HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scottb@netcom.com (L'etat des mortes)
Subject: Macintosh Games release listing - Updates
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 08:04:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Macintosh Games release listing - Updates


Recent Additions/Updates/Corrections

Catagories
----------
(RP)    -  Role Playing
(AC)    -  Action/Arcade
(WG)    -  Wargame
(SP)    -  Sports
(AD)    -  Adventure
(SI)    -  Simulation 
(ST)    -  Stragegy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Title:                |Company:	|date due:	|Comments:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battlechess-CD ROM      Interplay       August 7       (ST)

Castle of Dr. Brain     Sierra          Shipping       (AD)

Hellcats NEW scenarios  Graph/Sim       Mid-Late Aug.  (SI) 8-12 New Missions, 
                                                        New Featues, Moving 
                                                        vehicles, and more! 
                                                        Rocket/torpedo options.
                                                        New enemy aircraft,etc.

Pirates GOLD            Microprose      Fall           (ST) <confirmed!>

Space Quest I (256c)    Sierra          August         (AD) delayed!



Summary of Titles shipped in July
------------------------------------------------------
Castle of Dr. Brain     Sierra         (AD)
Command HQ              Microprose     (WG,ST)
Leisure Suite Larry I   Sierra         (AD)               
Lexicross               Interplay      (AC,ST)
Lost Treasures of Infocom II           (AD) Various           
                Activision/Infocom?
Playmaker Football v2.0 Broaderbund    (SP)
SimCity v1.4            Maxis          (SI,ST) Upgrade
                                        Updater Available
Super Tetris            Spectrum Holo  (AC,ST)                                    







By all means, if you have anything to add to this list Please send mail at:

Internet:     scottb@netcom.netcom.com
UUCP:         claris!netcom!scottb
AOL:          VM LESTAT

(if either Internet mail bounces try scottb@netcom.com)


I'm looking for HARD FACTs or GOOD rumor!  Corrections also apprieciated

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please - No mail requesting information on above mentioned products.
You know what I know at this point.  Please post on the NET instead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


*******************************************************************
*                                                                 *
*   All information recieved will be held in strict confidence.   *
*                      No sources revealed                        *
*                                                                 *
*******************************************************************

Scott
From: paul@svl.cdc.com (Paul Kohlmiller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Why are there no baseball games on the Mac???!!!
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:28:56 GMT
Distribution: comp.sys.mac.games

I agree that there isn't a great baseball game for the Mac but at least
Earl Weaver is something. For basketball there is zero, zilch. Accolade's
game was so bad that I never bought another Accolade game again.
But the general problem is that the games are all being made for PCs. There are
very few PC applications that I would like to use on the Mac (and I am not a big
game player, I do serious stuff too) but there are hundreds of games that only
work on PCs. 
It gets to be a real problem when we go into a computer store and my son sees 
all the neat stuff for the PC but not for the Mac. He thinks I'm just being
overly fussy.
Meanwhile, does SoftAT help? Can we use this to run games that have color and
sound? I would like to hear of anyone's experiences.
thnx

--
     // Paul H. Kohlmiller             //  "Cybers, Macs and Mips"    //
     // Control Data Systems, Inc.    // Internet: paul@svl.cdc.com  //
     // Acronym under construction.  // America Online: Paul CDC    //
     // All comments are strictly my own. I won't lie but my       //
     // perception of reality is at best a personal hunch.        //
Organization: Sophomore, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:13:35 -0400 
From: "Thomas J. Lee" <tl1e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: PMFB questions


I have a bunch of questions so here goes...

Of all the defensive backs, who is the fastest (assuming they are given
the same speed rating)?

In the Inherent Abilities section in the manual, both the free safety
and cornerbacks have "catching" skills, and "fast" speed.  Is there any
difference between the two as far as abilities go?

What is the significance of being able to change defensive linemen into
nose tackles and turning defensive backs into one of the other defensive
backs?  More specifically, if you change your free safety to a strong
safety, are his inherent abilities changed also?

