HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starride@silver.ksu.ksu.edu (David Chase)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: WH40k: Eldar WITH Marines?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 05:18:34 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: silver.ksu.ksu.edu

cleggp@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg) writes:

>PS>  I actually just wanted to start a thread about WH40k...  Anyone know if/
>when the Vehicle book's coming out?
	Paul,  its out and looks neat. I have not read it yet but I have looked 
through it.


>-- 
>+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
>  Paul Clegg, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu.   <I> killed God, why do you ask? 
>         System One RPG designer.   Project Galactic Guide Coordinator.
>+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren)
Subject: Re: SFB vs GEV FAQ.
Organization: National Science Center Foundation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:48:52 GMT

seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes:

>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.

Well, to each his own, certainly.

However, you can still play the older ships with no problems. And despite
all the changes that have been made to "modernize" ships, the main
philosophies of the races have been preserved.

Kzinti ships still sacrifice direct firepower for drone power. Feds still
don't use drones much (their racks are used for ADDs mostly, to make them
less of a pain to play against Kzinti). Roms still have pathetic drone 
defense abilities (other than the cloak, of course). They've all preserved
their strengths, diminished their weaknesses a little, and generally still
fly using similar tactics to their ancestors.

Warren.
From: lerouxm@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Markie Mark)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Best ship talk/ BPV
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:53:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1gbnomINNrol
Organization: CS Dept, Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

In article <78115@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works) writes:
>In <1ga8b3INNek6@agate.berkeley.edu> felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (Felix Hack) writes:
>
>>  War isn't about
>>being fair, and neither side in a conflict would remotely dream
>>of volunteering for a 'fair' battle in which either side could win.
>>
>
>1)  I'm sure Iraq would have gladly volunteered to fight a "fair" fight
>against the USA (and the rest of the world)!

No.  I don't think so.  Leaders don't send their countries to go to
war with only a perceived 50/50 chance of winning.  Nations go to 
war because they are sure they have a good chance of winning or they
have to in order to defend their homes.

>2)  Sure, "real" battles are often unbalanced, but would you really want to
>play a game that had one side horribly unbalanced against the other?  Look
>at all the discussion over Axis & Allies.  Would you prefer to play, say, one
>Fed. Heavy Cruiser vs the entire Klingon Empire?  (I sure Kirk wouldn't have
>minded, but it doesn't sound like a very fun game to me). 

I like to have a slight disadvantage.  It gives you some tough tactical 
challenges and you can feel like a *real* stud when you win.
 
 I follow a rule that in any battle in which one side has 85-100% of the
 opposing force's BPV you have a playable game.  But I don't win these
 games too often.

--Xourel
From: bell@beethoven.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Games for sale (Blood Bowl and SL)
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:57:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Yep, it's yet another sale via USENET, a small one this time.

Games for sale:
  1st edition Bloodbowl + Death Zone		($20)

    This is the first version of Bloodbowl that they published, with
    a cardboard playing field and cardboard playing pieces with slotted
    bases. It looks to have rules that are slightly different from (and
    probably incompatible with) the later versions of the game, but the
    field looks to be the same size so either you can enjoy it in its
    own right or steal a copy of the later rules from someone else.

    Death Zone is an expansion set compatible with the first edition,
    and includes more playing pieces, slotted bases, etc.

    All in excellent condition except for a largish tear in the Death
    Zone box cover.

  Squad leader					($16)

    The standard Squad Leader boxed set, with no expansions.


Sales rules:
   If there's enough interest for either of the above, I'll accept
   bids.  If not, I'll go with best offer unless the best offer is
   below my acceptable level.  All offers are assumed to include
   shipping.  The parenthesized dollar figures are just estimates of
   what I think is a reasonable price.  Offers via e-mail only,
   please.

   I will send the game when I receive the check and don't hear gripes
   from the bank.  If you wish,  I will send a signed contract stating
   conditions of the sale.  If you prefer COD, you pay any COD fees.

