HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bjm@rommel.apana.org.au (Brad McMahon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A postal bid system
Distribution: world
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:36:14 +1030
Organization: Private - member of Apana

A few extra points that I forgot.. :-)
The auctioneer should go down to the post office and box up the
games and get quotes for postage and insurance.
When the bidder receives their invoice, they can choose method of
postage, and have the OPTION of insurance. (But why wouldn't you insure it??)
Thus when the cheque is cleared, the parcel can be sent, and the bidder knows
it has been packed well, and they are not getting a bum deal on postage if they
have bought light weighted games. (I have noticed some auctioneers charge fixed 
prices for mailing games... come on guys, its like paying seperately in a
restaurant, it just doesn't work out right. :-)   )
Once again, the bidder chooses when he/she returns the cheque the type of
mailing system, regular mail/express/courier/surface/air etc.
Or perhaps the bidder chooses the postage type when they bid... yes, that sounds
easier... :-)
Any suggestions guys?
 
--
 Brad McMahon       |  - bjm@rommel.apana.org.au 
                    |  
Disclaimer: Since I don't represent anybody but myself, the opinions
            are my own. They are usually poorly thought out, contain
            errors and fallacies, and are biased. 
            This is the foundation of modern civilisation.
             
 "There's just a fine line between stupid and clever" 
                                   -Spinal Tap
From: cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Tyranno Ex
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:51:59 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <johnson.727551560@melon26> johnson@rtsg.mot.com (Brad Johnson) writes:
>I recently picked up Avalon Hill's version of Tyranno Ex
>
Concerning a variant for taking care of "strong" species...

Are you playing this right?  If a species doesn't have *any* of its
environments around at the end of the environment phase it is *dead*,
removed from play.  It's an excellent way to kill off that over-powerful
specie.  

-Carl
-- 
	Carl J. Schnurr					1-919-684-8256
	Duke University Dept. of Physics        	cjs@phy.duke.edu
	Durham, N.C.      27706			
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Duration and monster games
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:00:29 GMT

There has been a lot of talk about just how long games take,
particularly Empire in Arms and the monster games, so I've decided to
take it on myself to start a public list of approximate durations for
many of the games frequently discussed here.  My no-so-covert reason for
this is there are a few games out there I am thinking of trying, and I'd
like to hear just what I'm getting in to...

Wiz War: 15 minutes - 1 hour
King & Things: 1-2hours
Dune: 1-3 hours
Monopoly (original rules): 2 hours
Monopoly (auction rules): 2 hours
Win, Place, and Show (no auction variant): 2 hours
Risk: 2 hours
Gammarauders: 3-5 hours
Win, Place, and Show (original rules): 4-5 hours
Titan: 4-8 hours (much longer while learning to play)
Republic of Rome: 5-7 hours
1830: 5-7 hours
Civilization: 5-7 hours
Adv. Civilization: 6-9 hours (shorter games possible)
Diplomacy: 6-11 hours
Monopoly (free parking variant): may not terminate, often 2-8 hours
Empires in Arms 200-220 hours (about 40 sessions of about 6 hours)

World in Flames: ???????
Merchant of Venus: ???????
Advanced Third Reich: ???????

I know I'm forgetting lots.  Feel free to comtinue this list as you will.

Mel

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek)
Subject: Re: SPQR is a crock?
Organization: Boeing
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:57:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.191134.9552@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> mjunkin@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Junkin) writes:
>
>SPQR is a good game, and I think that you really should play a few games 
>before slamming it (or any other) on the net.


Well struck.  For anyone with rules questions, Gene Billingsley is
great at resolving your problems.  His magazine is also another resource,
and is a must-get.  It's also the vehicle for new variants of the games.

And as long as there isn't a real glut of responses, if anyone has specific
questions about any of GMT's games, or wants to ask questions of Rich
Berg/Mark Herman/Gene Billingsley/whomever, let me know and I'll relay
them.