Is it possible to have a hot running back (*) and a hot receiver (+) at
the same time?

Is anyone else noticing the timing of their plays being messed up when
converting their old plays to 2.0?  On one of my fleaflicker plays, I
had the timing perfect with several laterals in the old version, and
when I converted my plays to 2.0, the timing got all fucked up and now
the players consistently fumble and drop the laterals, which I haven't
had a chance to fix yet.  Any comments?


-Tom.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: duxbury@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Ann Duxbury)
Subject: Re: SimCity 1.4 updater
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:17:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.011238.10256@news.acns.nwu.edu> draitt@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (David Raitt) writes:
>I don't know what the guy at Maxis was talking about, but last night I 
>downloaded the SimCity 1.4 updater from AOL and was far from the first
>to do so.  It seems that it is already available and so should show up
>various places soon.
>
>
>				David

   So, what's new in the update?

				-Bill Currie
				duxbury@sfu.ca
From: sxclm@orca (Cal Mercer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:47:00 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC

One more thing that I would like to see different in version 3.0:
When chooing AUTO PLAY (either turning control over to the computer
or selecting to just mark your turn done each time), PLEASE don't
make that go into effect until you've done COMMAND+T (END TURN BUTTON).
From: dgemoets@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Darren Gemoets-- CSC)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: More Warlords Hints
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:53:15 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.213729.3509@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> 
>dgemoets@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Darren Gemoets-- CSC) writes:
>[netrual cities defending]
>Two things here: first, you do know that some cities are more fortified 
>than others at the start of the game.  The city across the river from the 
>Orcs is an example of a tough nut to crack.

I know some cities are tougher (six light infantry vs. two, plus a higher
city defense rating, for example), but my observations (over an admittedly
brief span) still make me think there's something fishy.  Once I sent a
pretty darn good force to Hithos (a city with six or seven light infantry and
a defense rating of 6), and they defeated me without losing a man.  Then *one*
Storm Giant giant army took out the city two turns later!  It *could* have
been luck, but...

>Second, if you have intense combat set, you're giving some advantage to 
>weaker units.  It's much more likely that a lt inf unit will take out a 
>cav with intense combat than without.

I wasn't playing intense combat.  Actually, I've never tried it.

> Maybe even a very detailed combat subroutine that was good enough to be a 
>seperate game.  Something like a tactical V for Victory where you issue 
>orders to your troups and can do things like flanking maneouvers, etc.

They (SSG) probably decided that was beyond the scope of the game.

Darren
dgemoets@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: janolov@cdg.chalmers.se (Jan-Olov Lantto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Playmaker Upgrade
Date: 25 Jul 92 10:47:51 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

Some weeks ago, Broderbund posted a note about how to upgrade Playmaker
Football to version 2.0. Can somebody out there please send me that note, since
I forget to save it.
From: jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Looking For Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:37:40 GMT
Reply-To: jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman)
Organization: Organization?  We don't need no steenking organization!
Discliamer: Upon my being captured or killed, my professors will
            disavow any knowledge of me, my statements, and/or
            my mission.


In article <1992Jul29.162550.12352@lclark.edu>,
Citizen joshua@lclark.edu (Josh Rochester) writes :
>[Comments from others about cheap sats taking out expensive ships
> and a real world parallel of cheap weapons vs. expensive platforms.]
>
>As far as defense being cheaper than attack, I don't think that this is 
>realisticly the case. In the age of nuclear weapons, to defend against a
>nuclear missle, you need a missle that costs just about as much to go up and
>knock it down. Technological weapons systems are built with layers upon layers
>of attack and defense systems (think about Jet fighters [your example] they
>are basicly attack devices, but they have chaff systems and ECM devices and
>radar so that they can defend themeselves from the defenders). If we are
>building huge, expensive ships in SwdHo!, they should be able to defend
>themselves agains gun-blobs.

