HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: Harpoon mailing list
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.204959.5561@netlabs.com> jon@netlabs.com (Jonathan Biggar) writes:

   I have set up a mailing list alias for discussion of the Harpoon Modern
   Naval Wargames Rules from GDW.  Anything related to Harpoon is fair game:

   Jon Biggar
   jon@netlabs.com


You do realize that there is (was?) a mailing list called CZ moderated
by Ted Kim for Harpoon dont you?  Since I see him posting to the net
from time to time I figure the list still exists...it's too bad that
the account it was being mailed to has vaped or I'd give you the
address (probably cz-request at whatever node he's on)...if it has
ceased to exist then gee...good work ;-).

Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Reply-To: morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:03:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.123815.3702@exu.ericsson.se>, exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek) writes:
>In article <9770105@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark) writes:
>>> 
>>> Only 2 units per turn can be built in a new factory in China.  That's why 
>>> a UK factory in India (3/turn) is often a better choice.  RTFM, eh? :-)
>>
>>  Excuse me?  I don't remember this restriction on factories.  What 
>>specifically does this rule say to restrict production placement this much?
>>
>>DLC
>>
>
>The rules he's referring to are the second edition rules. This revision also
>includes that vital rule that Russia CANNOT attack on the first turn.

What?!
The rule that USSR cannot attack on the first turn is an OPTIONAL rule, along
with the rules on Axis weapons developments, no new industrial complexes, and
placing new naval units in occupied sea zones.  Good god!  The Axis will win in
short order if USSR does not (or is not allowed to) attack Manchuria and the
Baltic Sea.
								Pete
						morzinpl@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu

>
>
>                                                          -Tom
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Email (was Re: Titan: 2 types of megacreatures)
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:36:46 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC


> Article <1992Apr8.221018.13453@dg-rtp.dg.com> From: poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)

> >Re: Play by email Titan.
 
> There are at least a couple of PBEM Titan games in progress already,
> and several games completed.

Yep and for more information
contact lph@inel.gov (Randy) or
		npfluger@cssun.tamu.edu (Nathan)
To see when the next game is being formed

-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141
From: purtill@idacrd.UUCP (Mark Purtill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Republic of Rome erratum from The General (vol. 27, no. 4)
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:53:32 GMT
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj
Cc: purtill

rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>This rule appeared in this month's issue of The General (vol. 27, no. 4) and
>should be considered a regular, non-optional game rule (who wrote this rule,
>anyway?).
[Rule omitted]
	I think this is a lousy rule.  It's true, it could be really
nasty to get the Second Punic War on turn one, and something should be
done about that.  But the effect of this rule (IMHO) is that the
senate need never deal with the 1st Punic until either a leader
activates it, or the second Punic shows up.  At that point, they can
stomp on the First Punic at it's old strength.  Thus, the urgency of
"we have to take care of the First Punic War before the Second Punic
War shows up" is completely destroyed.
	As an alternative, perhaps we should just arrange that:
>Rome [has] at least one opportunity to deal with a war, having a
>reasonable chance of success before its strength multiplies without resorting
>to extraordinary measures such as a Dictator.
We could do this by putting Wars in the inactive pile face down (as
in the General's rule) only if the matching War also showed up this
turn.  (The First Punic would cound has having shown up on turn one).
This means the senate has at least one turn to deal with a War before
it gets matched, but if they miss the chance, they may be in deep
trouble.  
	Comments?

^.-.^ Mark Purtill, IDA/CCR-P, Thanet Road, Princeton NJ  08540; (609)924-4600.
((")) Email: purtill%idacrd@princeton.edu; uunet!idacrd!purtill. (609)497-0526.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: goudswaa@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter Goudswaard)
Subject: Re: A&A Rules (was Re: Re: Japan ...)
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:58:21 GMT

colton@bqnwh24.BNR.CA (Kevin Colton) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.201554.28552@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day) writes:

>|>The last time I read the rules, if an ally liberates your terratory, it's 
>|>ownership returns to you(they liberate it for you.)

>This reminds me of a couple rule problems we've never quite figured out:

>If a country (say Russia) has its home territory wiped out, can the UK 
>and US collect $$ for any Russian territories they occupy?  We play
>yes they can, but should Russia get back in the game these territories
>revert back to Russian control.

As it says in the rules, "you are the liberator only."  It does not imply
whether allies can or cannot collect $$ from captured allies (or vice-
versa with the axis), but our group agrees unanimously that the argument
is in favor of not being able to collect.  The rules (2nd Ed) say that
as the former owner of the captured capital, you cannot collect income
from territories you still own.  It does not say that an allied country
can take them, and to assume so would assume too much based on too little.

