HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: military in GB
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:34:40 GMT
	<1992Apr15.105648.21227@hemlock.cray.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA


>   Sounds to me like you are setting up a situation where
>   a race will simply convert to all military, and do without civilians.
>
>   This is really really not the original intention of military...
>
>   Every day I read alt.games.gb and see the changes people are putting
>   into GB whilly nilly makes me understand Garrett's umm... "peacefulness",
>   that much more.		-Hydra
>   -- 
>   ---------
>   Dan A. Dickey      ddickey@cray.com

I'd just like for the game to be more realistic.  I agree that military
should not be capable of doing everything that civs can do, that is why
I have posted questions to the net, to get everyones opinions.  I've also
thought of some other things that should probably be done to make military
a little less favorable in some situations:

1. Military currently cost 1 money per update.  If they can now do all
   of these additional things, then they should cost more.  Maybe 5 money
   per update?  More?

2. Military are (I assume) lugging weapons around with them.  Because of
   this, they should probably weigh more than civilians.  Maybe 1.5 times
   more?

As long as we keep a balance, then there will always be reasons for using
civilians.  If they are expensive, then they will only be used in combat
situations.  If they are heavy, then no one will use them for long distance
jumps.  I'm not trying to make the game more difficult to play, or confusing,
I'd just like for it to be a little more realistic.

Please reply to this, and the last message that I posted if you have an
opinion one way or the other.  If most people agree to these changes, or
at least some of them, then they should be made standard.

--
 == Paul L. Overy Jr.                Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
 == (508) 294-2644                   300 Concord Road   <Mail Stop>   ==
 == overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com        Billerica, MA 01821     ==
From: sbaker@eng.auburn.edu (Samuel Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: Another bug(inconsistency) and possible fixes/enhancements.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:23:24 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

In article <OVERY.92Apr10121430@bubba.ma30.bull.com> overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy) writes:

>4. Terraformers - Why is it that something big enough to turn mountains into
>   oceans, or polar icecaps into deserts, can fly?  Not only can it fly,
>   it can hyperjump, and carry weapons in it's hanger bays.  If you can't
>   build an unmodified cargo ship until tech 100, then hyperjumping T's
>   shouldn't be possible until at least then.

    Why shouldn't a terraformer be able to fly?  The concept of having a T fly
is no more absurd than the concept of having a T in the first place.  And what does size have to do with it?  If some race has the technology to build a device
that actually alters the composition of a planet's surface, it seems that it
would have the technology to build rockets powerful enough to do the job.

    If you were to make it so that T's couldn't fly (or hyperjump, God forbid)
they would have to be constructed on the planet's surface.  The type race I 
usually play is a mesomorphic Jovian, compatible only with gas.  How am I
supposed to survive on an incompatible planet long enough to mine the resources
necessary to produce one of these things?  Being mesomorphic, how would I have
the technology to get a cargo ship there? I could use e's. How many ... 100?

    The proposed change, in my opinion, is unrealistic and biased towards any
mesomorph that isn't compatible with many sector types.  The type race I play
wouldn't stand a chance.  It also makes the game more of a pain in the ass
to play than it already is.  I think VanCleef proposed inflicting a small
amount of damage randomly on ships, so as to insure that they be well stocked
before they are sent off. BAH! Major pain in the ass, and I think that's getting
just a little too complicated and far fetched.  I think there are more 
constructive changes that can be made to the game to make it MORE playable,
not LESS.

>I'll probably make the mods to my source, so if anyone
>shows interest, then I'll post the changes.

    I hope not!  -- Link Baker

P.S. I like the other changes you propose.
From: perrocho@inf.ethz.ch (Louis Perrochon)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: military in GB
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:50:21 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Swiss Federal Institute of technology (ETH), Zurich

In article <OVERY.92Apr14133919@bubba.ma30.bull.com> overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy) writes:
>...
>I wanted some opinions on whether military should be allowed to do any/some
>of the following:
>...

Nothing at all. Soldiers have one track brains! Anyone wants military? Go
ahead, but accept they can do nothing but fight.

