HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v077mdph@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (John of Gaunt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Re: Axis & Allies: Germany's only chance!
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:50:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9770104@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, dlc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dennis Clark) writes...
>In rec.games.board, cchiang@sdcc13.FC.HP.COM writes:
> 
>> >	I agree.  I love playing Japan.  I finally discovered the tactic of
>> >attacking Hawaii with my entire fleet (maybe minus one battleship) and air
>> >							Pete
>> >						morzinpl@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
>> 
>> 	Why??  Jap fleet is more useful afloat than sunk and the
>> Yank Pacific fleet is of no consequence in Pacific.  Save the Jap
>> fleet to on-shore bombard the coast and destroy the Brit factory in
>> India if there is one.  If the Yank fleet chases the Jap fleet, Yank
>> loses big time.
>> 
>> 					- The TaZ
> 
>  Because if you don't force the USA to spend money on that Pacific fleet it
>leaves them with more money to pour into supporting the Brits and Russians in
>the Western theater.  Do you think that the Germans want an American bomber
>appearing in Britain every turn?

	Precisely!  Germany's only chance lies in what happens on the other side
of the world.  Germany can't take Britain under most circumstances, and attac-
king the US directly is usually fruitless.  They have to go after Russia.  
Without a lot of luck, they won't take Russia without the Japanese putting
pressure on Russia in the east.  To put pressure on Russia from the east, Japan
has to take India, Sinkiang, and China, leaving Manchuria to Russia temporarily.
Then, the Japanese watch while the Nazis march over all of Asia, aside from the
Chinese territories and India.  Then, the Germans use their new-found wealth to
win the game!

>DLC

Snoopy
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Empires of the Middle Ages
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:16:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr8.065339.1910@cs.aukuni.ac.nz>, kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Kemp Ashby) writes...
>I hear that TSR now owns the rights to this old SPI game. Does anyone know if
>they have any plans to re-release it?

TSR has had the rights for almost a decade, I believe, and hasn't reissued it
yet.  Appalling considering some of the old SPI titles they _have_ reissued.

>If not, does anyone have a copy they wish to part with?

Sorry, but I just shelled out $60 for my copy at an auction a year ago.  Unless
you're prepared to pay enough for me to retire on, I can't help you.

By the way, anybody have an errata sheet they'd be willing to post??

Dave Casper
CERN - Geneva
casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
From: michaele@nsg.nsg.com.au (Michael Edwards)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Space Marine (new ed.)
Summary: Differences?
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:56:16 GMT
Organization: Network Solutions Group / GEC Alsthom, Sydney

In article <1992Apr13.144557.406@nic.unh.edu> nfs410c@kepler.unh.edu 
(Neil F Sorenson) writes:
>
> Has anyone else bought a copy of the new edition of Space Marine?
> I have both versions and for the first time in a long list of entertaining
> Games Workshop games, I was disappointed and a bit 'torqued' off...
> The new version of the rules are a terrible watering down of a set of rules
> that were not that overly complicated to begin with... are they going to 
> continue to scale down the play age of every new release? 

What are the differences in the two versions?  I bought the first edition
but tend not to play it much.  The new additions interested me but I wasn't
sure whether they were usable with the old edition.

At present I prefer Mighty Empires with additional house rules - presently 
for sea travel and capture of capital cities, with temples (and chaos 
hordes) in progress!  We play this game as a game by itself, not to generate
tabletop battles, so the game requires a number of additions.

Michael

--
Michael J. Edwards                               Network Solutions Australia
michaele@nsg.nsg.com.au                          328 High Street
Phone: 61 2 415 0500                             Chatswood NSW 2067
Fax:   61 2 417 8635                             Australia
From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Republic of Rome erratum from The General (vol. 27, no. 4)
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:15:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr8.211522.10506
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

In article <BAS.92Apr8111907@carlo.phys.uva.nl> bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) writes:
>>>>>> On 7 Apr 92 20:41:22 GMT, thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) said:
>dht>Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.0-3 14/03/90 VAX/VMS V5.4; site news.sara.nl
>
>dht>There aren't that many inactive wars in the deck, and I've never noticed
>dht>the Senate eager to ignore existing wars.  I think the rule as published
>dht>is good, and that's how I want to play.
>
>I have noticed the Senate eager to ignore existing wars. You should
>take a look at the Series Replay in the General, issue 27-4.
>
I suppose so.  On the other hand, my group has finished four out of
the five campaign games we've played in under three hours each.  I think
the Early Republic is nasty enough to destroy Rome in many games with
intelligent and cooperative players, and a Senate that doesn't stomp on
wars *fast* is a Senate that takes its orders from Carthage or Pella by
the end of the game.

