HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:00:15 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <C0Hvz5.F3A@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, gletty@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Bruce Gletty) writes:
|> The one ploy I hate the most is someone that is losing picking a player
|> at random and trying to throw the game to him. I would much rather the
|> player just quit. I have walked out on games where this has happenned as
|> I saw no reason to play on.
|> -- 
|> This post is mine, and does not necessarily reflect the views of C.C.S.O.

This can happen in Titan in the traditional way and also in a backwards way.
In the traditional way, someone who is losing can throw the game to the enemy
of the person he blames for his losing position.  In a backwards way, I've
seen another scenario.  In this case, one player was well on his way to
losing the game and another player spent considerable effort trapping his
Titan stack to get some points.  Just before he could whack the guy's Titan
stack, however, the guy quit so as not to allow the hunter the points (and
half-points).  The trapping scenario cost the hunter valuable time and
development and he felt he got screwed (probably rightly so).  Players in
losing positions quitting is not always better than those players throwing
the game to someone else or bringing another player down with him.  Often it
can lead to the same result.

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
From: bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu (Benjamin L. Peal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:33:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.EfHEE6W00VB341QUQD
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>"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."

Stop playing with this person.  You've indicated that it's a trend.
Just don't play with him anymore.


- Ben Peal
  blep+@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: watson@clark.edu (Dennis Watson)
Subject: Re: Multi-Player Game Poopers
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA
Distribution: rec.games.board
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:55:50 GMT

I join a group of people every Sat. for multiplayer sessions.  We have just
instituted the "one board-turnover" rule.  Each player is allowed once during
the evening to "flip the board."  This usually occurs early in a game when
one person has had extremely bad luck or has made some fatal mistake!  It has
also resulted in a few sessions when we have used the rule once and are
stuck later in an even worse position.  Usually, the flip comes when
you make a move that the outcome is vital for survival, you have a 90% chance
of success and SNAFU!

We have had nights in which EVERYONE has used there board-flip! But, we have 
fun with it!

We also have instituted a cocked-die rule that leaves no doubt.  If the 
die is on any two surfaces, it is cocked!

Dennis
watson@clark.edu
From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EiA Question: Peace Conditions
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:48:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1993Jan12.194856.3699
Organization: Nerds On Parade

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
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ejeannot@ens-lyon.fr (Emmanuel Jeannot)
Subject: Othello-reversi
Reply-To: ejeannot@ens-lyon.fr
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:49:21 GMT


Is there someone who knows an ftp adress where i can find othello/reversi sources, for unix computers?

					Thanks...

 					 -  /|
   					   o.O`
   					 =(___)=
      					    U
			
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: webber@gbm.ocunix.on.ca ( Andrew or Patti Webber  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Patton's Best Combat Calendar...WHERE THE @#$% IS IT??!!
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 21:47:28 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Games by Mail, Ottawa, Ontario

In article <C0E5Mt.ov@oracle.dseg.ti.com> 
(harry campbell) writes: 

> Then the rules refer to something called the "Combat Calendar."  Have you ever h
> that sinking feeling you get when you've just about solved a 5000 piece jigsaw p
> and you start to realize that one piece is missing, and it goes right in the cen
> of the whole puzzle.  Have you ever had a twinky that didn't have the filling in
> Have you ever driven you car with no oil in the motor?  Basically, the most impo
> thing in the game wasn't there, the "Combat Calendar!"  I think someone may have
> a similar post before.  If anyone has the Combat Calendar, or any information ab
> it (i.e. It was in General # bla), I would really appreciate hearing from you.

I believe it's printed on a blue sheet, at the bottom of a pad of roster sheets.
Anything in the game that sounds like that?

Andrew Webber
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:42:21 GMT

I disagree that this topic has been "done to death", simply because it's the
first I've seen of it.  But it may be that's there's not too much to say
about it.

I don't agree with Dave Casper's view that "anything goes", and that if
that's not acceptable, blame the designer.  In virtually any game a player
can "wreck the game" by going after another player or giving in to him.  In
my view, if a player is so inclined, he shouldn't play, and I wouldn't play
with him.

Naturally I also disagree with Chris Farrell's latest shot at Advanced
Civilization (but I suspect we're playing different games when we talk about
Adv Civ!).  The Civil War rule in Adv Civ (which gives the weakest player
part of someone else's empire) avoids the problems we're discussing here (or
at least is meant to), because even a player with a horrible position is
likely to have it improve a turn or two later.  So he has hope, in contrast
to most other games.