  Uh, sorry, but cheap weapons taking out expensive platforms are quite the
norm.
  A cheap, man portable SAM still has a chance at taking out a plane in spite
of the advanced ECM and other defenses.  WWII vintage mines damaged many ships
in the past ten years, including two modern US Navy ships.
  The weapons to destroy all of the systems employed on the battlefield of
today are many times cheaper than the system they attacks.  Wire guided anti
tank missiles cost a trival amount compared to the cost of an M1A2 MBT.  A
single ex-USSR surface to surface missile can sink a 500 million dollar
Aegis cruiser.  (That price may be way off.  My stats are not with me.)
  Of course, none of these weapons are guaranteed to hit or destroy but the
price comparisons are still valid.

  So, sorry, but I like the fact that 6 piddly sats can defend my world against
a large attack.  And this type of weapon/counter weapon relationship does
indeed exist today, and will stay with man forever...

  Sorry to get off the thread.

  Keep up the work on theHo!

|--------------------------------|    "If you were happy all of your life,
|      J. Taggart Gorman Jr.     |     you wouldn't be human - you'd be a
| jtgorman@caslon.cs.arizona.edu |     game show host."
|--------------------------------|             Winona Ryder, in _Heathers_
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: stein@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov
Subject: Re: SoftAT PC emulation
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory - Advanced Photon Source
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:37:42 GMT

In article <Bs3zwt.EJD@taligent.com> rob_hawley@taligent.com (Rob Hawley)
writes:
>
>
>What is the hardware you are using for your comparison? I have a Quadra 700
and
>would think that SoftPC would be reasonabile on that base (I haven't tried
it).
>

I've run it here at work on the 950 (Yes, they love me here!) and at home on my
IIcx - to be honest, there is not that much of a difference when it comes to
graphics. Number crunching is lightning fast on the Quadra tho!


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: jtkrauss@phoenix.princeton.edu (Jeffrey T. Krauss)
Subject: Re: Looking For Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.games
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:54:56 GMT

Well, I only have a few suggestions, but here they are:

1) Mixed ship transports would be a definite plus.
2) Ability to fix spending on specific planets (or tech or savings...)
3) Ability to turn off some alerts. (The one that always bothers me is the
       one that notifies you of the fact that you are not supporting one of
       your colonies...I would like to turn off that safety net.)
4) Trade with other players would be nice, but it is not as important in my
       mind as the other three...


Jeffrey T. Krauss
From: zeke@reed.edu (Zeke Koch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Looking For Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Keywords: MultiPlayer Strategy Game
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:36:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul28.193622.3021
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

I would really like a way to make the games work by mail.  If we could
automate the first few rounds it would make the game much more
enjoyable for those of us looking forward to e-mail games.  For 
example if we could set up the Auto Play to work for say 10 rounds 
and give it some simple rules.  i.e. expand quickly or build up metal,
or build lot's of ships, etc.  

It would be nice if there was a way for turns to be recorded as
documents and mailed to eachother with one person doing the turn 
calculations.

Better messages with text would be wonderful. At least let us lie.
I own "foo" doesn't do much good unless we can lie about it!

Zeke Koch


-- 
                           zeke@reed.edu 
"NeXT has made it possible for Tiny Tim to over-extend himself and buy
a Ferrari for the price of a Hundai and now Tiny Tim is pissed because
the gas station attendant won't sell him gas for 3 cents a gallon."
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality Survey
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Jul22.113234.14057@husc13.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:21:59 GMT

jdavis> == jdavis  <jdavis@husc13.harvard.edu> 

 jdavis> Just my $0.02, before someone claims that "true VR" requires
 jdavis> direct brain input/output or something...

Oh no!  Then we'd have "true VR" flame wars alongside the "true
multitasking" flame wars.  Gack, barf, choke.

