HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: What is your need ? ... hmmm?
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:50:21 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

From: eda858xsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au

> Having just finshed reading the COMSTAR sourcebook i can say im just about
> certain that we will be seeing clan wolverine (a.k.a Minnesota Tribe)
> probley from the Combine, FedCom (Davion half) boarder. The question is what 
> is next

BTW, I don't think Blaine got permission on the Clan Wolverine bit yet..
I hope that anyways.

	> a) COMSTAR vs WORD OF BLAKE
	> b) CLAN vs CLAN
	> c) CLAN vs WOLVERINE
	> d) CLAN vs INNER SPHERE
	> e) CLAN vs WOLVERINE vs INNER SPHERE
	> f) CLAN vs WOLVERINE vs INNER SPHERE vs COMSTAR vs WORD OF BLAKE

It going to be :

	Clan vs Clan vs Inner Sphere vs Inner Sphere // Comstar vs W.O.B.

	Wolf's Dragoons vs Anyone Foolish enough to fight them

> or am i just paranoid in thinking that FASA want more money out of us?

	Paranoia is healthy - S.L.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stephane I. Matis |  E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca  | Viva NeXTSTEP 3.0 ! |
|.............................................................................|
|------------ bla bla Mecha*Press bla bla Dream Pod 9 blabla FASA ------------|
| BATTLETECH ----------------------------------------------------- NeXThead ! |
|------------ aka : Major Adrian Hammerhand, WolfNet Intelligence ------------|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: clarka@netcom.com (Andrew Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BattleTech - Elementals query
Keywords: BattleTech query elementals
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:38:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov10.163820.8135
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Distribution: world
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <8911266.9@cuslm.ca> 8911266@cuslm.ca (THIBODEAU MICHEL) writes:
>
>To all true BattleTech fans:

Yo!  You called?

>1) In the Technical Readout 3050, on page 225, it states that "Each
>suit of BattleArmor has an armor value of 10 points." but in the
>BattleTech Compendium, on page 46, it states: "Each suit of
>BattleArmor has an armor value of 11 points."  Though the rules in
>the Compendium takes precedence over the TR3050, I think it's a
>typo.  Has anybody else noticed this?  

Yes.  The eleven-point version makes it tough to kill Elementals
with PPCs (unless you also sprinkle with LRMs :)  Inner Sphere
Elemental units get one point less.  I'm not sure if it's a typo;
I play the eleven point version and kill the little suckers at a
distance.

>2) On page 8 of the TR3050, it states that the BattleArmor "is
>totally impervious to flamers."  What I'm getting at is this: Can
>you overheat an Elemental?  Though flamers don't "slag"
>BattleArmor, it must still get pretty hot in there!  The Elementals
>have Jump Jets, an ER Small Laser plus a SRM2 launcher, it must
>have heat sinks.  If so, how many?  If you shoot Inferno Rounds and
>a Flamer on an Elemental, should there be a possibility of Ammo
>Explosion?  How about its anti-personnel weapons?  Should the Heat
>Scale of an Elemental be the same as the Heat Scale of a Mech
>(penalties to Movement and to Fire)?

Elementals are only one ton.  They're too small to be worth the
effort of creating a heat scale for.  I agree that flamers and
Infernos should cook the pilot right through her suit, but F*SA
disagrees with me, obviously.  Space-tight does NOT mean proof
against plasma or even thermite.  I think flamers should do damage
to Elementals as usual, and that Elementals should be treated like
any other kind of infantry if in an Inferno hex (unless they
roll 8+, dead.)   

>Or does anybody care at all about such petty trivia?  These
>questions have caused me deep insomnia last night, so please reply.

