HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Btech: New technology?
From: <SMM130@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:18:58 EST
Organization: Penn State University

   I don't know about your turret idea.  It works well with four-legged 'Mechs,
such as the Goliath or Scorpion, but I don't think that there's much use for
them on the bipeds.  Wouldn't the head get in the way?
   Also, as to new technology, I am currently working on a story idea that I am
going to convert into an adventure for my players' campaign involving a race
for Cache X, the legendary (note, this is not canon material) research facility
of the Star League.  Here, they have been working on weapons never seen before.
I'm still working out the details, but I have plans for a heat ray cannon which
is used for the sole purpose of capturing enemy mechs with as little collateral
damage as possible, a new set of SRMs which attempt to burrow through the outer
armor of the Mech before exploding.  This provides for the possibility of
Internal Structure damage and critical hits without the long, drawn out process
of peeling away the outer armor.  I'm also planning a Spider LAM (the 'mech was
built by an aerospace company after all) that is faster than any other LAM in
existence.  I'm still trying to work out the details, but the idea came about
because I wanted the Inner Sphere (in MY campaign) to be able to give the Clans
a taste of their own medicine plus some.
From: jcg@tools9.teradata.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: WRG questions
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:46:01 GMT
Reply-To: jcg@tools9.teradata.com ()
Distribution: world
Organization: ATT/NCR Teradata Business Unit
Originator: jcg@tools9

Well, I played my first 4 games of WRG, and, suprise, I was re-examining the
cohesion rules, and I've got some questions ...

May a unit simultaneously _rally_ and recover from shaken by staying still with
a general for a whole bound?

If a unit in combat breaks but does not rout because it has destroyed its
opponents (and ...) is it shaken or just disorganized?

If a unit defeats all its opponents, but in doing so now sees friendly routers,
what happens if it fails a test? two tests? 

If a C-in-C challenges but is refused, his side's units cannot be eager until
they see an enemy unit defeated in combat.  Is this unit by unit, or a single
event?

Successive retirements are prompted only once.  If the unit then marches, does
this march have to be prompted?

Jon.
From: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH: Artillery etc
Date: 13 Nov 1992 03:35:27 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
Reply-To: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz


 As one who likes the use of artillery I've decided to add my 0.02 C-bills
worth :) The exclusive use of artillery as the SOLE battlefield weapon is
a bit like just using whipped cream as the only addition to ice cream.
 Those with the combined-arms approach are correct, but as this is
Battletech with Battlemechs and not Battlevehicles, there should be a
strong emphasis on meks (mechs).
 Long-Toms, Thumpers and Snipers all have flight time to consider. Making
long range bombardment useful only againist static targets. Arrows act
like today's Copperhead artillery round and can target with a successful
TAG "hit". Though the range of the TAG unit does leave it a bit limited
in actual combat. Since you have to "hit" the target on the turn of arrival
of the Arrow! I can see lots of "duds" missing their targets.
 Also have people considered the little rule called "Ground Unit Overruns"
on page 51 of the Battletech Compendium? I think that some people had best
look at this one :) Just use VTOLs and they will die :) I can't see those
Long Toms running away very far. There is also the little matter of
counter-battery fire, a time honoured tradition and very effective use
of artillery.

This has been....
  Tony Taia
    TAIA_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
3035: When the Combine started to field our Charger variants :)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Classic games... (Tactics II)
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:16:10 GMT

I always thought it would be fun to redo Tactics II using "modern
technology".  
				dave
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: Jutland - a classic game
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:37:07 GMT

I think a dreadnought would take a lot of hits, and a battlecruiser less.  As
I recall, I think we once tried Jutland with an incremental movement system
based on speed - also taken from a Star Trek game.

Jutland would make a very good computer game, I think, given that it involves
hidden movement and free movement on a "non-board" (which a computer could
track nicely).  Its big flaw, I think, was that the victory conditions were
quite arbitrary and didn't really give either side a reason to engage in a
major battle (although that never stopped us...)

Those were the days.
From: mclellan@maximillion.mcc.com (David McLellan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Jutland - a classic game
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:07:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: maximill.9NOV199211073484
Organization: MCC Corporate Computing
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <17251@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes...
> 
>Jutland would make a very good computer game, I think, given that it involves
>hidden movement and free movement on a "non-board" (which a computer could
>track nicely).  

SSI did two computer games that cover this period.  Warship covered 
the WWII Pacific theater with Japanese, US, British and Dutch surface 
ships available.  Sorry, no subs, no aircraft.  The other was 
Battlecruiser, I think.  This one covered the Atlantic surface battles 
of both WWI and WWII.  

david
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EIA: Re: Supply limits
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:08:32 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1992Nov3.223119.10083@pei.com> fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:

>...and getting the country you *want* (and are willing to pay extra VPs for)
>is whole point of the affair, is it not?  That was the beauty of the old
>system.  What, in god's name, is the *possible* attraction of the new one?

No the point of the affair is to further even up the victory chances of
the various powers according people's perceptions of the advantages of
being France, Britain, Russia, Austria,.... This system does its very
best to make France go for the highest bid, Britain next, etc. Imagine
the situation of seven mad Turks in the original rules. In these rules
the strategy should be to bid what you think the advantages of each
country are over being Turkey. Thus no matter who gets which power you
should be reasonably happy that everyone has pretty even chances of
winning.
--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: Re: Republic of Rome - Reviews?
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 04:15:18 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <BxArIB.J5v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hoetker@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Glenn Hoetker) writes:
>I'm considering Republic of Rome as a purchase and would like to get
>some opinions.  Do people find it a fun game?  How are the two
>and one person games?  Also, it is rated as "very complex," does that
>come from their being lots of strategic points to keep track of or
>is the playing system itself complex?
>
>Thanks for the input.
>

If you have four or five other people to play with, the game is great, for those
people who like the backstabbing and coalitions of a game like Diplomacy.  It
is a complex system for the beginner, but if you can find experienced players to
watch and learn the game from, you should be able to pick it up quick.  Even if
you don't actively play the game, in fact, it's a good system to look at, since
it's one of those games that gets widespread acceptance, like ASL, Diplomacy,
and Third Reich.

The system is complex mostly because of the amount of player interaction
encouraged by the game.  You can sit there and follow the Turn Charts, but it
is the sheer number of shifting alliances and backstabbing that makes the game
so complex.  I don't find the system as challenging as most, but that's due to
three things:  I'm used to SL and ASL level complexity, so this is no sweat; I
lucked into an experienced group of players when I learned the game a year and
a half ago; and I can scribble game questions at the bottom of my tests when I
hand them in to Dr. Berthold.  :)  Well, okay, I've never done that. Still...

If, however, you are interested in the game as a solitaire or two-player 
exercise, well, don't buy it.  The game is certainly playable solitaire, as 
each of the "neutral" factions have rules governing the way they play printed on
their Aid Cards, but a great deal of the richness of the system is lost when
there's nobody else in the Forum. (I kid you not.  One of the joys of the game
is to stand up in front of the other players and orate away.  Well, okay.  One
of the joys of _our_ games...)

As you can probably tell from my post, you'll enjoy the game more as a party
game, albeit a party game that's the focus of the evening.  If you have taken
the time (or wouldn't mind taking the time) to learn Squad Leader, you can 
handle the complexity of RoR easily, especially with an experienced group. If
you don't have a big group, you may not be as satisfied with the gameplay.

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make outs, not walks!
TONIGHT-In "Ryecatcher", Holden Caulfield foils a plot to turn his old prep
school into a right-wing military acadamy run by Neo-Nazis. 8PM(7PM C/M) Ch. 7
                                                        -The Book of Sequels...
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mclellan@maximillion.mcc.com (David McLellan)
Subject: Re: Scrabble Franklin Mint set & Tournament(was Re: Monopoly DELUXE
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: MCC Corporate Computing
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:32:00 GMT

>The Franklin Mint has also put one of these things out for Scrabble.
>It's not fit for serious play, but to promote it the Franklin Mint is
>giving one away at a tournament they're sponsoring November 21-22, 1992
>in Franklin Center, PA.

