HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: The Longest Day (again)
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:36:24 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

Well, let me start by saying that I've never played this particular game, but
still have a few comments...

You complain about "lack of exploitation of successful attacks in a game
where one side was fully motorized."  From what little I've read, this "full
motorization" was a myth.  The infantry WALKED, for the most part, as God
intended them to B^).

I can't comment on the game's supply mechanics, since I don't know them, but
I do know that the Allied commanders insisted on having HUGE amounts of
supply before they'd get off their butts at all.

I'm not really sure just how many truly mechanized units the Allies had in
France at the time, but I don't think there were that many.  There probably
SHOULD be something like a mech movement phase for the units that were
mechanized, but then consider that vehicles had particular difficulties in
many areas due to the terrain (hedgerows, swamps, etc.).

I'm not sure about the other points you bring up about specifics of the game,
but it seems like I remember someone mentioning coastal artillery being
revamped in an errata sheet... perhaps other things are changed there as
well?

As for the cost, I'm fairly sure that I saw it for about $60 here in Los
Angeles.  It may cost >$100 US in Canada, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't
here.

-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: hposo@vipunen.hut.fi (Heikki Poso)
Subject: Re: AH's _The_Longest_Day (TLD)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<0095DF6B.D02A1000@abby.chem.ucla.edu>
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:45:06

In article <0095DF6B.D02A1000@abby.chem.ucla.edu> doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu writes:

   The Longest Day sounds like a good game, but I get the awful impression that
   even laying the map(s?) out on the floor of a decent sized room wouldn't
   give enough room.... is this the case?  How big IS this monster?

It is about 1.40m x 1.30m. However, it doesn't fill that area completely
- the Cherbourg peninsula juts out. You'll need a lot of space for the
charts, though. Allied unit entry track, German strategic movement track
and Allied aircraft display at least, each about one A3 in size.

However, it is surprisingly playable. I much prefer it to Europa series.

Oh, that map size is for full campaign game (7 mounted mapboards). There
are 3 scenarios that use just one single mapboard and one that uses 4.

Heikki
hposo@vipunen.hut.fi
--
"The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few
things that lift human life a little above the level of farce,
and give it some of the grace of tragedy."  - Steven Weinberg
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Supremacy
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:39:41 GMT
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN

We made Supremacy into a more interesting game by playing with the way the
stock market slides.  I don't recall the exact rules, but we made selling
resources drop prices much less drastically, while buying resources raised the
price at the origional rates.  I think we also had prices go up by a d6 each x
turns to keep the market propped up.

This all tended to make things more interesting, in that countries could
finance wars by selling off resources instead of by deficit spending into
oblivion.  This in turn made resources more valuable, giving people something
to fight for... altogether a nice, viscous warmongering circle.

	Alec
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: u8901744@cs.uow.edu.au (Daniel Robert Farnan)
Subject: Re: BTECH - Munchkinism
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 07:34:28 GMT

dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman) writes:

>In article <Br8vK5.Gyn@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> dlwoods@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Dave Woods) writes:
>>
>>I think the idea was that these are cheap easy to produce second line mechs, 
>>BASED on Inner Sphere mechs, rather than captured and refited Inner Sphere
>>mechs.  I'm not sure how clear this was made (probably not very) but I think
>>that's what was intended.

>I tend to doubt that. If the Clans were to design a second-line mech, they 
>would not be caught DEAD imitating any Inner Sphere design. The Clans have
>utter contempt for anything Inner Sphere-ish.

	Not so. The Clans' major philosophy is "recycle everything". This
	includes 'Mechs (why scrap a perfectly good 'Mech when it can be
	given to a freebirth who would otherwise clamour for an Omni?), as
	shown by Phelan Wolf's battle for a Bloodname against that Elemental
	in the mirrored building - he was given a Star League-issue Mercury.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Farnan,	InterNet: u8901744@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au
Wollongong Uni

aka...

Warrior Wayne Johnson
Kind-of-Klan Killer Kangaroo
Watching The Rear Of The Invasion Force In Case Of An Attack From The Front
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Subject: Diplomacy - Time for an Update?
Reply-To: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 00:41:33 GMT


Isn't it about time for Avalon Hills to update some parts of Diplomacy?  I
refer particularly to the Rulebook and the Gamer's Guide.  The Rulebook was
last updated over 10 years ago, and the Guide is vintage at 15 years!

There are a few situations which could use a bit more emphasis in the
Rulebook (such as Support, and when it is cut).  Mainly, though, there
ought to be a general revision for clarity--some of the writing is
downright legalistic, and this makes it hard for beginners to understand.