But no design can stop a player from beginning a feud with someone, and
Advanced Civilization is no different.  If someone decided they hate
elephants, they could spend the entire game going after Africa and Africa
would be unlikely to win.  But despite what Chris says, I've never seen it
happen and I've never heard of it happening (other than from him), so I think
we must move in completely different circles.

Another solution, by the way, is to score the results of a number of games,
so that even a player who is losing has an incentive to keep on trying, so he
won't be as far behind in total points.  This will be the subject of an
article in the GENERAL for Advanced Civilization, but it probably would work
for other games as well (provided the same group is playing).  Years ago we
used something like it for Diplomacy.
From: cvadrgct@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:04:25 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvafygkq

In article <1993Jan12.053457.28825@ll.mit.edu>, shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:
> In article <C0psE7.5xJ@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:
> 
>>My approach is:
>>1) Try to win
>>2) If you can't win, try to come second.
>>3) If you can't come second, try to be third
>>...
>>n-1) If all else fails, try not to come last.
>>
>>If in attempting to make (eg) third place, 1st and 2nd being beyond
>>my ability, I end up ensuring that player X comes first, or that Y
>>comes last, why should I care. I try to get the best position I can.
> 
> Problem arise when I must weigh the relative merits of the objectives:
> say I have a secure 2nd place. Should I accept a 5% chance at victory with a
> failure sending me to a hopeless last? (I say yes!) How about 1%? (starting
> to get chancy) Where do I draw the line?
> 

Well, not that anyone cares, but I agree with both these people. I like to win,
and will try the most outragous things to accomplish this - But funny as it may
seem, the most enjoyable games I've ever played have all been ones I've lost,
or nearly lost. I really enjoy hopeless situations, and pride myself in my
ability to do well (not win, but survive, grow, etc) in hopeless positions.
This is probably the reason some of the people I play with drive me nuts.

Often, if someone is loosing, they'll give up and quit (which infuriates me),
or just get themselves killed off (also heats me). Maybe I'm easy, but if
someone I messed up decides to attack me without mercy, that is MUCH better than
the above two examples, even if I loose the game as a result.

Most of the time, I find that a few turns of blind attacks usually sober up the
person enough to realize their situation wasn't hopeless after all, and that
the game can still be fun. I think this is the most important point - that even
if it means updating your 'goals' in the game to be something less that a win,
play games to have fun - no matter what the overall result.

Another interesting thing to do is to play a game as if you were really the
faction/empire/commander in charge. That is, roll play as well as board game.
This will probably mean doing things that are obviously tactically stupid, but
is alot of fun. You'll probably loose against serious war gamers, and may
actually piss them off - But as long as there is a method to your madness, you
may find it contagious.

Kevin Klemmick
(Reduce your stress level during games - drink more beer)
From: dodd@csl.sri.com (Chris Dodd)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Eastfront Tinkering
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:26:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
NNTP-Posting-Host: pekoe.csl.sri.com

stone@gershwin.cs.unc.edu (Donald Stone) writes:
>In a recent game of Eastfront (Columbia Games), it was rudely pointed out to
>me that if German wants to take Leningrad, there's nothing the Russian can do
>about it.  This is particularly true during the opening turns of any scenario
>from Winter 41 through Summer 43 (my rude surprise was in Summer 43).

This is not my experience at all; its almost impossible for the Germans
to take Leningrad (unless less the Russian player foolishly leaves it
ungarrisoned and vulnerable to a surprise German blitz, as I did
once).  It takes a massive attack to inflict even 2 casualties (triple
defense) and it is almost impossible for the Germans to cut Leningrad
out of supply and reduce it that way (They have to circle all the way
around lake Ladoga to cut the rail line off the north board edge).  So
all the Russians need to do is keep at least 3-4 steps there and feed
in reinforcements if the Germans assault.  If the Germans are doing
particularly well in 1941 they might just pull it off, because you
can't spare the troops elsewhere, but with careful Russian play and
blocking units on critical hexes, the Germans won't be able to get
there to attack before winter...

Chris Dodd
dodd@csl.sri.com
From: lazuli@stein.u.washington.edu (Fred Sloniker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Seeking Dragon 125
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:49:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Summary: Me too!  Me too!

In article <1993Jan7.202935.12943@hypnos.bssi.bls.com> frank@hypnos.bssi.bls.com (moo) writes:
>I'm looking to buy a copy of Dragon #125. (Or beg somebody to photocopy
>me the Clay-o-Rama rules from that issue--which is all I really want.)
>
>Reply to vapspay@prism.gatech.edu
>
>I have a dozen cans of play-doh waiting.
>

Clay-o-Rama!  I've got the expansion rules for that, and could reely use the
basic set.  (:3  So could me in too...