Rick


-- 
Rick Pavek                       | Never ask a droid to outdo its program.
kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com    |           
Seattle, WA                      |   It wastes your time
                                 |          and annoys the droid.
From: f12008ad@triton.unm.edu (Student Class Account)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: Destroyers
Date: 22 Jan 1993 19:25:30 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

In article <22JAN199308093365@utkvx2.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx2.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>One thing A&A seems to lack is the ability to protect transports
>from submarines without one or two battleships present.  I suppose
>other subs could be used for a 'shoot back' capability against
>sneak attacks.
>
>Has anyone every tried adding destroyers to the game?  I would
>envision their stats like:
>	Attack 1
>        Defense 3 (against subs and aircraft only, not against BW)
>        Cost: 8?
>        Move: 2 (of course)
>
>any ideas?
>

  This seems to be a good idea for realism and such, but it would primarily help the
Allies which would further disbalance the game.  Japan is rarily placed in postion 
to need destroyers and Germany never has the luxery to build naval units.  The UK and
US would use them as a cheep way to blow the German airforce away.

David Saville
f12008ad@triton.unm.edu
From: elric@imryrr.Eng.Sun.COM (Rick Heli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Review of four ancient/medieval games wanted
Date: 23 Jan 1993 00:31:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: imryrr

Hadn't been to the game store for a while so was pleasantly surprised
to find some new ancient and/or medieval titles on the shelves.  Wondering
if anyone has played any of the following and would care to provide a
critique?

	Four Ancient Battles -- Decision Games
	SPQR -- GMT
	Black Prince -- 3W
	Crusades Quad -- 3W

-- 
						Rick Heli
						Internet:  rheli@sun.COM
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: EIA: Naval Question
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:47:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.135012.3704@digi.lonestar.org> jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel) writes:
>In our usual Monday night EiA game, we ran into two questions.
>
>(1)  When a fleet is in port, is it considered in a sea area or
>     adjacent to a sea area for interception purposes.  Our reasoning
>     was that it was 'adjacent' because it cost 1 mp to go from port
>     to open sea.

Agreed here.

>(2)  What actually is public knowledge concerning corps and their strength.
>     Is the corps identity known and the strength secret or is the strength
>     of the corps known but the location on the board secret (i.e. you can't
>     turn over another nation's corps)?  We've played both ways and we were
>     wondering if either or neither were correct.

We have played that neither is common knowledge.  This involves a fair bit of
trust, but why play games with people you can't trust to play fair?  Anyway,
it is a lot of fun to play this way.

I believe that the official way to play is that strengths are known, but
identities certainly are not.

	Alec
From: cook@shaman.nexagen.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Lord Of The Rings boardgames?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 01:27:36 -0700
Organization: NeXagen.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: shaman.nexagen.com

koch@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (Andreas Koch) writes:

>What boardgames (_not_ role-playing games like MERP) 
>are dealing with the Lord Of The Rings theme by J.R.R.Tolkien? 
>Aeons ago (-1984), there was a large game made by SPI that enabled 
>players to recreate the trilogy (if I remember correctly, maybe 
>someone else knows more). Any info is appreciated!

>Andreas Koch
>-- 
>Andreas Koch                                Email  : koch@eis.cs.tu-bs.de
>Institut f"ur theoretische Informatik       Phone  : x49-531-391-2384
>Abteilung Entwurf Integrierter Schaltungen  Phax   : x49-531-391-5840
>Gaussstr. 11, D-3300 Braunschweig, Germany  Telex  : 95 25 26

Iron Crown Enterprises has come out with the Lonely Mountain, The Battle of
Five Armies, and the Fellowship of the Ring, all of which are boardgames not
related to MERP. Of them all, Fellowship is probably the best. All are quite
old, and unfortunately, probably pretty hard to get ahold of.

I used to work in the ICE office (now I work for them freelance), and I
suspect that there might be a copy of Fellowship around somewhere that they
might sell, although I'm not making any promises. The phone number there is 
804-295-4280 (there is a customer service number, 1-800-325-0479, but since you
are outside the US, I don't think it will work).