Louis


-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Louis Perrochon, Institut fuer Informationssysteme, Zurich, Switzerland |
|              voice: ++1 254 7282 email: perrochon@inf.ethz.ch           |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: richard@phc.chalmers.se (Richard Moss)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: games happening in Europe ???
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:09:37 GMT
Organization: Dep. of Phys. Chem.   Univ. of Gothenburg   Sweden

Hi,

I am over working in Sweden for a few months from Australia and was 
wondering if there are any games running or going to start up in 
Europe anywhere.

Unfortunately staying up till 3 in the morning all the time to play
in any US games is not something I feel like doing at the moment 
( besides there are better things to do in Sweden in spring at 3 am
in the morning :-)

thanks

Richard
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: sigma@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: military in GB
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:35:59 GMT

ddickey@aspen04.cray.com (Dan A. Dickey) writes:
>Sounds to me like you are setting up a situation where
>a race will simply convert to all military, and do without civilians.

Military cost money!  And they do not reproduce!  Pretty severe.

>This is really really not the original intention of military...

So was the original intention to make them complete blithering idiots?
That's what they are now.  Gimme a break....

>Every day I read alt.games.gb and see the changes people are putting
>into GB whilly nilly makes me understand Garrett's umm... "peacefulness",
>that much more.

I don't get what you're saying.  Enhancements and BUG FIXES are bad?  Well,
excuse the *^&$ out of me.

25% :)

-- 
Kevin Martin
sigma@ipl.rpi.edu
"We're gonna need another Timmy!"
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb,alt.games.lpmud
From: perrocho@inf.ethz.ch (Louis Perrochon)
Subject: GB ueber Ostern
Originator: perrocho@antares.inf.ethz.ch
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Distribution: zh
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:55:29 GMT

Was haltet Ihr von einem Blitz GB ueber Ostern? Ich stelle mir vor, alle
15' ein update, mit ein paar movesegments dazwischen. Beginn z.B Donnerstag
16.00, Ende Montag 24.00.

Louis Perrochon
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Louis Perrochon, Institut fuer Informationssysteme, Zurich, Switzerland |
|              voice: ++1 254 7282 email: perrochon@inf.ethz.ch           |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: sigma@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: Another bug(inconsistency) and possible fixes/enhancements.
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:14:35 GMT

overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy) writes:
>When attacking on the ground, figured in to the attacking and defending
>strengths, is  ( <# of CIV> + (10 * <# of MIL>) ) * <The race's Fight>
>but when a ship is being captured, or assaulted, the military are given
>10 * <# of MIL> * <Race's Fight>, while the civilians are only getting
>1 each.  For a race with a fight of 6, this makes their military 60 times
>stonger, when it should only be 10 times.

Fixed this at players' requests in RPI-GB-2.

>1. Currently, military cannot do much other than fight.  They cannot man
>   Terraformers, Quarries, Plows Domes.  They can't fly or fire any type 
>   of ship.  They can't scrap a ship. Other than fighting, they are pretty
>   useless.

Military are hopeless in GB.  They don't even mark systems as explored, so
you can send shuttles to a new star, get messages that the shuttle has
arrived, but you can't cs to the system!  You have to cs #shipnum and cs ..
which is rough if you've forgotten the shuttle numbers.  rep / doesn't
report ships you have in unexplored systems either.

>2. You can not assault an unmanned ship.  Why not?  You can capture them if
>   they are landed, so there should be a way to capture them if they are
>   airborne.

Silly eh?

>3. Unmanned ships can be launched and landed, and they return fire when
>   fired upon.  Does anyone else feel that there is a problem with this?

Yes.  Of course, requiring one crew member per gun is not that reasonable
either, although I suppose it's for game balance.  Another big nitpick I
have is the issue of crew versus passengers.  If you build a shuttle with
200 crew but only put the usual 10 people in, it operates at 5% for most
purposes.  Those other 190 people could be in stasis IMHO.

>4. Terraformers - Why is it that something big enough to turn mountains into
>   oceans, or polar icecaps into deserts, can fly?  Not only can it fly,
>   it can hyperjump, and carry weapons in it's hanger bays.  If you can't
>   build an unmodified cargo ship until tech 100, then hyperjumping T's
>   shouldn't be possible until at least then.

