HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@keystone.arch.unsw.edu.au (Graham Hannah)
Subject: Re: Blood Bowl
Reply-To: graham@keystone.arch.unsw.edu.au
Organization: Faculty of Architecture, University of New South Wales
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:33:42 GMT

    --- bits deleted ---
In article 21612@nevada.edu, takashi@nevada.edu (Edward T. Tonai) writes:
>The only serious problem I've run into in Blood Bowl is the length of the
>games...And my group doesn't seem inclined to shorten it any because it
>might upset the strategies of a few of the teams which generally wear
>down the other side (I am one who objects to the shortening of games).
>So we've tried using a limited number of ticks (each side's move is one
>tick), playing until one side scores 3 points, and have thought of 
>making an actual time limit...Or maybe time limits per turn for each
>coach....Ideas?
>
>Edward T. Tonai
>takashi@redrock.nevada.edu
>
Because we have so many teams each, we want the games to be relatively
short-and-sweet, so we play with a ball each and we like you suggested
use 'ticks' ( but we call them MAIMS), and we play to 20 maims. This also
lets us have draws!!!, This adds some interesting plays in the last couple
of plays before the game ends.  1-0 or 2-0 are the most common scores with
occasional variation, we are thinking of making it a touch longer, perhaps
just to 22 would make the three TD games more common.  Because we have got
the two balls out there, it does make it hard for teams like the dwarves who
have to somehow attack and defend across the whole pitch, so we try to even
this kind of thing up with home ground advantages where needed.

cheers,
   Graham.



---
------------------------------------>
 _--_|\     Graham Hannah           graham@cad10.arch.unsw.EDU.AU        :-)
/      \    School of Architecture, University of New South Wales, Australia
\_.--._/<-------------------------------------------------------------------
      v   "or are we just simply spiraling coils of self-replicating DNA" MP
------------------------------------>
          

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Subject: Re: European game rules
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:44:56 GMT

In article <rbr.719009099@well.sf.ca.us>, rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney) writes:
>
>Bazaar II, eh?  What does Bazaar II have that Bazaar doesn't?

Actually, I was hoping that someone out there in net.land could tell
me as well.  I was going to ask this in the notes at the bottom but,
forgot to add it.  My guess was that it was just a bunch of new 
trade value cards (i.e. different than the ten included in the original
game).  So, does anyone know?

Nick Sauer
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Civilization: article in The Gen ARRGH!
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:10:14 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I tend to agree with your assessment of the article, but for a different
reason.  I have never seen a CIVILIZATION or ADVANCED CIVILIZATION game in
which both Asia and Assyria have been chosen.  The normal selection would be
something like:

1. Egypt
2. Babylon
3. Thrace
4. Iberia (or Italy)
5. Africa
6. Crete (or Atlantis)
7. Assyria

and now the 8th player can choose either Illyria or Asia.  I think in
CIVILIZATION you can't play with more than seven players, so the question
never
comes up.  And in ADVANCED CIVILIZATION, surely the eighth player would take
Illyria, which has ample room to build something resembling a civilization.

In other words, this could only arise in a 4-player game, which I think are
rare in any case (I might be wrong).  Then I think the analysis in the
previous
posting applies, but I doubt that 99% of games even get to that point, as if
one player takes Assyria no will take Asia, and vice versa.

On the question of whether anyone at Avalon Hill reads the articles before
they
are published - they do, but they may not know how to play the game.  The
ADVANCED CIVILIZATION Gamer's Guide benefitted (or suffered, for those who
didn't like it) from being edited by the designer of the game.  The same is
true of ULTRA (the ADVANCED THIRD REICH newsletter) and any A3R articles
appearing in the GENERAL (there will be an A3R issue next spring) - but I
suspect this is not all that common.  The fact that an article which appears
to
be flawed in two distinct ways appears in the GENERAL is not all that
uncommon
(some pretty dubious articles on THIRD REICH have appeared over the years).
This isn't a knock on the GENERAL, by the way, as I would think it would be
almost impossible to check every article on every game as thoroughly as one
would like.
From: agrden@lure.latrobe.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: FGA I need assistance
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:26:06 GMT
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University

Sorry about using the bandwidth but ...

