HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bjm@rommel.UUCP (Brad McMahon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Ad Civ....Short Games?
Distribution: world
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:22:12 +1030
Organization: Private

In article <71100@cup.portal.com> DukeJ@cup.portal.com (Chris - Janus) writes:
>  While reading the "bad games-reasons" discussion I was struck with an Idea
>for playing a quasi-variant of  Advanced Civilization......short games.
>  You have to admit ...Advanced Civ is a long game. Most of my groups games 
>end prematurely as someone has to leave, etc.

     No, I don't believe Advanced Civ (AC) is a long game, it doesn't take any
longer than normal Civ. I find with six or seven players we can get a game over
in a days play (about six or so hours I guess), not long at all really,
after all we are condensing several thousand years into a turn!!


> Have any of you Advanced Civ 
>players out there ever set out DELIBERATELY to finish the game early, perhaps
>halfway across the AST, or some other arbitrary point?

If someone has to leave, we leave their pieces on the board as a neutral
country to conquor. Admittedly this places some countries at an advantage.

>   I was wondering if something like this might radically change countries'
>strategies (my feeling is it must), and thus make  Ad Civ into, essentially,
>myriads of  sub-games, each requiring different playing strategies DEPENDING
>ON WHERE YOU HAD DECIDED TO END THE GAME!

Try playing to a time limit - say three hours... speeds up the game no end :-)


--
********************************************************
* Brad McMahon               - bjm@rommel.UUCP         *
*                      my own node soon!               *
* "There's just a fine line between stupid and clever" *
*                                   -Spinal Tap        *  
********************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:48:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.100238.25391@sol.UVic.CA> rhorner@ugly.UVic.CA (Roger  Horner) writes:
>How is CW?  I bought it used about 7 years ago and haven't had a chance to play
>it (I bought SL at the same time and played it about 6 times before I left for
>University).  I don't have any time for the next four months, but after I
>graduate in May I can see myself getting back into gaming.

I put it at or near the top of my personal "top ten" list.  There are a few
things I don't like.  However, the system is robust enough that, by tinkering
with a few rules, I have been able to fine-tune it to my own satisfaction.
A real gem.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Subject: Re: Outpost first impressions and questions
Organization: Information Services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:12:48 GMT

dave@pce2.fu.hac.com (Dave Fandel) writes:
:Does this mean double your base of 5?

At Swarthmore, we ruled that each Robot card will increase your human
maximum one time over.  So if your human max is 8, then one Robot card will
increase it to 16 and another will increase it to 24.

:I personally would have preferred higher 
:quality cards (including at least 36 ore min) and replacing the solid
:board with a paper layout mat.

Yes, an increase in the number of low value cards (and maybe decreasing the
number of all those useuless moon ore cards) would be useful.

What I'd really liked is a place for each player to place their factory
markers on.  We always have to scramble around and get some books or pieces
of paper to lay out our factories on - some uniform mat would be wonderful.

--
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: zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert)
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question(s)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:22:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.172639.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes:
> RE:  Entering reinforcements in an overrun theater.
> I couldn't find any help here from the rules;  time for a house rule, unless
> someone else can find/interpolate the proper meaning for this.  I'd have to
> guess you've forfeited any reinforcements from a theater that has no supplied
> VP cities left:  get real, who'd enlist in an area overrun with Yankees?
Thanks.  We ultimately decided on this for a house rule.  The implementation
is that when you spend a DRD to "enter" the reinforcement, it just disappears.
This allows for the possibility that some city will get back into supply.

> RE:  General FAQ about VG's CW game:
In the hopes of stimulating more discussion on this game, I agree with what
you said.  The pulse system makes for interesting swings of momentum (I came
within 1 die roll of taking DC!).  The low DRD pulses provide lulls where you
can see stuff building, but can't do anything about it.  What I like is that
you are constantly faced with choices, which do have long term consequences.
This can be especially interesting if you pick different theaters as your
primaries.  You can see some dramatic turnarounds.

I do think that the optional Lyon/Jackson rule isn't a good one.  Giving
the north 3 army commanders with an initiative of 2 allows them to grind
the south into dust.  Likewise, I think the unlimited army size favors the
north since the north has manpower to burn and the south is hard pressed
to bring armies up to full historical strength.

I'll have to check out the Clash of Arms game.  For those with an interest
in the Civil War, but at a different level, let me put in a plug for the
Great Battles of the American Civil War (GBACW) series that Richard Berg
did.  With the turn continuation stuff that was in the last games produced,
he caught a lot of the flavor that's in TCW where you can't count on doing
everything you want to.
	Steve Albert
	ssa@usl.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: VG's Civil War: Rules modifications
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:50:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.195353.14826@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <BzEqu6.557@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>>Briefly, and with a few minor points left out:
>>
>>1. The number of SP's that can be moved/commanded by an infantry
>>leader is one greater than the leader's number of stars.  In other
>>words, 1, 2, 3, and 4-star leaders can move/command 2, 3, 4, and 5
>>SP's, respectively.
>>
>>2. In order to use all of the strength points in an army, the army
>>must contain enough leaders (within the limits set in (1) above) to
>>command them all.  Excess strength points are ignored for combat
>>purposes, although they may still move with the army.  Example: The
>>Army of the Potomac contains 25 strength points.  It is accompanied
>>by two 3-star leaders (one of whom is the army commander), a 2-star
>>leader, and a 1-star cav leader.  Only 12 of the 25 strength points
>>are counted when determining combat odds.
>
>Is this really accurate, though? While it's been a while since I've
>checked TCW, do they actually have all the historical corps commanders?
>I realize that they have most of them, but I don't remember a Reno
>counter, in particular. i.e., early way corps commanders for the
>Union are well represented but not the 1864-5 crop.

We have added a few more leaders as well.  It's not true that the
Union early war commanders are well-represented; none of McClellan's
corps commanders from the Peninsula are there.

I don't think it is either necessary or desirable to include every
leader who did or could have commanded a corps.  After all, either
side might have run out of men, but they could mint as many corps
commanders as they needed.  The trick is to provide the proper number
and mix of leader counters to make the management of a side's leadership
assets as interesting or challenging as possible.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu


  



Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:27:00 -0500 
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
 <sf_Euk600VB=Q4z0VC@andrew.cmu.edu><1992Dec12.223920.1@vax.sonoma.edu> <cf=5Gku00VB=8=8Uwy@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Dec14.040302.1@vax.sonoma.edu>


>AFTER you do your plan, I will then rebutt with apan's, and we shall see how
>you survive a full round or two, with every country playing.
>(we will play a game, but not with dice, but with probabilities)
Just curious, what types of probabilities to you intend to use.  I've
heard a *lot* of different systems mentioned by people on the net.
Also, will it use the "dice of joe"?  :-)

>Does this sound acceptable?  I would like to show you whait looks like
>after one round(the state of the world).
Should be interesting...

	joe

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:19:36 -0500 
From: "Timothy C. Worsley" <tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Other dirty Titan tricks (was Re: TITAN: some simple questions)
Distribution: usa

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 11-Dec-92 Other dirty Titan
tricks (w.. Richard Cripe@cunixb.cc. (893)

> A friend of mine was once reduced to one stack.  Since he was forced to fight 
> a battle, everyone knew exactly what was in his stack.  After this, he 
> looked at EVERY stack on the board.  This was because the rules read something
> like "if a player looks or reveals another player's stack, the latter player
> may pick one of the first player's stack to look at." It's not exact, but
> that's the gist.  But of course, everyone already knew what he had so he didn't
> lose anything.  Some of us were pissed, but we let him get away with it that 
> time.  It is officially considered bad etiquette to do this around our gaming
> club now.  Looking back, it was really funny--once.   :-)


	I would considder this outright cheating.  The rules are for
acidentally looking at a stack, which happens from time to time.  I feel
the same way about the player who rolls too many dice in order to ensure
a low roll.  We've had players who try this sort of thing here in the
past.  We stop playing with them.  

ZZnew guy
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Gaming cons
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:01:32 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <Bz8Bpp.JtA@cs.columbia.edu> ethan@cs.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>	Hi all. I'm interested in gaming conventions. I know
>people who are familiar with the SF Con circuit, but, as someone
>who likes games such as Civ and Dip, I would like to attend a con
>with more-or-less continual gaming possiblities.

>	Unfortunately I don't know names, times or places. I'm in
>NYC, and can have a reasonable budget (having a student Amex does
>nice things to airplane fares 8) but I can't spend a ton.

Well, this is about as far as possible from N'yuk, but
Strategicon/Decision Games runs three gaming cons over the year at
LAX, ORC Con over President's Day weekend, Gamex over Memorial Day
weekend, and Gateway over Labor Day weekend.  I don't know if this is
standard, but LA Origins was run in conjunction with one of these in
the past.

Anyone have more info on LA Origins?

Agitator
  #->

Rebuild for the Future:  Dornan/Matalin--Attack Team '96!!  GOP and Proud
Chris Cox for Governor '94, Dana Rohrabacher for Senate '94 //    of It!!
------------ R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G --------------//------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?     \\ //  Only AMIGA!
================================ Bring Back the Caltech \X/ Cannon!! ====
Roderick Lee, HMC '91    "The Professional Agitator"    agitator@ucsd.edu
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:34:01 -0500 
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A&A world at war expasnsion-Japan 1st move


larryn@col.hp.com (Larry Neal) writes:
> Only TWO infantry may be designated as banzii in a turn the rest
> attack as they would normally.
Are you sure about this?  We were fairly sure that it said all
infantry in the attack got the bonus on the first round...
> 
> After playing your senario the best I was able to do
> was get 6i in western US. The US then counter attacks
> with 1inf, 1arm, 1bom, 1fighter, and 1AA. Even if this
> fails next turn the US has 4 new inf 1inf from panama
> and 1 inf from alaska for a total of 6, plus spend your
> 1 extra IPC for one upgrade to mech inf., also britain moves
> 1inf from canada and sends the brit fighter over. you now
> face 6 twos, 1 three, and a four.
But Britain is *not* brought into the war by hostile action against
the US.  US is brought in by action against Britain, but the reverse
is not true.  

>   Hmmm.... still, given the victory conditions as Japan
>   I might still go for it.
It is by far the best chance of winning.  The allies would win easily
if the US didn't exist...

> unit would it be a declaration of war against the UK? 
> If not then the US will most likely fall by turn 4
> and the rest of this post is useless.
Britain isn't in the war, if they put units in the square that is
being attacked (I believe) they leave after the battle is over and do
not participate. 

	joe
From: zebr360@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Jerry Heyman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Trivial Pursuit Announcement
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:42:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

This is a posting for a friend without USENET access.  If you have any
questions or comments, please send them to the address listed below

jerry

                       Trivial Pursuit (R)
                      All-American Edition
                      Question Solicitation


     Here's your chance to become a part of trivia history.   For
the  last  10  years  you've  played "Trivial Pursuit" - the game
responsible for creating the adult  board  game  category.   Now,
Parker  Brothers challenges YOU to help create the newest version
of the game -

        The 1993 All-American Edition of Trivial Pursuit

Send in your favorite trivia question  and  answer,  and  reserve
your  place  in game board history.  Questions must relate to the
USA and all entries must be received by  JANUARY  15,  1993.   If
your  question  and  answer are selected, YOU will be notified by
MAY 31, 1993.  Send your entries to:

                         Trivial Pursuit
                       855 Boylston Street
                            7th Floor
                        Boston, MA  02116

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rob@amstel.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: SFB: Frax
Keywords: sfb
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:13:15 GMT

In article <RNLiVB4w165w@swob.nullnet.fi> maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko
Kurki-Suonio) writes: 
>rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
>Well if the ranges are that lousy compared to speed capabilities, I'd go
>for bow weaponry too, maybe some aft weaponry for those close passes and
>flying over the opponent.

That's pretty much the pattern.  Heavy weapons are all bow, and then some of
the phasers can fire aft.  The exceptions are drones (omnidirecitonal) and
most plasma boats (they mostly have arcs that go from 60 degrees off the one
bow to 120 degrees off the other, or even Left side/Right side arrangements.)

>However, one wonders why wet navy ships didn't have all their weapons up
>front. It wasn't easy (balancing those megaton turrets is not a trivial
>task) but they had done it. Battleship Nelson &Co. for example had their
>main turrets all in the front. The middle one did get in the way of the
>back one though, so their best arcs were somewhat Klingonesque, I think
>(heavies to front obliques).

That's the typical Klingon.  What's going on here?  Everyone knows the
Klingons are supposed to be the Soviets, not the Brits!  :-)

>Maybe warships are simply too expensive to risk using a one-sided
>design. If you're fighting against multiple ships for example, it would
>be very hard to keep one of them away from a particular arc - so heavies
>have arcs to all directions, at least some of them.

Yes.  This is why SFB ships can either fire at least some phasers in any
direction from the start, or were refitted that way.  The theory in SFB fleet
fights is that the smaller ships are supposed to keep everybody off the big
guy's backsides.

>SFB ships seem to be suited for classical fighter plane tactics better
>than classical navy tactics. And given their weapon ranges and speed,
>wide arcs are a nice bonus, but you're going to need heavies up front.

Yup.

SR
---

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: pca8c@Virginia.EDU ("Phil Abel")
Subject: Re: A&A: Why does America fight Germany?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:41:23 GMT

I talked briefly about my Karelia strategy in another message
somewhere, but will elaborate here...

TURN1:
As per your games, the Soviets take E. Europe and then put
everything in Karelia save for an infantry in Caucasus. 
Germany's first turn is to take E. Europe back (no problem).
ALSO:
Germany can attack Caucasus with units in Ukraine (I will
leave one infantry in Ukraine behind) and possibly commit
a fighter to help. On this turn I buy all armour.

TURN2:
The Soviet dilemma is now clear. German forces are threatening
the empty capital. They must counterattack Caucasus. Moreover,
since all their armour were forced to remain in E. Europe for
certain death, they now only have a couple fighters with which
to do the dirty work in an attack. Therefore, they will have to
commit a substantial number of infantry (4 or 5?) to ensure
they get the job done. Moreover, they may also get greedy and
attack the sole infantry in Ukraine. There's a couple more
infantry. Bottom line: Soviets must commit precious forces from
Karelia.

Now, there are still a load of men in Karelia, and a fighter or
two (depending on what they do with the fighter in Asia) but
I have found that if Germany commits EVERYTHING against it, there
is a fine chance of surviving with a fair number of armour.

From here I am uncertain what to do... I'm still experimenting
with what Germany should buy on its second turn, and the avenue
it should take the following turns. The best option is to try
to wipe out the now pathetically weak soviets, but is
compromised by the impending invasion from the west.

Basically, the soviets now need outside help to throw off the
German juggernaut. The brits/US can help out by possibly
landing fighter(s) in Karelia, but the combat there usually
only lasts a few turns, lessening the overall effect of their
presence (and we hope the allies will be greedy and save their
aircraft).

Variant: If you feel lucky... Instead of transporting armor to
Africa, use a fighter, and use transport to move Southern
European AA gun into Caucasus. The soviets now may lose one or
both of their fighters, causing them to commit more infantry
there. The result: Karelia even weaker! tee hee...

This certainly isn't a sure thing, and calling it a big risk is
an understatement. There may be an obvious counteraction to
this that I have overlooked as well. But the way I figure, might
as well try an all or nothing gamble instead of waiting for slow
and certain death... 
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: VGs Civil War question(s)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:35:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.182230.14187@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> zippy@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (steven.s.albert) writes:

>> RE:  General FAQ about VG's CW game:
>In the hopes of stimulating more discussion on this game, I agree with what
>you said.  The pulse system makes for interesting swings of momentum (I came
>within 1 die roll of taking DC!).  The low DRD pulses provide lulls where you
>can see stuff building, but can't do anything about it.  What I like is that
>you are constantly faced with choices, which do have long term consequences.
>This can be especially interesting if you pick different theaters as your
>primaries.  You can see some dramatic turnarounds.

Yep, really neat.

>I do think that the optional Lyon/Jackson rule isn't a good one.  Giving
>the north 3 army commanders with an initiative of 2 allows them to grind
>the south into dust.  Likewise, I think the unlimited army size favors the
>north since the north has manpower to burn and the south is hard pressed
>to bring armies up to full historical strength.

I concur with the first statement.  We have stopped playing with the
optional Lyon/Jackson rule.  With regard to the second statement, in
our games, BOTH sides tend to build up their armies to max strength.
I suspect differences in styles of play here.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: DukeJ@cup.portal.com (Chris - Janus)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Warhammer Miniatures for sale?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 20:07:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

     A friend of mine is starting to get into Warhammer and I told him I thoug
I I had seen someone selling some Miniatures for this game on rec.games.board.
So, if anyone has rules, miniatures, or anything else my friend might be
interseted in, please e-mail me a list of what you want to sell. Thanks.

DukeJ@cup.portal.com
From: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Titan rules addenda/errata
Date: 15 Dec 1992 00:39:36 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.46
Originator: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1806@idacrd.UUCP>, by desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins):
] Bruno Wolff III <bruno@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
]> Titan Rule Changes & Clarifications (11/26/91)
] 
]> Rules Change/Clarification, 20.3: During Battleboard play
]> when a player rolls more dice accidently (or on purpose) for
]> a strike or rangestrike the opposing player in the Battle
]> may choose to not have the penalty (of 20.3) apply.
] 
] I hate to quibble, but this still isn't clear.  There are three possible
] choices the opposing player could make:
] 
I don't know for sure what the offical interpretation is. My guess is that
you can either accept the result rolled (with too many dice) or make them
roll again with the correct number, with the result being the the lesser
number of hits in the two rolls.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board