DHT
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ndj20710@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nathan D. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Game Collapse
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:39:31 GMT

Red Empire jumps to mind right off.
can't think of any other games of belligerent cooperation at the moment, though.
From: CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu (Carl Fago)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Tactical Question - answer
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:40:40 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <11421@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
says:

>I can clarify my doubts about this question in ADVANCED THIRD REICH terms:
etc...

See, this was my point of contention, that one must think more globally and
not in terms of a specific game.

I have seen my share of wargame players and I would class them in two broad
categories...

1)  The Simulist (a new word?)

This guy enjoys the wargames as a simulation of historical events or examining
possible ahistorical situations.  The mechanics of the specific game are less
important than the end result of measuring the game strategies and tactics
against the Real World (tm).

2) The Gamer

This guy likes to play games.  How the game tactics compares to the Real World
is of secondary importance if not outright irrelevant.  This is also the group
into which belong the ones who look for and exploit every rules nuance to the
game advantage even though it might not have any forseeable counterpart in the
Real World.

With respect to the question at hand, I believe it does have an answer if seen
from the aspect of the Simulist.  But, as Bruce has pointed out, it does not
have a specific answer from the point of view of the Gamer.

I would like to hear from the original poster as to whether some or none of
his question has been answered.

 *-=Carl=-*  INTERNET - cdf1@psuvm.psu.edu    | Be wary of strong drink.     |
             DELPHI - WULFGAR  GEnie - C.FAGO1| It can make you shoot at tax |
 Carl Fago   State College, PA                | collectors -- and miss!      |
From: gt7219a@prism.gatech.EDU (Christopher Michael Lawyer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:39:46 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

>The rules say the placement of new units in a factory(which you build) are 
>linited to the number on the country. The U.S.'s China areas are "2"'s, so
>you may only place 2 new units in each one in one turn. India is a "3", so
>the U.K. may place 3 new units there.

This rule was added in 2nd edition A&A.  In the origional rules (I
am told by mysterious sources 8)) a new factory could have
unlimited production.  This could be the reason that the production
rule isn't remembered.
Just trying to be helpful
From: neil@progress.COM (Neil Galarneau)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Tactical Question - answer
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:29:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: progress.1992Apr16.202954.6475
Organization: Progress Software Corp.

I have two thoughts here.

CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu (Carl Fago) writes:

>I have seen my share of wargame players and I would class them in two broad
>categories...

>1)  The Simulist (a new word?)

>This guy enjoys the wargames as a simulation of historical events or examining
>possible ahistorical situations.  The mechanics of the specific game are less
>important than the end result of measuring the game strategies and tactics
>against the Real World (tm).

>2) The Gamer

>This guy likes to play games.  How the game tactics compares to the Real World
>is of secondary importance if not outright irrelevant.  This is also the group
>into which belong the ones who look for and exploit every rules nuance to the
>game advantage even though it might not have any forseeable counterpart in the
>Real World.

There is another category of wargame player that Carl missed.

This person wants to know how everything works in the real world and they
play wargames in order to better understand the real world (and to overrun
a few opponents :-)).  To this person, the mechanics used in the game are
important, not just the end result.


My other observation is that the answer to the original question of how to
breach a line will be different depending on whether the line has 300 men,
30,000 men, or 3,000,000 men on it.  When you are playing a strategic game,
what weapons your men have are almost meaningless.