				---Fred M. Sloniker, too old for Pla-Dough?
				   L. Lazuli R'kamos, FurryMUCKer
				   lazuli@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: john@psych.toronto.edu (John Rick)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:48:42 GMT

In article <19428@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>
>I don't agree with Dave Casper's view that "anything goes", and that if
>that's not acceptable, blame the designer.  In virtually any game a player
>can "wreck the game" by going after another player or giving in to him.  In
>my view, if a player is so inclined, he shouldn't play, and I wouldn't play
>with him.
>

If one is behind in a game, it is a legitimate tactic to attack the lead player
or anyone else if it has a chance of winning (someone else has already 
mentioned this point).  If a player intentionally throws
the game because he/she sees the situation as hopeless, the player is simply
whining.  As a legitimate tactic, the move is fine.  If your fellow player is
a whiner, you have to ask yourself if you enjoy playing with that type of
person.  The first case is a strategic move within the context of the game,
while the second is the personality of the GAMER intruding into the world of
the game (I realize that Generals have personalities, but has a major army
ever given up just to help another country get ahead? I'd like to hear about it).

>Adv Civ!).  The Civil War rule in Adv Civ (which gives the weakest player
>part of someone else's empire) avoids the problems we're discussing here (or
>at least is meant to), because even a player with a horrible position is
>likely to have it improve a turn or two later.  So he has hope, in contrast
>to most other games.
>
Civ is one of those games that can be 'thrown' by a player in a bad mood. If
you don't like it, don't play with those people.  I can't really think of a
legitimate use for this maneouvre in Civ.  If someone is far ahead, military
action or trade boycotts would seem to be called for (or you can hope that
multiple leaders destroy themselves and leave you in the winning position 8-)
 
I tend to play a fairly peaceful game of Civ (or Adv Civ) - and I don't mind
playing a losing position because I enjoy Civ so much that I like to try to
rebuild my empire after disasters.  In our games, players are rarely if ever
destroyed as a result of military actions and borders are stable.  As such, 
nobody benefits much from civil wars (especially not in the sense of getting
back into the game after being previously eliminated).  I like to play that
the rebelling faction becomes neutral, allowing both the original owner and
adjacent countries equal opportunities to divide the new neutral into pieces
without coming into conflict themselves.

BTW, I also think that the 11-card limit forced people into a limited
card-buying situation. If you bought mysticism, odds were that you had just lost
the game...


-- 
*** "Creation science...is not science because it depends upon a supernatural
*** intervention which is not guided by natural law.  It...is not testable and
*** is not falsifiable." - Justice Wm.R.Overton, U.S. District Court (Arkansas)
  =====>  Email: john@psych.toronto.edu -or- rick@lake.scar.utoronto.ca <=====
From: rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Fire in the East questions
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:47:38 GMT
Organization: CSU, DOMINGUEZ HILLS

>>Q: If a German tank attacks a Russian tank in a swamp, is the modifier for
>>   the dice roll -6 ?   (-2 for swamp and -4 for full anti-tank)
>>
> 	I believe (I don't have the game handy) that a swamp cancels AEC
>     so the AECD would be cancelled as well. (neither tank can use its 
>     maneuverability, so neither get a bonus).

They're both right. Neither side gets AEC but ATEC still applies. Just
because the tank can't maneuver doesn't mean that AT guns don't give
it problems. I think there is an example of this in the rule book.

>>Q: Force A and force B (both movement of 10) are going to link up for an
>>   overrun.  Force A uses 6mp to overrun and Force B (from further away)
>>   uses all 10mp to overrun.  Can Force A continue to move for 4mp ?
>>   Is there no "time coordination" of the overrun ?
>>

If I remember the rules correctly you can do this. Just make sure
which units are out of movement points.

>>Q: Russian bombers plus escorts move to a Russian occupied hex in the Russian
>>   air phase.  They are attacked by German interceptors.  Will surviving 
>>   bombers definitely be there for defense in the next German attack?
>>   Can the German interceptors be re-used as escorts in the German air phase?
>>
> 	I believe that unless allocated for other missions, air units that
>     are not flipped are available every phase. My question is: Why are your
>     bombers so close to the front lines? Non-phasing intercepts are 1/2
>     range, so your bombers should never have been attacked.

I believe that the Soviet aircraft are flying DAS, so that is why
they are being intercepted. Units flying DAS are returned duing the
oppsing(sp) player's air return phase, so they are there for the
German attack phase. Yes, interceptors can be used in the next German
air phase.

