HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpinones@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx (Marco A. Pinones)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: What's needed to play BattleTech?
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:23:51 GMT
Organization: I.T.E.S.M. Campus Monterrey

jglarson@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Johan Larson) writes:
>How much stuff is needed to play BattleTech?

Are there any PBM rules on BTech?
Thanks for any info.

Marco A. Pinones                                      
Bitnet:   PL190827@tecmtyvm                                   
Inter:    PL190827@tecmtyvm.mty.itesm.mx                      
          mpinones@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx   
NeXTMail: mpinones@netmon.mty.itesm.mx                            

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: engjs@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (James Smith)
Subject: Re: JUNTA - help please
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:58:56 GMT

puck writes:

>    The key comes in *appearing* to give out all the money.  For example,
> if you have a couple 1 MP bills in your pocket, a little sleight of hand
> may switch them for the 2's and 3's in the budget draw.  Aside from this,
> a few presidential strategies:

6. You get 8 notes. There are 7 players, or rather 6 other players.  The
Minister gets nothing--he can earn his own. If he whinges, he's no longer
the Minister.  If he targets you, he's no longer the Minister.  But
watch him.  The Admiral gets none because he's the Admiral.  So you have
to divide eight notes between four players and yourself.  Give three of
them 1MP each. Give one 3MP. Keep three notes for yourself.  The guy you
gave the 3MP to is the target for that round, but he's happy because he
has lots of money. The others are happy because they have favoured
positions, a steady income, and a target. And you've probably skimmed 6MP,
but you don't advertise the fact and the other players don't realise it.

If the other players keep getting money, and if there are other targets
to shoot at, then you are going to be President for a long time.  They
will be too worried about getting it to the bank to worry about you.

Jim
-- 
James J Smith             | "I couldn't get over it. All these women
School of Engineering     | in the world...and under their clothes
Newcastle University      | each and every one of them was naked, you
engjs@cc.newcastle.edu.au | know..." -- Psycho-killer, "Sandman"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows)
Subject: BattleTech--What should I get next?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 16:53:22 GMT


Okay.  My little b(r)others and I are just now getting into BattleTech.
We have the BattleTech boxed game, MechWarrior 1st. Ed., the BattleTech
Compendium, the Clans novels, the ComStar Clan mech blueprints, and
that's it.  My question is, what should I get next, like for a Christmas
present for them?

I posted this to Re
I posted this to Rec.games.frp a week ago, and the consensus among those
gameers is that I should get (first in order of popularity) the Tech
Readouts, (second in order of popularity) 2nd Ed. MechWarrior, and (third)
everything else.  What do you think?

---Chris Meadows

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rob@guinness.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: SFB: PMeM system?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:09:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.161019.17963@cis.ohio-state.edu>
farrell@cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes: 
>	OK, this may be the insane question of the decade, but has anyone 
>developed a reasonable PB(e)M system for Star Fleet?  A friend and I would
>like to start up a game and we realized one of the few games we both own and
>enjoy is SFB.  Any help will be much appreciated.

There is an official PBM rule set (in CL6, I believe.)  The basic idea is that
you both use tables for your die rolls, with each player providing one offset,
to make things unpredictable.

And the moderator of the SFB email-list, hcobb@fly2.Berkeley.EDU, has designed
an PBeM system that requires a moderator (Sorry, I seem to have misplaced my
copy into /dev/null at some point.)

Hope this helps,
SR
---
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: Comments about the mecheditor
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:29:23 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <Btu7tJ.L9x@dei.unipd.it>, saint@emma.dei.unipd.it (Gian_Uberto Lauri 228495) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.220814.13906@tdb.uu.se> m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland) writes:
>>carlton@apollo.hp.com (Carl Hommel) writes:
>>: Around here, we call them "munchkin" mechs.  Another common munchkin
>>: mech that every newbie creates is anything with more than 2 LRM-5s.
>>: We disallow them with the (admittedly feeble) excuse, "The electronics
>>: in your mech can't handle that many different launchers.  Use a LRM-20!"
>>
>>Hmmm, I've never considered using four LRM-5s instead of a
>>LRM 20 saving 2 tons and a crit but as you pointed out thats not
>>a "clean" design.
> 
> Blame Blame Blame!
> 
> A 4 LRM5 rack is not the same of a LRM20 as weapon system. Try to
> evalutate the espectation of damage made. You have more chances to hit
> the target, but you are likely to do less damage. LRM20 is for heavy
> fire support on the battlefield, while the LRM5 quad-rack is a weapon
> to shot down VTOLS and hovers.

