HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Republic of Rome erratum from The General (vol. 27, no. 4)
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:41:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr7.204122.16577
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <1242@idacrd.UUCP> purtill@idacrd.UUCP (Mark Purtill) writes:
>rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>>This rule appeared in this month's issue of The General (vol. 27, no. 4) and
>>should be considered a regular, non-optional game rule (who wrote this rule,
>>anyway?).
>[Rule omitted]
>	I think this is a lousy rule.  It's true, it could be really
>nasty to get the Second Punic War on turn one, and something should be
>done about that.  But the effect of this rule (IMHO) is that the
>senate need never deal with the 1st Punic until either a leader
>activates it, or the second Punic shows up.  At that point, they can
>stomp on the First Punic at it's old strength.  Thus, the urgency of
>"we have to take care of the First Punic War before the Second Punic
>War shows up" is completely destroyed.

The First Punic War needs both a naval and a ground victory to eliminate,
and the base strength of both is 10.  This is not something you want to
count on dealing with in one turn.  The pressure will still be on.

Further, if a leader shows up, the First Punic immediately springs into
activity *with* *that* *leader*.  If it's Hannibal, you've got a strength
17 war, land and sea, with scads of disaster and stalemate numbers.

>	As an alternative, perhaps we should just arrange that:
>>Rome [has] at least one opportunity to deal with a war, having a
>>reasonable chance of success before its strength multiplies without resorting
>>to extraordinary measures such as a Dictator.
>We could do this by putting Wars in the inactive pile face down (as
>in the General's rule) only if the matching War also showed up this
>turn.  (The First Punic would cound has having shown up on turn one).
>This means the senate has at least one turn to deal with a War before
>it gets matched, but if they miss the chance, they may be in deep
>trouble.  
>	Comments?

I don't see that this is much of a change, unless you think that the
First Punic War can be killed, with reasonable certainty, on turn 1.
By exerting every effort, the players can get good odds in the combats,
but there are still disaster and stalemate numbers.  (If Scipio is
commanding, he has 5 influence for being first-turn consul, 7 for being
dictator - the only way you can give him a command on turn 1 - and
5 each for the naval and land victories.  This gives him 22 influence
and 10 popularity on turn 1, as well as giving his player HRAO status
on the first 2 turns.  You can't prosecute him because of the appeal
to the people, you are at great danger attempting to assassinate him.
I can't recommend this as a way to play the game.)

There aren't that many inactive wars in the deck, and I've never noticed
the Senate eager to ignore existing wars.  I think the rule as published
is good, and that's how I want to play.

DHT
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: davidf@HQ.Ileaf.COM (David Fristrom)
Subject: HISTORY OF THE WORLD available in US (and question)
Reply-To: davidf@HQ.Ileaf.COM (David Fristrom)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:46:35 GMT

The recent description of the game HISTORY OF THE WORLD from the
Ragnar Brothers in Britain had interested me, so I was glad to find
this weekend that Games People Play in Cambridge has imported it.  If
you are interested, they accept mail and phone orders:

	Games People Play
	1105 Massachusetts Ave.
	Cambridge, MA  02138
	617-492-0711

The game sells for $50 (Ouch.  Probably not worth it in terms of
component quality, but it is an imported game from a small company
that apparently doesn't understand the concept of wholesale.)
(Standard disclaimer applies here -- my only connection with the store
is as a happy customer.)

For those who missed the previous post, HISTORY is a multi-player game
covering the history of the entire world from 3000 BC to 1918 AD,
played on a cloth map covering showing the world in a semi-polar
projection.  Pieces are mounted on cardboard but not die-punched --
you have to cut them out.  The complexity isn't much more than Risk,
with which it shares a vague resemblence, but it has much more of an
historical flavor.  In each of seven epochs each player gets to play
an historic empire, and as the game progresses these flow back and
forth across the map, so that in one epoch Rome will take all of the
Med., only to have the barbarians show up and tear it to pieces
(however, you're not strictly tied to history -- the Romans may decide
to forget Europe and head towards India, or they may not even show
up).