So how are they distributing it?  Every other month they send you five 
letters?
:)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: u8901744@cs.uow.edu.au (Daniel Robert Farnan)
Subject: Re: BTECH: What is your need ? ... hmmm?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:20:27 GMT

eda858xsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>Having just finshed reading the COMSTAR sourcebook i can say im just about
>certain that we will be seeing clan wolverine (a.k.a Minnesota Tribe)
>probley from the Combine, FedCom (Davion half) boarder. The question is what is
>next
>	a) COMSTAR vs WORD OF BLAKE
>	b) CLAN vs CLAN
>	c) CLAN vs WOLVERINE
>	d) CLAN vs INNER SPHERE
>	e) CLAN vs WOLVERINE vs INNER SPHERE
>	f) CLAN vs WOLVERINE vs INNER SPHERE vs COMSTAR vs WORD OF BLAKE

>or am i just paranoid in thinking that FASA want more money out of us?

	Nah!


-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Farnan,	InterNet: u8901744@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au
Wollongong Uni

Paranoia is healthy - trust me!           :)
-------------------------------------------------------
From: re@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Roderick Easton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Btech: Omega Rules
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:00:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

It is stated in the Manticore's description that a PPC has a minimum range because
the particle beam is unstable until it has travelled a certain distance.`

TTFN
Rod
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III)
Subject: Re: R.A.H. Started walking tanks?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:20:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.213446.10413@nstn.ns.ca> bbaydar@pcpc-next.ucis.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1d7gpuINN69t@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu  
>(Tim Dunn) writes:

>I've never really thought about it before, but I can't recall having read very 
>much having to do with 'mecha' is SF books until fairly recently. I remember  
>when the first Macross comic came out, and caused quite a stir. But then again,
>Transformers (go-bot's in desguise) were starting to become popular at that  
>time, too.

I remember in 1978, when I met my best friend, he had an extensive
collection of die-cast mechanical robots.  I forget the exact names, but
these were the fore-runners of the "Shogun Warriors" which came out in
the US later.  The transformers are cheap plastic imitations of these
wonderful Japanese toys.

There has been a collection of Japanese animation along these lines for
quite some time, I believe.  I have no details however.

/Roger
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,news.answers
From: phygod72@nic.gac.edu (Phil )
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH:  On artillery
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:43:38 GMT


There have been several suprised readers out there who seem to think that  
arrtillery is not an overpowering force in BattleTech.  Let me be a little more  
specific on just *why* this is:

(I don't have my handy dandy rulebook with me, so some of these actual figures  
may be incorrect.  However, the general argument is still valid):


ARROW IV:  artillery from hell.  When a target is TAGged, they are pretty much  
get screwed.  20 points of damage to his hex, 10 to the surrounding hexes.  

So that doesn't sound like much.  Add an artillery tank:  move 1/2, 100 tons, 4  
Arrow IV systems (and pleny of ammo) or 5 Arrow IV systems (with bare-bones  
ammo).  It then becomes 80/100 points of damage, 40/50 in surrounding hexes.  

Multiply that effect by five, due to five tanks (500 tons)...

As to on-board/off-board, it doesn't matter too much...I'd take the off-board  
since ARROW IV is fired against a mapsheet, and not too many things can move a  
mapsheet per turn (in an attempt to out-run the artillery).  Off board also  
allows me to be safe from other nasties that might want to kill me...

*BIG DEAL* you say...you still have to hit me.

Right, but that is not a problem, as I have mentioned before.

5 ton heilos, moving 30/45, carrying TAG.  Sure, they don't have armour, but I  
don't *need* armour:  it's a +8 to hit them (+5 for fast movement, +3 for  
jumping--heilos are always considered jumping)...I think that might be wrong,  
but no matter...it is +5 if I am...*plus* your movement...I'll take 60 of the  
buggers (at 300 tons)--not committing all of them at once, either.

I can put three of the buggers on the mech that I want to hit (improve my  
chances by three).

What it boils down to is this:  kiss any one mech on the board good-bye per  
turn (smaller mechs will die off more quickly)...

And you think that artillery isn't too powerful?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Tomorrow (or the next day)...AeroSpace, and death strafes from hell!
You still have to get me, which may or may not happen...
From: re@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Roderick Easton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH-Gamer/Player  which are you?
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:48:44 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <10NOV199223485287@zeus.tamu.edu>, elm4252@zeus.tamu.edu (MOORE, ERIC LEE) writes:
> 
> [some stuff deleted]
> 
> 
> it seems that people who play BattleTech in the BattleTech
> universe are going the way of the dinosaurs.  i can remember
> when a 'mech force was just that, a BattleMech force.  lately,
> BattleMechs have been chosen as only about 1/3 the tonnage 
> and less than 1/4 of all the vehicles shown. 
>
   Whilst combined arms may sound dandy and even work well on 
the game board only a small percentage of units use it (Fed-Com
RCT's, Gray Death Legion, pre-Misery Dragoons).  There must be
some reason.  There is: inter-service rivalry.  Unless they are
properly trained two units of different military arms will become
bogged down with command and control problems ( actually I'd like
to see the Command and Control for 60 v fast, one man vtols!),
rivalry (Mechwarriors look down on Tankers and groundpounders,
who don't trust Aerospace pilots, who hate Mechwarriors and 
nobody likes somebody elses officers...) and plain old lack
of experience of this kind of warfare.  It would not work in
"real life".
> 
> am i the last of my kind?  i play campaign Btech.  the motto
> for me is how much material was lost, not how many people
> were killed.  even Kurita fanatics would start running dry
> with the number of spotters and suicidal hover pilots that
> seem to be on battlemap sheets now.
>
   The Kuritan Fanatics (as I ought to know, being a Kuritan fan)
are all Mechwarrior graduates from places like Sun Zhang and 
only some of these are suicidal,  unfortunately they tend to
be the best and most honorable warriors in the DCMS (Yorinaga
Kurita, Tetsuhara and the likes)
> 
> there are always techs and trainies to step in and pilot a 
> mech.  but, there are not always mechs to pilot.  my
> characters personal best juryrigging was 2 engine,
> 2 ppc, and 1 medium laser after a particularly bloody
> guerilla campaign.  yes, it WAS a marauder.  bloody
> hot towards the end.
>
    Ever seen a Clint/Archer hybrid? The clint was legless and
the archer had been mauled whilst in partial cover, so they just
stuck the two halves together...(The warrior called it "Twinkletoes"!)
> 
> [more deleted]
>
> is there ANYONE left who still campaigns and does not use clan?
>
YES.  Have you got a spare AC/20 for my Victor by any chance?  Took
a couple of criticals to the right arm in a slugfest with a Warhammer.
But it did they work though: first two AC/20 hits both to the 'hammer`s
right torso, now that was fun. 
> 					Mok
> 
> a.k.a.  Mjr Kessel
>         CMDR 537th Reinforced Heavy Company
>         CMDR 369th Heavy Company
>         Mercs now employed by Snakes
> 
> 	How can you expect to outwit a maniacal genius on an
> 	empty tummy?   
> 					-Eve
> 					 Mann and Machine

TTFN

Rod
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rleroux1@sol.UVic.CA (Roger Leroux)
Subject: Games that belong on every gamer's shelf...
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Originator: rleroux1@sol.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:25:10 GMT


Inspired by the recent "Classic Games" thread, and aside from the poll
being conducted, I was thinking about the games I have, the games I'm
selling, and I started to think (horrors!) about the kinds of games I have.
And the kinds of games that my friends have. 

