HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmorriso@zeus.calpoly.edu (Kent E Morrison)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: checkers for kids
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:20:49 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

My six year old daughter enjoys Stratego on a Mac. She would
like to play checkers with the machine. Does anyone know
of a public domain or shareware checkers game? It should
allow the proficiency level to be set so that a six year
old can win sometimes.

What about chess or the card game Casino? (I couldn't
find a newsgroup appropriate for computer card games.)

Thanks for any help.

______________________________________________________________________________
Kent Morrison                           kmorriso@nike.calpoly.edu
Math Dept                               office: (805) 756-2464
Cal Poly                                dept:   (805) 756-2206
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407               fax:    (805) 756-1670
______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: Games that belong on every gamer's bookshelf
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:31:35 GMT

In article <1e1205INN7e1@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
>Alec Habig writes:
>>If Wiz-War compares to Planet Busters, I'll have to try to find Wiz-War.
>
>How about this, if Planet Busters is so favorably compared to Wiz-War, 
>I'm *already* looking for it.  Can anyone shed any information on it?
>Thanks in advance.

It's been a long time since I played the game, and I don't have it here to look
at, but I'll give it a feeble shot.

The game itself has verry low production qualities (after all, it's a magazine
game), the pieces being cut out of thin cardboard/thick paper.  It is very
simple, has a page or two of rules at most.

The gist of it is that each player has some planets and some spaceships.  The
ships range in power from scout to Zerstor.  You send the ships off to attack
the other player's ships (which are gaurding his planets).  There are also
ships called planet busters, which can hose an entire planet if the get past
the fleet.

It's a simple, fun game.  It does not have the endless replay value of a
slightly more complicated beer 'n pretzles game, but is well worth the couple
bucks a back issue of The Dragon costs.

Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'm 5000 miles from my games :(

	Alec
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Republic of Rome Wars...
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:46:48 -0600
Organization: Blackriver Recorporations, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <sn3177l@rpi.edu>, woodc@aix.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Wood) writes:
>   We were playing RoR last month, and one thing that we found was the
> effects of winning wars had on the winning general.  The resulting 
> infulance and popularity made them minor gods!  Especially if if was 
> some major sort of action.   Is this the same sort of impression that
> other people got, or did we stray somewhere along the line.  If not,
> we might start thinking about halfing (or more ) the positive effects
> of wars.  (Just so the ex-generals don't clean everything up when
> they get back...That seems unfair...)

         That's what assassins are for. The general put *his* butt in the
    sling, why don't you??

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
From: bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:27:35 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Nov18.215854.27289@cbfsb.cb.att.com> deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes:
>
>Problems?  They sound like accurate abstractions of the historical
>situation.  England *had* a large navy and a tiny army.  Prussia had a
>professional army and weak economy.  If Austria had attempted to expand too
>drastically, it *would* have gotten unwanted attention.  France's great
>strength was the policy of supplying its field armies by foraging, instead
>of great bloody supply trains.
>

	Actually, on a historical note, I believe that the French had the
    *most* efficient supply trains, and did not forage like many armies
    did. As I understand it, the who canned food thing started in France
    after Nappy about lost a battle against the Austrians.

	Anyway. Yes, the problems were historically inherent, for the
    most part. However the game has no historical constraints, (except
    for Britian/France). Therefore, if ahistorical events arise in the
    game (don't they always :-) ) you have a situation where very bizarre
    alignments, treaties and wars occur. Well, okay, so what? The problem
    I have is that it now becomes easier for the French player to win
    the game by setting up the dreaded rotation. 
 
	If you allowed more flexibility (ie, fewer ships, more/larger
    corps for the English, declining troop quality as the French minor/
    French manpower ratio decreases, treachery) then perhaps you can get
    a more historical flavor, and less "wierdness" (Spanish in St. Pete?
    gimme a break!) than occurs now.

	True, this would mean more paperwork/book keeping, but perhaps
    that would be worthwhile. One thing I would like to try is treachery.
    Say it would cost double PP do declare war in the last 6 months of
    an enforced treaty and 3x PP in the 12 months starting 18 months
    before the end of an enforced treaty. Also, I due like the idea that
    Turkish feudals are limited to an area near the Turkish borders.




							Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden            bruceb@mpd.tandem.com         Tandem Computers Inc.
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:09:07 -0500 
From: "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - Can the **AXIS** ever win?
	<wschip76.722478924@ursa>

On 23-Nov-92 in Re: A&A - Can the **AXIS** ..
user Tom Schipper@ursa.calvin writes:
>"Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>I've played this game for several years, and originally, buying tanks
>>was the German strategy. This was successful only until one of us
>>realized that it was pretty silly for Russia to buy anything other than
>>infantry. Combined with a Russian attack on Eastern Europe in Round 1,
>>we quickly saw that just the tanks wasn't going to cut it. We saw that
>>it was necessary to buy some infantry, too, to soak up hits while the
>>armor dished them out. Still later, we realized that the best strategy
>>was to ONLY buy infantry, set up a chain of stacks of infantry marching
>>towards Karelia (or Moscow), then launch an attack every turn,
>>retreating when all your current inf stack had been destroyed. If things
>>went well elsewhere, Russia had no chance of winning that particular war
>>of attrition. Then, of course, we saw the U.S. realize it was perfectly
>>fine to ignore Japan and pound Germany.....
> 
>Next Japan will realize that with no pressure it can take Russia from the
>back.  Not to mention all the production Asia can put out...

Don't be ridiculous. As if Japan could get there sooner than turn 4.
(and with enough stuff to take Moscow). No way. And it's not like the
Russian player won't see you coming. Even so, there's just enough Allied
stuff in Asia to delay Japan even longer. Besides, with the U.K. and
U.S. pounding Germany, Russia has its hands free to deal with Japan
(which is actually a fairly easy task, compared to Germany) until
Germany falls and the other Allies can pound the crap out of Japan.

Jon
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:11:40 GMT

In article <2952@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden) writes:


>>Problems?  They sound like accurate abstractions of the historical
>>situation.  England *had* a large navy and a tiny army.  Prussia had a
>>professional army and weak economy.  If Austria had attempted to expand too
>>drastically, it *would* have gotten unwanted attention.  France's great
>>strength was the policy of supplying its field armies by foraging, instead
>>of great bloody supply trains.
>>
>
>	Actually, on a historical note, I believe that the French had the
>    *most* efficient supply trains, and did not forage like many armies
>    did. As I understand it, the who canned food thing started in France
>    after Nappy about lost a battle against the Austrians.

No, the French were indeed highly efficient foragers (Wellington 
marvelled at their ability to survive in areas where a British army
would have starved).  Part of the story is that the French TRAVELLED
lighter than other armies.  Their troops bivouacked instead of sleeping
in tents, and the baggage allotment of even senior officers was
severely limited.  Thus, the French were able to travel without
great bloody BAGGAGE trains full of creature comforts to slow them
down and clog the roads.

>	Anyway. Yes, the problems were historically inherent, for the
>    most part. However the game has no historical constraints, (except
>    for Britian/France). Therefore, if ahistorical events arise in the
>    game (don't they always :-) ) you have a situation where very bizarre
>    alignments, treaties and wars occur. Well, okay, so what? The problem
>    I have is that it now becomes easier for the French player to win
>    the game by setting up the dreaded rotation. 
> 
>	If you allowed more flexibility (ie, fewer ships, more/larger
>    corps for the English, declining troop quality as the French minor/
>    French manpower ratio decreases, treachery) then perhaps you can get
>    a more historical flavor, and less "wierdness" (Spanish in St. Pete?
>    gimme a break!) than occurs now.

Depends on what you call "ahistorical".  At the extreme, any game
that did not replicate history, battle for battle, would fall under
this definition.  But of course that's not what you mean.  Spanish
in St. Pete?  A little weird, perhaps, but not much more than Spanish
in Denmark (which happened historically) or Russians in Lisbon (which
also happened).  It's not really weird until you have Turks in London
(something our group saw a couple of games back).







-- 
Gary Charbonneau
charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cbekar@fraser.sfu.ca (Clifford Bekar)
Subject: WiF question
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:22:06 GMT

I'm just learning to play the WiF game, and having trouble with
only one section of the rules, U.S. entry.  Could someone
explain how U.S. hidden entry works in the 5th edition of WiF, and
maybe provide an example.  Thanks in advance.

Cliff Bekar
Simon Fraser University
cbekar@sfu.whistler.ca

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:23:29 GMT

In article <2938@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden) writes:

>	The problems I have with the game are:
>
>	GB: Large navy, tiny army. Unless you have a coalition against
>    you, what is a sea battle? Training the Portugese helps, but the
>    chances of training the Hanoverians is near zero.

Well, how many sea battles were there historically?  If we're talking
only 1805-1815, you've got Trafalgar, a handful of squadron actions,
and then basically zilch.  The British need only win one or two land
actions (not too hard with 4.5 morale troops) to kick themselves into
the dominant zone, where they can stay by economic manipulation (assuming
you use that rule).  Then the other powers have to try to figure out
what to do about it, since they can't force Britain to fight on land
and may not be able to get to her by sea.