If anyone is able to make a local phone call or knows any of the FGA people   
could they please e-mail me.  I am having some problems with FGA (I think)


Kevin
From: rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: European game rules
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:51 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In <1992Oct12.034542.27761@ils.nwu.edu> blum@news.ils.nwu.edu (Daniel Blum) writes:

>I'm still interested in obtaining English rules for European board
>games, especially Die Macher, Extrablatt, and Schocko (sp?).

>In addition, does anyone know if Sid Sackson has had any games
>published in Europe other than Black Monday and Die 1 Million (both
>Hexagames)?  

I have rules for all three of those games, but my email to you bounced.

Sackson has had lots of games published in Europe.  Ravensburger published
Das Erbe von Maloney, which was published in England (I think) as Holiday.
I also think Sackson designed Ravensburger's Metropolis, though I could be
confused about this.  The man's prolific.

Bob Rossney
rbr@well.sf.ca.us
From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Pbem games, EIA (was: EIA Naval Rules)
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:22:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.43JRB6KT
Organization: Information Services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA

mustafa+@CMU.EDU (Mustafa Unlu) writes:
> The other feature would be to number all the areas on the map and have
> the computer print out a list of forces (by country, garrisons
> separate, etc..) by area #. Bland maybe but more feasible (at least to
> my mind).

This is not a problem at all for dedicated players.  We routinely do this on
the Diplomacy judge and I sometimes give orders without ever consulting the
map.

> The way around this is to have a GM, who is in charge of moving all
> the units simultaneously.

This would be very hard to program, but I'm assuming that you want a human
GM and not a computer GM in this particular case.

> 3) No longer they know exactly what is happening in remote parts of
> the world. 

Yeah, that's one of the things that struck me as a little odd in Empires in
Arms.

How in the world can I (sitting in London) instantly figure out the exact
losses of a minor battle in Syria and thus figure out its effects on Turkish
economic planning and also on the probably of winning a future engagement
with Turkish forces somewhere in Africa?

This is very hard to get around on a non-moderated game, I know, but I
always felt that we were missing some vital ingredient to getting into the
"feel" of diplomacy in the 1800's.

Anyway, programming an EIA computer moderator seems very daunting.  I wish I
could play it but I also wish someone else would program it! :-)

--
hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)    :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Unix Geek for Swarthmore College        :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Information Services, Swarthmore, PA, US.       Copyright 1992 by Eiji Hirai.
I don't speak for Swarthmore College.                    All Rights Reserved.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: BTECH - no new group?
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:26:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.102209.1917@gacvx2.gac.edu> phygod72@nic.gac.edu (Phil ) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.091331.21425@netcom.com>  writes:
>} In article <16050@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)  
>writes:
[...]
>
>There is a CFV for rec.games.abstract out there right now.  BattleTech does  
>fall within the group's charter,
 
     _
    /-\bsolutely not!!!  This is specifically the reason that
 the proposed group was renamed rec.games.abstract instead of
 rec.games.strategic.  The group rec.games.abstract is not for
 discussion of "war" games/etc. such as BattleTech.
 
    \_/
     |ou included the charter of rec.games.abstract.  I suggest
 you re-read it yourself.