I played a three-player game yesterday, which was a lot of fun even if
I came in third, way behind the leaders (who were only one point away
from each other after more than 200 points).  I think it should be
even more fun with more players.

I do have a question for people who have already played the game.
When we played, there was very little use of forts or stacking --
people just went for the biggest empires they could grab.  Is playing
more defensivly a viable option?  (I suspect the answer may depend in
part on the number of players.)

David Fristrom		|
Interleaf, Inc.		|	"Stand aside, I take large steps."
davidf@ileaf.com	|
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lopez@ils.nwu.edu (Chris Lopez)
Subject: Re: Titan: 2 types of megacreatures in one stack
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:01:36 GMT

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

It suprises me how many people actually use tower teleport.  I almost never do 
it at any time during the game.  My Titan is far safer when people don't know
which stack he is in.  Even if it they can say it is in one of those two or 
three.  Am I alone in this philosophy?

Chris Lopez

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: farrell@earth.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell)
Subject: Re: Tactical Question - answer
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 04:44:43 GMT

In article <92104.214204CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu> CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu (Carl Fago) writes:
>I disagree with Bruce, it can be answered in general.  To say that the details
>of the specific game is necessary shows poorly on any game that requires this.
[ lot of stuff deleted ]
> *-=Carl=-*  INTERNET - cdf1@psuvm.psu.edu    | Be wary of strong drink.     |
>             DELPHI - WULFGAR  GEnie - C.FAGO1| It can make you shoot at tax |
> Carl Fago   State College, PA                | collectors -- and miss!      |


	Well, yes and no.

	First, the main idea is to try very, very hard not to get into such a
situation - a strong line with both flanks anchored and available reserves is
a defender's dream come true and you'll need very superior firepower.  The best
way to penetrate such a defence, in reality, is to play mind games with the
defender and get him to commit his reserves to early and in the wrong place.
People tried for 4 years and millions of lives to crack such a problem in WWI.

	The real problem is the generality of the situation.  A WWII solution
obviously won't work if you're playing Swiss mercenaries.  It depends on your
available resources.  Paratroops and glider infantry work *real* well in this
situation, as do flanking amphibious assaults, phalanxes, tanks, etc.

	But, the real trick is to avoid the situation altogether.  There is 
almost no line that can't be outflanked prior to 1914, and after 1918 any line
can be pentrated given sufficient force and mechanized assault troops and 
tanks.  Never, never attack along the entire line.  Always go for the 
schwerepunkt and always where he will least expect it, even if that makes
for tougher going (Ardennes, anyone?)  In short, your best bet is to outguess
him, which is usually impossible in a wargame (sadly; you can try is ASL,
but in say Stalingrad it isn't going to happen), or to have superior armour/
air/artilliary available.  Actually, given the availablitity of such resources,
the task of defending said line is harder than penetrating it.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ace@cs.mcgill.ca (Arthur CHAN)
Subject: Re: A&A Sub Rules
Summary: Withdrawing
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:18:10 GMT

In article <Apr.9.12.34.26.1992.19580@yoko.rutgers.edu> tomlee@yoko.rutgers.edu (Thomas J Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.152047.27907@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
>> 
>> Question: Can attacking submarines withdraw at the end of a combat round if
>> they have just won the battle?  Example: German sub off Spain attack British
>
>Similarly, if an attacking land force eliminates its opposition,
>is it bound to occupy the attacked location?
>

Yes. Imagine a scenario of unoccupied enemy territory all around you.
Can an infantry move 1 space ( as if attack an unseen enemy, which is
legal ) AND then retreating to another unoccupied territory???
Of course not.  Only tanks can do this ( Blitzkreig ).