The Gamer's Guide, while still worthwhile, is woefully outdated.  It is
heavily geared towards Postal diplomacy, and makes no mention of E-mail
gaming (obviously, it couldn't; in 1977 there were barely any public
computer networks).  It was also written before the 1982 Rules update, so
there are a few minor conflicts.  It promotes Diplomacy Clubs a bit too
heavily (this goes along with its Postal orientation).  Finally, over the
last decade and a half, new Openings have developed, and the relative
strength of the great powers may have shifted (although not by much,
probably--it's hard to imagine that Italy will ever be a big winnner).

If this is coming off sounding somewhat like a flame of AH and Diplomacy,
then please excuse me, for that is not my intention.  My intention is to
start a thread and explore the possibilities for an update.  Perhaps an
unofficial one exists (spawned by E-mail gaming) already; if so, I'd like
to know about it.

Thank you for listening...feel free to reply...don't feel *free* to flame,
but do so anyway if you must.

-- 
Joshua E. Randall
bz556@cleveland.freenet.edu
My motto:  "So little time, so little to do."  --Oscar Levant
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)
Subject: Re: 'Protecting' playing pieces...
Organization: Uni Computing Service, Uni of Sydney, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:27:38 GMT

In article <25760@life.ai.mit.edu> skrishna@cocoa-pebbles.ai.mit.edu (Sarath Krishnaswamy) writes:
>In article <62599@cup.portal.com>, Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes:
>|>   I just bought a new game of Titan (my old one is, well, old. :) and I want
>|> to protect the pieces a bit.
>Clear Contact paper works well to protect both the battlelands (a must) and the
>monster chits (a good idea but tedious to do).

I have found that contact does work, but it certainly helps to use some
talcum (baby) powder on the surfaces covered (afterwards).  This is to
prevent the cohesion of the Contact plastic covering.  Otherwise a deck of
covered cards tends to behave like a block of wood and you have to peel off
cards from the deck.  The thickness of the contact plastic tends to make the
resultant card thick. The ink in ballpoint pens tends to bleed under the
plastic (well it did on a set I did!), possibly as a result of the
plasticiser in the Contact plastic. Eventually, the plastic covering will
harden and shrink slightly as the plasticiser evaporates (years later -
just like the plastic dashboard in your car).

Another way of protecting the cards is to laminate them in a proper
heat sealing laminator.  This places a thinner layer of harder plastic
film on both sides of the cards (compared to using contact).  The plastic,
being harder tends not to have the cohesion problems of contact coated cards,
as well as having less problems with the plasticiser blurring inks.
If the cards are die cut and still in sheets, laminating is easy.
Otherwise, you have to do them one by one (or a row at a time). If you
do them one by one, you can ensure that the card is completely sealed
on all edges which makes them extremely resistant to fluids. Otherwise
both methods of protecting the surfaces still do not protect them
against the glass of Seven-Up spilled over the table and cards, where the
fluid enters the edge of the cards.

Anyway, these were my findings, having tried both methods.

Bill Lee
PS: Lacquer is good on thick cardboard and porous surfaces, it can greatly
strengthen thick cardboard (of the thickness of a Monopoly board).  It may
change the colour of the artwork, or dissolve the inks used (if you have
done the board yourself).
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH Scenerio
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:44:57 GMT
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS

In article <1992Jul23.094102.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> c9036991@cc.newcastle.edu.au (UNFORGETTABLE ... IN EVERY WAY . AND FOREVERMORE .. THATS HOW WELL STAY) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.170133.17952@admiral.uucp>, dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman) writes:
>
>	[Stuff deleted]
> 
>	I would assume then that there were no other players on the board 
>	other than your Locust and the Atlas?

Yup, just me an' Smiley...

>
>	You have to remember that the Locust would have to get in behind the 
>	Atlas first so it would have to be a suprise attack or bad initiatve
>	on the half of the atlas?

Not really. The ratio of won initiatives/lost initiatives went about as usual.
If I won initiative, I let him move, then got into position. If he won, I just
got far enough away so that he couldn't draw a bead on me.


-- 
"Dammit Jim, I'm a free man, not a number!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a copy of the mnemonic signature virus. Remember to copy it into
your .signature file later. Join the fun! 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cal@fang.att.com (Charles A. Licata)
Subject: Re: Battle Master by Milton Bradley
Organization: AT&T Tax Systems Development, Maitland FL
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:00:40 GMT

From article <1992Jul30.170111.4048@times.aux.apple.com>, by jeffg@paleale (Jeff Glasson):

TOY's R US has it on the shelf for $30.

> The Unit tokens are used for hidden setup in one of the campaign scenarios.
> They actually work real good for any scanario.

That explains away the grey tokens.  I thought perhaps they were used if
you had a game of more then 2 players, so people could keep pieces that
kept track of which unit was theirs.