    ]-[ere are the relevant sections:

>Rationale
>---------
>
>	Abstract Strategic and Tactical games are an acknowledged genre,
>	but there is no obvious group for discussion of this topic.
>	The more popular games (eg chess and go) have their own group,
>	but these are not the correct place to discuss games such as
>	reversi.  As rec.games.board has been accepted as a forum for
>	war- and other commercial board games, discussion of the
>	topics listed below would interrupt the flow of that group.
>
[...]
>
>Charter
>-------
>
>	The newsgroup would be for discussion of abstract games where
>	strategy, tactics and player skill are paramount.  This includes
>	the major category of perfect information, pure-strategy
>	(deterministic) games, i.e. those with no element of chance (e.g.
>	no dice), and where all information is available (unlike card games
>	and Scrabble, for example, where players' hands are hidden).  The
>	games under consideration are characterised by a simple board and
>	pieces, with a small number of rules.  The cliche `a minute to
>	learn, a lifetime to master' is often applied.
>
    |)
    |\egardless, I have already voted YES to the creation of
 rec.games.abstract

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: wyattw@loowit.wr.tek.com (Wyatt Webb;6291592;92-835)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: A&A stuff...
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:01:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: loowit.WYATTW.92Oct14130121
Distribution: rec.games.board
Organization: Tektronix - Instrument Controllers and Software

I've been following the discussion about the imbalances in A&A with some
interest.  I would have to agree with the general consensus.  Can
someone give me a summary of alternate rules or where I can find them?
Have any of the gaming magazines proposed any alternates?  Also, the
latest rulebook I have is the 2nd Edition.  Is there anything newer than
that?

Finally, on a different note...  Does anyone know if MB plans to create
computer versions of A&A or Fortress America?  If not, send me your
thoughts on whether or not you'd be interested in such a beast.  I'd be
very interested in special features and user interface ideas anyone
has...

Thanks!

	-Wyatt Webb
--
=====================================================================
|   wyattw@loowit.wr.tek.com	|  			 	    |
|     Engineers are better	|       "I'm all ears!"		    |
|	   by design		|  		-Ross Perot 	    |
+-------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|       Disclaimer: My opinions were bought at a garage sale	    |
=====================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: scraig@elipse.mentorg.com (Stuart Craig)
Subject: Re: A Quest...
Originator: scraig@elipse
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 17:03:16 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: Battle Armour
Followup-To: rec.games.board


In article <books.16.0@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu>, books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:
> In article <BvrGDp.31o@acsu.buffalo.edu> v055nmvy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David
A Gaidasz) writes:
>>	Does anyone out there in netland know of a hard-hitting, fast moving
>>game of battle armour combat? I'm talking of battle armour ala Starship 
>>Troopers, Bubble Gum Crisis, Body Armor: 2000, Forever War, etc...
>>	BattleTech just doesn't cut it, though the Elementals are coming 
>>fairly close. Living Steel, by Leading Edge, is a little on the slow side, with
>>armour that waddles into battle at a snail's pace, though the armour levels and
>>damage are about right. I haven't really seen any others.

> Have you tried BattleSuit by SJG?  It may not be in print but a friend of
> mine says it was pretty good.

Azhanti High Lightning by GDW was a pretty good system, but it's been out of
print for quite a while.  It may not have the flavor you are looking for -- it
was designed for multi-man battles.  It was basically a drop-in combat system
for the Traveller rpg.

Later,
Stu

-- 
Commander: Fire HEAT!                                              Stuart Craig
Gunner: Sabot up!                                      stuart_craig@mentorg.com
Commander: Fire Sabot, load HEAT!            ...!uunet!mentorg.com!stuart_craig
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: YES, new group! (Was: Re: BTECH - no new group?)
Date: 10 Oct 92 14:07:21 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Good news.  I wonder who sent me the message that said otherwise...
From: rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney)
Subject: Re: European game rules
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:44:59 GMT


Bazaar II, eh?  What does Bazaar II have that Bazaar doesn't?

Bob Rossney
rbr@well.sf.ca.us
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: VITP tournament
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:56:21 GMT

The MIT Strategic Games Society will host a Victory In The Pacific Tournament on
Saturday, October 24, 1992, at 10:30 AM in the second floor of Walker Memorial (MIT
Bldg. 50, next to the tennis courts on Memorial Dr. east of Massachussetts Ave.) 
Free to MIT undergraduates, $1 entry fee for all others.  Please bring a copy of the game.  Prizes provided by the Compleat Strategist.  For
more information or instructions, please email:  mckinney@athena.mit.edu


Remember Pearl Harbor!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: peter@techbook.com (Peter Sarrett)
Subject: The Game Report V1.2 (1 of 7): Introduction
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:09:11 GMT



Greetings.  I got a warm response for the first edition of The Game Report,
so I'm posting issue #2.

For those of you just tuning in, The Game Report is a newsletter of game
reviews.  They are offered with no particular agenda other than spreading the
word about good (or bad) games I've come across.  I'm always interested in
learning about new games, and I like to think other people are interested in
the same.  In that spirit, I offer The Game Report.

Comments welcomed.

===============================================================================
Peter Sarrett          |   "You don't stop playing games when you get old--
peter@techbook.com     |    you get old when you stop playing games."
(503)579-0873          |                                        - O. W. Holmes
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: SFB: Necessity is the mother of invention
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 21:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.123904.1@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com writes:

>I had a chance to play Star Fleet Battles a few years ago. Shortly 
>after I stopped playing, I got an interesting idea that I would like 
>to pass along in case someone wants to try it. I am unlikely to find 
>an opportunity. 
>
>When I played, there was a poor little underpowered Federation Destroyer 
>that couldn't move when it planned to fire all its weapons. After 
>listening to people discuss the merits of Klingon disruptors and other 
>"heavy" weapons and looking at the weapons charts, I concluded that 
>the plain Phaser I weapon was very efficient in terms of converting 
>energy in to damage out and easily in a class with those other 
>weapons.

Most of these problems have been solved in the DoomsDay Rules.

>
>Imagine if you will, one of those poor little Destroyers surviving a 
>battle with it's photon tubes destroyed and reaching a repair facility 
>only to find that a shortage of critical parts means the photon tubes 
>cannot be repaired.  Suppose a very creative weapons officer or 
>engineer replaces the photon tubes with Phasers. We have a unique and 
>interesting little ship ready for a dangerous emergency mission.
>
>In game terms, replace the 4 photon tubes with Phaser Is. Add a 
>legendary weapons officer,if you like, and perhaps knock out some
>hull boxes to simulate necessary compromises for adding the phasers.
>I think this would add a nice touch to some campaign.

Actually, replacing heavy weapons with Phasers has been suggested many
times.  This makes the ship OK as an escort, but doesn't give it the
punch to get through another ships shields.  (For those who wonder about
the OK as an escort, escorts shoot plasmas, fighters, and drones.  They
don't fight big ships.)


>
>Let me know if it's been done.
>-- Don Bailey

It is the most efficient in terms of damage/energy, but not in terms of
damage/turn.

Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: oldham_r@cs.uwa.oz.au (rob oldham)
Subject: SpaceMarine: must have troops
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:04:03 GMT

Some more 'must have' troops:

Chaos:
	Emporors Children Chaos Marines
	- get these guys more their Chaos Marine Card, and
	  watch your opponent cry when you take over his 
	  best troops for one turn !

Squats:
	Colossus
	- unkillable and likely to level anything around
	  them before they get to fire back.
	Guild Bike Company
	- and you thought the Eldar were bad....

A couple of these types of troops have different
usefulness, depending on how you play some of the rules.
We don't let Command Units fire if they have moved
over their advance move (see WD 14x battle report),
so they aren't quite as bad :).

Rob Oldham
Ultramarines
oldham_r@kultarr.cs.uwa.edu.au
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH - no new group?
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:25:19 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I have been informed that the powers that be for usenet vetoed the effort to
split this group, saying the overall volume doesn't justify the procedure.
From: 91vanderkolk@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH: House Rules
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:19:18 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


Since the idea of a home rules book has come up, I though I would post some
of the "home rules" my group plays with and see what the opinions are.
Have at it...
1) All jump movement requires a piloting skill roll, regardless of terrain.
2) SRM streaks all hit in the same location.
3) When spotting for indirect LRM fire the spotter can fire his weapons as
normal and you don't count any of the spotters movement or terrain modifiers.
4) CASE vents an ammo explosion out the rear of the mech without damaging the
internal structure.
5) Gauss Rifles can be CASEd.
6) Initiative alternates.
7) Any SRM or LRM can be loaded with infernos.
8) Clan can use vehicles (this one hurts the most).

John
"You have one leg and you are kicking me. Right......."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: helen@pulua.hcc.Hawaii.Edu (Helen Rapozo)
Subject: List of sets/module for SFB (long)
Originator: helen@pulua
Organization: Honolulu Community College
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:33:45 GMT

List of available modules and sets for the
Captain's Edition of Star Fleet Battles.

Basic Set:
This set contains rules, map, dice, SSDs and 2 counter 
sheets for the
Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn, Tholian and
Orion races.

Advanced Missions:
This set contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for the
Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn, Tholian and
Orion races.

Module C1:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 1 counter sheet for the
Hydran, Lyran and Wyn races.

Module C2:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 1 counter sheet for the
Neo-Tholian, Andromedan and ISC races.

Module J:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 3 counter sheets for
races that operate fighters and carriers.

Module K:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 3 counter sheets for
races that operate Fast Patrol Ships and tenders.

Module R2:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for
the Federation, Kzinti, Orion and Andromedan races.

Module R3:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for
the Klingon, Wyn, Lyran and Hydran races.

Module R4:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for
the Romulan, Gorn, Tholian and ISC races.

Module R5:
This module contain rules, SSDs and 1 counter sheet for
battleships and other heavy ships.

Module S1:
This module contains scenarios and a special map.


Honolulu Community College            cs_rapozo@hccadb.hcc.hawaii.edu
874 Dillingham Blvd.                  helen@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu
Honolulu, HI 96817                    rapozo@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Ph#: (808) 845-9202
From: farrell@hydroplane.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EIA optional rules
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:26:17 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science

In article <Bw5vMx.1DG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>I would suggest using all the optional rules except for the channel crossing
>arrow.  This is the only rule that severely change the balance of play, all the
>rest are merely nifty addtions that make the game much more fun.

	I don't really like the militia conversion option.  Firstly, it
really hurts the Prussians, basically negating their advantage of storing
manpower; and, I feel it gives the major powers too much flexibility.

	The channel crossing arrow shouldn't make much difference to my mind.
We aren't playing with it and I don't think I would reccomend it, but I
don't think it's too big a deal.

>  If you have
>any specific complaints about a particular rule, I could rebut them, but I
>can't think of any reason NOT to use them right now (and my group of gamers is
>really contentuous, if anyone can shoot down a rule, it's these guys :).
>
>A special case : the new naval rules from the general.  These rules are really
>fun, but tend to make life easier for the British.  Consider that using these
>rules, a british blockading fleet can run the guns of most any port, beat the
>snot out of the defenders 90% of the time, win the battle, exchanging roughly
>equal numbers of ships but gaining mega PP.  You might want to consider a house
>rule on this special case, and use a previous poster's numerical superiority
>mods as well if ytou want to use these new rules.

	I thought at first it was "Naval Rules for Anglophiles", but after
having used them extensively I now think it gives France and the other major
powers a chance to get somthing done.  With the ability to run a blockade and
get somthing done in naval combat with Linear Defence, I think it helps
France more than it helps Britain.  Doesn't do a lot for Spain and Russia,
though.

	BTW, running the guns of most real (100-gun) ports involves about 20
(or more!)ship casualties, I believe, more than I've ever seen lost in an 
entire battle!  Somthing the British player shouldn't be getting too excited 
about, even if he does cripple a major fleet.

							Chris


-- 
"If every man says all he can, if every man is true
	Do I believe the sky above, is Caribbean blue ..." - Enya