Neil
neil@progress.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ace@lacey.cs.mcgill.ca (Arthur CHAN)
Subject: Re: A&A -Axis wins/gives hell to payo
Keywords: error?
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:41:47 GMT

In article <31435@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)  
writes:
> Legit testIn article <1992Apr2.061528.1@vax.sonoma.edu>  
oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:

>	It does take Allies about 3 to 4 turns to turn the tide of
> the war.  Therefore use this time to build your economic edge to an
> unsurmountable number (above 85) by turn 5 or 6 (preferably 5) of
> unrecoverable Allied territories, then victory is assured.  After
>  turn 6, Axis' chances of victory is slim at best.

At 85, the game is over and the Axis have won by economic victory
since 85 > 84.


 > 				- The TaZ
> 			 	cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu

--
                 
                     ^                ^
                   -##\              /##-
                -######\   (    )   /######-
             -#########//  |\^^/|  \\#########-
          -###########//   (@::@)   \\###########-
        /############((     \\//     ))############\
      -###############\\    (oo)    //###############-
     -#################\\  / ** \  //#################-
   -######/-\[^]-:/:-[^]-:/ -[^]-\:-[^]-:\:-[^]-\######-
  -#/|####<=---=====---=====---=====---=====---=>####|\#-
  |/|#/\##<<^>           Arthur Chan         <^>>#/\#| \|
  ' |/  \V<<^>    ace@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca   <^>>V  \|  '
    '     <=---=====---=====---=====---=====---=>    '
          \-\[^]-:\:-[^]-:\ -[^]-/:-[^]-:/:-[^]-/
                         | |    | |                     
		        (VVV)  (VVV)


Xref: sparky rec.games.board:4795 rec.games.pbm:989
From: renegade@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.pbm
Subject: GERMANY Spring '01 Opening (Diplomacy)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:49:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: vax1.1992Apr6.184905.1671
Organization: Mankato State University

Anyone interested in playing Germany in an E-Mail Diplomacy game:  Write to
the Judge (in%"judge@u.washington.edu").  Put this comments in the body of
your mail message:
help

Then send a second message to the judge to find out the rules for Judge-based
Diplomacy and information about the game with the opening (called Ounce):
get rules
get syntax
list ounce

It will explain itself from there.  Sign on as Germany in game ounce and drop
me a line when you get in (I'm England).
-- 
------------------------------>>>
The Renegade
===============================================================================
!"Tell me I'm a sinner;            ! E-Mail at renegade@vax1.mankato.msus.edu ! 
! I've got news for you;           !------------------------------------------!
! I spoke to God this morning      ! "Things are not always as they appear."  !
! And he don't like you"           !------------------------------------------!
!									      !
!	--Ozzy Osbourne, "I Don't Want To Change The World"		      !
===============================================================================
From: collier@lacerta.unm.edu (Michael Collier)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: La Battaille de la Moskova
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:15:55 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr9.222330.12970@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> junkin@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Junkin) writes:
>Unless you are a Borodino freak or sentimental about old games, I would
>recommend COA'a efforts.

Moscowa now *is* one of COA's efforts. They now have the rights for all
the games (Moscowa was the straggler), and are preparing artwork for
the "big boys": Austerlitz, Wagram, and Borodino. my sense from what
the rumor mill has been generating is that all of these will see the
light of day again.  this will happen very slowly, over the next
several years. they will have the full rick barber art and everything.
Wagram and Borodino are likely to cost a bundle (possibly $75 or more),
and Austerlitz somewhat less, but still more than Ligny. my suspicion
is that Austerlitz will be the first of these to come out (since it is
the smallest, and therefore the easiest to capitalize), and should it
not sell well, it could well end the hopes for the others. as these
games have quite a following, and Wagram and Austerlitz have been out
of print for over 10 years (and Moscowa may have been by the time they
get to it :-), i expect they will do well enough to keep them coming.
-- 
Michael H. Collier        INET: collier@ariel.unm.edu   BITNET: COLLIER@UNMB
1160 Don Pasqual NW; Los Lunas, NM 87031; (505) 865 8770
"She was a blonde. The kind of blonde that would make a bishop kick in
	a stained glass window". - Raymond Chandler
From: mxb8@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew Bakaitis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Request reviews: AH "Science Fiction" games
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:01:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr8.040130.20522
Reply-To: mxb8@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew Bakaitis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


	First, I got a job.  Then I got a check.  Now I'd like to
buy a game....but which one?

	I'm primarily interested in space oriented games, such as
Cosmic Encounter.  The GW space opera, megawar miniature games look good,
but I don't have the time/money to invest in the lead (or, apparently,
the time deciphering the rules).

	So, are there any reviews on Merchant of Venus, Alpha Omega, or
Stellar Conquest?  I've only heard a little on Merchant of Venus, nothing
on the other two.  Are they real dogs?
	Being a relative newcomer to the board/wargame market, is there
anywhere else I can look for games like this?  Other than AH, that is?

Thanks,
Matt
-- 
Matt Bakaitis
mxb8@pop.CWRU.edu
From: tomlee@yoko.rutgers.edu (Thomas J Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Sub Rules
Summary: Land rules too!
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:34:27 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr9.152047.27907@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
> 
> Question: Can attacking submarines withdraw at the end of a combat round if
> they have just won the battle?  Example: German sub off Spain attack British

Similarly, if an attacking land force eliminates its opposition,
is it bound to occupy the attacked location?

I've played that the subs may withdraw, and land forces need not occupy.
I think it makes sense for land forces -- why should they have less
flexibility after *winning* an attack than after a failed offensive?
(Okay, I can think of some reasons but they're not very compelling).

The sub rule makes them a bit more useful and "tricky". Some interpretations
of the rule would allow the sub to move 3 in one turn, which is fine
with me but might bother some folks.

Tom Lee
tomlee@paul.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: daily@a.cs.okstate.edu (DAILY STEPHEN RICH)
Subject: Re: SFB: Romulan SparrowHawk Carrier
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 07:24:13 GMT

In article <eJHXiB2w165w@angus.mi.org> thx1138@angus.mi.org (Scott Abfalter) writes:
>I tell you, for 4 BPV a fighter carrying a Type-F Plas is a _scary_
>thing.  Consider that you can buy three times the cost of F-14's in 
>Romulan fighters.  
>
>The Cyberpunk
>Kernel NMI
>THX 1138
>
>-----
>Scott Abfalter (thx1138@angus.mi.org  -or-  thx1138%angus@teemc.tmc.mi.org)
>North Star BBS, Troy, MI --------------------------------- +1 313 524 9024 ---

Fighters in general are very underestimated.  Even with a squadron of
regular hydran stingers you can do serious damage to a ship at range 
10 while he is trying to make sure the fighters don't come within range 3.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ddh@world.std.com (David D Hooton)
Subject: Re: World War I
Summary: perfect plan
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:27:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.175813.6481@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> ttmech@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Paul Mech) writes:
>In article <benjie.702863991@pram.cs.ucla.edu> benjie@pram.cs.ucla.edu (Benjie Chen (Guest)) writes:
>>Any one has any comments on this game(from SPI I guess)?
>IMHO a great game.  It has a system that combines a static

Unfortunately, there is a perfect plan available to the Germans.
After the initial 1914 Western offensive runs its course, he goes on
the defensive until Stosstruppen show up.  He can then use them and
his large CRP base to overrun the West.

						- DDH
From: jon@netlabs.com (Jonathan Biggar)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Harpoon PBEM
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:31:49 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

I just picked up a copy of Harpoon by GDW a couple of days ago, and after
looking at the rules, it appears that it is almost perfectly suited for
play-by-email using a referee.  Is anyone else out there interested?

Jon Biggar
jon@netlabs.com
From: dlw@falcon.bcm.tmc.edu (David Louis Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Date: 8 Apr 1992 14:59:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: /home/swift/dlw/.organization
In-reply-to: cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu's message of 8 Apr 1992 00:27:58 GMT

In article <31443@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?) writes:

   Build the factory
   in Kwangtung on the first turn, it is invulnerable to any invasion.
 