What I'm trying to point out is that infantry can only move 1 space/turn
and if they decide to withdraw from an attack ( they are attacking ),
then they must retreat to their original position.( no pain , no gain)
  

>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).
>
>The sub rule makes them a bit more useful and "tricky". Some interpretations
>of the rule would allow the sub to move 3 in one turn, which is fine
>with me but might bother some folks.

You wrote the answer yourself.  A submarine can move MAXIMUM 2 spaces
per turn whether it is attacking or defending.  The Rules are explicit
in this regard.


>
>Tom Lee
>tomlee@paul.rutgers.edu



                 
                     ^                ^
                   -##\              /##-
                -######\   (    )   /######-
             -#########//  |\^^/|  \\#########-
          -###########//   (@::@)   \\###########-
        /############((     \\//     ))############\
      -###############\\    (oo)    //###############-
     -#################\\  / ** \  //#################-
   -######/-\[^]-:/:-[^]-:/ -[^]-\:-[^]-:\:-[^]-\######-
  -#/|####<=---=====---=====---=====---=====---=>####|\#-
  |/|#/\##<<^>           Arthur Chan         <^>>#/\#| \|
  ' |/  \V<<^>    ace@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca   <^>>V  \|  '
    '     <=---=====---=====---=====---=====---=>    '
          \-\[^]-:\:-[^]-:\ -[^]-/:-[^]-:/:-[^]-/
                         | |    | |                     
		        (VVV)  (VVV)
From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Third Reich vs. World War II
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:22:01 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <31552@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, otran@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oai Tran) writes:
> 2) How long does it take to complete a game, either to the end or
> till someone surrenders?
Approximately 24 hours for 3R, if played 'marathon' style.

> 3) What is your favorite country to play?
3R - Germany.

> 4) What side is the balanced tipped, or what side usually wins?
Couldn't say - most of the games of 3R I've played have been
fairly even.

> 7) On strategy:
> a> Doesn't it seem that taking USSR in 3R is easy if done so before
> the US enters the war?
No, I haven't found that.  It's not too difficult to pound the
USSR back half way to the Pacific, but it's extremely difficult
to get a USSR surrender.  In the worst case (for USSR) that I've
seen, they were pushed so far back that they couldn't drive their
armour to German soil before the game was over.  Good enough, as
far as Germany was concerned.  Those Russian units in the early
game are really pretty weak.

> b> Isn't it easy to take Britain since Germany has the initiative at
> the begining and as a result can elect for the UK to move its ships
> first which makes it impossible for them to guard against an
> amphibious invasion.

Not sure I follow this.  If Britain leaves enough fleets idle in
port during her turn, they are available for interception in the
German turn.

J.Baker.
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: wfb vs. battlesystem vs. ???
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:16:36 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Apr7.090517.6869@uoft02.utoledo.edu> <wjr@PHOENIX.SCH.Symbolics.COM> writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.235811.15010@fcom.cc.utah.edu> davis@csulx.cs.weber.edu (mike davis) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr3.170047.28896@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:
>> >In article <1992Apr2.163036.3875@Cadence.COM> jasona@qaab.cadence.

>> Try any of WRG's rules if you want realism.
>
>Get a real sword and bow if you want more realism.  Really, don't fall into
>realism hell.  Magic, dragons, etc are not real.  WRGs rules, writen by brits,
>tend to have the brits as the strongest armies.  This is not realistic.

You should have written "get a real sword and bow if you want more realism
than the WRG rules offer you". WRG rules are the most thoroughly researched,
playtested and proved rules system that can be found on this planet.

The truth is, that the British medieval armies are the strongest armies of the
WRG army lists, because they historically WERE the strongest armies of the
Middle Ages ! It is a measure of a good player that he can win with an army,
which _seems_ inferior to his opponent's. You are a bad player if you win
because your army is superior and not because you can use your army more 
skillfully than your enemy ! There are also weak spots in the British armies;
a good general knows how to employ them with _his_ army.