> 
> The question I have is after playing about 8 times, we can't seem to make
> the Imperial Army win!  It seems pretty slanted towards the Chaos
> forces.  If anyone has any ideas on how to make the game more balanced, I
> would really appreciate it.

I have played twice and the Imperial won once.

For me the most devestating unit on the board was the Imperial Knights.
They seemed to move quicker then chaos (except for the goblins).
Supported by the Imperial Archers and Crossbowmen I thought an effective
battle could be fought.

I kind of like the way the goblins and Orcs move quicker then the
beastmen who a quicker than the Chaos warriors ...

But if the cards go against you, you are hurting.

I wish they would have put another shield side on the die.  I think that
may help a lot, though the game may drag a little more.

The imperial canon to me is a waste.  You are lucky if it can hit its
intended target.  I have yet to destry anything with the weapon except
for the weapon itself (it misfired).

> 
> We have been toying with the idea of either changing the number of hit points
> a unit has to the number of attack dice and also adding some rules for
> unit facing.

I thought about the unit facing.  Basically that the units die roll capability
is normal from the front and front side, 1 die less from the rear side, and
2 die less from the rear.  This would make some of chaos units unable to
defend (namely archers and wolf riders) if attacked from the rear.

Chuck
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: gletty@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bruce Gletty)
Subject: Re: AH's _The_Longest_Day (TLD)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:55:13 GMT

bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) writes:

>>>>>> On 22 Jul 92 21:22:47 GMT, doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu said:

>d>The Longest Day sounds like a good game, but I get the awful impression that
>d>even laying the map(s?) out on the floor of a decent sized room wouldn't
>d>give enough room.... is this the case?  How big IS this monster?

>Let me think.., the box is 11" x 14". There are six boards folded in
>two (so 22" x 14") and a smaller one. Now some crude ascii:

>+--------+                      This is a very rough picture of the
>|        |                      board, with the Cherbourg peninsula in
>|      	 |                      the upper left corner.
>+-+------+------+------+--+     I think the box cover claims the board to
>  |      |      |      |  |     be 44" x 55", but as you can see it's a
>  |      |      |      |  |     bit irregular.
>  |      |      |      |  |
>  |      |      |      |  |
>  +--+---+------+------+--+
>     |          |         |
>     |          |         |
>     +----------+---------+

>Besides the board, there are also three game cards which are 33" by
>14" each. These are used for various things such as the turn record
>and off-board strategic movement. You will want to put these somewhere
>as well as there are counters on them.

The board and all the reinforcement displays fit nicely on a 4' by 8' table.
I am fortunate enough to have such tables.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters)
Subject: Re: Republic of Rome: Vatinian Law, etc.
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:36:57 GMT

nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH) writes:

>farrell@cherry.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
>>
>>	I don't have the rulebook handy now, but a quick question on that;
>>does a decision to keep the spoils come before or after legion bribery?  So,
>>does a commander have to decide to keep the spoils before or after he's seen
>>how many legions will follow him?  Since the spoils are added during the
>>combat phase, but the legion's loyalty isn't tested until the revolution
>>phase, a commander might have to declare rebellion before he tests legion
>>loyalty if he wants to keep the spoils.  Just a minor confusing point.

>The decision to keep the spoils takes place in the revolution phase.
>Spoils are added to the treasury in this phase also (if the player
>decides to return said spoils)

Are there multiple versions of RofR? I haven't found in my rulebook any
reference to victorious commanders being able to keep spoils of war if they
rebel. In 10.4, dealing with the immediate effects of victory, it says
"The Banker also increases the State Treasury for Spoils of War by ....".
I don't see Spoils mentioned anywhere in section 11 (revolution phase).
(Of course, an FC sent to collect a Bequest can rebel and keep the money,
but that's a different matter.) Am I missing something?

On the other hand, being able to keep the spoils when rebelling after a
victory makes perfect sense, and would be a great "house rule"....

Drin
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: VG Fleet Games
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:22:04 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Jul27.140609.8241@zoo.bt.co.uk>, by ipc@zoo.bt.co.uk (Ian Coleman):
> Anyone out there play Victory Games 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th or 7th fleet?

> There are two main problems in the game (IMO), they are:-
 
> i)  Bias towards the Nato player
> ii) Sudden death air combat rules.

I've played 7th Fleet only.  I haven't been sufficiently angered by
ii) to do anything about it.  One thing that comes to mind would be
rolling the die twice and dividing by two to make extreme results
(i.e., top and bottom rows) appear less often.  Air units only have
two steps, that's a problem.