ObGame: got Mission Thunderbolt today.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality Survey
Organization: just me
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:02:35 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games

In article <1992Jul22.113234.14057@husc13.harvard.edu> jdavis@husc13.harvard.edu writes:
>
>Could you define "Virtual Reality?"  From your post, I take it that you're
>using the now-popular "real-time polygon rendering tied into body motion in
>a realistic manner so that the user feels like s/he's 'really there.'"
>This is an extremely narrow definition.  Virtual Reality refers to any
>system that simulates some realm of reality.  Infocom was actually one of
>the early pioneers of VR, and games like Wizardry IV are VR too...
>
>Just my $0.02, before someone claims that "true VR" requires direct brain
>input/output or something...
>
>Jason Davis
>jdavis@husc3.harvard.edu

But 10 years ago, when infocom was all the rage, I never ever heard the
term "virtual reality" or anything similar.  Are you sure you are not
revising history here?  Does anyone know the origin of the term?

I have always associated it with the definition you give above.  Specifically,
with the use of full field of view simulators which take more than just
keyboard input from the user.  Thus, a military flight simulator would be
one of the first virtual reality machines.

			David Pipes
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: zimmy@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael Zimmerman)
Subject: Railroad Tycoon for sale/trade
Originator: zimmy@bode.eng.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:33:48 GMT

Well, not having ever achieved President, I am ready to pass
along RRT to some new player.  I will accept offers for trades
or just cash.  Everything except reg card is included (box, manual,
disks, etc).

Mike

-- 
                                               zimmy@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu
 Just say "noe" to Quayle. 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: jlarke@css.itd.umich.edu (Jason Larke)
Subject: Re: Looking For Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Keywords: MultiPlayer Strategy Game
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:39:10 GMT

In article <meharg.712349217@sfu.ca> meharg@fraser.sfu.ca (Gersham William Meharg) writes:
>Spaceward ho is an awesome game, now that version 3.0 is coming out It
>has the potential to be even better. Heres some suggestions:
>
>
>2. All combat is very technology dependent, if you have one more tech
>point than your enemy you will paste him/her. Make this a less          
>significant factor. More randomness. And protect those colony ships
>somehow in battles.
>

I don't agree. If a tech level means even 20 years of advances, that's
a big deal in combat. Anyone think a force of F-4s could destroy an equal
number of F-18's consistently? If anything, let's have less randomness.

>3. Technology isnt very good when building ships - who uses less than
>maximum shields or weapons when building ships. The only reason would
>be to adjust the mini if you are short on metal or cash. It makes those
>scroll bars useless if they are always put to maximum.  My suggestion 
>would be to only let the user set the mini technology and pick a hull
>type. Add some hull types replace fighters with frigates, destroyers,   
>battleships (and Deathstars!, maybe not).  They would differ in price
>metal and combat capability (possibly allieviate problem 2 above).

I often use less than max to save money. Building 30 10/1 satellites
is always a mean trick, and I also use low-weapons, long-range scouts
for exploring in directions away from other players. I'm also not sure
fighters would fit into the game- how do you represent casualties, etc,
if the fighters are "part" of the carrier?

>Hopefully Spaceward ho 3.0 will be as much as an improvement over 2
>as 2 was over 1.  I thought spaceward ho 1.0 was the best game ever,
>it was replaced by spaceward ho 2.0 on my top 10 list (v1.0 is now in
>second). Keep it up!
>
Agreed. Love that Ho!

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: tom@mai.insci.com (Tom Chan)
Subject: spaceward Ho!
Organization: Insci Incorporated
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:05:53 GMT

Can anyone post a review for Spaceward Ho?
Do they have a demo version?
Can you play against someone via a modem?

Tom

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: gormish@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mike Gormish)
Subject: Re: Looking For Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 04:33:31 GMT

First, please don't keep changing the subject line. I'm following this
discussion closely, but I'm sure there are people who would like to
not read the thread with one well placed kill.

I've read a number of 2.1 type suggestions, I'd like to see 3.0
suggestions, or maybe suggestions that will spawn a new game.

