HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: osterbar@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Andrew Robert Osterburg)
Subject: Re: 1830:  More track construction
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:41:48 GMT

In article <1ic63oINNu5@news.uni-paderborn.de> jerry@uni-paderborn.de writes:
>Another question:
>
>Can the Eerie RR place a green #57 (or #59?) tile on it's base even if
>green tiles are not available?   Otherwise the Eerie could start operating
>omly after all 2-trains are sold, right?
>
>	Jerry
>--

	The Eire is a poor choice of railroads to open before 3 trains
are bought and thus green tiles.  So in short, Erie cannot even put down
a railhead in its hex before 3 trains are bought.  Similarly, if both of
the 00 tiles are in play then the Eire opens it cannot place any tiles.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:15:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.123532.22254@netcom.com>, fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes...
>shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes: 
> 
>>In article <9JAN199302380834@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
>>(CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

>>>I haven't played Monopoly in at least a decade, but this seems like a
>>>perfectly legitimate strategem for A *and* C:

>Well, better in some ways.  But now the fatal flaw in the plan is that Player
>C doesn't actually have the incentive to go through with the deal, if Player A
>misses the hotels as the original poster claimed.  You see, the rationale
>stated was that if A misses B's hotels, C should go ahead and give A back his
>property because there's a "good chance" (the original poster's assessment,
>not mine) this will happen again and again and C will be making some money off
>of it every time.  Now that you've taken C's profit away, he has no reason
>whatsoever not to doublecross A the first time it happens, if A misses the
>hotels and subsequently wants his money back.  This is because the best
>thing that can now happen to C is to have all of As money and property and
>that's what he's got.  (BTW, in the event of an "auction", I also note that
>player B has no incentive not to doublecross player A, either.)

The chance of a double-cross is obviously there, but I wonder if people really
get this Machiavellian in Monopoly?  In a tournament, I guess it is possible,
but in a friendly game?  Also, where does one draw the line at this kind of
renege on an agreement - suppose I agree to sell you a certain property for a
certain price; if I can get you to hand me the cash before I hand you the
property card, can I keep the property and the cash?


Dave

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EiA Question: Peace Conditions
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:42:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.194856.3699@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes: 
>
>>Here's a rules question for you:  If someone surrenders to you, MUST you
>>impose the required number of peace conditions, or may you choose to
>>impose fewer (or none)?  Our group plays that you can impose fewer.
>>However, the rules are unclear, and I can think of some good reasons
>>for playing it the other way.
>
>We've always played that you don't have to impose every condition you can.
>(For one thing, you sometimes run out when one player surrenders to many.)
>It would just seem silly to play that you did - what if you're England and
>your last remaining condition is don't trade with England/America?  It doesn't
>make sense to force England to chose between two possibilities of which neither
>are in it's interests.
>
>Sorry, I can't think of any good reasons for playing it the other way.
>
>Fred

One is that it would change the nature of surrender negotiations and
possibly make them more interesting.  We often see surrenders in which
fewer than the max number of conditions are imposed.  A power would
be less inclined to surrender if this were disallowed, and be more
willing either to fight on or to demand an informal peace.  Of course,
whether this is good is a matter of taste, and I agree that there are
certain conditions which would wither be absurd or irrelevant to impose.

Another argument is that the number of political points gained or lost
due to a surrender is totally unrelated to the peace conditions imposed
on the loser.  I think this is a stronger point.  If the loser has
no conditions imposed on him, and the winner gets nothing tangible
out of the war, why is one the loser and the other the winner?  It
might be interesting to adjust the political point award depending
on the number of conditions imposed, but I haven't thought about this
enough to consider the problems that might result, particularly in
the case you mentioned of a surrender to multiple opponents, in which
there might not be enough conditions to go around.

While we are on the topic of surrenders, it occurred to me that it is
rather strange that the defeated power has to agree to the terms imposed
on him before he knows what they're going to be.  Doesn't sound too
realistic to me....

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@indiana.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: paterno@fnalf.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: 3rd Fleet
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:04:36 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalf.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I have both 5TH FLEET and 3RD FLEET, and find them both to be fine games.
Since a major modern naval battle (supercarriers + escorts VS. nuclear subs
and cruiser surface action groups) has never taken place, the realism is 
hard to judge; but the "feel" is realistic without being bogged down by
difficult mechanics.