Kwangtung general falls on the first turn in our games.  The Brits invade with
the fighter and 2 INF from India. This leaves only a fighter guarding India
and they lose the transport (although I've seen it survive before) but the
Japs have lost everything but Indo-China and the US generally clears that up
on their turn.  If Japan uses their fleet against the US then they can't
retake all the land lost in asia.  If they forgo the US navy then the US is
just that much closer to building up a strong navy in the pacific with which
to invade Japan.

Has anyone else tried a Japan first allied strategy? I find that a Germany
first strategy wins more often but a Japan first can be interesting.
--
----
David Williams
dlw@cmb.bcm.tmc.edu
From: cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 2nd Edition A&A
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:45:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <31473@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> otran@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oai Tran) writes:
>	When I wrote 'Germany's only chance' ...
>Oai Tran 

	Understandable mistake.  Hope you didn't take all the
correction as offense (Look at me, I goofed big time).

				- The TaZ

P.S.  If anyone try my variant, let me know how it turns out.  I
	think this variant balances the game better and doesn't
	involve giving any freebies to the Axis powers.  It simply
	up the stakes against loss of Karelia which can be pivotal
	to an Axis victory.  Besides, I think this variant also
	makes more sense than the ones in the rule book (Russia
	can't attack first round etc. etc.).
From: seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: WWII:PTO errata for real
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:44:22 GMT
Reply-To: "Bill Seurer,905161 " <billseurer@vnet.ibm.com>

| Whoops, I mistyped part of the errata the 1st time

Well, I seem to have gotten the full errata now including the British OB
and setup changes.  I was missing the changes to the UK setup in
scenario 9 before.  Here (by popular demand) it is:


Map
---
Hong Kong should be separated from the Chinese mainland by a temporary border

Allies Player Aid Card
----------------------

UK OB
6-3 Indian infantry should be 2 in 1942 and 3 in 1943 and none any other times
8-3 Indian infantry should be 2 in 1944 and none any other times

Autralia OB
There are no 6-3 infantry reinforcements, delete that line
8-3 Infantry should be 2 in 1942 with a footnote of 1 (appear deleted in
Bombay whenever)

Scenario 9 UK Setup
-------------------
| 5 of the 3-3 infantry should be 6-3 Indian infantry (depleted):
|   Madras, Calcutta, Imphal, Kuala Lumpur,
|   and W2516 (improperly listed as W2313)

Rulebook
--------

18.1 (correction): Friendly land-based AND CARRIER-BASED air units...

19.1 (clarification): Subs can't be activated as part of a naval
offensive but must be activated as part of a sub-only offensive (special
form of naval offensive).  A sub offensive may be combined with a normal
naval offensive.

19.6 (clarification): Committed air units which become uncomitted when
their CV base moves as part of a naval offensive can participate in a
joint naval/air offensive that same phase (i.e., they can be used twice).

35.1 (clarification): Japan is conquered if the sum of its seasonal
income AND EPS IN RESERVE are zero or less.

Example Of Play
---------------

The US Task Force 1 should include 2 10-3 marine divisions.

- Bill Seurer    Language and Compiler Development     IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com          America On-Line: BillSeurer
From: hship@sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Wiz-War: Time Limits
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:20:21 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Has anyone tried playing Wiz-War with turn time limits?  Some of my
friends will take obnoxiously long turns if allowed (say, five minutes
to decide to move three spaces and discard some cards).  We
imposed a one minute time limit and it made the game more exciting
(some flexibility allowed to handle time needed for combat spells and
record keeping).  Even in Wiz-War, one minute is not very long, which
added a fun sense of panic to the game.

-- 
"Is that real blood?" 
Howard_Ship@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Subject: A&A Sub Rules
Reply-To: morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:20:47 GMT

	I have a house rule and a question concerning submarines.

submarines during combat and non-combat movement, if the subs are alone ( no
other naval units) in a sea-space.  I don't think the rules mention this
situation.

Question: Can attacking submarines withdraw at the end of a combat round if
they have just won the battle?  Example: German sub off Spain attack British
                                                                   s^
battleship off Gibraltar and wins.  Can it then withdraw to Southern Europe?
You could argue either way.
								Pete
						morzinpl@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board