>I don't like WRG, but, this opinion started with 5th edition.  It seemed they
>took events which rarely occurred and made a rule for it, which inturn, got
>abused by players.  For example, the flaming/incindiary pigs rules.  I saw too
>many battles where they were being used. 

I have found the 6th Edition the best rules around. 5th was all too messy and
7th has been simplified in wrong places. Have you ever seen those stratagems
used successfully ? Usually they end in disaster. Scythed chariots are an
one such rarely used weapon in reality and over-used with WRG rules.

>If you tend to have fun playing a rules lawyer, then WRG is the game for you.

Rather, if you want precise and strict rules, the WRG rules are for you.

>You get army lists to argue over as well.

The WRG army lists are the most precise and thoroughly researched army lists
available, since they are made by history professionals. Just the most 
historically accurate available.

If you want the best rules available, get a copy of WRG 6th Ed. If you want
to have fun and do not care about realism, try Warhammer and a case of beer.

>Wayne J. Rasmussen


  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
From: woods@colossal.Eng.Sun.COM (Don Woods)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Talisman
Date: 6 Apr 92 06:13:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Windows Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: colossal

The way our group dealt with the "spell regenerators" -- including any
character holding the Wand -- was to say that the regeneration happens
at the start of the turn.  I.e., if such a character is below their
"minimum" number of spells at the start of their turn, they draw the
spells at that time.  (Usually this means: if you have no spells, you
draw one.)

We also do NOT allow characters to discard spells.  That way, certain
spells that are hard to get rid of DO clog up the regenerator at times.
Counterspell is the classic case, if nobody else is casting spells.
On the other hand, we do feel there should always be SOME chance to
get rid of any spell, so we've tweaked a few to make them usable in
more situations.  E.g., Teleport can be cast on someone else, in which
case they roll their movement but you get to choose where they go.
Else a regenerator at the Crown of Command could never get rid of
a Teleport spell.

--
--	-- Don Woods.				[*** Generic Disclaimer ***]
--				    ...!sun!woods.eng -or- Woods@Eng.Sun.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nfs410c@kepler.unh.edu (Neil F Sorenson)
Subject: Space Marine (new ed.)
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:45:57 GMT

  Has anyone else bought a copy of the new edition of Space Marine?
I have both versions and for the first time in a long list of entertaining
Games Workshop games, I was disappointed and a bit 'torqued' off...
  The new version of the rules are a terrible watering down of a set of rules
that were not that overly complicated to begin with... are they going to 
continue to scale down the play age of every new release? 
  (I was similarly disappointed with the chutes and ladders complexity of
the initial release of Space Fleet... ugh)
  Anyway, I wanted to know if I was alone in this rant or whether others
had found the same problems with the new rules.
From: kgnome@concour.cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH: Let's get the ball rolling again.
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:47:06 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.board
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

All right folks... let's get the BattleTech ball rolling again!

 First : How many of you are member of MechForce ?
	 How many of you are subscribers to BattleTechnology ?
	 How many of you buy BattleTechnology ?

 Second : I'd like to direct your attention to Mecha*Press, a new mag
staright from our nice city of Montreal. It's mostly Japanimation, but
with my recent arrival, you should see a LOT more BTECH.

 Also : My column will cover what FASA has cooking in their "Game"
bakery.

So, stay tuned ... bug your gameshop or comic shop ... and you'll see
this new Mag. Also, feel free to send me your comments, and I'll do my
best to address them.

	1st Issue is being re-released, using my corrections.
	Issue 2 is already out, mostly a review of Patlabor.
	Issue 3 is coming, with review of Solaris VII, Unbound and
others.
	Issue 4 is going to deal with "Dirty Dog" rules. { No hints on
this one!}

	Etc ...