Elementals aren't trivial.  They can really screw up IS units if
they close to close range (where they have better odds.)  If the IS
units stay at long range, they get pounded by the Clan's long-range
fire superiority.  Without Elementals, it's possible for IS units to
get in close and do some major damage.
-- 
clarka@netcom.com     Andrew Clark     My ignorance is my own fault.
"We have virtual reality today: Pete Wilson lives in it." | Bad cop! 
"Macs are to computing what television is to journalism." | No donut! 
Secondary account at aclark@UCSD.EDU -- prefer mail at netcom site.   
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rmorley@mis.mi04.zds.com (Ron Morley)
Subject: Re: Naval Combat Games
Keywords: Thar She Blows!
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:47:31 GMT

mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:

>Yet another comment on Close Action -- I've found that the combat system is not
>significantly slower than the full-blown WS&IM Advanced system.  Also, I have
>played in a very large-scale scenario (about the size of Trafalgar) which
>simulated a hypothetical engagement between a French/Spanish fleet and the
>British under Nelson in the West Indies (it almost came about in real life, but
>Nelson went the wrong way).  With 2-3 ships per player it worked very well and
>moved along.  On the other hand, it would have been impossible with only one
>player per side...

R.Morley@mi04.zds.com (Ron Morley) writes:

Where can you get Close Action?  I have been a long time fan of WS&IM and am
definitely interested in anything which claims to be better.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jeffj@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (jeffrey.n.jones)
Subject: Re: Games that belong on every gamer's shelf...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:58:35 GMT

1. Bar-Lev by Conflict Simulations
2. 2nd Fleet
3. Risk
4. Squad Leader plus Cross of Iron
5. Panzer 88
6. Melee 
7. Chess (Really!)
8. Terrible Swift Sword

Jeff
-- 
 Jeff Jones  AB6MB         |      If we do not succeed,
 jeffj@seeker.mystic.com   |      then we run the risk of failure.
 Infolinc BBS 415-778-5929 |      Vice Pres. Dan Quayle
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: A&A - Can the **AXIS** ever win?
Date: 13 Nov 92 13:35:40 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

Title says it all.

I am tired of "how do I kill the Axis(worse than I already do)?" questions.

I am interested in ideas on how to fry the Allies.
I usually play the no Russia-Attack rule, but since they can still move and
build, it is not too much of a hinderance to the allies, and I figure that it
should be a given for all games.

I also let Russia attack Japan in the first turn, tho.
Makes the game better for Russia, IMO.

Please, Please, Please, Please  post strategies for winning as the Axis if you
have them.

Joe
From: robert_walton@next.com (Robert Walton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.frp.marketplace
Subject: Miniatures for Sale
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:05:38 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board

Moving Sale

The following sets are painted to a *high* quality level, complete with  
aircraft numbers, special designs/insignia, and in some cases nose art  
(yes -- believe it!), but are fine for gaming since they've been coated  
thoroughly with clear matte laquer.  For sale as sets ONLY:

WWI Set -- 1/285th C&C, original squadron colors
	2 SPAD 13, 2 Sop Cam, 4 SE5A, 2 Bris F2b
	4 Alb D3/5(a), 2 Fok DR1, 2 Fok D7, 2 Halb
WWI Set Cost: 20 hand-painted planes for $60 + Shipping

WWII Pacific Set -- 1/285th GHQ, Ros Heroics, Skytrex, C&C, orginal  
squadron colors
	4 F4U Corsairs, 4 P40 Warhawks (Flying Tigers Paint Scheme), 2 	 
		Avengers, 4 Dauntless Dive Bombers
	6 Oscars, 8 Zeros (4 army green, 4 navy grey), 4 Franks (defense  
		of the homeland silver), 4 Tonys (mottled silver-green 	 
		defense of the homeland), 2 Kate torpedo bombers (navy 	 
		scheme)
WWII Pacific Set Cost: 38 hand-painted planes for $114 + shipping

WWII European Set -- 1/285th GHQ, Ros Heroics, Skytrex, C&C, orginal  
squadron colors
	4 Spitfires (BoB colors), 2 Hurricanes (BoB colors)
	4 P51D Mustangs D-Day Colors), 4 P-38 Lightnings (silver), 2 B-17s  
		(olive with female nose art)
	8 Me-109s (painted for either East or West Front Europe), 4 FW190s  
		(long nose -- German grey), 2 He-111s (mottled dk/lt grey  
		w/blk undersides), 4 Me-262 (mottled dk/lt grey)
	4 LA-5s (Soviet winter grey)
WWII European Set Cost: 38 hand-painted planes for $114 + shipping