Good luck

Monte Cook
cook@shaman.nexagen.com
From: kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Star Fleet Battles
Date: 26 Jan 1993 03:35:34 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

In article <6361@rosie.NeXT.COM> robert_walton@next.com (Robert Walton) writes:
>Some SFB Questions:
>
>1) How does one get started in SFB?  It seems everyone posting to the net  
>is an expert who started playing a decade ago.  I read one post the other  
>day so full of acronyms and jargon as to be meaningless to a potential  
>entrant!  Is this a game with high barriers to entry?

There is a "Cadet's Training Module" out which is a good introduction
to the game.  Somewhere in the $15 range.

>2) Why hasn't the game improved its graphics?  Seems like such a popular  
>game would have no trouble keeping up to date on graphics quality, but  
>this doesn't seem to be the case.  The current materials in the store look  
>to me like they're published out of a garage by amateur artists.  Is there  
>some war with Paramount over publishing rights?  To add insult to injury,  
>the games seem to rely on ships and equipment illustrations from the TV  
>version (hokey) rather than the movies (much improved).  Look at new  
>entrants like Battletech.  I have no real interest to play this game (the  
>whole premise seems pretty silly), but the graphics of some of the recent  
>stuff make the SFB stuff look pretty feeble.

SFB does not have a liscence from P'mont.  It is derrived from the
_Starfleet Technical Manual_.  Therefore, TFG cannot use anything more
recent than the animated series as source material.

As for the quality of the cover art, the 'Belflowerdidit' style tends
to grow on you. ;-)

>3) Why hasn't there been an aggressive inclusion of the ST:TNG period?   
>Seems like this would be a hot item...

See above.  Since P'mont withdrew their liscence from FASA, *nobody*
can touch TNG.

>4) Weren't there some miniatures out for this awhile back?  What happened?   
>This seems like a natural for miniatures. God knows if people buy  
>miniatures of big robots for Battletech I'd think the Star Trek stuff  
>would go like gang busters.

During the '80s, the "Starline 2200" miniatures sold relatively well,
but the competition from FASA's ST:RPG miniatures was pretty hot, if
memory serves...

>Can anyone enlighten (as opposed to flame) me on these issues?  I'm a big  
>fan of the genre, and I've always been interested in the gaming concept,  
>but have been put off by the seeming complexity or rules, and the  
>amateurish execution of the materials (yes, I place a very high premium on  
>graphics quality -- it's a personal peeve).

Heh...TFG has always been a smallish company.  What do you want?
Avalon Hill's ASL-style components?  (and prices. ;-)

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  kogoma@triton.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: davidf@HQ.Ileaf.COM (David Fristrom)
Subject: Re: Modern Art
Reply-To: davidf@HQ.Ileaf.COM (David Fristrom)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:46:38 GMT

In article <8972@news.duke.edu> cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr) writes:
> I recently purchased an imported German game called "Modern Art" which
> looks great and should be fun to play, but I have a question concerning
> the translated-to-English rules (apparently pulled off of Compuserve).  
> The translated rules state something like:
> 
> 	The card that ends the round (the fifth card of a suit played)
> does not "count" for "scoring" purposes.  
> 
> What does this mean?  Does that mean that the player who owns it doesn't
> get money for it?  Or, that that card does not count towards the count of
> cards to see which suit has the majority?
> 

From looking at the examples of play in the German rules (using my
very limited  knowledge of German), I believe that it means that no
one (including the person who played it) gets any money for it, but it
does count for determining which artist (suit) is the most popular (in
fact, the 5th card is certain to belong to the winning artist, since
no other artist can have that many cards played).