Andrew Bell
bell@cs.unc.edu
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
Date: 19 Dec 92 17:10:24 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <ofAcgZO00Vox9p_VRW@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
>>> ...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.
> You have no idea what you're talking about.  The main problem with the
> Allies is that Britain and the U.S. need naval units to get into the
> war on the main continents.  To a lesser extent this is true for Japan
> (it's not quite as true for Japan because their transport fleet
> doesn't have to move, and isn't usually attacked).  Allowing the
> British and Americans to build as much as they want in Europe/Asia
> crushes Germany instantly.  Consider the ramifications of a Complex in
> Gibraltar for the British cranking 10 inf a turn.  Or Persia to help
> the Russians against the Japanese or the Germans.  And of course the
> US builds in China to immediately crush Japan.  
> 
> 
>>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).
> Sadly enough, it's more even now.  I'll check with Erik, but I'm sure
> he'd be glad to play you with the old rules...

Well, guess I stand corrected, BUT, what if Germany holds Karelia?
I feel that Karelia should have some restriction, or a higher IPC limit on what
can be produced by the enemy if they capture it.

It seems cheap, AND I MEAN REALLY CHEAP of MB to have to resort to the
No-Russia attack rule to even things out.  Even this still makes it much
tougher for the axis than the allies(but the win%age is about even).
I have to work so much harder than the Allies do.

I want a new version that allows Germany to do better.
I think an extra i or two, or a ship or two more would do a lot more to make
it more even(assuming Russia IS allowed to attack).

Any ideas on what to do to make it even and not have to resort to that rule?

Joe
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:48:52 -0500 
From: Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
	<sf_Euk600VB=Q4z0VC@andrew.cmu.edu>

I wrote:

>>Misc: 1a from Lybia to Caucasus with BS
>>JAPAN'S turn:(the real key!)send a fighter to Caucasus(It reaches) send
>>bomber to hit that armor if it can(usually, it is within range-assume not)
>
>Doesn't Britian have an inf in Iraq, an Armor in Egypt, and a fighter in
>india to take the Caucasus back with?  This would leave Germany with
>nothing adjacent to Russia by Japan's turn (since they allies now hold
>Karelia and Caucuses).  As I see it unless you took Karelia you are
>about to die.  If you barely took (losing your planes) and Britain takes
>it back, and sinks your tiny Baltic fleet you are still in a lot of
>trouble.

Well I looked at the map, and I was wrong.  The British do have an inf
adjacent, so they can attack the lone tank with  a fighter and an inf,
and the North Africa forces will be up to fight next turn.


Erik
---=
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert)
Subject: Re: GBACW (was VGs Civil War question(s))
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:05:32 GMT

In article <BzF3rz.30C@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:
> A the risk of continuing to sound like a crank. I think that the GBACW system
> is entirely too overwought. For instance, unlike in The Civil War, you have
> to keep count of how many impulse in a row you've had, and their are all these
> exceptions on when the other player get a impulse.
There is an element of truth in that.  It turned out to be a non-issue for
us because we played by email.  The newer system works very well by email,
whereas the older "move everyone and fire" is pretty tedious by email.

	Steve Albert
	ssa@usl.com
From: manga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Peter Michael Betz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: GEV: cross-posting from the OGRE's BBS.
Date: 16 Dec 1992 03:51:09 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <BzB8Kr.Kt9@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> robert@GEOBLUE.GCN.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:
>Since this is here now I have a question for Steve Jackson. When will we get
>a update to the Board Game version of GEV/OGRE? I'd pay $30 for a new edition
>with 5/8'' die cut counters and a bigger map. How about it?. As for the 
>minatures rules, I'd love to get them but can't afford to shell out $100 for
>a decent group if minatures. (Not that they don't look nice.)