Vietnam Set -- 1/285th GHQ, C&C, Ros Heroics, original squadron colors
	6 F4 Phantoms (4 navy grey, 2 Army camo), 2 A4 Sky Hawks (navy 	 
		grey)
	2 Mig 17s (Col. "Tomb" or "Toon" camo), 2 Mig 19s (silver), 4 Mig  
		21s (silver)
Vietnam Set Cost: 16 hand-painted planes for $48 + shipping

Korea Set -- 1/28th Skytrex, original squadron colors
	2 Mig 15s (silver with red tails)
	2 Sabres (silver with original yellow & black nose/wing/tail 	 
		stripes)
Korea Set Cost: 4 hand-painted planes for $12 + shipping

Discounts:

Combined WWI Pacific and European sets for $200 + shipping.
All 5 sets for $300 + shipping.

At these prices these are the ONLY discounts available, NO partial sets!   
The price of the unpainted figs alone is ~$2/plane -- that gives you a  
great painting job for ~$1/plane!!!

If interested in any of these sets, please e-mail robert_walton@next.com.   
If you live in the SF Bay Area and want to see some of these first, let me  
know -- you won't be disappointed.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: EiA reparations
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:06:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.044620.2096@venus.ic.cmc.ca> adrian@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) writes:
>At this evening's EiA event we had a rules dispute.  
>The Austrian player owed the French player reparations.  The
>Austrian had also ceded provinces to the french player.  
>The Austrian wanted to pay reparations based on his 
>current home country (ie $66-ceded provinces), while the French 
>player wanted  the Austrian to pay based on the value 
>printed on the map (ie 66$).   
>
>The victory conditions chart says: "1/2 of the loser's home
>nation tax value (printed on the map) ..." .  

The french player is right (as much as it pains me to admit those revolutionary
scum are not flat out losers).  (oops, pardon the flashback).

The phrase "printed on the map" was intended to refer to the big red starting
home nation value and obviate such questions.  However, the EIA rules-writing
crew is up to their wonderful writing again.  They should have just said
"starting home nation tax value" instead.

Note that this is not an offical opinion, just one based on several years of
trying to figure out what those boneheads really meant (and usually, when our
group sends off to AH for an interpretation, I had guessed correctly).

	Alec

(ducking the incoming flames from Gary, who usually disagrees with me on these
interpretations...)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: EiA:  1792 Scenario
Summary: EiA variant
Keywords: EiA,Empires in Arms
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:47:30 GMT

Us EiA addicts at IU played this scenario most of the way through twice.  We
only stopped late in the game when one player had the game in the bag.

The first game, Russia (under the control of the ever-careful Gary Charbonneau)
scooped in some early political gains, then holed up behind its endless
steppes, repelling even a combined British/French landing at St. Pete.  I came
in as a late replacement to take over a wasteland Spain, and was just about to
have my carefully rebuilt country re-wasted by a treacherous Britain when the
game was called.

The second game, Prussia won the game handily even though it was quite smaller
than it was at the beginning of the game, thanks to some clever political point
conservation.  I was Russia in this one, and enjoyed it immensely (even started
buying Napoleanic era Russian 15mm leads, and have actually gotten a decent
number painted).  I believe Spain was once again wasted in this one, and know
for sure Britain was creamed.  Most everyone else (even the Turks!) had troops
occupying London at various points, as Britain got peeved at Russia on turn 1
and left himself wide open.

Austria seemed to do well in both games, being truely immense if not in the
political lead.  France did reasonably well, although staying revolutionary for
longer than expected (people were really carefull about giving Nappy promotable
wins).   France would have done much better had we remembered the right
combination for becoming re-dominant in the first game.

All in all, a fun scenario.  Both times, we started out with the intention to
play all the way from 1792 to 1815, and both times decided to just stick with
the first one as we neared 1802.

	Alec
From: v077mdph@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Monopoly Rules
Date: 8 Nov 92 03:38:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov5.235315.22990@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, mdm@bnr.ca (Diane
MacMartin) writes...