The alternate movement/combat mechanics published in the General make for 
greater realism, but the cost in playability is great -- in my opinion, too
great to be worth it.

I've seen earlier rule books, and the system has been refined with each new
game published.  I would recommend buying 3RD FLEET first; if you like it,
you can then buy the previous ones for the maps, counters, and scenarios in
them -- but be prepared to twiddle the scenarios a bit to fit with the rules
updates.

So now that we've described the game series, does anyone want to jump in with
general tactical advice?  (Not just advice limited to one scenario; I'd like
to hear your ideas on the correct mix for a Carrier Action Group, or what
mix of subs and surface ships to send against a carrier group.)
         
Marc Paterno
From: cg533@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James Eugene Alloway)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Metagames Ramming Speed Wanted
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:00:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Like the subject sez: Looking for the Ziploc game of oared combat from
Metagames.
  Gene
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mhall@netcom.com (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:51:35 GMT

iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters) writes:

>Michael Hall:
>>Avalon Hill's failure to get Civilization "right" (mostly in terms of
>>realism and balance) the first time was not so bad, because it was still
>>fun, but then they didn't get it "right" the second time either and even
>>made some problems worse, which was inexcusable.

>Hartland Trefoil, designers of the orginal Civ game, do more playtesting per
>game than SPI's entire line received.  Given that the AH version was, I
>think, more or less identical to the original UK Civ, what are the
>complaints?  Remember it's not meant to be realistic!

>Certainly some of the "fixes" in Advanced Civ undo some of the careful
>balancing of the orginal, eg the double edge of Mysticism.  (Two colours is
>good at the start but the very low value is a pain at the end with a limit on
>civ cards.  If you can have unlimited civ cards, Mysticism is perfect.)

Here are two annoying and unnecessary unrealistic aspects of the original AH
Civilization game:

  1) There are a limited number of civilization cards like Mysticism, meaning
     that if several civilizations learn Mysticism, the rest somehow can never
     develop it.  If anything, the existence of Mysticism et al in
     cultures should make it easier for similar things to pop up elsewhere.

  2) Trading is backwards.  Civilizations should specialize in producing
     particular items and trade for a variety of items, not the other way
     around.  For example, a civilization with a surplus of salt might
     trade it for animal hides to clothe its people and gold to decorate its
     temples, assuming another civilization required salt more than it
     needed some extra hides or gold.

Because these things could have been made quasi-realistic without
increasing complexity or sacrificing fun, I fault AH for releasing
Civilization with these flaws.  It is, however, one of my very favorite
games.  Advanced Civilization fixes the first problem, but introduces
the greater evil of play balance problems, and it does not fix the
second problem.  The play balance of the original Civilization was
decent, yet nowhere near perfect, but Advanced Civilization seems to
have really messed up the play balance.

-- 
Michael Hall   \ 
personal account\ Big Brother is watching.
mhall@netcom.com \
From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:38:15 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

In article <8541@news.duke.edu>, cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr) writes:
|> doing.  I'd much rather be *out* of the game so I could leave or play
|> something else rather than sit in a clearly hopeless situation for the
|> better part of a gaming day.  
|> 
|> -Carl

In Titan it's often quite easy for a player in a losing position to simply
remove the rest of his pieces from the board (and legal, too).  However, it's
usually polite to do so only if everyone else lets you, since someone may have
spent a lot of time and development trying to trap some of your stacks and get
some points only to have them disappear right before his eyes and that would
kind of suck.  It would also suck if you just let another player kill you
without a fight to give him some points for "future considerations."

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: blum@medici.ils.nwu.edu (Dan Blum)
Subject: Re: Scrabble
Reply-To: blum@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:57:49 GMT

Bruce Harper (Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
> No answer to the posted question, but here's another:

> What's the highest score ever achieved in a single play?

Well, I got 122 once, but I'm sure plenty of people have done better.

> and if that's too easy:
I don't want to even try to work this out.


> What's the highest score conceivable in a single play?

> (I don't know the answer to either, by the way.)

--
_____________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum           Institute for the Learning Sciences   Room 327
blum@ils.nwu.edu   1890 Maple Ave., Evanston, IL 60201   708-467-2306

"It's nothing, honey - the dog's learning how to juggle."
_____________________________________________________________________
From: mrose@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Problem: I lost the ohio auctioneer
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:08:19 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services




     Problem:	I was involved in  an auction on the net here involving 
someone from Ohio I believe.  I had the highest bid on Conquest of the 
Empire.  The problem is that my computer account with the mail expired and
I lost the name and address of the individual holding the auction.  So if
you are out there in ether-land, please respond. Thanks

			Matt Rose
			Univ of Kansas
			Remote Sensing Lab
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: edandavi@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Allen and Avi Rappoport)
Subject: Re: brigade series questions ...
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:00:56 GMT


Not having actually played the Brigade series for more than one player turn
of an aborted game, I can only answer the first question.

That extended line counter make the unit effectively a two hex counter, so
the main counter does retreat, and doesn't get severed into a separate unit
and extended line isolated from the parent counter.

For the other ones, maybe there's somebody here more knowledgeable, OR Dean
Essig of the Gamers is a really cool guy and will answer questions posed
by mail or phone, probably fax too.
\
As an example of The Gamers practicing what they preach about good customer
support in their games and Operations magazine, they include in their games
a reg card that does not just add you to the customer mailing list as usual,
but they also give you a year's worth of mail order discounts as a
'preferred customer', and send out a newsletter every few months that
includes errata for new games and special pre-release deals on products.
What really surprised me was a packet I got in the mail last month that
contained their 'preferred customer' Christmas gift - a complete errata
listing for ALL of their games, plus a counter sheet with all the errata
counters and variant counters to go with articles in Operations.  They
even included some for one game jsut because they didn't like the way the
colors came out in the original version, where two juxtaposed shades of
red made some numbers hard to read.  A sheet of about 100 full color die
cut counters, for free, no requirement to send in for them. That's customer
support!

Ed Allen
edandavi@well.sf.ca.us
Disclaimer: I have no ties to the Gamers other than having purchased two of
their games, and mild nostalgia from having grown up really close to Homer
Illinois where they are located, without ever having met them, so far as I
know.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: EiA Question: Peace Conditions
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:34:40 GMT

Here's a rules question for you:  If someone surrenders to you, MUST you
impose the required number of peace conditions, or may you choose to
impose fewer (or none)?  Our group plays that you can impose fewer.
However, the rules are unclear, and I can think of some good reasons
for playing it the other way.

Just to help start the EiA pot boiling again.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: wilsonjc@ccs.csus.edu (Joe Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: OLD SPI FAVORITES RE-RELEASED?
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:03:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccs.1993Jan12.120320.1
Organization: Society for the Prevention of Idiocy


     Even though I've heard nothing but complaints about FGA's rules (most 
comments included the word -unplayable-), I went ahead and picked up their
Kasserine and Bastogne games.  I haven't played them yet, but they "look"
pretty complete.  I did notice one glitch in the victory point calcs for 
Kasserine, but I'll know more after playing.  Has anyone else out there given 
either of these games a try?  I'm hoping that by stealing the SPI design, they 
didn't mess things up too much.

Joe Wilson
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:57:58 GMT

I agree with most of this posting - if A attacks C, and C responds by
fighting A rather than attacking B (which would help A), A can hardly
complain.  But I was more thinking of the situation when C's reaction is "if
you do anything at all to me, I'm going to attack you for the rest of the
game no matter what".  If C persists in his policy of revenge even though he
has a chance to win the game, I think he is probably going too far.  The
situation is even worse if C threatens A in order to force A to do something.

And if C goes after A when the game is just beginning, while C has as much
chance to win as anyone, C becomes a player who is not worth playing with.
Picture a Risk game where one player attacks another on the first turn,
ensuring that both get eliminated by a third player.  What's the point in
playing?  This is different from a Risk attack when the game is on the line -
the player who tries and fails to eliminate another player should expect a
counterattack, even if it allows a third player to win.

I assume the Lasker quote "No bad moves in a lost position" was in relation
to chess, (Lasker was World Champion).  Of course he's right - but chess is a
two-player game, and we're discussing multi-player games, where completely
irrational play may ruin the game (and the evening) for six or seven players.
The key is "when is a position lost" - better games give players hope, so C
might be able to wait and rebuild before getting his revenge.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mfh@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (mitchell.hansinger)
Subject: Bushido, game description wanted
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:02:30 GMT

I would like a brief description of the game Bushido.  If you own or have 
played the game please email a description of how the game is played.  Also,
I would appreciate it if someone could tell me who manufactures this game.


Thanks,

-Mitchel
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: epass@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Pass)
Subject: New SL (Squad Leader) Mailing List
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:52:28 GMT

I have started up a Squad Leader mailing list for those interested.
Current membership is about a dozen and more are needed to create
that "critical mass" of ideas required to sustain a list.

I realize most people have already moved to ASL but for those without
the money or whatever other reason this might be a source of
scenarios, ideas, hints, whatever for the older system.

This mailing list is not formalized in any manner.  I'm acting as
co-ordinator which simply means that mail is sent to me and I redistribute
to all members of the list.

If you're interested in such a venture, please send me Email at
epass@nyx.cs.du.edu   Please mark the subject line: SL Mailing List
so that I can find it among my other mail.

Please don't expect an immediate response as I'm new at this role
and if there's an avalanche of replies (it could happen), it might
take a while to get things sorted out.

Remember, it would be your list, so please send more than just a
"Yeah, sign me up I guess" and then sit back and wait for something
to happen.

Hope to hear from you,
  Eric    (epass@nyx.cs.du.edu)
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Has there been a TITAN issue of "The General"?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:55:40 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1ie7jvINN7e9@shelley.u.washington.edu>, dm@bailey.u.washington.edu (Danger Mouse) writes:
|> I'm not a "GENERAL" reader or subscriber; has there been an issue (or
|> issues) focusing on TITAN, and if so, what was the focus? Rules
|> clarifications (I've picked up the addenda/errata already), Variants,
|> Strategy?
|> 
|> Thanks muchly,
|> 
|>   -- Danger Mouse

I remember having one issue with an article about Titan which was quite
interesting.  I was just looking for it recently (to no avail) around my
house.  It's been so long since I read it, I'm not sure if I remember
what it talked about.  I keep thinking that it contained some interesting
points about the history of the game, but I'm wondering if I'm just
getting it confused with the passage in the back of the rulebook.  If
anyone knows of any particular issues regarding Titan, I'd also like to
hear about it.

-Andy

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:23:13 GMT

In article <C0no8M.6Bs@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu>, hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong) writes:
|> > It worked for Rome.  Any sort of empire game that doesn't allow for
|> > 'Do this or suffer' type diplomacy is seriously flawed IMHO.i
|> >
|> Ah, but there is a difference in
|> 
|> "Do this or suffer" 
|> and
|> "I will kill myself and take you with me"
|> 
|> many historical examples can be found for the first, but the second
|> (i.e. Kamakazi) seems to be fairly uncommon, and even then usually
|> limited to individuals, rather than entire cultures.
|> 
|> Can anyone provide historical examples of a culture which was willing to
|> face  cultural anihilation in order to dismay a foe?

Well, the situation may not have started with `I'll kill you, even if it
means killing myself.`  but in lots of cases, it ends up that way.

The Punic wars were certainly a fight to the finish, and they could have
gone either way.
From: jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joseph E. Beck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 10 Jan 93 07:07:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.kfI5TBO00YUoI1uxJZ
	<1il7g9INN5bo@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Stress Kitty) writes:
> Changing the focus of the topic one second, I would sometimes
> put myself in a worse off position the stave off someone from
> winning, just so I would have a chance to (maybe) win myself.
> Each game is a separate entity, and I don't repeat this
> strategy only on one person.  However, if I can, I will delay
> the game should I not be winning until I have a shot at the
> gold.
> 
> Case in point is SJG's Hacker.  I've been in a few games
> where my position was less than optimal, so to prevent another
> player from winning, I crashed the systems I had control of.
> (The victory conditions stipulated that the winner need have
> accounts on so many systems for so long...) 
> 
> In one game, I managed to win with this, and another, a 
> dark horse won.
> 
> Opinions on such delaying tactics wanted.

In our group such tactics are commonly used.  I don't see the problem,
the person who delays is just trying to increase their chance of
winning (no bad sportsmanship or anything).  

	joe
Newsgroups: rec.games.board