HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thornley@tera.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: 3rd Fleet
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:31:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.193910.24712@nscf.org> warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) writes:
>Has anyone ever played the game "3rd Fleet", or 2nd or 6th or any of those
>games?
>
6th, some 2nd (the earlier ones).

>I'm wondering how good they are.
>
Pretty good, actually.  Low unit count and significant decision-making.
The combat sequence is not real intuitive, but it gets pretty good with
practice.  The turn sequence still seems pretty artificial, though.
The basic rules are fairly simple (combat is fairly abstract), and you
can use optional rules like nukes and logistics if you like.

>I'd assume that since there are a lot of them, that they might be good,
>but appearances can be deceiving.
>
Production of several sequels usually indicates that some people like the
game, not necessarily that their tastes are similar to yours.

BTW, the order was 6th (Mediterranean), 2nd (North Atlantic), 7th
(Western Pacific), 5th (Indian Ocean), and 3rd (three smaller theaters).
Don't start with 6th Fleet; the rules were significantly improved in
later games.  I'd recommend 7th as your first game; the rules were pretty
stable by then, but you still get real Red Banner Fleet opposition for
the U.S., so you have a decent naval war with large forces.

>What are the better and worse points of these games? Are they accurate?
>
Are they accurate?  Who knows?  Aside from the sinking of the _Belgrano_
in '82, I don't remember a single naval engagement in the world on this
scale since WWII.  I hope (and think) we'll never find out.

DHT
From: jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joseph E. Beck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 10 Jan 93 07:04:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.8fI5QqG00YUoI1uwgw
	<1993Jan8.181705.21969@dms.agames.com>
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


lipson@dms.agames.com (Pete Lipson) writes:
> cracicot@us.oracle.com wrote:
> : I have a moderately philosophical question for all you net-folk.
> : 
> : Is it a reasonable game action (in game of your choice) to threaten
> : someone as follows, then carry through if they call your bluff:
> : 
> : "If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
> :  the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
> :  badly it wrecks my position."

I'd say it depends on how often such a tactic is used.  In our gaming
group we feel that you should play to win (i.e. don't play if you will
get bored halfway through and suicide on someone so you're friend can
win).  But if someone does something to you that hoses your position
utterly, feel free to threaten them about the consequences and then
suicide on them if they carry it out.  Basically we save it for
important situations, if someone uses this threat (and carries it out)
whenever they are attacked/blocked/etc. the game isn't much fun.  So
at times, it does belong in a game.  In fact, some people get upset if
you *don't* make the threat ahead of time.

>   If the opponent actually carries out such a threat, it pretty much ruins
> whatever play balance remains and i would think it would take the fun out
Yes, but consider someone attacking you for no reason other than it
hoses you (i.e. they gain nothing else but ruining your chances of
winning).  Now, before they made this attack I would feel within my
rights to warn them of the consequences if they do this.  And wouldn't
feel guilty carrying the threat out.  Would you do something different?

	joe
From: cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:50:02 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <C0r6FD.4Ey@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:

>Civilization is a particularly bad game in this respect.  It is impossible
>to eliminate a player but possible to effectively destroy a player's chances
>of winning, and even the worst-off player can usually pick one other
>player and make sure that player doesn't win.  For this reason, I'm not
>fond of the original game (the Advanced version is better in this regard,
>since it is far harder to destroy all hope).

>What do you do, in a multi-player game, when you have no hope of winning
>yourself, or achieving a credible finish, but still can affect the play
>of the game, and are going to be in the game for several hours yet?
>I consider my time reasonably valuable, and intensely dislike sitting
>around losing for hours.

I agree.  The last time we played civ I made the mistake of being clearly
in the lead early in the game.  I spent the rest of the time being pounded
by everyone--long past the point where I was in a position to win.  No
one would trade with me and it was a constant struggle to keep something like
four cities alive.  After six or so hours of this, I was pretty tired of
the whole thing.  By the end I was trying to convince people to attack me
"just one more time" so I'd lose all my cities and start moving backwards
on the AST.  The last turn that actually happened.  Too bad I didn't think
of this earlier--it would have been more interesting to see how far back
I could go rather than attempting to cling to my corner of the map.  

I think you've raised an important criteria for me in longer games--
it's important to feel a part of the game no matter how well you're 
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.  