>Not really related but:  during an amphibious assault can attacking
>cargo ships be removed as casualties?  I seem to recall a conflict in
>the rules where two rules seemed to apply - one said you could remove
>them, the other said you couldn't.  We've lost our rules so we can't
>argue anymore, we just say you can't  :-)

I couldn't find any reference to being able to remove them.  One would
think that since the amphib assault is a battle on the LAND zone, no
unit that is outside that land zone is vunerable to attack.

>Comments?

>Kevin
>colton@bnr.ca
From: ttmech@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Paul Mech)
Subject: Re: Game Collapse
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:09:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.191246.2200@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gdewan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Geoffrey DeWan) writes:
>Are there any game besides Republic of Rome where the players are essentially
>at odds with each other but may require the players to cooperate to keep events
>from causing everyone to lose? 

Chaosium's _The_Arkham_Horror_


-- 

Paul J. Mech					ttmech@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov
From: ccspad@gdt.bath.ac.uk (P A Dale)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Copying Rules/ Copyright Infringement?
Date: 6 Apr 92 09:31:13 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK

In article <14561@vela.acs.oakland.edu> rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>In article <11231@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>>How would the other player be able to play the game without having a copy?
>>This may be relevant to the question.

A good memory and a helpful GM helps. I've been happily playing a PBEM
game of RoR for months without reference to rules. I have played over a
tabletop maybe ten times. That's the great thing about RoR, a very good
game that relies most on player interaction.

>
>With play by e-mail games it may be possible to play the game without actually
>owning a copy of the game, if someone were to supply you with the rules.  This
>would probably not be possible with games like ASL or Edelweiss but would
>probably be possible with a game like Republic of Rome (from which game 
>complexity is derived not from the complexity of the board but from player
>interaction).
>I would regard this as unethical.  If a game is worth playing it is worth 
>buying!

I don't get something here. Is it ethical for me to go round to someone's house
and sit down and play a game they own and I don't ? Not owning the game I may
even refer to the rules booklet he has or ask him about points of play. In what
way is this different to playing by e-mail except the medium through which
the game is played ? I own many games and play even more. I think the idea
of being morally obliged to buy a game you play is rather odd but a good
marketing stratagem :-) AH would be very pleased if they knew for every game
of 3R played they'd sold a copy to each participant. The way it works here
amongst my gaming friends is that we each buy games and play them all. There
is some duplication but generally why buy two copies amongst yourselves when
one will do ?

[guides to ethical pbem deleted]

>
>cheerio
>
>-- 
>Ross Starkey                         "Of course you know, this means WAR." 
>rwstarke@vela.acs.oakland.edu        "This whole thing is goony, I shou'da
>                                      stood in bed!"  "Gruesome, isn't it?"
>FIGHT DICTATORSHIP!  VOTE!!!!                                  --Bugs Bunny

Paul Dale
Systems admin./applications support/programmer.
BUCS, Bath University, Claverton Down, Bath, Avon. UK BA2 7AY
tel: 0225 826215
e-mail: P.A.Dale@uk.ac.bath
fax: 0225 826176
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: djb6@quads.uchicago.edu (dennis joseph brennan)
Subject: Re: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Reply-To: djb6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:57:09 GMT

[discussion of Axis and Allies strategy against Japan involving UK building
 a factory in India deleted]

Recall that 
1.  The owner of the IC (factory) may only build a number of units there not
    greater than the monetary value of the country.

2.  The owner cannot build units with an IC constructed that turn.  Thus if
    UK built a factory in India on turn one as well as some infantry, for
    example, UK would have to deploy the infantry in England proper and wait
    until the next turn to place new units there.  I believe this rule favors
    the Axis as it makes it easier for Japan to take Asia.

dennisbrennan, the boy who lost his .sig in a tragic bowling accident
From: johnl@gss.com (John Light)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Game Collapse
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:21:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: gss.1992Apr10.192118.26092
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Apr9.191246.2200@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gdewan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Geoffrey DeWan) writes:
>Are there any game besides Republic of Rome where the players are essentially
>at odds with each other but may require the players to cooperate to keep events
>from causing everyone to lose?  I am talking about outside events, not several
>players engaging in Mutual Assured Destruction.
>
>                             -- Geoffrey DeWan


Arkham Horror.

Spirits are invading the town, and it is the job of the team to quash them
and eliminate the gates before it is too late.  While the team works on the
overall goal, they are accumulating points that determine the winner.