David Fristrom		|
Interleaf, Inc.		|	"Artists are bizarre"
davidf@ileaf.com	|
From: jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan T. Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Game Balance
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:16:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.AfMrSj200WB44ZC1RT
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

emcglynn@moose.uvm.edu (Ted McGlynn, In the back row!) writes:
> From article <1joo39INN31d@gap.caltech.edu>, by keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith A\
> llan Schneider):
> > rpc@moscom.com (Robert Colbey) writes:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>f12008ad@triton.unm.edu writes:
> > 
> >>A quick summary of my game-balancing rule modifications:
> > 
> >>NO new industrial centers. This favors the Axis because it keeps the Allies'
> >>lines of supply longer than the Axis', at least until the Axis has expanded
> >>it's territory.
> > 
> > I think this tends to favor the Allies, actually.  Most Japan players
> > end up building a few ICs on the mainland.  The only allied IC that seems
> > to be commonly built is perhaps an English IC in India.
> > 
> > keith
> > 
>    A few IC's?!!! Why? Perhaps one......many seems a little much tho.
> 
> Personally my fav strategy with the allies is to concentrate a small force in \
> china and have USA build a IC there....becomes a bitch to the Axis in a few 
> turns ;-)
> 
> Is there anyone out there that thinks the big ticket items are rather uneeded??
> I mean they are nice.....but can be basically an expensive toy. Airpower can w\
> reck any navy.....and bombers seem alittle too weak. And I've always found
> Industrial bombing to be only done when my bomber is sitting with nothing else\
>  to do. GIMME TANKS!!!! 8-)
> 
> Tedler

Well, I have a question about your American IC in China strategy. Are
you playing first or second edition? If it's first edition I can see
how it works (actually, Persia's a better location, but that's
secondary). If, however, you are playing second edition, this is a
futile effort. With only building 2 units a turn, you can't hope to
hold out beyond Japan's second or third turn (if that). Then you give
Japan a free IC closer to Russia. 

As for the big-ticket items: people usually tend not to buy the
capital ships, true, but as Erik Lauer is so fond of pointing out, if
you can clump a bunch of transports together, not even the whole
Luftwaffe can take it out. Also, don't underestimate the power of
infantry. Tanks are much more powerful, yes, but if you don't have an
infantry escort to soak up hits, this tactic doesn't work too well. I
think Erik once posted that the ideal mixture of tanks and infantry
(theoretically) is sqrt(2) infantry per tank. Just in case you were
wondering.

-----------------------------------------------
Jon Moore             (jmci@andrew.cmu.edu) 
 "What have I got in my pocket?" --Bilbo     
 "Let the truth of love be lighted,          
  Let the love of truth shine clear." --RUSH 
-----------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher)
Subject: Re: Looking for Metagames Hymenoptera(sp?)
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:16:50 EST

cg533@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James Eugene Alloway) writes:

> 
> As the (probably) misspelled subject sez, I am looking for the Metagame
> Hymenoptera, the "mother" game of Chitin I.  If anyone has it, let me know.
>    Gene Alloway

Gene, that game does not exist.  It was a planned system and there
was a MELEE rules addition to mix Hymenoptera with TFT which appeared
in SPACE GAMER 14.  To my knowledge, CHITIN: I is the only existing 
part of the Hymenoptera system, so in essence it *is* Hymenoptera.

Michel

C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Private user                   |
Ottawa, Canada                 | member, Christina Amphlett fan club
CANADA                         |
From: cg533@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James Eugene Alloway)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Looking for Metagames Hymenoptera(sp?)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 13:44:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


As the (probably) misspelled subject sez, I am looking for the Metagame
Hymenoptera, the "mother" game of Chitin I.  If anyone has it, let me know.
   Gene Alloway
From: cscoging@unpcs1.cs.unp.ac.za (Chris Scogings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: War of the Ring
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:06:00 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, UNP
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc092.cc.unp.ac.za

casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

[a lot of very worthwhile stuff deleted]

>Aside from a lot of 'flavor' type rules, the main things I would fix are:

>1) Hidden movement.  Absolutely necessary.

>2) Shadow points.  The Dark Power needs many more.  I figured about 3 extra per
>turn, which is about a 30-40% increase.

We said that the DP need not spend shadow points for searching (otherwise 
Nazgul tend to get stuck in strange places because there are no SP's to 
bring them back).  And that the DP need not spend SP's on moving Southron 
forces - there are vague insinuations in the book that the Southrons were 
not as totally controlled by Sauron as the orcs.