Hyper T's are dumb.  Everyone knows it.  We didn't change it in RPI-GB-2
because I didn't make the decision early enough, it could change some
people's ideas about how to design their race.

Planet cloning.  It sucks.  Anyone found out how it happens?  In RPI-GB-2,
I've done some debugging and it appears not to be a misplaced pointer
problem, at least not anymore.  One planet has actually OVERWRITTEN another
planet with a copy of itself, and the copies have taken separate paths of
development.  Ships have been safely placed in one scope or another at the
update, thankfully.  But the old planet is lost, I think it was an asteroid
though...

-- 
Kevin Martin
sigma@ipl.rpi.edu
"We're going to need another Timmy!"
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: kofflee@nyssa.CS.ORST.EDU (Banshee)
Subject: GB II Email Address Change
Organization: Society for Free Access to GB
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 22:03:42 GMT


	To put it simply... the machien I normally use has had
	a disk problem. and well, we don't see it coming back anytime
	soon. so for all pratical purposes, email to me there won't
	work too well. Soooo, new addresses as follows:

	kofflee@nyssa.cs.orst.edu
	koffleva@oregon.uoregon.edu

	That's all folks. :) If any of you have sent me mail since
	Friday (4/3) I did not get it at all, so you will need to
	resend.

	Evan Koffler
	kofflee@nyssa.cs.orst.edu
From: sbaker@eng.auburn.edu (Samuel Baker)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: Another bug(inconsistency) and possible fixes/enhancements.
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:14:43 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

In article <6z!v#zf@rpi.edu> sigma@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin) writes:
>sbaker@eng.auburn.edu (Samuel Baker) writes:

>>    If you were to make it so that T's couldn't fly (or hyperjump, God forbid)
>>they would have to be constructed on the planet's surface.

> . . .T's are always constructed on the planet surface.  That's no change.

   Sorry, I meant the planet's surface on which they were intended to terraform.

>>  The type race I usually play is a mesomorphic Jovian, compatible only with
>>gas.  How am I supposed to survive on an incompatible planet long enough to
>>mine the resources necessary to produce one of these things?  Being 
>>mesomorphic, how would I have the technology to get a cargo ship there? I 
>>could use e's. How many ... 100?

>Don't be silly.  First of all, T's are not supposed to work for Jovian
>races, or at least that was the most recent intention of Garrett, I think.

    Really? I suppose I won't be playing Jovians any more . . .

>Second of all, if you're a meso, it takes you long enough to get tech 50
>for the T already.

    I can get to tech 50 in a resonable amount of time with a Jovian meso. Jovian planets support huge populations, which is good for a collective intelligence race.  While I am waiting to get there (tech 50), military can usually hold planets I want to terraform.

>Third of all, T's only cost 60 res, you can get that
>there in a couple of shuttles designed for the job, or three standard ones.
>With 100 fully loaded e's you could build 16 T's.

    Like I said, big pain in the ass.  The 100 was jest.

>Kevin Martin
>sigma@ipl.rpi.edu
>"We're gonna need another Timmy!"

    Thanks for the comments.

					Link Baker
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: sigma@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: Bug in the load/unload command
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:56:59 GMT

overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy) writes:
>When you unload a ship onto an alien sector, the attacking compatibility
>is being set to 100.0.  This should actually be 1.0, and is currently
>giving an attacker from a ship a 50.5 times greater attack strength.
>To fix this, find the call to ground_attack, around line 1113 of the load.c
>module, and change the 100.0 to 1.0.

One of my players in RPI-GB-2 found this and it was quickly fixed.  I
forgot to post about it.

Also, when unloading civs or mils from a ship to a planet, the mass of the
ship is not properly adjusted (under certain conditions).  Until the next
update, the ship may be arbitrarily heavy.

Most of the other stuff we've done has been enhancements and tweaks, a few
borrowed from HAP, a few which just make sense.

And backups.  Always backups.

