HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccmdenis@george.ucdavis.edu (Donald Trump)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Duelmasters: Roll-Up Help
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:04:40 GMT
Organization: Trump Gladiatorial Enterprises

Here's a roll-up I get recently (in an unspecified arena):

ST 16 CN 10 SZ 7 WT 9 WL 10 SP 8 DF 10

I'm seriously considering 17-10-7-15-11-9-15 TP, just because
the hight ST/WT/DF appeal to me, and allows me to take advan-
tage of the defensive bonuses the small SZ gives.

However, this is one of the more interesting roll-ups I've
gotten recently, and I'd like to see what others would do
with this.

Trump
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Another Galaxy Suggestion
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:26:57 GMT

In <16834E605.M22367@mwvm.mitre.org> M22367@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

>Howbout making the increase in technology more expensive the higher you go?
>Right now it's a linear growth - it costs the same to get from TL 1 to TL 2
>as it does to go from TL 7 to TL 8.  Wouldn't it be possible to make this a     e?
>curve?
> 
>Thus:
>Cost   Level
>----   -----
>5000     2
>5100     3
>5250     4
>5450     5
>5700     6
>6000     7
>etcetera ad nauseum...

Observation: when you are at tech level 10, it costs 10 times as much to
double your tech level as it did when you were at tech level 1.
Wherefore the need to make a curve like you suggest?

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Galaxy: Shrinking turn reports
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 14:26:00 GMT

The good news here is that Galaxy v3.0 (code soon to be available) does
allow scrapping of obsolete ships. It also has a much more compact
battle report format.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: hlavaty@aerospace.aero.org (Grisel Gonzalez)
Subject: Re: Duelmasters: Roll-Up Help
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:57:06 GMT

In article <4194@equinox.unr.edu>, kirby@dws005.unr.edu (Stephen Kirby) writes:

> 	How do you figure out the percentiles?.
> 
> 	The 55 par, 40 rip, 25 def, 25 init, and 20, dec?
> 
> 	I realize that they are the ratings in each area, but I wonder how
> to figure them our, and what effect 'learning', 'experience', 'trains',
> and style have on them.

The process is a bit involved and I don't have the time to go into it right 
now (I'm taking a break from work - Sshh! Don't tell anyone! :), but the basic 
process is this: Each stat gives you a certain amount of skills. For example, a
17 wit gives you one each of att, init, dec, def and dec. There are several 
skill/stat charts out there. Boss Rat has one and so does the Neon Necromancer.

First you figure out what the character's bases are from his stats alone 
(they might be 50 att, 40 init, 45 dec, 45 par, 45 def, 60 rip). Then
you add/subtract the appropriate style bonus. For a LU, my research shows the 
following common LU bonuses: 15 att, -10 par, 5 def, 5 rip, 25 init, and
15 dec. If I decide to make this guy a LU, I could expect the following 
bases for him: 65 att, 65 init, 60 dec, 35 par, 50 def, 65 rip. Remember these
are the most *common* values. Actual mileage will vary but my guesses are
usually only one skill off for the most part. Sometimes you end up with higher 
bonuses (for a "lucky" warrior) and  other times you get lower bonus for those
"unlucky" warriors (like my waste with the absolute lowest ratings that we've
ever seen in both parry and defense - kind of makes you wonder why you play
the game when luck or the absence there of can make such a big difference
and you have no control over it what so ever...).

Simple, huh? It is actually. Of course, getting reliable data from which to
compute the style bonuses is the real pain ...

C-ya

Grisel
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Olympia: The heir system, what's the sudden quiet?
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:12:16 GMT

Frits Kuijlman writes
> Well, the discussion about heirs seems to have died down a
> bit, so I`ll try to restart it. 

One reason for that may be that we are all discussing these things on the  
olympia internals mailing list which has had over a hundred posts in the last  
few days.