This is something I've been trying to point out to some of the local RPG
hacks to get them involved in a Warhammer game I'm running: Miniatures are a
(What a local storeowner has fererred to as a) non-recyclable expense, kinda
like golf clubs: You cough up a healthy chunk of change at the start, and
then the amount you spend over the rest of the time you are active in the
hobby is negligable. Or to put it another way: HOW many copies of BASIC
GURPS have you bought??


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jdoucette@venus.cc.hollandc.pe.ca (Jingle bells, mortar shells, VC in the grass...)
Subject: DF&E Variant Rules
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Those neat balance options in the back of the rulebook
Organization: Holland College - Charlottetown PEI
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:18:00 GMT

	I haven't tried the Militant Fed rules but they sound interesting.
If you haven't already, you might try using some of the balance options in 
the DF&E rules.  That's what we've done with the game I'm in now.  Some of 
the rules we've used are:
1) All Hydran ships within 6 hexes of the capital on turn 4 and after must 
stay there -- no retreating allowed. (That's why the Hydrans are still 
there on turn 15)
2) Klingons can't attack the Kzin until turn 3
3) Expanded Fed Mothball fleet
4) Earlier Fed production

	There are many more that we are using and are too numerous to 
describe here.  They do make for a big change from the usual openings.

John Doucette


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Europaphiles - where are you??
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:40:19 GMT


I've found playing FiTE that the winter rules are not enough to prevent
continued German advance, leading to at least one major breakthrough in the
spring.


--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Frax
Keywords: sfb
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:38:11 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <RNLiVB4w165w@swob.nullnet.fi> maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) writes:
>
>However, one wonders why wet navy ships didn't have all their weapons up
>front. It wasn't easy (balancing those megaton turrets is not a trivial
>task) but they had done it. Battleship Nelson &Co. for example had their
>main turrets all in the front. The middle one did get in the way of the
>back one though, so their best arcs were somewhat Klingonesque, I think
>(heavies to front obliques).
>
Mostly because raising a turret high enough to fire over a turret that's
high enough to fire over another turret raises an awful heavy turret
awful high in the ship, leading to real problems with stability.  Topweight
was (and is) one of the big limiting factors in warship design.  Therefore,
ships almost never have three superfiring turrets.

Nelson and Rodney had their big guns forward for compactness, not to
concentrate them in forward fire.  As a matter of fact, the third turret
could not fire forward (except at very high angles of elevation).  A better
example is French capital ship design of the 30s and 40s, which involved
two quadruple turrets forward, giving eight big guns, all firing in something
like an FX arc, and no big guns firing astern.  The main concern with these
ships was of course that one lucky shot could disable half the big guns.

Of course, these ships were able to mount guns in turrets, and the designers
would scoff at a measly 120-degree firing arc for heavy weapons, which is
common for SFB weapons.  Ships were also much slower compared to weapon
range.  Perhaps the biggest difference, though, is the amount of damage
that can be inflicted in one shot.  In wet battleship combat, it would take
minutes to disable a comparable enemy ship; in SFB, it frequently takes
one alpha strike.  In this regard, SFB ships are a bit more like WWII
carriers; typically a single carrier strike was enough to disable another
carrier.  (The range vs. movement is still different, though.)

Considering all these things, if I had all my weaponry on 240-degree angles,
I'd prefer to mount it LS+RF and RS+LF rather than FX and RX.

DHT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:50:14 -0500 
From: "Timothy C. Worsley" <tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A suggestions for a newbie

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 14-Dec-92 A&A suggestions for a
newbie Ken Duisenberg@leland.St (598)

> Assuming I get the Allies, could a few of you post a good strategy to 
> follow?  I know this is extremely open ended, but I do understand the game
> enough that a few general ideas could help me put up a fight, rather than
> watch my openent walk all over me.


Turn #1

Russia: Build all inf.  Attack E. Europe, and make sure you take it, but
don't leave a lot there.  Attack Manchuria.  Use one fighter in each
attack.  Add your fleet to the UK fleet.  Put everything you can in
Karilia.

UK: Build nothing (save your $).  Use the Indian forces and transport to
land in Kwangtung.  Hold as best as you can in Africa.  Sink the German
fleet.  Land fighters in Karilia.

US: Build 4 transports of E. US.  Land fighters in Karilia.  If Japan
has detroyed Hawaii, and still has a strong fleet, then retreat your
transport one space, and your BB 2 spaces toward the East coast.
	If Japan attempts the silly attack on W. US, then build some inf there
instead of 1 or 2 of the transports.  If Japan has not attacked in Asia,
boot them out.

Turn #2

Russia:  Build all inf.  If you have enough units left in the East,
attack a Japanese force there.  If not, set up so that they can't blitz
anywhere and just hold on.  If Germany doesn't leave much in E Europe,
take it again, as before.  If they have a large force, just sit tight. 
Place your units in Karilia again.

UK:  Build 7 transports + whatever inf you can.  Place them at UK.

US:  Build inf.  Move your transports to join the UK fleet.  Bring inf
with them.  You now have 11 transports off the UK (Germany can't sink
all that.)

Future turns.  Retake Africa and fortify Russia with your UK fleet. 
Russia sends troops to fight Japan.  After Germany falls, you should
able to Crash Japan as you see fit.

Summary:  Russia attacks E. Europe and Manchuria, builds inf in Karilia
and waits for help.  US and UK build 11 transports off of UK and deliver
the help that Russia wants.  You win.

ZZnew guy
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: don@surtsey.aero.org (Don C. Hancock)
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question(s)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation; El Segundo, CA
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:17:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.182230.14187@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.172639.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes:
>
>> RE:  General FAQ about VG's CW game:
>In the hopes of stimulating more discussion on this game, I agree with what
>you said.  The pulse system makes for interesting swings of momentum (I came
>within 1 die roll of taking DC!).  The low DRD pulses provide lulls where you
>can see stuff building, but can't do anything about it.  What I like is that
>you are constantly faced with choices, which do have long term consequences.
>This can be especially interesting if you pick different theaters as your
>primaries.  You can see some dramatic turnarounds.

I too like it partly for these reasons.  I'm not one who likes
calculating things out to the n-th degree.  These types of games where
the length of the game can be played more seat-of-the-pants.  Of
course, I play all games that way!

>
>I do think that the optional Lyon/Jackson rule isn't a good one.  Giving
>the north 3 army commanders with an initiative of 2 allows them to grind
>the south into dust.  Likewise, I think the unlimited army size favors the
>north since the north has manpower to burn and the south is hard pressed
>to bring armies up to full historical strength.

I agree with both of these.  It's interesting that the General article
suggested that the South push for using the Lyon/Jackson rule.  I
respectfully disagree with the article.

>
>I'll have to check out the Clash of Arms game.  For those with an interest
>in the Civil War, but at a different level, let me put in a plug for the
>Great Battles of the American Civil War (GBACW) series that Richard Berg
>did.  With the turn continuation stuff that was in the last games produced,
>he caught a lot of the flavor that's in TCW where you can't count on doing
>everything you want to.
>	Steve Albert
>	ssa@usl.com

I'll second that opinion.  The last game he made in the series was
First Blood. It's a 4-map monster that has both 1st and 2nd Manassas.
I've only played the "Groveton" scenario, and it was great.  I think
Berg's given up on it for awhile.  Does anybody know if he's planning
on producing any more in the series?