That's why I like Junta so much.  You may be out for a few 
turns (few cards, no important posts), but eventually the power will 
shift and you'll have another chance.  I guess Britannia falls in this
category as well--everyone has their chance at glory, rampaging all
over the map only to be smashed by the next invasion, etc.  Usually a 
player merely needs to wait a few turns before he gets a new tribe to
invade and wreak havok with.  

-Carl
-- 
	Carl J. Schnurr					1-919-684-8256
	Duke University Dept. of Physics        	cjs@phy.duke.edu
	Durham, N.C.      27706
From: jabe@uirvld.csl.uiuc.edu (Jabe Sandberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Want to buy: D-Day; A.H. '77 or earlier
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:30:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uirvld.csl.uiuc.edu
Summary: Want to buy Avalon Hill's D-Day, 1977 or earlier version
Keywords: D-Day, Want to buy

Want to buy a (presumably used) copy of Avalon Hill's  D-Day,
I believe the latest printing was in 1977.

E-mail me if you have or know where I can get one.  

Thanks,

jabe@uirvld.csl.uiuc.edu
From: Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Games for sale
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:07:03 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I bid $50 for the Russian Civil War.

Thanx
Peter Szymonik
xorg@cup.portal.com
70474.235@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: Nerds On Parade
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:59:28 GMT

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

>In article <1993Jan9.123532.22254@netcom.com>, fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) 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.
...
>>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?

Well, you're right - non-gamers playing Monopoly tend to feel differently
about 'deals' than wargamers who've played stuff like Diplomacy and Machiavilli
do.  I was just pointing out that once you've got the property, there's no
reason in the world not to leave the other player to the dogs, regardless of
what happens.

>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?

Well, I draw the line there.  A verbal, instantaneous deal *is* a commitment.
I wouldn't stand for that kind of nonsense in any game.   However, that's
not anything like the same thing as enforcing future promises in exchange
for current considerations.

The latter, by the way, brings up a point I had forgotten about.  If I heard
two opponents making the deal you suggested, I would tell them that it's
actually an illegal deal, by my interpretation of the rules.  There is a
specific prohibation against loans, which I believe applies to this situation.
Although loans may be construed to refer only to money, this makes the rule
rather toothless (players could easily evade the anti-loan rule, so
interpreted, in such a way as to effect a loan) and there are certainly
financial considerations in your deal.

Fred

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jennifer Schlickbernd)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Reply-To: jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Distribution: "na"
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:21:08 GMT

1830 lends itself to such tactics.  I don't use them (although maybe
people would prefer these tactics to whining??).  My husband has been
known to use them quite sparingly, when he really means it.  An example:
If you are playing Asia in Civ, and the Assyrian opens in such a way to
prevent you from expanding normally (it can be done easily) then what else
is there for Asia to do but attack Assyria??  In 1830, in the near end
game, if a player does something that will cause you to go close to bankrupt
(ie dumps a company with no trains on you and you have just enough money
to ruin yourself without going bankrupt to buy a train) why shouldn't
the near bankruptcy player threaten to take the other player out?  I don't
see what else there is for him/her to do.  Why should he/she lose the
game and the other player not?

I think the real problem is over/mis use of this tactic.  It's not appropriate
when the victim player really does have other alternatives to get out of
a bad position.  At the start of a Dip game for example, it's not 
appropriate to threaten this just because you're Turkey and Russia opened
to the Black Sea and you didn't.  Austria is still in the game, you may
be able to still negotiate with Russia, etc etc.  Also, the less you use
this tactic, the more meaningful it will be.  If you keep using it, pretty
soon no one is going to care, and you'll probably not be the most popular
player in the group.


-- 
Jennifer Schlickbernd  Technology Utilization Office  J. P. L.
jennifer@jato.jpl.nasa.gov or elroy!jato!jennifer@csvax.caltech.edu
72466.3413@compuserve.com  Voice:(818) 354-2241
From: cummings@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:38:41 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In <1993Jan8.193058.7765@cis.ohio-state.edu> farrell@python.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:

>	This issue has been discussed repeatedly in the past few years on
>r.g.b, and I'm starting to tire of it a little!  I really see no reason for
>this endless debate.

	Debates like this recur partly because the readership of this (as
any other) group is in a state of flux and new people appear and start
these threads.