	Carl Edman
From: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Joshua Duffin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Galaxy and megadeath
Date: 26 Jul 92 03:41:47 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

jerry@uni-paderborn.de (Gerald Siek) writes:
>jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Joshua Duffin) writes:
>
>>but I liked the economic part as well.
>
>That's the point.   Galaxy becomes most exiting when you have about 5000-8000
>production points to spend on variuos tasks.   So IMHO I would really like
>it if the economy could be build up a bit faster and/or would not be destroyed
>by attacks.   Take a look at a typical game (I take Rob's "Circle" as an
>example).   On turn 10, the average industry is about 1200, on turn 15 it's
>1500, on turn 20 it's 2000 and so on.   Of course the increase is exponential
>but I would really prefer a faster progression (an average industry of 2000
>on turn 10, for example).
>

Yeah, I'd like that too.  You may not have heard, but in Galaxy v3.0 (the
latest and greatest) capital production _has_ been sped up, and colonists cost
less, thus providing something similar to your desires.  Now I just can't wait
till everyone gets 3.0...


UUCP: {crash, kksys}!orbit!pnet51!jduffin    | Life is complex.  It's made
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!jduffin@nosc.mil    | up of real and imaginary
INET: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org              | parts.
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Legends:  New Module
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:01:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

The new (NIC) Legends module is supposed to be coming out from Midnight
Games next month.  I was wondering whether there was sufficient interest 
in a good number of players with net access going in together, possibly 
as a faction.

The advantages are fairly obvious:  Sharing information, coordinating
spell lists, Overlords providing heroes with crown and soldiers, Heroes
providing Overlords with good spells and high soldier-training levels,
having enough scouts out to scout the starting region thoroughly and
quickly, etc.  And doing this without spending a fortune on phone calls.

There are disadvantages too, of course, the main one being the loss
of freedom to take things slowly, choose one's allies at leisure, etc.

I know of at least one other group (not on the net) that's planning to
enter the game in a coordinated manner, so doing this would probably
not result in an overwhelming advantage.

What do you think?

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

Roses red and violets blew
  and all the sweetest flowres that in the forrest grew -- Edmund Spenser
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: koziol@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Quincey Koziol)
Subject: Conquest & Destiny?
Summary: Anyone out there?
Organization: Nat'l Center for Supercomputing Applications
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:53:37 GMT

Howdy PBMer's,
	Is anyone out there playing in Dan Canham's "Conquest & Destiny"
in the Sagittarrian Arm?  I'd like to get in touch with as many people
as possible, just to compare notes and comments on the game.
	For those not playing, a quick note of description:  "Conquest &
Destiny" is an open-ended stellar conquest game using e-mail (similar to 
Galaxy, only orders of magnitude larger).  The current galaxy is populated
with over 4 million planets and over 60 players are currently participating
in the game.  The game also has large, powerful NPC races run by the
computer as well.  I've only been playing for about ten turns, so I'm
no expert on the game, but I'm fascinated at the degree of detail and the
amount of growth possible to a single player.  One note though, since
this is one of Dan's ways of financing his way through college, there
is a charge per turn.  It's pretty inexpensive though, my turns have 
averaged about $2.00 each so far.  Turn-around time on each turn is
good also, it takes approx. 2-3 days per turn (i.e. it runs me around
$6 a week).
	If anyone is interested in joining, let me know and I'll get you
in touch with Dan.

	Thanks,
		Quincey Koziol
		koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Olympia Teaching
From: Bill.Viggers@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Bill Viggers)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:45:55 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


In article <1992Jul23.003958.25887@julian.uwo.ca>, jwoolsey@gfx.engga.uwo.ca (John J. Woolsey) writes:
|> Now that the guilds are gone how about we change teaching. First let's surcharge
|> the % bonus that the teacher gives to all students. This means that if the
|> teacher, and the student are the same faction they transfer money to the teaching
|> unit. This is the same as it works currently, but if the teacher, and the
|> student are of different factions the teacher makes money. The student pays the
|> teacher. Now we get complicated. You can teach with no arguements (or teach 0)
|> This makes you teach anyone who is studying something you can teach them. For
|> example if you have a spell caster who uses his magic research, and you can
|> teach a spell he doesn't know you will teach him a spell. He pays you, and life
|> goes on. This allows people in towers to teach, and make money at it
|> automatically rather then relying on the pay command.
|> 

	I suggested a similar change to Rich earlier, basicaly modify teach
	to take an argument <extra cost> which is the extra cost per day
	you pay.

