HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: VG's Civil War: Rules modifications
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:53:53 GMT

In article <BzEqu6.557@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>Briefly, and with a few minor points left out:
>
>1. The number of SP's that can be moved/commanded by an infantry
>leader is one greater than the leader's number of stars.  In other
>words, 1, 2, 3, and 4-star leaders can move/command 2, 3, 4, and 5
>SP's, respectively.
>
>2. In order to use all of the strength points in an army, the army
>must contain enough leaders (within the limits set in (1) above) to
>command them all.  Excess strength points are ignored for combat
>purposes, although they may still move with the army.  Example: The
>Army of the Potomac contains 25 strength points.  It is accompanied
>by two 3-star leaders (one of whom is the army commander), a 2-star
>leader, and a 1-star cav leader.  Only 12 of the 25 strength points
>are counted when determining combat odds.

Is this really accurate, though? While it's been a while since I've
checked TCW, do they actually have all the historical corps commanders?
I realize that they have most of them, but I don't remember a Reno
counter, in particular. i.e., early way corps commanders for the
Union are well represented but not the 1864-5 crop.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
From: maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Centurion (flying space tanks yah know)
Keywords: Centurion
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 08:40:41 EEZ
Distribution: world
Organization: Sweet Oblivion

wehumble@IASTATE.EDU (Ed Humble) writes:

> In article <mgTPVB1w165w@swob.nullnet.fi>, maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio) writes:
> > How come 3 25mm guns generate more recoil than, say, 2 150mm guns? The
> > first set is illegal, the second not. AND MDCs are counted together
> > with gauss weapons, even though their projectiles are not even heavy
> > enough to go through shields (not a lot of recoil to move a 100+ ton tank).
> > 
> 	Also, FASA has several designs in the vehicle briefing that have more than
> three projectile weapons, usually a couple of Gauss cannon and a MDC.  I agre
> that these construction rules need to be re-evaluated.

That's simply because those designs were done with 1st edition rules,
which don't have any rules to that effect. Makes me wonder why they
added it in the first place.

Maybe there should be less restrictions on hull mounted weaponry? The
way I see it, hull weapons are mounted lower, and along the line of
movement, so they wouldn't be able to destabilize the tank so badly upon
firing. 




--------
maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) Voice +358 0 8092681
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters
SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Which 2-player games are best?
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 13 Dec 92 01:45:53 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

Lessee...

Card games are out.

Multi-player monsters are out(unless you play multiple sides, but since
the goals are the same(one player vs another, quite often sacrificing
everything the other players would have to win, etc), and there is no
hidden plans/pieces or knowledge, it gets boring quickly.
OR the games are ALWAYS the same strategy.

So, my list of favorites are:
Wiz-war  enough strategy and overall wierdness to JUST be playable with 2.

ANY of the AH-type games along the lines of Panzer(whatever)

Awful green things. MADE for two players. Great, simple game.

Most games printed in Dragon are made for two players(or workable)
-my favorite:Planet Busters(#65, I think, possibly 85)-HAD to add this one :)

Civilization(use the optional neutral countries rules)
- barely works, again.

SOME of the MB series.

that's all I can think of now.
BEST option, IMO: use the net :) get in a multi-player game :)

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Review of "The War for the Union" (was RE: VGs Civil War question(s))
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.204811.21876@news.eng.convex.com>, roan@convex.com (Russell Roan) writes...
>In article <BzD4yt.DsK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

[long discussion of merits of TWFTU and flaws of TCW omitted.  Russell is about
to tell us what he considers a fatal flaw of TWFTU:]

>	What we have is a 1970s style action phase that goes:
>(1) Person 1 moves every conceivable piece he wants to move
>(2) Combat
>(3) Person 2 moves every conceivable piece he wants to move
>(4) Combat
> 
>etc., with fixed length turns.
> 
>	This led to all kinds of absurd situations, including the following,
>which was the last turn that we played because it disgusted us:
> 
>	The Army of Northern Virginia leaves a garrison at Richmond
>and launches a counterstrike against a corps of the Army of the Potomac.
> 
>	On the next turn, the northern player does the following:
> 
>	(1) Marches a corps led by Ben Butler to Richmond
>	(2) Marches the Army of the Potomac led by McClellan 
>		to Richmond
>	(3) Marches a 3rd independent force up the Peninsula to Richmond.
>	(4) Rails troops to near Richmond, who disembark and march to
>		Richmond.
>	(5) Ships by Naval movement troops from Alexandria to the
>		James, and then marches to join the troops in front of
>		Richmond.
> 
>	Meanwhile, the Army of Northern VA, led by Lee and Jackson,
>sits idle while 5 independent forces of the Union, led by the
>likes of Ben Butler, converge in perfect coordination 2 hexes away.

Although I again must add the caveat that I have not yet played TWFTU, even
solitaire, it occurs to me that maybe because of your extensive experience
with TCW, you are trying to apply that game's tactics to TWFTU.

Specifically, one major difference in the games is that TWFTU has ZOCs.  If the
Confederates had left small covering forces on the approaches to Richmond, the
Union might have been thwarted, since its troops will move more slowly and
with poor leadership and no aggressive leaders will not be able to force march
or attack more than once.

Recall that in the historical Peninsular campaign, a tiny Confederate force at
Yorktown held up McClellan from what should have been a virtually unopposed
advance on Richmond.

It is too early for me to say whether this is the right answer for your 'absurd'
experience.  The ability to move every commander did raise my eyebrows some
too.  However, it could be that tactics different from those in TCW could work
in TWFTU.


Dave

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ramirez@spock.uucp (Andreas Orphanides)
Subject: Re: Mech111.zip
Organization: Choate Rosemary Hall
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:58:08 GMT

Pleeze uuencode this and send it to me, for i have no ftp
access. my address is ramirez@choate.edu. thanx a lot.



Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dennis@tvnews.tv.tek.com (Dennis Borman)
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
Organization: Tektronix TV Measurement Systems, Beaverton, OR
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:31:06 GMT

In article <of_ELxe00awR44f2FA@andrew.cmu.edu> "Timothy C. Worsley" <tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 10-Dec-92 Re: A&A - I think I
>found i.. Robert Hanson@msc.edu (1220)
>
>
>	Using the old A&A rules, we would often build an IC in Gibralter.  Now
>that production is limited by IPC values, an IC in Gibralter is
>worthless.
>
>ZZnew guy

      I must have the 'old A&A rules'. Do new editions of the game have rules
about limiting production of IC built during game play? We had to make our own
rules about this because the US player would build an IC in china and then
the game was over. So what is this rule?

Thanks
Dennis
dennis@tvnews.tv.tek.com

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:27:58 -0500 
From: "Timothy C. Worsley" <tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
	<1992Dec12.203106.15966@tvnews.tv.tek.com>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 12-Dec-92 Re: A&A - I think I
found i.. Dennis Borman@tvnews.tv. (691)

> >	Using the old A&A rules, we would often build an IC in Gibralter.  Now
> >that production is limited by IPC values, an IC in Gibralter is
> >worthless.
> >
> >ZZnew guy

>       I must have the 'old A&A rules'. Do new editions of the game have rules
> about limiting production of IC built during game play? We had to make our own
> rules about this because the US player would build an IC in china and then
> the game was over. So what is this rule?


	The new rules state that you can only build one unit per IPC dollar
value of the teritory.
	Another new rule is that you can no longer give troops to your allies.

ZZnew guy
From: wyattw@tekig1.pen.tek.com (Wyatt A Webb;629-1592;92-835;tekig1.pen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:04:27 GMT
	<0f=EVYe00Vp3IEI0Zd@andrew.cmu.edu> <BzC7F2.A1v@NeoSoft.com>
	<b#arqbk@lynx.unm.edu>
Organization: Tektronix - Application Software Development
In-reply-to: f12008ad@triton.unm.edu's message of 17 Dec 92 09:49:55 GMT

In article <b#arqbk@lynx.unm.edu> f12008ad@triton.unm.edu (Student Class Account) writes:

   >> OK, I have said many times what they do:
   >> They build 8 inf in Karelia, put only 1 inf in the Caucuses.  They have
   >> 19 inf, 3 tanks, 2 fighters in Karelia, 1 tank in Russia.  Please tell
   >> me what you build, and what you put where to make it so hard on them. 
   >> You will not tell me, I do not know why.
   > 
   >  Forgive me for my interuption, but I have a 1984 version of the game and
   >certain rules that were brought up from the newer version make this
   >impossible..  Since Karelias' IPC value is only 3 how can you build 8
   >infantry in it?  And, if you leave Russia with only one take what is to
   >stop Germany from attacking Caucaus with 1 fighter 1 bomber and 3 infantry
   >then blitzing through it and attacking Russia with 2 fighters and 2
   >tanks..  (Taking all of Russias money and basicly winning the game in the
   >first round)

	The rule limiting the production of units to the IPC value of the 
   teritory applies only to newly built factories.  All factories on the board
   prior to turn 1 have unlimited production.

   -- 
   David Saville          :  It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger 
   f12008ad@triton.unm.edu:  man to laugh at that man.
			  :                    - Jack Handy 
   ***************************************************************************


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but according to the second edition
rules original factories only have unlimited production to the original
owner.  If Germany takes Karelia, it can only produce 3 units per turn
there.

Here's the relevant chunk from the rule book:

(page 21)

...Original complexes (ones you started the game with) give you
unlimited capacity - you can place any number of newly purchased items
in a territory with such a complex; new complexes (ones you purchased
and place or captured) give you limited capacity per turn...
	     ^^^^^^^^


Later,

	-Wyatt
--
=====================================================================
|   wyattw@tekig1.pen.tek.com	|  			 	    |
|     Engineers are better	|       "I'm all ears!"		    |
|	   by design		|  		-Ross Perot 	    |
+-------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|       Disclaimer: My opinions were bought at a garage sale	    |
=====================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jdoucette@venus.cc.hollandc.pe.ca (Jingle bells, mortar shells, VC in the grass...)
Subject: Fed and Emp
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Defending is the hard part
Organization: Holland College - Charlottetown PEI
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:39:00 GMT

	I disagree that the attacker is at a disadvantage.  I own Deluxe 
F&E and with the changes instituted such as increased cost for fighters, 
scaled-down fleets at start, and other changes to how battles are fought, 
it is very hard to hold on even with the Federation.
	I am currently playing a Grand Campaign scenario at turn 15 or so (
mid-war) and the Federation has lost one-third of its territory, the 
coreward Federation is a wasteland, the Kzin are just barely there, the 
Hydrans are skulking on map (trapped in the capital because of an adjusment 
rule), the Gorns and Romulans are pounding each other's frontier areas into 
slag and ship losses are hideously cruel.
	We've been keeping track and thus far, the Federation has lost 
something like 1,000 fighter crews.  The Kzin and Hydrans are the same.  
The losses among the Coalition are heavy, but not as bad as the Alliance.
	Both players are experienced at orig F&E, so we know what works and 
what doesn't.  Or we thought we did.  I lost the Count's Fleet SB in 18 
months...SB15 in the Fed didn't hold off the initial Klingon attack.
	The point I'm making is the key to attacking is the willingness to 
be utterly ruthless when it comes to accepting casualties (cripples when at 
all possible).  Almost every ship that has died has been the result of 
Directed Damage.  Most fleet engagements result in masses of cripples 
heading for the repair yards.  
	Taking out a SB or BATS is not a trifle.  These installations were 
designed to hold territory.  If it was easy to destroy them, what would be 
the point?  And as for fighters...the purpose of fighters and PF's is to 
add to the combat power of the fleet and to take the brunt of the losses 
when things go bad.  If the game is played with the same intensity as the 
"historical" scenarios from SFB indicate, believe me, everyone is 
scrambling for ships by 178.  
	The bit about having two frigate forces fighting in deep space 
instead of the fleet that's there being ridiculous doesn't wash.  Why would 
anyone risk the capital ships fighting over hard vacuum?  Unless a very 
vital supply route is threatened, in space both sides' big ships cower..
er..glower at each other while the frigates fight to keep the other guy 
honest.
	Having played both SFB and F&E, the reason the survival rate in F&E 
is higher is, I think, because SFB does not stress the strategic aspect 
enough.  In SFB if you lose 3 CA's and some smaller ships but win the 
battle on points, you may have won the tactical battle, but what if you 
only have 20 CA's?  SFB Captains, in general, tend to take battles beyond 
the point at which one side or the other would flee.  In F&E, you tend to 
appreciate much more the statement "With the other two CVA's gone, Zhukov 
was the Federation's last big carrier group".

John Doucette
	 

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:53:23 -0500 
From: "Timothy C. Worsley" <tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
 <sf_Euk600VB=Q4z0VC@andrew.cmu.edu><1992Dec12.223920.1@vax.sonoma.edu> <cf=5Gku00VB=8=8Uwy@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Dec14.040302.1@vax.sonoma.edu>

	I think we could save bandwidth if Erik and Joe just PLAYED the game
out on RGB.     Then we'd know if Joe's plan works or not.

ZZnew guy
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:57:04 -0500 
From: Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!

I must be misremebering the map or intial set up:

>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.


Erik
---=
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cal@fang.att.com (Charles A. Licata)
Subject: Looking for Centurian (sp?) opinions.
Organization: AT&T Tax Systems Development, Maitland FL
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:41:27 GMT


Hi,

  I have been eyeing the Centurian game for a few weeks.  Specifically
the 2nd edition, but I have not come to a conclusion about purchasing
the game.  I was wondering if anyone can give me a quick, but thourough
idea of what the game is like (It sucks or it's cool would do) and if
the 2nd edition is much different than the first ed.

Thanks,

Chuck
From: gt7797a@prism.gatech.EDU (Travis Works)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Best ship talk/ BPV
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:36:12 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

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)!

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). 
 