>>Q: Does the "fragile divisions" rule mean that Russian 5-6 and 6-6 infantry
>>   divisions can not be built up from cadre or re-built after being 
>>   eliminated ?

Soviet 5-6 and 6-6 nonguard rifle divisons are replaced as 3-6 rifle
divisons and thier cadres can be built back to 3-6 rifle divisons.  

Any more questions e-mail me at rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu

Rod Holmes
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: pwork@afit.af.mil (Paul R. Work)
Subject: 1835: Copy of the original German rules
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:50:49 GMT

Howdy Y'all,

    I'm looking for a copy of the original rules to the game _1835_ that
were written in German.  I can read German fluently, so understanding
them shouldn't be a problem.  A friend has a copy of the game with only
the English translation, and it seems to be woefully lacking in many
areas, so if anyone who bought the game with the German rules (and
can't make heads or tails out of them) wouldn't mind selling that copy
of the rules to me (for a reasonable price) I'd like to hear from you.

    For that matter, I'd also be interested in buying the whole game if
someone is willing to part with it (again for a reasonable price).
Thanks very much,

    -Paul

Paul R Work  aka  "The Studebaker Kid"      pwork@afit.af.mil

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mitton@dave.lkg.dec.com (Dave Mitton)
Subject: Re: 1830:  More track construction
Reply-To: mitton@dave.lkg.dec.com (Dave Mitton)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:38:24 GMT


In article <1ic63oINNu5@news.uni-paderborn.de>, jerry@uni-paderborn.de (Gerald Siek) writes:
From: jerry@uni-paderborn.de (Gerald Siek)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: 1830:  More track construction
Date: 5 Jan 1993 14:31:19 GMT
Reply-To: jerry@uni-paderborn.de

<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

	That's correct.  The Erie really cannot operate routes until
Green tiles are availible.  That would come after the first 3 Train is
purchased, which is not the same as after all 2-trains are sold.

	BTW: Tile #57 is yellow and is not allowed on that Erie O-O hex.  
Only a green O-O tile #59 can be played there initially.

	Dave.
From: randym@triton.unm.edu ()
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Info on _Leopard II_ by Tsukuda/Quarterdeck?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 01:42:47 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu
Keywords: NO, NO, NO!

In article <1993Jan5.182321.26198@progress.com> neil@progress.COM (Neil Galarneau) writes:
>Is anyone familiar with a game called _Leopard II_ by Tsukuda Hobbies (I
>think it was imported by Quarterdeck Games)?
>
>It is a tactical tank game (gee... what a surprise :-)).
>
>I have seen this game in a local game store but don't know if I should risk
>the money.
>
No! Don't waste your money! If you want a good game covering the same
topic, buy _MBT_ by Avalon Hill instead. We have tried several times
(more than we should have) to play _Leopard II_, and it is really bad.
Most of this is due to the overly complex limited intelligence rules
and overall SLOW pace of the game. _MBT_ is vastly superior.

***************************************************************************

Push the button, Frank...                       

***************************************************************************

Randy Moorehead
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico

Email at randym@hal.unm.edu  (internet) or ILL1@UNMB (bitnet)

Naturally my opinions are my own, and not shared by the powers that be.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: Following the rules
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:49:30 GMT

Under a different subject heading ("Dumb moves by game companies", the
following was posted:

"The dumbest move by a game company must therefore be when they claim
that you have to do what the rule book says to be official. Who cares?!
Why not just enjoy yourself?"

What an interesting line of discussion this could be.  While I'm such a
rule-changer that it's led to Advanced Civilization and Advanced Third Reich,
I think players may often wreck a game by discarding rules which seem
unimportant to them (perhaps not in a role-playing-game, but in a simulation
where there are subtle relationships, this can throw the game out of whack).

Having said this, I acknowledge that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
For example, some have opined that the 11-card limit in the old Civilization
is a wonderful and subtle rule which emphasized skill and planning and
balanced the game, whereas I and others felt the limitations on civilization
card purchases were artificial attempts to reduce the effects of other design
flaws.

How much do players fool around with the rules to games?  Does it depend on
the type of game, or whether they trust the designers?  And do I really want
to know?
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Re: Has there been a TITAN issue of "The General"?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:34:01 GMT

In article <ZqXywB2w165w@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca> alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca
(Michel Boucher) writes:
>I doubt there's been an issue devoted specifically to TITAN recently.
>
>C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca

There definitely has (I was looking at it a few weeks ago), but it's 8-9
years old by now, and I don't happen to have it on hand.  It had the Titan
game box picture on the cover; Titan was the featured game for that issue.
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board