	To prevent abuse, study has an extra argument that is the max_price
	you are willing to pay for tuition.  If there are two teachers in
	the stack, and both can help you, you pick the best one you can afford.
	If they give the same bonus, then you pick the cheapest one.

	There should probably be a maximum number of people you can tutor at
	once (say teaching skill ^ 2?)

Bill.
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: Chris.Brannon@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chris Brannon)
Subject: Cluster
Followup-To: Chris.Brannon@bbs.oit.unc.edu 
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:20:54 GMT

Anyone out there play Cluster?



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: jcho@nmsu.edu (CHO)
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:10:26 GMT

Actually, I have seen several players adapt the mega-freighter design...
In Galaxy Game 1 under Russell Wallace...I saw several large freighters...
but for the most part had no shields...

I've already mentioned this to Russell...but what about transport ships
that can carry small fighters???  That would really revolutionize
the strategy and tactics of the game... 

						JCHO@nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: finn@convex.com (Tom Finn)
Subject: Re: Galaxy being run by NZ fellow?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:28:42 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <92210.190719UD078317@NDSUVM1.BITNET> C. Patrick Simons <UD078317@NDSUVM1.BITNET> writes:
>About a week ago I replied to a game opening by some gent in New Zealand,
>(at least that's where I think he is, from his net address).
>
>Hey, guy, you going to reply to your mail? :)


 The guy is Rob McNeur; He appears to be having mailer problems.  Updates for
 at least one other game he's running are 3 days late.

 (Posted instead of mailed because I'm sure there's a lot of people wondering
 about what's happening.)

 tom

*
"Peace is the name of the ideal we have deduced from the fact that there have
been pauses between wars."	Jerry Pournelle in "The Mercenary"
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Galaxy: Tech improvements
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:56:53 GMT


Why not something like:
Upgrade_Cost_of_Ship = 10 production points *
       (
       Drive * (New_Drive_Tech - Old_Drive_Tech) / New_Drive_Tech +
       Weapons_Qty * Weapon_Size * (New_Weapons_Tech - Old_Weapons_Tech) 
              / New_Weapons_Tech +
       Shield * (New_Shield_Tech - Old_shield_Tech) / New_Shield_Tech +
       Cargo * (New_Cargo_Tech - Old_Cargo_Tech) / New_Cargo_Tech
       )

It would use no resources 'cuz the old units would be scrapped and
"recycled" into the new ships.  That is, old metal would be melted down
and refitted into more efficient gun shapes; old circuitry would be separated
into its components and redesigned, the hull would be ripped apart and
refitted, etc. etc.

The cost relfects the amount of upgrade.  Upgrading ships from tech 1 to 4
will cost 3/4s of the ship cost.  Upgrading ships from tech 2 to 3 would
only cost 1/3rd of the ship cost.  This reflects things like out of date
parts and hull structure.  Generally the most you can salvage from a tech
1/1/1/1 ship if your tech is now 5/5/5/5 would be some of the hull plates
(notably the straight ones), a few engine components which would not be
as nice but would get the job done, the gun barrels (or launch tubes for
missiles), and probably a few power cables from the shield generator.
Since cargo cannisters are "bolted on", to increase from cargo tech 1 to 2
would simply mean bolting a second cargo cannister on each ship (plus
probably a little fiddling with the hull design as well).