-- 
Kevin Martin
sigma@ipl.rpi.edu
"We're going to need another Timmy!"
From: merrill@sal-sun14.usc.edu (Chronos)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: NEW USC GAME STARTING
Date: 14 Apr 1992 16:54:09 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sal-sun14.usc.edu

(Hopefully) Learning from past mistakes, I'm going to host another
GB game.  This one will be on a different server
cyclops.eece.unm.edu 5010
A little slower than the last, but its all ours :)
SO, if you want to play in a gb game that is only active during the 
evening hours, please send me a race from the following racegen
port:
ipl.rpi.edu 5008

the game will start on Saturday the 18

again:
racegen port: ipl.rpi.edu 5008
game: cyclops.eece.unm.edu 5010

Chronos
From: ddickey@aspen04.cray.com (Dan A. Dickey)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: military in GB
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:56:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: hemlock.1992Apr15.105648.21227
Distribution: alt
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Originator: ddickey@aspen04


In article <OVERY.92Apr14133919@bubba.ma30.bull.com>, overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy) writes:
> I've been modifying my server code to allow military to perform most of the
> tasks that civs can.  This includes manning Terraformers, Quarries, Domes,
> Plows, Weapons Plants, Atmos. Proc., AFV's and Gov Centers, allowing military
> to scrap ships, explore systems and planets, fire weapons, etc.

Sounds to me like you are setting up a situation where
a race will simply convert to all military, and do without civilians.

This is really really not the original intention of military...

Every day I read alt.games.gb and see the changes people are putting
into GB whilly nilly makes me understand Garrett's umm... "peacefulness",
that much more.		-Hydra
-- 
---------
Dan A. Dickey      ddickey@cray.com
From: boingo@blue.ucsb.edu (Wilson;Michael;;;;MECE;Ugrad;920630;;;8-402550-19906-7;200)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: HAP fix program
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:39:10 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

I just got a HAP server (version 4.1) and I have 2 problems.

1.  After finally having to compile the fix program on a different type of mach
        ine to get it to work, I now can't fix anything except the race stats,
        the universe AP's, and the star #0 stats.  It would be great if someone
        could tell me how to get to a specific star or planet or ship.
        To get to the universe level, I type "fix /" and to get to the star 
        #0 level, I type "fix //" but when I type something like "fix /Centauri"        it doesn't work (gives me a null, bad scope message.)

2.  After someone has disolved, he still has to log in and vote for an update
         for it to work.  How do I fix this, or do I just live with it?


Thanks ever so much,
Michael Wilson
boingo@arc.ucsb.edu



Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy)
Subject: military in GB
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA
Distribution: alt
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:39:19

I've been modifying my server code to allow military to perform most of the
tasks that civs can.  This includes manning Terraformers, Quarries, Domes,
Plows, Weapons Plants, Atmos. Proc., AFV's and Gov Centers, allowing military
to scrap ships, explore systems and planets, fire weapons, etc.

I wanted some opinions on whether military should be allowed to do any/some
of the following:

- Should mil be able to build ships on sectors w/o any civs?
- How about ships?
- Should mil figure in on converting fuel to resouces on Habitats?
- When a ship loaded only with military arrives at a new star system,
  should AP's be generated?

Thanks for your input,

Paul
--
 == Paul L. Overy Jr.                Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
 == (508) 294-2644                   300 Concord Road   <Mail Stop>   ==
 == overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com        Billerica, MA 01821     ==
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy)
Subject: Bug in the load/unload command
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA
Distribution: alt
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:32:28

When you unload a ship onto an alien sector, the attacking compatibility
is being set to 100.0.  This should actually be 1.0, and is currently
giving an attacker from a ship a 50.5 times greater attack strength.

To fix this, find the call to ground_attack, around line 1113 of the load.c
module, and change the 100.0 to 1.0.
--
 == Paul L. Overy Jr.                Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
 == (508) 294-2644                   300 Concord Road   <Mail Stop>   ==
 == overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com        Billerica, MA 01821     ==
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: sigma@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: Another bug(inconsistency) and possible fixes/enhancements.
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:27:59 GMT

sbaker@eng.auburn.edu (Samuel Baker) writes:
>    Why shouldn't a terraformer be able to fly?  The concept of having a T fly
>is no more absurd than the concept of having a T in the first place.  And what does size have to do with it?  If some race has the technology to build a device
>that actually alters the composition of a planet's surface, it seems that it
>would have the technology to build rockets powerful enough to do the job.