>3) Siege combat.  The ability to withdraw from siege combat after one round
>makes sieges last far too long.  Make siege combat last a number of rounds
>equal to the attacker's leadership advantage, including sorcery effects (but
>always at least 1 round).  Even this may not be enough, but at least it means
>Minas Tirith will fall quickly to the Lord of the Nazgul if Gandalf isn't there.

Definitely.  We said 3 rounds, minimum.

>4) Victory Conditions.  Tolkien points out on many occasions that Sauron's
>uncertainty over the aims of the West was the major factor in the success of
>the quest.  But in the game, Sauron always knows and expects that an attempt
>will be made to destroy the ring.  It seems to me that the only way to recreate
>this uncertainty, other than by massive and unwieldy restrictions on what
>Sauron can do, is to allow the West to attempt the kind of victory that Sauron
>thought they were going for.  In other words, allow Aragorn, Gandalf, and
>perhaps the Gondorians to claim the ring and use it to defeat Sauron militarily.

>The game's rules prohibit this, since use of the ring quickly turns the user
>into a mindless slave.  In the book though, Tolkien continually emphasized that
>the likes of Gandalf or Aragorn could have used the ring and become Sauron's
>equal or near-equal.  I'd allow the Fellowship to decide before the game,
>secretly, whether to go for a ring victory or military victory.  If they go for
>military victory, allow the more powerful western characters to use the ring
>without suffering its ill effects (at least within the time-frame of the game).
>The ring should confer much greater army combat benefits, as well as reducing
>Sauron's power once it is claimed by one of the powerful Westerners.

This is an excellent idea.  Well done!  My group is going to have a rematch 
immediately, using this proposed rule.

Chris

Never try to teach a pig to sing
It wastes your time and annoys the pig
                               - Robert Heinlein
From: GC.SUL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sullys Maze)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Lord Of The Rings boardgames?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 00:06:56 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

SPI in the Early '70s created a pretty good game 'War of the Ring'
that dealt with the war in Tolkien's trilogy.  It had a few minor
correctable holes in the tables, etc. but was a good shot at it.
Smaller 'tactical' games were also created, one called 'Gondor'
about the seige of Minas Tirith and one: Sauron, about the battle
that ended the second age, between Sauron and the forces of
Gil-Galad and Elendil.  Gondor, I never much cared for, Sauron: I've
been trying to adapt to my liking to no avail.

All three games are sometimes presented in one set.  I've seen
War of the Ring here in game auctions for between $15-40 depending
on condition.  I've yet to see the two smaller scenarios for sale
here in a few years, though they've often been included in the main
game, adding ~$10 to the price.

Gamescape of San Francisco/Palo Alto Ca. has used copies for $40-50.

Mike
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: A postal bid system
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:29:22 GMT

In a prior article, Elliot Wilen (mprunx@violet.berkeley.edu) provides a
detailed description of two bidding systems.

I thought about both for a moment, and noticed that the Dutch auction system
as Elliot describes it (his description matches what I've heard described as
a Dutch auction before) favors the seller, whereas the other (name?) favors
the buyer. In a Dutch auction, the buyer will probably bid (and claim the
item) as soon as the price is below the maximum he is willing to pay, unless
he is confident that no one else has as high a maximum--but then he risks
losing the bid, so there is a strong incentive to bid at the maximum. The
second system (name?) favors the buyer, who can safely bid his maximum,
knowing that he will only have to pay $1 more than the second highest
maximum.

The advantages of a Dutch auction to a seller should be obvious; the
disadvantage is that it is more time-consuming via e-mail, since the
discounting must be done slowly to allow bidders equal access (a desirable
thing from the seller's perspective). In person, the auctioneer can simply
start counting down slowly, until someone signals a bid, eliminating that
drawback. The second system allows for a faster auction, since there is only
one round of bidding, but on average gives the seller a lower price for his
goods.

Amazing how buying and selling games can easily be seen as a game itself...
-- 
Josh Smith, User Support Coordinator  ::  Home: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA USA ::  Work:    josh@fenris.claremont.edu
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography,
and the dancers hit each other." --Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts
Newsgroups: rec.games.board