Perhaps add in MASS production points to rebuild the hull in the new,
high-tech, sleek, aerodynamic, and sexier design? :)

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: New Galaxy Game Solar starting
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:04:09 GMT


I'm posting this message for Rob McNeur, because he doesn't have
reliable posting access at the moment. Please reply to him
(rob@ccc.govt.nz), NOT to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings Net.World

I intend to start a new game of Galaxy this coming weekend (Game Solar).
2 moves per week, 30-40 players, NO alliance wins this time.
Standard code (version 3.0 hopefully).
First in, first served.
Reply to "Rob@ccc.govt.nz" and quote "Solar Galaxy" in the subject line.
Deadline for entries is Saturday 25th 11:30 pm GMT.

For those of you who haven't come across it before, Galaxy is a game of 
interstellar war for several email players. You are the leader of your race.
You start off by sharing an area of the galaxy with a number of other races
and your objective is to become its sole occupant.
Each race starts off occupying one planet and the other planets are
uninhabited. It is possible to colonize uninhabited planets and conquer
planets inhabited by other races.
You design your ships for colonising, war and defense and expand out into 
the uncharted wastes.
Orders are sent to me as email messages, I check them, process them all 
together twice a week and send the results out to all players.
Scheming, plotting and backstabbing between players is available and 
encouraged.

Rules are available from me if necessary. Also any questions can be passed 
to me for answers.

(This is really a proof of the "Big-Bang theory". As one Galaxy ends, a new 
one begins !)

Rob McNeur
Rob@ccc.govt.nz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: joao@watson.ibm.com (Joao M. Geada)
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:55:02 GMT
Distribution: all
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

This may be totally off the mark as I don't know the game all that well,
but why not make the base cost of a ship (in terms of resources) go
up as the square of size while the volume of the ship goes up as the cube
of size. All cargo space (& everything else) would have to fit inside the
available volume. With this method it is more efficient (production wise)
to build fewer big ships, though other constraints may dictate what you
actually build.

A further though: using this method, you may also want to make the
maximum size of ship that can be built technology dependent.

Joao
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name  : Joao M.C. Geada     Tie-Line: 862-3074           Tel: (914) 945-3074
Email : joao@watson.ibm.com
Post  : Joao Geada, IBM Corp, TJ Watson, PO Box 218, Yorktown, NY 10598, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: rsocia@alberti.cray.com (Rick Socia)
Subject: Olympian work granularity
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:25:19 CDT

In the recent Olympia Times, Rich asked:

Tell me why you need to specify one day granuality on WORK
commands.  Why do players do "WORK 1" when it makes their turn
reports big and ugly?

Someone please correct me, but if you did not specify the number of days
with work, the default was 7 days.

If this understanding is correct, then if I was was uncertain of what day
an event was going to occur, and I did not specify that the idle work 1 day
at a time, the 7 days of work would need to complete before the wait was
executed.

Now if ALL commands in the idle only executed 1 day at a time, then this
would not be a problem.

Comments anyone?

-- 

Rick Socia
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:34:13 GMT

finn@convex.com (Tom Finn) writes:
>load = (cargo * tech) + (cargo * (x + size/100))
>Not perfect, by any means; as cargo size rises the gain is too much.  Any
>other suggestions? >tom

Try load = cargo * tech * (1 + x * size)
x = 0.01 in your case results in cargo from size 1=1.01 to 100=200, etc.
x = 0.005 results in cargo sizes 1=1.005, 200=400, 400=1200, etc.

Personally I don't think cargo should be scaled.  Why?  what's the big
deal about (x 0 0 0 1) designs?  Why should we encourage large freighter
designs?  Is there any gaming value to it?  Does it make the game more
intersting?  Maybe, maybe not.  GM's option.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Another Galaxy Suggestion (Tech non-linear)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:24:14 GMT

I like the idea of non-linear tech growth, but perhaps it should be
much more curved. If you are going to do it at all, do it right. (grin)
Say.....