>Over the years, Parker Brothers has had many coprighted sets of
>rules for Monopoly.  When two or three generations get together
>to play (Grandma / us / our kids) we agree beforehand on what
>variations we are playing with today, but this has made me 
>curious as to what has changed since 1929 (or whenever the original
>set of rules was printed).
> 
>The following are some variations I am aware of in the basic game
>rules - not including the short game versions:
> 
>1.  If you roll a two and a one, you could elect to stay where you
>are and take a chance.  Outdated.  
>2.  You must build at the beginning of your turn.  In the same turn,
>you can tear down at full price.  Again, outdated.

	These rules were never part of the real rules.  I've read a couple of
books on Monopoly strategy and history, and I don't remember anything like this
ever being mentioned anywhere.

>3.  You must ask for your rent before the next player rolls.  We
>play anytime until your roll comes up, you can ask, to prevent 
>collusion.

	The real rule-has never been changed.

>4.  Getting out of jail - if your third roll in jail is not doubles,
>you pay $50 and MOVE THAT ROLL.  This is in the rules, but some
>people play that you get one more turn in jail before having to
>move.

	I believe you cannot move until your next turn.

>5.  Free Parking - as kids, we used to either place one of each
>bill in free parking, or pay misc. dues (income tax / luxury tax /
>etc) to the center, or both; if you landed on free parking you
>got the money.  To my knowledge this has never been written in
>the rules.  How did this custom become so widespread?

	I don't know where this came from, but it has never been in the rules.
It's stupid because it adds nothing to the game and makes the game take longer.

>6.  Housing shortage auction - this supercedes the rule that you
>must build at the beginning of your turn.  But my husband's family
>doesn't play this rule.  Was it not in the rules at one time?

	It has always been in the rules.

>Are there other variable rules anyone else plays?

	I play with the real rules.  I've never seen any variants that I thought
were good.

>My real question is - I was wondering if the history of Monopoly
>rules has ever been compiled?  What abou the reasons for the
>rule changes?

>Diane MacMartin

	Another person followed up this thread, asserting that the "free
parking" variant arose from a "Stock Market" expansion set.  This is definitely
erroneous, as the expansion set in question exists but is very recent.  My room-
mate says that it may have come out in the last couple of months.

Snoopy
From: erwinrd@sumax.seattleu.edu (Richard D. Erwin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Rob Dean: Please get in touch with me
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:02:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: sumax.5702
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA


Rob;

Sorry, but I somehow lost your address.  Could you email it to me please?

Rich Erwin
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: WiF naval rules
Organization: pet/cyclotron
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:47:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.225310.18304@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F
Carr) writes:

<some stuff deleted>
>
>Maybe sea areas are too large, or there should be some requirement that a
>fleet be split to invade two distant hexes in the same sea area.  For
>example, taking the sea near Sicily gives the Allied player the ability to
>invade northern Italy, which seems unreasonable.
>
One guy I used to play with constantly redrew sea zone boundaries. In
particular, he added and Adriatic Sea zone, which eliminates the rdidculous
predicament the Italian player frequently faces in the Central Med. This is a
simple change that was uniformly popular among our group. Other changes were
somewhat more problematic. As I recall, the zone boundary was drawn such that
Taranto was in the Adriatic zone, but naval units moving from Taranto into the
Central Med did not actually need to move through the Adriatic sea zone first.
From: schwarz-marc@cs.yale.edu (Marc Schwarz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Has Fleet Admiral Been Re-released?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:33:22 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: giraffe.zoo.cs.yale.edu

I have heard talk that Jack Greene was going to re-release
Fleet Admiral in a boardgame format.  Does anyone know if this 
ever happened?  Apparently, only 125 or so copies of the 
first edition were printed before QuarterDeck Games dis- 
appeared, so if anyone has any info on a new edition it 
would be greatly appreciated.

Marc.
-=-
schwarz@cs.yale.edu
AKA schwarz@spunky.cs.nyu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: WiF naval rules
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:11:03 GMT

In article <dxb105-111192132829@theophys1.anu.edu.au>
	dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger) writes:

[I wrote:]
>> In an attempt to make naval combat and strategy more realistic, one
>> of the WiF players I play with came up with a partially hidden naval
>> system.

>Realistic, but this way lies madness. Obviously, once we have hidden
>naval movement we will need hidden land movement, hidden production,
> intelligence rules for uncovering both, hidden U.S. entry levels [...]

I disagree.  The naval war is and should be much different from the land
war.  There are fewer counters and fewer stacks, so hidden movement is
practical.  It was also easier for spies to discover location of army
units, or report the political climate in the US, than to locate a few
ships a thousand miles from land.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From: dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs)
Subject: A&A: ICs vs Transports
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 15:47:35 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

There has recently been suggestion that Japan is better off
building transports instead of building Industrial Complexes
on the mainland.  I can see the effeciency arguments for 
transports on a cost basis, but I think IC's are neccessary
for a more important reason -- time.  Building infantry and
shipping them accross by boat delays each infantry one turn
as compared to building them directly on the continent.
Building and shipping tanks is even worse, since if built
on the continent they can move two areas towards the
front right after being built.  (Sometimes this means they
can be in active combat immediately.)  

Time is of critical importance because the game for the axis
is a race against time -- Germany is going to fall, the question
is how long will it take?  Japan has to put pressure on Russia
as quickly as possible, and that one turn delay in getting
units on continent -- especially the tanks -- can be critical.

-David
(dagibbs@quantum.qnx.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jennifer Schlickbernd)
Subject: Looking for Flying Dutchman Game & Swedish game
Keywords: flying dutchman german game
Reply-To: jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:46:09 GMT

Hi, I'm looking for a copy of Flying Dutchman, a German game that came out
earlier this year.  I'm willing to trade any in print American game or
pay   I'm also looking for the Swedish East Indian trad trading game,
Ostindiska Kompaniet.  English rules not needed for Flying Dutchman,
but preferred for Ostindiska.  Thanks for any help.

-- 
Jennifer Schlickbernd                     Jet Propulsion Laboratory
jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!jennifer@csvax.caltech.edu
72466.3413@compuserve.com  Voice:(818) 354-1167
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Newsgroups: rec.games.board

In rec.games.board, sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:

> wlw@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Will Walker) writes:
> >
> >Which games have had the most impact on the hobby?  Which were the most
> >innovative, or inspired the most imitation, or affected the most people?
> >Which have opened up entire genres and entered the vernacular?
> >My list:
> >
> >Stellar Conquest
> 
> I don't think so.

Stellar Conquest inspired a lot of imitation.  Unless it is itself an
imitation, in which case the game it was derived from should be on the
list.  Many play-by-mail games and computer games are so much like
stellar conquest that it's almost sad.  At any rate SC is the base of
a whole branch of the hobby, so I think it goes on the list.

> >Dungeons and Dragons
> >Diplomacy
> >Ogre
> 
> Yes, to all of the above.
> 
> >Junta
> >Illuminati
> 
> I'd say no - these are inspired by Diplomacy, and are therefore in the
> secondary category.

A good point.  I have to agree with you here.

> >Axis and Allies
> >World In Flames
> 
> I see no reason to include these.

Well I'll say what my reasons were.  Axis and Allies is significant
not because of its innovation (which was only 1 of the 3 criteria I
gave for being on the list), but because of it's broad appeal and its
significance to the market.  It has helped blur the distinction
between the complicated games and the easier games.  I believe that
it will be perhaps the most widely played historical simulation game
so far.  (I know I'll now receive a flood of counterexamples, please
save your breath if you just want to say how Risk or Monopoly can be
viewed as historical simulations).

World in Flames is more of an evolutionary product than a
revolutionary.  I does have the good U.S. Entry system which I believe
will be copied but that's not enough to put it on this list so I
withdraw it.

> As for pure innovation that changed the hobby, you have to include:
> 
> Parchisi.

Don't know much about this one.

> Scrabble.
> Monopoly.

Sure.  I just wasn't going back that far historically but they
definitely belong on the list.

> AH's Gettysburg, 1958 - miniatures on a board.
> AH's D-Day, 1961 - first hex-grid game.
> AH's Blitzkrieg, 1965 - first step-reduction system.
> AH's Panzerblitz - lots of innovations here - too many to list!

Excellent!  I was hoping an old timer would point out which games
were the real trail blazers.  I confess innocence though -- what's
a step-reduction system?

> I'd also include the Wooden Block games and Up Front as being ingeniously
> innovative, though they haven't had the mass appeal of the others.

Never heard of them.

	will (wlw@fc.hp.com)