Two unreasonable concepts do not make the game better than having just one.
T's should be enormous and unflyable.  Look how slow they work anyway.

>    If you were to make it so that T's couldn't fly (or hyperjump, God forbid)
>they would have to be constructed on the planet's surface.  The type race I 
>usually play is a mesomorphic Jovian, compatible only with gas.  How am I
>supposed to survive on an incompatible planet long enough to mine the resources
>necessary to produce one of these things?  Being mesomorphic, how would I have
>the technology to get a cargo ship there? I could use e's. How many ... 100?

Don't be silly.  First of all, T's are not supposed to work for Jovian
races, or at least that was the most recent intention of Garrett, I think.
Second of all, if you're a meso, it takes you long enough to get tech 50
for the T already.  Third of all, T's only cost 60 res, you can get that
there in a couple of shuttles designed for the job, or three standard ones.
With 100 fully loaded e's you could build 16 T's.

Also, T's are always constructed on the planet surface.  That's no change.

>I think there are more 
>constructive changes that can be made to the game to make it MORE playable,
>not LESS.

Well, I agree there.

-- 
Kevin Martin
sigma@ipl.rpi.edu
"We're gonna need another Timmy!"
From: perrocho@inf.ethz.ch (Louis Perrochon)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: Another bug(inconsistency) and possible fixes/enhancements.
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:08:15 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Swiss Federal Institute of technology (ETH), Zurich

In article <d77t0=j@rpi.edu> sigma@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin) writes:
>overy@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Paul Overy) writes:

>...
>Military are hopeless in GB.  They don't even mark systems as explored, so

I thought GB and Reality are mutually exclusive...

>...
>Planet cloning.  It sucks.  Anyone found out how it happens?  In RPI-GB-2,
>I've done some debugging and it appears not to be a misplaced pointer
>problem, at least not anymore.  One planet has actually OVERWRITTEN another
>planet with a copy of itself, and the copies have taken separate paths of
>development.  Ships have been safely placed in one scope or another at the
>update, thankfully.  But the old planet is lost, I think it was an asteroid
>though...

How great. Science has not yet discovered everything. This is a FEATURE :-)
Hope it will never happen to me, though.

Louis
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Louis Perrochon, Institut fuer Informationssysteme, Zurich, Switzerland |
|              voice: ++1 254 7282 email: perrochon@inf.ethz.ch           |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: mhaffner@janis.astro.nwu.edu (Matt Haffner)
Subject: Re: NEW USC GAME STARTING
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Northwestern U., Evanston, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 06:54:26 GMT

A quick q about this new USC game:

Is this an evening blitz game or will it have a 'normal' schedule? (You note
evening activity...) Thanks.

mh

p.s. Is there normally a rush of spring games about this time? This is my
first year in gb... or is anyone else toying with the idea of new games?
-- 
Matt Haffner                        /|------|\         Northwestern University
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy     /|--------|\         Evanston, IL
m-haffner@nwu.edu                 /|----------|\  
                      "This space left intentionally blank"
Xref: sparky alt.games.xtrek:3671 rec.games.netrek:218
From: epa@cis.ksu.edu (Eric P. Armstrong)
Newsgroups: alt.games.xtrek,rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: Galaxy clients (was Re: CLASH OF THE TREK-TITANS '92)
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:45:03 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: aleph.cis.ksu.edu

jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:

>epa@cis.ksu.edu (Eric P. Armstrong) writes:
>> The current client on ftp.cis.ksu.edu:/pub/Games/netrek/galaxy.client.tar.Z
>> is 100% compatible with standard servers. 

>But not with standard .xtrekrc's  :-)

Should be now.  The source is now a modified bronco client.

-- 
Eric P. Armstrong        epa@cis.ksu.edu        cis.ksu.edu!harry!rtfm!epa
       "I plead the fifth, because I'm too dumb." -- Karl S. Hagen
Newsgroups: alt.games.xtrek