Tech 1: 5000*1
Tech 2: 5000*2
Tech 3: 5000*3

Or something like that. Thus, to gain tech 3, you'd need to spend 30K
production on research... Maybe this is too steep, but it's more realistic.
We went from from gound-based to airplanes in a short period of time, but
it was a while before we hit jets, and another while before we hit
space. It'll be a massive amount of time before man makes it to another
star system. (grin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: hlavaty@aerospace.aero.org (Grisel Gonzalez)
Subject: Re: Duelmasters: Roll-Up Help
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:25:14 GMT

In article <15391@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ccmdenis@george.ucdavis.edu (Donald Trump) writes:
> 
> ST 16 CN 10 SZ 7 WT 9 WL 10 SP 8 DF 10
> 
> I'm seriously considering 17-10-7-15-11-9-15 TP, just because
> the hight ST/WT/DF appeal to me, and allows me to take advan-
> tage of the defensive bonuses the small SZ gives.
> 
> However, this is one of the more interesting roll-ups I've
> gotten recently, and I'd like to see what others would do
> with this.

Hiya Dennis! Long time no talk. I assume you've been celebrating the end of
the quarter/semester?

When I first saw this rollup, I thought to make it a 16-10-7-13-15-8-15 TP.
I figured a TP would need will more than wit. Well, I checked both of these
versus my charts and your set-up was clearly the winner! So much for my "gut"
feel! :) 

So now that we know the stats, let's look at styles. The TP didn't look
very good. According to my charts, the TP would start with approx a base 30 att, 
55 par, 40 rip, 25 def, 25 init, and 20 dec. I don't know about you but I'm 
not too impressed. Still, I have yet to get a TP to survive long enough to 
know if these are good bases or not. Maybe you know better.

The slasher looked the best. Its bases were 60 att, 10 par, 60 rip, 30 def, 
65 init, and 30 dec. Not a very fast slasher but with the 10 con and the high
riposte and init, I would assume it could take a blow and steal the init away
from other fast styles. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about slashers
either. They seem to die on me faster than the TPs! :( I also don't know 
for sure what the effects of an 11 will are on endurance but I would anticipate
that it would hurt and slashers do burn endurance at a frightening rate. 
Hopefully the 17 strength will offset that somewhat. I would go for the slasher
myself. What ever you do, *don't* make it an AB. I had a similar rollup that I 
was experimenting with and I made it an AB. Yuk! It only got two wit statements. 

I would probably train the wit to 16. I know for sure that there are no attack or
init skills there and I'm willing to bet that there are no skills there at all.
It would help his learning. I have a 15 wit striker that didn't do too well in 
the learn department and I wish I had had the foresight to train his wit a long
time ago. 

C-ya!

Grisel
From: bampton@cs.utk.edu (Howard J. Bampton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:06:17 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

In article <andre.712487643@galaxy> andre@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Andre Verweij) writes:
>I am also wondering what people are transporting. Ofcourse everybody
>transports Colonists and Capital, but who produces Mat on one planet and
>moves it to another. I am currently in a game with the following situation.
>
>Planet A : Size 650 Resource factor 9.7
>Planet B : Size 800 Resource factor 0.67
>Distance between A and B is 0.777
>On this moment I am trying to find out if it is interesting to have the
>Materials produced on Planet A and moved to Planet B. 
>

I haven't seen many players moving MAT around (unless they were the
ones I've been bombing (:-) ). However, I have found it usefull to do
so. In the mid-game, where there are few planets nearby to colonize, I
switched part (10%) of my merchant marine to MAT runs. It is pretty
much up in the air as far as I am concerned. To have enough cargo
ships to make it work on an empire wide scale, is impracticle (or at
least I found it so). On a scale much smaller than that, say between
several pairs of planets, it isn't even going to be noticable. I
believe that I once figured out that, for the Zethrin empire, circa
turn 40 (9 planets, 4800 ind), that running my S=34.15 R=9.98 planet
as a MAT source, and making up the deficit from my homeworld's
stockpile of MAT, would increase ship production by about 10 mass.

In a game where Resources can be < 1, you might get as much as a 5%
increase. I'm in the early stages of such a game, so I don't know how
much a difference it'll make.....

Howard
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm