along similar lines?
Jea, We ran a tournement with 750 ponts and 7 players.
Very interesting but long lasting.
You might think about putting some limits on ship classes. There exicst
weardo's who want to buy only DNs or Battle ships for their BPVs.
Leave out Tugs, they are not very balnced in their BPV.
You could say something as: at most one ship with a value larger than
200. and at least 3 vessels wth a value below 75. 
Limit the nuber of command cruisers.
You should also point out a specific year in which the battle will take
place (170 or 190 or so).
With a maximum of 600
BPV yoy should alter these values a bit maybe. Another nice point is
random terrain. ols minefiled, astroids, pulsar, black hole etc...
It could be a nice opportunity to try the ground module.
Consider giving someone a ground base. with mines, ground forces and
some small ships.
!!!!! USE TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE!!!! That reall is a wonderfull rule for
fleet battles with only points as a limit. it might slow down the game,
but gives lots of nice possibilities to fool your opponent.
Leave out the FSG, this weapon is very powerfull and do not balance the
game properly, especually when it is camouvlaged acording to some smart
tricks possible in tactical intelligence.
The use of a floating mas is alo required acording to my opinion.
You cannot have 20 ships drifting around on only a few million qube
kilometers.
PS.  Be also carefull with fighters.
Use them or not, but you could say something like: everybody gets 100 points
or so to buy fighters. but you can better leave them all out they slow
down the game by at least an order of magnitude.
Be also carefull with Andromedans, but with the new rules there ok i
think. 

>		Also, does anyone have any ideas for objectives ?

Mmm a tough one.
You can use scenario objectives.
Think of the Dictators Diplomat like scenario's or base defence.
Destruction of a key ship. Planetary defence is also nice, but puts
strong limits on the defenders maneuvrebility.
Simetimes it is nice to try playing with some obstacle, lets say a big
wall of dence dust or so and a hole in it where the attacker have to
break through. 
PS. There are many scenario's with about 600 point for ships.

>	Thanks,
>		Sujay S.
>		sks1@ra.msstate.edu
>--
Yea, youre welcome.
Have a nice kill for the enemy

Simon F. Portegies Zwart
From: bartusek@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: A&A/RISK Wanted!!!!!
Date: 11 Dec 92 07:04:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: iscsvax.1992Dec11.130437.9325
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I would like some information on contacting a retailer or private individual,
who would know about locating a A&A or RISK board game.  I've been searching 
toy stores, major retailers and by word-of-mouth with no luck for the last 6 
months.  So if any of you diehard players can give me any information, it 
would be much appreciated!! Thanks in advance.



Marc Bartusek
Graphic Designer
University of Northern Iowa

GO PANTHERS! GO PANTHERS! GO PANTHERS! GO PANTHERS! GO PANTHERS! GO PANTHERS!
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Harpoon, torps help needed
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:31:19 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Distribution: inet
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <1fvg0iINNq61@sauna.cs.hut.fi>, tmikkola@galactus.cs.hut.fi (Topi Mikkola) writes:
>Hi everybody!
>
> Hopefully there are some "Harpoon gurus" out there...
>A while ago we played a couple of scenerios with subs and a little problem
>came up:
>(Answer may be in the rulebook but then I must have missed it several times)
>
>  - When you fire a torp at a sub and then sub changes depth does the
>    torp follow it if it (torp) has some kind of guidance?

Sort of.  The depth reading for the torpedo will remain the same, but it will
hit nevertheless.

>  - Can you fire torps at subs which are not at periscope depth?

Yes.


-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: hassink@cs.UAlberta.CA (Hassink Brian John)
Subject: Supremacy Summary?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:22:01 GMT

Anybody out there care to elaborate a little on the game of
Supremacy? I've seen it around for quite some time and it looks
interesting, but I'd like to get some other opinions before
shelling out $70 (In Canadian dollars of course).

Brian
hassink@cs.ualberta.ca
From: zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert)
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question(s)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:06:27 GMT

In article <BzDD6u.1CK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
> >This can be especially interesting if you pick different theaters as your
> >primaries.  You can see some dramatic turnarounds.
> Yep, really neat.
One other point that's nifty about this (for those unfamiliar with the game)
is that the range of outcomes for battle is very limited so you pretty much
know how the battle will turn out (even if you have a 50/50 chance of winning,
you can still figure out what the 1 or 2 outcomes are).  As a result, tactics
play a very small role in the game.  The best way to win a battle is by
forcing the situation to be favorable.  Sort of like playing Go.

> optional Lyon/Jackson rule.  With regard to the second statement, in
> our games, BOTH sides tend to build up their armies to max strength.
> I suspect differences in styles of play here.
That's interesting.  I suspect it is a stylistic difference, but it also
depends on the north.  In our game, the north didn't build lots of armies.
One in the west under Grant with 25 sp and one in the east under Lyon
with 25 sp.  They just plowed through everything I had.  I was able to
delay for a while by picking off garrisons and occupying empty towns, but
eventually the ANV got pushed out of Virginia when the Army of the James
under Sherman was formed and hit Virginia too.

	Steve Albert
	ssa@usl.com
From: cscoging@unpcs1.cs.unp.ac.za (Chris Scogings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:36:23 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, UNP
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc092.cc.unp.ac.za

Gary Charbonneau writes about Civil War:
>I put it at or near the top of my personal "top ten" list.  There are a few
>things I don't like.  However, the system is robust enough that, by tinkering
>with a few rules, I have been able to fine-tune it to my own satisfaction.

Don't keep us in suspense.  What tinkering have you done?

Chris
		

Never try to teach a pig to sing
It wastes your time and annoys the pig
                               - Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: rec.games.board