John Light
johnl@gss.com
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Empire of the Middle Ages & Sword and Stars
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:33:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr10.194717.17519@athena.mit.edu>, pckyip@athena.mit.edu (Patrick C Yip) writes...
>Just wonder: how close is Sword & Stars to Empire of the Middle Ages?
> 
>I know Sword & Stars used the system of Empire of the Middle Ages, but
>I am curious about what in S&S is correponding to what in EotMA
> 
>In Sword & Stars, there is an once powerful but later demised galatic
>empire, which I guessed might correspond to Roman Empire, Frank Empire
>or the Holy Roman Empire. There is also a race which works in communism
>and desires in nothing but destroy in S&S, which I think must be the
>Mongols in EotMA. There should be more matching correspondence but I
>don't have the game (I have S&S but not EotMA) with me now.
> 
>Also, there is different ideology in S&S which can produce friction
>when it's ruled by people with different ideology. Is there someting
>like this in EotMA? There is parliamentary and republican ideology
>in S&S, but I don't think such things would happen in the Middle Ages? :)

Can you say "religion"?  Sure you can...

There is also a correspondence between race (S&S) and language (EotMA).

I have owned both games and they are very similar.  I find Empires much more
interesting because of the historical element.  The basic systems are
essentially identical.

Dave Casper
CERN - Geneva
casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nishiha@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Gregory Nishihara)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: SFB Romulan's and Torps
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:00:45 GMT
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering


Thanx for all of the replies! Phew! I was only wondering...got some interesting
tactics now!
-- 


================================================
Greg Nishihara   (nishiha@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu)
From: seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: WWII:PTO errata
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:42:44 GMT
Reply-To: "Bill Seurer,905161 " <billseurer@vnet.ibm.com>

Well, I seem to have gotten the full errata now including the British OB
and setup changes.  I was missing the changes to the UK setup in
scenario 9 before.  Here (by popular demand) it is:


Map
---
Hong Kong should be separated from the Chinese mainland by a temporary border

Allies Player Aid Card
----------------------

UK OB
6-3 Indian infantry should be 2 in 1942 and 3 in 1943 and none any other times
8-3 Indian infantry should be 2 in 1944 and none any other times

Autralia OB
There are no 6-3 infantry reinforcements, delete that line
8-3 Infantry should be 2 in 1942 with a footnote of 1 (appear deleted in
Bombay whenever)

Scenario 9 UK Setup
-------------------
3 of the 3-3 infantry should be 6-3 Indian infantry (depleted): Madras,
Calcutta, Kuala Lumpur, W2516 (improperly listed as W2313)

Rulebook
--------

18.1 (correction): Friendly land-based AND CARRIER-BASED air units...

19.1 (clarification): Subs can't be activated as part of a naval
offensive but must be activated as part of a sub-only offensive (special
form of naval offensive).  A sub offensive may be combined with a normal
naval offensive.

19.6 (clarification): Committed air units which become uncomitted when
their CV base moves as part of a naval offensive can participate in a
joint naval/air offensive that same phase (i.e., they can be used twice).

35.1 (clarification): Japan is conquered if the sum of its seasonal
income AND EPS IN RESERVE are zero or less.

Example Of Play
---------------

The US Task Force 1 should include 2 10-3 marine divisions.

- Bill Seurer    Language and Compiler Development     IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com          America On-Line: BillSeurer
From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Empire of the Middle Ages & Sword and Stars
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:40:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr14.154054.27880
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <1992Apr10.203054.15443@m.cs.uiuc.edu> silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) writes:
>pckyip@athena.mit.edu (Patrick C Yip) writes:
>>Also, there is different ideology in S&S which can produce friction
>>when it's ruled by people with different ideology. Is there someting
>>like this in EotMA? There is parliamentary and republican ideology
>>in S&S, but I don't think such things would happen in the Middle Ages? :)
>There are different religions and languages.  You can convert areas
>religions much more easily than you can their languages. 
>
Actually, my experience is that it's easier to convert the languages, although
it takes a while.  Converting religions is done by attacking the region
involved, which ruins the local economy, causes unrest, costs money, and
requires the use of precious endeavors (you only get five a turn, and they're
valuable).  Converting languages is done by colonization points done on paper.
It's free, requires no endeavors, and doesn't disrupt anything.  It does take
a *long* time sometimes, but any reasonable empire should be able to colonize
a region or two in a scenario game, and whole language groups should
disappear in a campaign game.

DHT
From: torbenm@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius Mogensen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Request reviews: AH "Science Fiction" games
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:58:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

mxb8@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew Bakaitis) writes:

>	So, are there any reviews on Merchant of Venus, Alpha Omega, or
>Stellar Conquest?

Stellar Conquest is a good game if you don't mind some book-keeping.
It has a rectangular board divided into hexes. Some hexes contain star
systems. The stars have different colours, some of which are more
likely to have earth-like planets and others more likely to have
mineral deposits. Each of the up to 4 players start at a corner of the
board and fly in to settle the stars. As they go along, they an invest
in tehnological development, industry or weapons. There are several
tracks of technological development, and it is cheaper to develop a
certain technology if you have already done other research in the same
track.