Roll!       ___      +---------------------------------------------------+
Over!   __ ( . )      From        : Stephane I. Matis
      _/__\(___)      Internet    : kgnome@concour.cs.concordia.ca
    / /\\[==]//\ \    Working  at : Newfoundland Offshore Contractors
   /_/  |THOR|  \_\   Studying at : Concordia University, Montreal
  [00] _//==\\_ [00]
      / _/--\_ \      "It Just Works... " - Steve Paul Jobs, CEO NeXT
     |__|    |__|
     (__]    [__)     "Clam Warships are landing on Toycod !" - Anonymous
    [_=_]    [_=_]   +---------------------------------------------------+
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:25:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: bach.18791
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <14616@vela.acs.oakland.edu> rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>In article <31448@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?) writes:
>>	Actually any industrial complexes that starts on the board
>>may produce without limit.  This subtlety have great consequences
>>behind it.  Germany can produce out of Karelia without limit and if
>>Russia is captured, Yank can produce without limit out of Karelia
>>should Yank liberates it

>This isn't true.  In each case Karelia could only produce three units a
>turn.  It's in the rules.

 
>Ross Starkey                         "Of course you know, this means WAR." 
>rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu        "This whole thing is goony, I shou'da
>                                      stood in bed!"  "Gruesome, isn't it?"
>FIGHT DICTATORSHIP!  VOTE!!!!                                  --Bugs Bunny

Ross (and someone else who posted) are right:  unlimited production
exists only at _original_ complexes for the _original_ owner.  I will
quote the manual if you want, but the relevent text is on page 21, 
under "Place new units on Gameboard", near the end of the section.

Unfortunately, that sentence should also be included on pages (I think)
13 and 14, when the main rules for complexes are explained.



Taz, how about you mention some of those other subtleties, I'd like to
hear them.  E-mail me if you don't want to post 'em, but I'll bet others
would like to hear them too.


Dewey      barich@bach.udel.edu
From: v151luy2@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (V151LUY2.SIGNATURE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Gammarauders?
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:38:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	This looks like a strange one. Anyone play it? Is it
worth it as a game or as a novelty only?


						S
From: allan@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Allan M Sellers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Looking for a used copy of Squad Leader
Date: 12 Apr 92 17:38:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Originator: allan@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


 
 
 
I am looking for a used game of Squad Leader in good condition for
roughly $20.  Please e-mail if you have a copy to sell.

      Allan
      allan@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: arakins@iastate.edu (Andrew R Akins)
Subject: Re: Space Marine (new ed.)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:41:33 GMT


  I have never played 1st ed Space Marine, so I can't compare.

  However, I LOVE, Space Marine 2nd ed. I think the rules are
sort-of simple, but that keeps the game going at a nice pace.
We played a 9800 point battle this weekend (Ack!) and it took
all day! I would hate to see what would of happened with more 
complex rules! I feel the game covers all of the bases, and
that's all I want. 
  Space Marine is currently "my thing", I'm spending all of my
time (and money, it seems) on it.

  And yes, Space Fleet, out of the box, is SIMPLE AS HELL. I was
pissed. But, the expansion rules in WD do make it a fairly 
good game. Passable. I just wish the game had STARTED with those
rules, instead of the two-page pamphlet that the game comes
with.
  The Space Fleet expansion rules can be found in WD 139, 140, 141
and 146.
  I want to see more Eldar ships (currently there are only 2) and
some Ork ships. With the rules the way they are now, the only
interesting battles you can have are between imperial and tyranid
ships.

-- Andy Akins
   aka Brother Andrek
   Iowa State University
   arakins@iastate.edu
From: cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A -Axis wins/gives hell to payo
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:20:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr8.154147.10005@cs.mcgill.ca> ace@lacey.cs.mcgill.ca (Arthur CHAN) writes:
>At 85, the game is over and the Axis have won by economic victory
>since 85 > 84.

	I'm assuming that the Yank can recapture some of the
territories taken by the Axis.  Thus I recommend to build the lead
above 85 IPC to ensure an economic victory.

				- The TaZ