>	France: Just where to all of these 4 morale people come from
>    anyway? As I recall history, the troops Welly defeated in the Iberian
>    campaign weren't as well trained as the first few divisions.

Excellent point.  One would like to see France have to build lots of
militia or forego some of her manpower.  Although the AH version of the
game made things more expensive than in the original ADG version, there
still seems to be too much money floating around, so this usually 
doesn't happen very often.

>	Turkey: Where do these damn feudal troops come from? I really
>    dislike this rule, as it (and the low victory condition) allow the
>    Turks to play "spoiler". A truely horrible country with the wrong
>    (ie, obstinate) player.

Historical question: Does anybody know enough about Turkey to know
whether there was any realistic possibility of using feudal troops
outside of Turkey?

>	Russia: I really hate the fact that the French forage better 
>    than the Russians in the winter. Nor do I like the fact that the
>    Russian player receives a "homeland" benefit.

I have some trouble with the forage rules in general.  Since you don't
pay for foraging, "forage" really means "plunder".  One would assume 
that you would not ordinarily want to do this in your own country --
which is where it works best in the game.

>	Forage: Can't agree with this one, especially when some of the
>    really big French corps forage just like a small Russian one (or
>    better, if they don't move).

The real issue is why a corps with 25 factors forages as well as a
corps with 1 factor, regardless of nationality.  Of course, it does
help encourage people to consolidate their corps.  One can also ask
why supplies in an area don't deplete regardless of how many troops
tramp through it between one harvest season and the next.

-- 
Gary Charbonneau
charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: nflynn@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: ASL questions
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:16:44 GMT
Organization: West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing

I've decided to take the plunge and buy ASL (thanks to reading the comments
here about its merits vis-a-vis regular SL ), but I have a few questions.

The local game store guy here just has a catalog with no descriptions, just
game titles and prices.  He said that ASL contains just the rules and tables,
but no scenarios.  Is this correct?  If it is, could someone please post a
description of the various ASL modules so I can figure out what I want to
buy.  This needn't be complex or long, just the theatre involved and what 
special rules are introduced.

Please email responses as I don't get to read this group as often as I like.
Thanks in advance!

				Nick
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: gyugyi@leland.Stanford.EDU (Paul Gyugyi)
Subject: Centurion ground vehicles
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 22:43:06 GMT

I'm using some ground vehicles in a centurion game.
Are there any data sheets for non-grav tanks?
If not, what do you think I should do about the
"shields" and "grav drive" sections on the data sheets:
1) treat them as balistic protection
2) mark them off as destroyed before the game starts
3) create my own data sheet with the internal boxes
re-arranged without the grav-specific parts.

Also, a related question:  What do you do when an Interceptor
(with no gunner) gets a "gunner hit"?
1) mark off the gunner entry as destroyed before starting,
shifting all hits to the next higher range,
2) treat it as a no-op, just rerolling without applying
any damage,
3) treat the empty gunner place as "balistic protection" and
apply up to four hits there?

Personally, I'll probably redraw the data sheets without the useless
components, but I'm wondering what would happen at tournaments.
-- 
Paul J. Gyugyi
Grad student, control systems, Stanford University
(and an avid LEGO collector)
gyugyi@earthsea.Stanford.EDU
From: stratton@sumax.seattleu.edu (Paul Stratton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 183x:  Info Wanted
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:34:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: sumax.5836
Organization: Seattle University

Please tell us where we can get 1829 and 1853.  I have both 1830 and 1835
and I want the others!  Silverton is not too bad either

Paul
paul@sierra.com
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EiA: Problems
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:36:30 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1992Nov17.163521.11497@cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@satcom3.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:


> 	Our group has been playing an EiA campaign  for several weeks now and
>I thought I'd make some comments ...

>        I'm afraid this game is starting to loose some of it's considerable
>charm.

Cheer up Chris, its early in the game, if Britain survives the first
year you are winning big. So far France hasn't even tried to hurt you.

It seems you have Britain, Turkey, and the Ottoman empire allied, you should be
able to hurt France bad. Don't attack Austria, your aim is to make
Austria vacilate not to crush it. Weaken France and the Rhineland will
start to look very tempting for any Holy Roman Emperor worth his salt.
Build up a Turkish/Ottoman force in excess of 100 factors, the more the
merrier. Use naval transport, land in France in force and march on Paris.
Two battles against this force (escalated assault/counter-attack) will
leave the Grand Armee looking very sick. Ottoman cavalry will offset
Napoleon to some extent. If you fluke a win the cavalry charge will
leave Napoleon without an army. Now its just a matter of nerve. How many
times is Napoleon willing to risk his army against the Turkish hoarde?
How close to instability is Turkey willing to go? Which way will Austria
jump? Perhaps the game ain't so boring after all?