As for i), I don't know about surface units, but many of the Allied
fighters (especially US carrier planes) appear strongly overrated.
For example, I can't believe (this is what I have gleaned from looking
into 5th Fleet and 2nd Fleet boxes, so I could be wrong) that one A-6
counter has the same bombing strength as a counter representing twice
the number of Tornado IDS planes.  Considering submarines, there was
an article in a recent General (I think #27-2) that closely compared
Soviet and US submarines in the Fleet series (apparently starting out
from 3rd Fleet, but applicable to all others), and ended up in
changing some counter values for almost every Soviet sub class
occurring in the games.  The author claimed they were underrated in
terms of speed, survivability, while US torpedo strengths were too
high.  The article also included a redesigned submarine search table
that got rid of the annoying notion that all diesel submarines are
noisy scows.  You might want to take a look at that article.

-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Small games
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:14:59 GMT


In article <2522@nlsun1.oracle.nl> Nick Roworth, nroworth@nl.oracle.com
writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.160328.16019@gtephx.UUCP>, bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon
Baker) writes:
>|> A boardgame is played at home.  It is competing with other things
>|> done at home.  Watch TV (free).  Rent a movie ($3).  Play mindless
>
>Watching TV is not free, there is the initial cost of the television.
Here in The
>Netherlands and the UK a license is required. You pay for commercial
television
>every time you buy a product that advertises on TV. I think a boardgame
works
>out a lot cheaper than this, unless they advertise the game on TV of
course. :)

A Most excellent discussion going on here! I agree that the initial setup
cost of TV is not free, in fact most of us are now paying a cable company
for
dozens of meaningless channels to absorb our minds with.

A game not only offers some social interaction, but it pits the mind of a
human
against the living, thinking mind of another human. I think it is
probably the
most intelligent form of entertainment we can give to our kids. In
addition
I think that the idea of good quality/low price games for kids is very at
tractive as well. The problem is production and distribution costs. Is
anyone
else interested in investigating these problems with me. I mean it, this
could
be a wonderful idea for a small startup company. And I really have the
interest.

And with 5 kids ages 4 through 15 I have built in playtesters!

      _/_/_/   _/
     _/       _/
    _/     _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/  _/  _/_/_/
   _/_/_/   _/    _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/
      _/   _/    _/_/_/  _/  _/  _/_/_/
     _/   _/    _/       _/_/   _/        Steve Martin
_/_/_/   _/    _/_/_/    _/    _/_/_/     steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
From: kaydin@jarthur.claremont.edu (puck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Hacker
Keywords: hacker crashed systems
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:36:53 GMT
Organization: Forest of Satyrs, City of Vampires, the wilds.


   One final idea about HACKER...it's in its prototype stages, so suggestions
and comments are quite welcome:

INFORMATION:  Computer systems, for the most part, exist for a reason.  
When a Hacker enters a system, he/she may use it simply to enter other
systems...or the hacker may take a good look around.  Once in a while,
the Hacker may find something...

   We make a stack of INFORMATION cards.  Each one has the name of
some file (Tank Plans, Astronomy Data, Politician's Spending Report,
HAL Marketing Plan), a short description, and a few statistics...
a category (Military, Academic, Embarrasing, Business), a Security,
and perhaps a price.  The card goes face down, with a numbered chit
on top.  Another numbered chit may be placed somewhere in the net,
indicating the location of the information. 
   A player, using a hack, may try to gain access to the information
(Perhaps write the Security on the *back* of the card).  If successful,
the player places a chit of his/her own color on the card, and may
examine it at will.  The player may try to move the information to
an adjacent system, copy the information (putting a chit of his/her
own color with the information number in the net), or delete the 
information.  Each action performed on the information requires a
successful hack.
   When the information reaches an indial, it may be downloaded into
a hacker's computer.  The hacker may then attempt to sell the information,
with a chance of success.  Money gained from the sale may go to 
equipment, or possibly become a part of victory conditions.  But 
selling stolen information may be very, very dangerous...

   This is obviously a very rough sketch...I'm still working out many
of the details.  I'd like the final balance of the game to make it
possible to win through information, entering systems, or a combination
of both...Information shouldn't dominate the game, but niether should
it be ignored.

   This opens up a realm of possibilities.  Information may be traded
as favors.  It may become a bribe in an FBI raid.  It may also lead to
extra arrests, if your caught with military secrets.  The cost may
go down each time the information is sold.  It may be deleted randomly
sometimes, or move, or appear...we'll need to add to the action deck
as well, and work out mechanics.

   Any comments and suggestions are quite welcome...good Hacking!

-kerim

-- 
 ``Much of what is greatest in human     |kaydin@jarthur.claremont.edu
 achievement involves some element of    |kaydin@hmcvax.bitnet
 intoxication.''                         |!uunet!muddcs!jarthur!kaydin
                   --Bertrand Russell    |or send mail by W.A.S.T.E.