This led to an interesting observation that most everyone I know has games
which fit in the following categories, and leads me to the point of my
post: Games that every gamer should have on his bookshelf...

1) Diplomacy - one of the classic boardgames of our time.

2) One of Columbia's block games - these games are too elegant and exciting
(not to mention interesting) not to own at least one of.

3) An eclectic game that covers a period of history you're fond of. (For me
that would include Frederick the Great, and New France 1760).

4) An eclectic or unusual game just because you happen to like it. (Stellar
Conquest, Art of Siege Warfare, High Ground)

5) A fun group game such as Civ/Adv Civ, 1830 (18xx :-) which still
requires some amount on brainpower.

6) A beer&pretzels game (maybe 3-4 of them) like Illuminatti and Ogre.

7) A monster game to satisfy those urges for huge games (I don't have any!)

8) A group cooperative game (like Arkham Horror!).

If you could keep only 10 games on your shelf, what would you pick?

Roger

-- 
Roger Leroux          | "If money can't buy love, why do all dates start 
rleroux1@sol.uvic.ca  |	 at the bank machine?" - Bud Dry tv commercial.
----------------------+ "Everybody lies about sex." Lazarus Long
Be seeing you. DoD#43 | "Six of one, half a dozen of the other." Number 2.
From: re@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Roderick Easton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Btech: Favorite Mechs
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:48:38 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

Are you joking!  Have you seen the number of ARCHER variants or even Wasp variants?

TTFN
Rod
From: rfvhout@cs.vu.nl (Houten van RF)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH: two questions on targetting and leg destruction, and a design
Keywords: multiple targets, leg destruction
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:52:07 GMT
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam

First, a request. Can anyone with a PC send me copies of public
domain Mech games like mech101.zip? When I try to load anything above
400 K, I get timed out by my own system.

The design below has as main weaponry 12 LRM-5 and can be used as
support for lance partners with weapons like Gauss rifles to
capitalize on heavy damage by causing criticals. It does the same
job as cluster ammo, only at longer ranges and with more damage.
It can also be used to lay large minefields, or smaller ones which
cause more damage.
My first question: if you target hexes iso Mechs, do you still
get the +1 penalty for targetting when you target multiple hexes?
I haven't been able to find an answer, but I feel that targetting
an immobile hex shouldn't give you a penalty.

My second question deals with a totally different issue. Ever
since I've controlled a mercenary batallion, I started to hunt
for legs, not heads to increase the salvage value of Mechs.
So against a Clan unit a marauder with TSM can kick a Loki
leg cleanly away. 
But my question is: if after loosing a leg a Mech automatically
falls, and if a legless Mech has 1 MP, and getting up costs
2 MP, how does he get up? You can't run with one leg, and even if
a Mech has jumpjets, I doubt he could use them lying down.

				With Regards,

				RFVHOUT
<rfvhout@cs.vu.nl>

PS The name comes from the goddess, not the princess

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Type:PLC-DIN Diana
Tonnage:                 75 tons                     75      51
Internal Structure:      (Endo Steel)          7.5->  4      14
Engine:                  XL 300                       9.5     6
  walking MP:            4
  running MP:            6
  jumping MP:            0

Total Heat Sinks:        13 (double)                  3       3
Gyro:                                                 3       0
Cockpit:                                              3       0
Armor Factor             262                         14.5     0
                    Internal             Armor
                    Structure            Value
Head:                  3                   9
Center Torso:         29               29/28
Rt/Lt Torso:          19               20/18
Rt/Lt Arm:            15                  30
Rt/Lt Leg             19                  30

Triple Strength Myomer                                0       6

Weapons and Ammo    Location            Critical
ER PPC                 RT                  3          7       3
LRM-5                RA(6)                 1         12       6
LRM-5                LA(6)                 1         12       6
ammo*120               LT                             5       5
ammo*48                RT                             2       2
heat sink              LT                                      
-----------------------------------------------------------------