There is a lot of hidden information in the game, as the other players
can only see where you are, not what you have. Depending on who you
play with the game can be very aggressive or fairly peaceful up to
almost the end.

The game is well suited for play by mail. Some friends of mine have
made rules for a play by mail game with even less information than the
normal face to face game. They have also made a six-player variant of
the board.

Some people hate this game and others love it. I think it is fun, but
the rules have a few problems, which can be overcome by fairly simple
rule modifications.

	Torben Mogensen (torbenm@diku.dk)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.frp
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Re: WH40K:  Space Marine Chapter Names
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:40:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.175654.10197@eng.ufl.edu> plt@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Pete Taylor) writes:
>Names I already have are:  Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Ultramarine, Space 
>Wolves, and the Traitor Chapters listed in the Campaign book.
>
>If there are any other names from other WH40K material please send them to 
>me or tell me where I might be able to track them down.

Why not check the WH40k rulebook?  :)  Some names off the top of my head:

Flesh Eaters
Rainbow Warriors
Mentor Legion (White Dwarf 98, I think)
Raptor Legion (some other White Dwarf Issue)
Blood Drinkers
Steel Hands
Whitescars

That's all I can remember off the top of my head...

...Paul

|FQT 1.10| Brain Damage?  No thanks, I already have some.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: haydenw@courier1.aero.org (bill hayden)
Subject: rec.games.board.A&A ?
Summary: Is a A&A group warrented ?
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:36:54 GMT

Does the heavy interest in Axis & Allies (as observed over the last couple
of months) warrent the creation of a separate group ?
From: s666@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 5-6 player games
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:48:15 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr9.121113.7855@digi.lonestar.org>, jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel) writes:
>>farrell@cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:
>>
>>
>>	I have a question for all you folks out there...
>>
>>	I have a group of 5 people (occasionally as many as 7-8) who get
>>together fairly regularly, and we're interested in what games you might
>>recommend.  We enjoy Dune, Civilization, 1830, 1835, and Republic of Rome.  Any
>>suggestions for other games?  Just as a thought, we're operating on the 
>>constraints of no more than 12 pages of rules (RoR is at maximum), the board
>>will fit conveniently on a medium-sized table, 2 or fewer pages of rules is
>>a bad sign (Dune is about at the minimum with 3 pages), play shouldn't
>>be too badly "phased" (i.e., turns are short or interactive ... that's the
>>reason Titan doesn't make the list), and it can be completed comfortably in
>>6 hours (yeah, I know, 1835 goes over, but we don't play it too often, either).
>>
> 
> Three similar suggestions...
> 
>   Diplomacy -- thin rule book, can be played in 6 hours.  VERY interactive
>                turns.
>   Machiavelli -- (if you can find it) variations on the Diplomacy theme.
>   Sammurai -- (if you can find it)
>   Nuclear War/Escalation -- Okay, so it's not similar!
> 
    Supremacy  -- with basic rules only, this is a rather short and enjoyable
                  game. 6 players max with the original game.

Sean Dzafovic
Dalhousie University
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert)
Subject: GBACW: Is it true?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:38:44 GMT
Keywords: no one else out there :-(

About a week ago, I posted a list of rules questions for First Blood
and didn't get a single response!  Isn't there anyone out there who
can help??  I can repost is anyone needs to see the list again.
	Steve Albert
	ssa@usl.com
From: aclark@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Andrew Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Looking for gaming stores in Silicon Valley
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:40:02 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <s1sdqINNf5u@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>Griffin (yes it's spelled tis way) Games and Computers in Campbell has a good 
>selection (though typically only one or two copies of each game) AND gives
>a 20% discount!!
>
>They are located on Bascom Ave. just south (towards the Pruneyard) of Hamilton.
>Ask for Neal, but watch out for Dave!
>
>408-371-9987 

Other places I know:

Games Gallery in Valley Fair Shopping Center, San Jose.  You can
register your gaming club there and get a 10% discount.  Selection
is pretty good.

Planet 10 is located in Cupertino on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road between
Bollinger and Rainbow, on the right side headed south.  At the light
before Rainbow (there's a McDonalds on the left) turn right and then
enter the complex where Keiko's (a Japanese restaurant) is located.
They have friendly and efficient service, and I know of several
games that are run on-premises.

D & J Hobby at San Tomas Aquino and Campbell Avenue in south San
Jose near Saratoga has an OK selection of games and miniatures.  I
usually prefer Planet 10 or Games Gallery, but occasionally I check
D & J Hobby.  Prices could be better (always!)
 
-- 
Andrew Clark - My ignorance is my own fault. 
aclark@UCSD.EDU   :-)  I hate Macs!  :-) 
Repeal California Prop. 13!  Demand sensible property taxes!                 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board