>-Felix Hack (SFB Inspector General, Retired)

Flames aside, I do think you're right if you were saying that it's a good idea
to set the number of ships of each class each side gets and then just count the
points for victory conditions, as long as the number/class of ships on each
side is balanced.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I used to trust the media to tell me   |   I used to think that only America's
   the truth, to tell us the truth      |     way, our way was right
 But now I see the payoffs              |   But now the holy dollar rules

(.sig reduced to 4 lines)
                                        -Travis Works
                                        gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu


--
From: ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Frax
Keywords: SFB
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:31:54 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University

In article <1992Dec12.204557.12522@news.Hawaii.Edu> helen@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu (Helen Rapozo) writes:
>In article <1g02eeINNg0e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> wah2@po.CWRU.Edu (William A. Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>   Could someone please post, re-post, or e-mail a basic description of the
>>Frax?  Having come into this thread half-way through, it might help me understanthe discussion if I knew whatthe bleep was being argued.  Specifically, who
>>(or what) are the Frax, where were the rules for them introduced, where are
>>they located, and what is the general "theme" behind their ships?  I get the
>>impression that they have unusual (bizarre?) weapon arcs, also what are their
>>main weapons?
>>-- 
>***************
>The FRAX was introduced to the general market under Module P1 (the
>date escapes me but it was on GEnie before that).
>
>The ships are typical armed with Phaser-I, Disrupters, Phaser-III and B drone
>racks.  What's unique about these ships is that the weapon arcs
>are in the FX or RX arcs (hence the name FRAX).  For example
>if memory serves a FRAX CA would have the following weapons arangement:
>
>Type of		# in		# in
>Weapon		FX arc		RX arc
>
>Phaser-I	4			2
>Disrupter	2			2
>Phaser-III	2			2
>
>plus 2 B drone racks.
>
>This makes the ship to use it's broadside to bring all weapons to
>bear.
>
>As it stands right now, there is no race descriptions on what the
>FRAX looks like.
>

Exsqueeze me, but that`s not a CA. 6 p-1's with 240 arcs, 4 photons likewise
is more expensive than the Fed CA (which is, believe it or not the
benchmark CA). Add the B racks (standard!) and the p-3's and it's gotta be
expensive. Sure, it's a nice ship, but you're going to have to PAY for it.
Maybe that's why no one else uses 240 arcs? 4 240 degree disruptors are OK
unless you are fighting a BC with 6 120 photons.

-----
Colin
-----
From: ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: F&E and refits
Keywords: Why the points don't increase
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:53:04 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University

In article <11DEC199209501683@venus.hollandc.pe.ca> jdoucette@venus.hollandc.pe.ca (Audemus jura nostra defendere) writes:
>
>	The way refits were handled in F&E was dictated by economics (real 
>economics, not the game's).  The designer looked at all the various fleet 
>refits and came up with the conclusion that the purpose of the refits was 
>to keep the balance of power between the ship classes.  So, he decided that 
>since everyone pretty much refitted at the same time, it would not make 
>sense to have an 8-point counter for a FED CA and then replace it 2-3 turns 
>later with a 9-point counter and so on.  Which means that the FED CA 
>counter would represent different ships depending on what timeframe you're 
>talking about.
>	The reason the Gorn and Romulan ships are "overpointed" is because 
>they use plasma weapons, which makes ships so equipped, class for class, 
>more powerful than ships from other races.
>	The two games don't EXACTLY convert, but I don't really think you 
>could make an exact conversion between the tactical and the strategic 
>unless of course you wanted to design your own rules for a modified 
>Starfleet Defense Game.  Which I've done in the past, mind.  Had 
>possibilities...
>
>John Doucette
>jdoucette@venus.hollandc.pe.ca 


You didn't say what article you are following up. I posted one a while
back in which I talked about Gorn CL's not being worth 8 points, and 
mentioned that they might be refitted. If you are talking abou this then
I'll restate my point: I do not think that a Gorn CL is a match for a
Fed CA (the benchmark cruiser). Argue that if you want, but I'll take
a CA against a CL in a Captains Campaign anytime. IF it received the
CLF modification, then (by your argument) the Fed gets a CA+. Likewise
the Roms get S torps in their Sp's. I still don't see the CLF as being
a match for a true CA in a variety of situations, offensive and 
defensive.

-----
Colin
-----
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dunger@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Dallace Unger)
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:50:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <BzB81D.n5@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.100238.25391@sol.UVic.CA> rhorner@ugly.UVic.CA (Roger  Horner) writes:
>>How is CW?  I bought it used about 7 years ago and haven't had a chance to play
>>it (I bought SL at the same time and played it about 6 times before I left for
>>University).  I don't have any time for the next four months, but after I
>>graduate in May I can see myself getting back into gaming.
>
>I put it at or near the top of my personal "top ten" list.  There are a few
>things I don't like.  However, the system is robust enough that, by tinkering
>with a few rules, I have been able to fine-tune it to my own satisfaction.
>A real gem.

I have to agree.  I've played it since it first came out and I play it
more then most of the other games I own.

Dallace Unger
Newsgroups: rec.games.board