--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Subject: Re: 183x:  Info Wanted
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 02:17:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.160851.18165@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer) writes:
>In article <1bv1hlg@rpi.edu>, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes:
>>
>>Yesterday I played 1830 for the first time, and was immediately hooked.  I'm
>>considering asking for a copy for Christmas :).  I seem to recall, though,
>>some mention of other games of a similar vein, named 183x (x being a digit
>>from 1 to 9);  What's the difference between 1830 and the others (if there are
>>others)?  Which is best?
>
>There are five games total so far.  In order of release they are:
>
>1829: Set in southern England.
>1829 Northern Board:  Set in northern England and includes rules to link 
>with the southern game.  It can be played on its own, also.
>1830: Set in Eastern America.
>1853: Set in India.
>1835: Set in Germany.
>
>Both 1829 games and 1853 were released by Hartland Trefoil (UK company).
>1830 was put out by Avalon Hill.  1835 was put out by Hans Im Gluck in
>Germany and is sold in the US by Mayfair games.
>
>I personally think that 1835 is the best in the series with 1830 a close 
>second.  I really don't have any objective reasons for this feeling, it's
>
>Nick Sauer
>
Well, I generally agree with Nick (although I would make 1835 a close second
to 1830). However, I would stongly recomend a good deal of experience with
1830 before moving on to 1835. The myriad of rules (and it does not help that
the English version of the rule book is not that clear) in 1835 will overwhelm
all but the most experienced game players. Since many of the rules of 1835 are
development on the 1830 basis, 1830 can serve as a fine introduction to 1835.
(The rule book for 1830 is much clearer too).

Of all 18xx games, 1830 has the wildest financial action. (1829+1853 have
*very* lame finances)

Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lines: 39
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 11:05:01 MST
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Subject: Re: Would you buy this ship?
Organization: BYU

In article <1e5cktINNgj6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis) writes:
[...]
>A troop transport built from a _BCH_?!  I can see converting a CW to troop
>transport duty; after all, most races have a production schedule of at
>least half a dozen of them per year.  But you only get *one* BCH in your
>production schedule per turn in F&E, and you can't overbuild them like 
>you can CW's.  I'd have to categorically reject any attempt to build a
>troop transport out of anything heavier than a CL/CW (in my campaign, at 
>least, but if you look at the range of available commando ships, there is
>some precedent from ADB).  The Fed COV and Klingon D6G are special cases:
>the COV involves a ship converted from non-combat duty, while the Klingons 
>have a large surplus of D6 hulls due to the IWR, and a CW with just as
>much firepower.
>
>Whenever you're thinking of a new ship proposal, subject it to the F&E
>test: how many of them would you buy in a F&E campaign?  If the answer
>isn't at least half a dozen or so, the class probably would not enter 
>service.  There are really only so many opportunities for ground combat
>anyway, and the Romulans already have an excellent commando ship in the
>Sp-G, which costs *half* as much and can be converted into or from a 
>front-line capital ship in two weeks (and another in the CE, which can
>land).  In the context of a single battle, your SupH-G idea sounds 
>interesting, but in the context of the entire war, there really isn't a 
>sufficiently compelling reason to pull an entire BCH out of the line.
>
[...]

I do have one problem. I don't have F&E. Can't afford it. Though I have 
heard from the people I know who have played it that they always thought 
that the production values were very low. Though the nice things about 
Romulans even if they do convert it, it would only take about 6 months to 
change back, but yes it would not be likely to be built. 
Maybe something else will hit me for a better ship.

_____________________________________________________________________
|Stephan Fassmann  Internet: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu  GEnie: S.FASSMANN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|The Random Acts of Kindness will Continue until Morale Deteriorates|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Hagen@gold.ucr.edu (Jeffrey Hagen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - Can Allies ever win (IIa)
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:32:15 GMT

In the fighter vs. infantry discussion I feel there is two 
significant advantage to infantry that has been overlooked.
1.	Once the tyerritory has been captured the infantry remain there to  
	defend while fighters must retreat to at least an adjacent
	province leaving the captured territory much weaker.  

2. 	At least the way we play russia is purely in a defensive mode
	after a couple of attacks the first round.  And if I remember
	right you can buy 4 infantry for each fighter.  Much more 
	defensive bang for your buck.  Statistically, without working
	through it, the 4:1 ratio even wins out in attacking.

Jeff Hagen