Don


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rhorner@ugly.UVic.CA (Roger  Horner)
Subject: Re: Which 2-player games are best?
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 05:51:10 GMT

In article <cf9XK4K00WB3M8dlg6@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 8-Dec-92 Which 2-player games are
>best? by johnl@aifh.ed.ac.uk 
>> Well now, I've been playing a lot of multi-player games recently, like
>> Junta, Republic of Rome, Kremlin, etc up the wazoo, which are all very
>> fine and splendid when you've got a bunch of people to play with but no
>> good for 2 players. So I'd like to add some games to my collection which
>> are good for 2 players. And why not.
>>  
>> So: which 2 player games are worth having? Which are worth avoiding?
>> How much do they cost? How long do they take to play? How complex are
>> they? Please write on only one side of the screen (this side). Time
>> allowed: until your boss finds out you're reading this newsgroup (game
>> designers are exempt from this condition).
>>  
>> Thanks,
>>  
>> John Levine, Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh
>
>One of my favorite 2-player games is Panzer Blitz by Avalon Hill. The
>game retails for about $25 (I think). It is very much
>tactically-oriented, although there is some basic strategy involved (as
>in any game). However, one of its most appealing features is that it is
>fairly easy to learn, but can become as intense as you want it to. In
>addition to this, I've found most games are over in about 2 hours (max),
>so if you want to play a wargame but haven't a lot of time, this is a
>very good game to play.
>
>Hope I helped.
>
>Jon

If you liked Panzer Blitz you will love Panzer Leader by Avalon Hill.  The
rules are very similar, but the scenarios are a bit fairer.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Horner (rhorner@sirius.UVic.ca)                    University of Victoria
4th Year Electrical Engineering Student                  Victoria, BC, Canada
From: pmenard@cse.unl.edu (Patrick Menard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A strategic bombing
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:57:20 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

"Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:


>Well, actually on turn 4 they average 14 IPC value destroye d
>(assuming 1 bomber out of the 5 gets shot down, it's unlikely that
>none of them will be shot down.  this also assume no bombers got shot
>down on previous runs, which is very unlikely).  For comparison, the
>transport strategy has 11 transports in the british sea zone on turn

I really didn't think about the numbers too much, but here's a rehash.
Turn 1:1 Bomb=3-4 bucks
Turn 2:3 Bomb(1 US)=14 bucks
Turn 3:4 Bomb(2 US)-1 shot(UK) = 5 Bomb=17-18 bucks
Turn 4:5 Bomb(3 US)-2 shot(UK-US) = 6 Bomb=21 bucks
Turn 5:6 Bomb(3 US)-1 shot(UK) = 8 Bomb=28 bucks
Without the US the bombing isn't quite as effective
Turn 1: 1 Bomb=3-4 bucks
Turn 2: 3 Bomb=10-11 bucks
Turn 3: 4 Bomb-1 shot = 3 Bomb=10-11 bucks
Turn 4: 5 Bomb-1 shot = 4 Bomb=14 bucks
Turn 5: 6 Bomb-1 shot = 5 Bomb=17-18 bucks

Now also consider that the US is keeping Africa German-free and Russia is doing
a slow conquest of Germany.(only taking 1 territory at a time and not getting
too greedy)
Turn 1: Germany spends 32 bucks
Turn 2: Germany spends 30-31 bucks
Turn 3: Germany spends 21-22 bucks
Turn 4: Germany spends 10 bucks
Turn 5: Germany spends 0 (maybe 2-3 if they retake Western Europe)
with the US things go quicker...
Turn 1: Germany spends 32 bucks
Turn 2: Germany spends 20 bucks
Turn 3: Germany spends 10-11 bucks
Turn 4: Germany spends 1 bucks(all it has left is 1 so it can't get anything)

as you can see the addition of the US speeds things up a turn so Japan only has
4 turns to capture Moscow and come save the Germans. Not likely  It takes Japan
4 turns to get to Moscow, and then only with a few tanks.  Bombing Germany 
effectively ends the game without Japan having any effect at all.

This is why I think there should be limits on the money lost to bombing.  It
helps the axis more than the allies as the allies are more apt to spend money
on bombers.(except Russia of course)  It also limits the damage the do to a
reasonable amount.

Shadow
Newsgroups: rec.games.board