	I think we need to bear this in mind and be patient when we think a
topic's been beaten to death.

-- 
Michael Cummings  NX7E	
cummings@u.washington.edu
"To be hit by Moriyama's fastball is an honor exceeded only by being
crushed under the wheels of the Imperial carriage." - _You Gotta Have Wa_
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Command Magazine etc
Originator: news@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:38:51 GMT
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <6276@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <72832@cup.portal.com>, by Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik):
>> COMMAND is definitely a decent magazine and like S&T, it does have its ups
>> and downs. [...]  The games also tend to be highly superficial
>> and just a step or two above standard beer-&-pretzels fare,

This seems to be a common rap on XTR, and I for one really don't buy it.
Their stuf is usually fast playing, but is not simplistic. And now having
children, it HELPS to have a game that can be played fast. The problem
with S+T these days is that they either put out 'serious' games that take
a long time to play (Trajan Franco-Pruusian War) or real simple games
that are a complete waste (Felix/Zama, White Eagle eastward is close)
The problem is that can't design a good fast playing game. And I won't
even start up my feeling over their Italy series. And their customer response
is truely poor.

>I tend to agree, but this is not true of all of their games.  While
>all of their games are simple and some could be called downright bland
>(like Port Arthur), they sometimes manage to condense rules in a way
>that brings out exactly the right level of detail, as in their Jutland
>or Victory at Midway games (ok, so it's not Flat Top, but there's a
>lot of free space between Flat Top and beer-&-pretzel games).
>
>Has anybody played the Tet '68 game from #18?  If it's anything like the
>recent Miranda games in S&T, it shouldn't be beer-&-pretzels either,
>but I haven't played it yet.

Ironically, I disliked VaM and Jutland, but kind of like Port Arther. I
never could play Tet, since it's a totally solitaire hostile design.

>Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
>University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
>Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: EiA: Solve a problem
Keywords: Empires in Arms
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:14:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.112746.1@milori.ccit.arizona.edu> bob@sclera.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>Time for y'all to display your Empires in Arms wisdom.  1805 scenario,
>we are in April.  France has crushed Austria in one month, so the HRE lost
>2/3 of her corps and Mack was captured.  Before that, war erupted between
>Prussia (me) and Russia over Denmark.  We reached an informal peace after
>Alexander botched an attack from Copenhagen.  Oh, and the Austrians refused
>our summons, so that when France attacked, justice was served 8^|
>
>The evisceration of Austria scared everybody else into forming alliances.
>France refused to ally with Prussia (yikes), so we allied with a rather
>hapless Brit, as did the Russians.  Austria and Turkey allied with France,
>and Spain is being "clever."
>
>Now, I read carefully the talk last month on reasons to dump on England
>early on.  My attempts at convincing our group of this wisdom fell on 
>deaf (and dumb) ears.  This is why Prussia has the Danish fleet counter,
>and is building its own fleet - to be placed at a later date 8^}  OK, we
>are really doing a fleet for the sheer fun of it.  We have a referee who
>is keeping track of where ships are built, in case of overuns.
>
>Napoleon has a stack moving down the Italian boot, and two more sitting in 
>Bavaria.  The Russians are poised on the Prussia/Austria border.  And the
>Germanic horde is currently taking the Duchies.  The Turk has not even
>raised his feudal corps yet, and is bogged down in Egypt due to poor die
>rolling.
>
>* My question: Given the botch job in the game so far, should the Russians
>and Prussians DOW on France now, or wait for them to come for us?  Natch,
>the Brits will fund us, ship us, etc.  Yes, if victorious we intend to 
>keep the French fleet intact at all costs.
>
>bob@sclera.physics.arizona.edu

Where is everybody on the political status chart?  Are you using economic
manipulation?  If so, who is manipulating, and for what?  More specifically,
is France in a decent position in the dominant zone, and can he stay without
having to fight someone else?

-Gary Charbonneau
 charbonn@silver.indiana.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher)
Subject: Re: 3rd Fleet
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 20:24:38 EST

warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) writes:

> Has anyone ever played the game "3rd Fleet", or 2nd or 6th or any of those
> games?

I've soloed through a few Seventh Fleet scenarios a while back.  From 
what I can gather, 7TH FLEET is the best of the lot, although they all 
use a similar system.  I'd recommend getting one only unless you're a
fleet combat fanatic and you intend to build a room around your maps :-)

Michel

C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Private user                   |
Ottawa, Canada                 | member, Christina Amphlett fan club
CANADA                         |
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 06:40:44 EST

cracicot@us.oracle.com writes:

> "If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
>  the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
>  badly it wrecks my position."

Personally, if anyone plays in such a way that I feel obliged to 
become acrimonious, I find some reason to stop playing, like: "I'm
sorry, I don't want to play anymore if you're going to insist on
behaving like that."

That's if what the person is doing is either repetitious or outside
of the appropriate margins of the rules.  If the behaviour is merely
the application of a heretofore unforeseen strategy or tactic, my
irritation is my own problem.  If the behaviour is irritating but not
affecting the play of the game (someone who sneezes constantly or makes
car noises in Monopoly), I try not to let it influence the flow of the
game.

Generally, serious breaches of game etiquette are signs of a disturbed
personality.  The game is not worth playing under those circumstances.

Michel

C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Private user                   |
Ottawa, Canada                 | member, Christina Amphlett fan club
CANADA                         |
From: lipson@dms.agames.com (Pete Lipson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:17:05 GMT
Organization: Atari Games Corporation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

cracicot@us.oracle.com wrote:
: I have a moderately philosophical question for all you net-folk.
: 
: Is it a reasonable game action (in game of your choice) to threaten
: someone as follows, then carry through if they call your bluff:
: 
: "If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
:  the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
:  badly it wrecks my position."
: 
  If the opponent actually carries out such a threat, it pretty much ruins
whatever play balance remains and i would think it would take the fun out
of the rest of that game.  It's a lot like kicking over the board, because
the rest of the players are being involuntarily drawn into a game with
really unpleasant dynamics.
  The only reason to make and then carry out such a threat is to either
just generally piss people off 'cause you're a selfish bastard, or to
impress upon your opponents that in FUTURE games, they need to take such
a threat seriously.  I'd be real unlikely to play with anyone ever again who
was so arbitrary, because there really isn't any counter to such a tactic.
-- 
  /V\
-/@-*\- Peter Lipson <-- lipson@agames.com   or   netcom!dms!lipson
 \_o_/  Milpitas, CA <-- Atari Games
   U
From: gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Civilisation on a Sun or a Mac
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:34:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

Hi, 

Recently I played a game of "Civilisation" on an amiga
and enjoyed it a lot. I was wondering if there was a 
version of the game available for the Sun or Mac platforms?

Cheers

graham

-- 
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Dept Comp Sci, Edinburgh Uni    When fact is fiction and T.V. 
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk                is reality
From: bill@frog.CRDS.COM (auspex1)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Brittania Rules Question
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:28:02 GMT
Organization: Charles River Data Systems

In article <garry-100193144454@archmac-167.arch.su.edu.au> garry@archsci.arch.su.edu.au (Garry Stevens) writes:
>I have a question on Brittania, the game of the conquest of Britain through
>the Middle Ages. Can anyone clarify the raiding rules? It is not clear when
>they have to return to sea to get victory points. The rules vaguely imply
>the very same turn, but provide no clear mechanism for this to happen.

Yes you do have to return to sea.
-- 

bill masek		charles river data systems, inc
(617) 275-4565 (h)	(508) 626-1122 (w)
mit-eddie!frog!bill	eddie.mit.edu!frog!bill
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Re: Looking for Scotland Yard board game for a friend
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:44:05 GMT

In article <rbr.725764513@well.sf.ca.us>, rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney) writes:
> In <1hro0sINN8lv@wintermute.phys.psu.edu> vic@physci.psu.edu (Vic Ricker) writes:
> 
> 
> >I'm looking for the board game "Scotland Yard" for a friend.  Any info
> >on how a copy could be acquired would be greatly appreciated. Please
> >email me at vic@physci.psu.edu
>
> Isn't Ravensburger still distributing this?  They've sold about a zillion
> copies of it.  Ravensburger's US offices are in Morristown, NJ; a quick
> phone call to them should answer this one.

Actually, the company is called International Playthings and, they only 
distribute Ravensburger games here in America.  This is a kind of important
distiction as they only distribute a small number of Ravensburger's total 
line of games.  

Nick Sauer



Newsgroups: rec.games.board