2.1 type suggestions I like:
Max min tech buttons along with the scroll bars
Some way to lock spending
More/more random galaxy types
Grouping fleets of different types
Giving Scouts even more range & less fire power, Sats, Colony Ships and
fighter/scouts are VERY different, Fighters & scouts are too close.
Being able to mix computer skill levels: 3Dumb 6 good
Making it harder to tell humans from computers (no check marks on turn
done)
Option of Timed turns for Ho Downs, time from host mac, perhaps with
warnings (30sec left) or an occasional longer turn to design new ships


3.0 type suggestions I like:
Alliances (must include human/computer computer/computer)
Better/more types of computer players (this is a 3.0 suggestion because
it's hard)
"Film at end of game" maybe just save the ownership of stars every n
turns
Trade money for metal with other players
Slightly enhanced communication (I'd still like the computer players to
be able to pass the Turing Test which does limit the generality)
Different planet types? a la StarLord by Flying Buffalo (someone
suggested a trading planet, how bout a gateway planet which will take
you somewhere far away of course you might not know where)

?A 3 dimensional universe, flight simulators provide 3d tactical games
how about a 3d strategic game, it would need to be simple to learn as
the Ho is.


In my mind the best part of the Ho is balance. Things are simple enough
to learn quickly, but there are enough parameters so it doesn't get
boring.
And please don't change the colony ships. I hate losing mine as much
as the next guy, but any alternative seems to add much more complexity
than it's worth.

mike
gormish@isl.stanford.edu


Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: meharg@fraser.sfu.ca (Gersham William Meharg)
Subject: Re: Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Comments Response
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:35:11 GMT

About the different galaxies, what types are you going to include?
Hopefully you make them less uniform (v1.0 galaxies were great for
their shape). Here are some suggestions for shapes:
Linear, a thin corridor of stars. Alternately this could be a single
spiral towards a core. Some intense fighting would occur in this 
galaxy.
A torus with a circle in the middle. If all players were placed on
the inside (hub) or the outside (wheel) it would become a race for
the range tech to reach the outside or inside.

Possibly a button for uniformity would be appropriate. Use it like
the density button in the current game. If it was set on uniform it
would use the alogorithms for the current game. If it were set on
random it would use v1.0 algorithms. Or a slider could be used, to
represent a continum (sp?) of randomness. I think that this is a 
definate must, to increase the randomness of the galaxies. Allow for
a great variety of galaxy options they are what makes the game more
enjoyable over the long term.  

Another request would be to show the star map as it is generated,
and let the player reject or accept it.

Will you return the number description instead of the adjective for
number of stars? And let the user select more than 182 stars, twicw
as much I think (THAT would be one hell of a game!).

One thing that I have noticed about version 2.0s stars is that players
may be adapted to the galaxy (Ive played games where my opponent has
said "cool, another 1.0G, 60' world" after I find nothing but cookies
around me (Cookies are what I call crap worlds - they look like choc
chip cookies in colour).
From: dwb@apple.com (David W. Berry)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Hunting Reviews of Bridge 6.0
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:05:16 GMT
Organization: Greenwing Enterprises
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1

In article <1992Jul27.181233.22433@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Michael F. Booth,
mfb@po.CWRU.Edu writes:
>	I found a program by (I believe) Artworx Software which is
>called "Bridge 6.0".  Problem is, I have no idea if this program is any

This is a little sketchy since it's been quite awhile since I tried this.
To give you some idea, I think I was running System 5 at the time.

Anyway, the product is a straight port of a BASIC program written for the
PC.
And it shows.  The interface sucks.  Every card played results in a redraw
of the entire screen.  It's painfully slow.

It seems to play OK, but then I'm no bridge master myself.

Overall, my suggestion would be to find a foursome or wait for a
reasonable
product to come along.

Otherwise, if you want a copy, I'll sell you mine for $5 + shipping.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games