	Even I, who hate munchkins, don't consider this an 'unclean' design.
Look at it this way: say you have roughly a 50% chance to hit with the LRM.
This is just a flat 50% chance to hit with the LRM-20. With the 4 LRM-5s
however, the chance is (.5x.5x.5x.5) 6.25% (!) that all 4 volleys will hit.
Even if you up the chance to 90%, a LRM-20 will only put all four volleys on
target 66% of the time. At 95% for the LRM-20, its only 81% for the 4 volleys
of the LRM-5. The beauty of the 4 LRM-5 is that one critical won't leave you
missile-less. It also gives you a better chance for *some* missiles to hit (you
do get 4 chances to-hit, rather than 1) (someone else will have to do the math
for this).

Brandon Cope
From: bill@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Bill Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Space Marine: Movement
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:06:13 GMT
Organization: UNISYS Corp. Tredyffrin, PA

In article <1992Aug27.191814.10667@exu.ericsson.se> exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek) writes:
>
>I'm curious as to how others play the movement rules in Space Marine. The
>first edition rules allow for 1 turn of 45 during charge and fallback, two
>during advance. The second ed rules allow no turns during charge, and only 1
>of 45 during advance.

It's been a long time since I've read the first edition rules, and I've
been playing strictly by 2nd edition rules for a while. Apparently, I
haven't been playing as strictly as I thought. I never bought the
second edition, but the local people don't play any turning restriction
on vehicles. I don't know if they all read poorly, or if they conciously
decided to ignore the turning rules. We allow vehicles to turn any amount
during movement on advance or charge orders. This does not seem outragous,
but I can see now that the game would be much different otherwise (we
have never had a game go beyond four turns, most end in three).

>The White Dwarf edition with the Blood Angels vs Alaitoc Craftworld states
>they play with the second edition rules, but with only a 5 turn game, that
>would not even allow a full circle turn! Yet they show photos of units all
>all facings.

Keep in mind that when they fight battles, they take poloriod shots, and
after the battle they "reconstruct" the scenes in the studio for
professional photos, so what you see may not be exactly what happened.

>Anyone have any house rules that play faster/better ??

How do you handle fast moving vehicles such as rough riders, boar boyz,
bikes, trikes, speeders, thunderhawks, dreadnaughts, sentinels, etc.

I have my own question. Can command units move there charge distance
and still first fire? We play that they can although the same WD battle
mentioned above implies that they cannot. In my last battle, I was
told that my command skimmer cannot move at all and make a pop up
attack. This seems inconsistent.

By the way... According to Games Workshop employees (Towson store,
Baltimore, Maryland USA), rough riders can move through woods. What
do other people think of this idea? Of course, these are the same
people who decided that although a Capital Imperialis can carry two
companies with there vehicles, it cannot carry imperial bikes or
rough riders (not that anyone in there right mind would actually
put troops in a Capital Imperialis).

>Death is the Ultimate Victor............            
>                                                                      -Tom
>
>Note : I don't care that my location shows .se, I'm in Dallas !!
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bill
bill@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 1992 21:29:33 -0400 
From: "Jonathan R. Ferro" <jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Any board game about Baseball out there ?

viau@wm.estec.esa.nl (Pierre "play-soccer-not-football" Viau) writes:
> Does anybody know about a (preferably good) board game about
> the great game of BaseBall ?

It isn't a board game, but Sid Sackson's book "A Gamut of Games"
contains a baseball game played almost entirely with a deck of cards
(and, of course, a scoresheet).  It is a very complete "simulation",
allowing bunts, multiple steals, sacrifices, etc.

--
Jon Ferro		MIT Transportation Modelling Research Center (TMRC)
jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu	"We can hack it!"
SGNTR VRS VRSN 3.1B: Strppd nd cmprssd fr qckr trnsmssn! nfct yrs tdy!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,news.groups
From: os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Reply-To: sizone!justin@ee.ryerson.ca (Justin)
Organization: y
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:45:51 GMT

In article <BtJH0n.J8x@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>In article <gardner.714632888@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> gardner@cs.monash.edu.au () writes:
>>There has been a lot discussion in this thread about the function of rec.games.
>The reasons for seeing so many posts on wargames is simple - they are popular;
>they are games played on a board; and they are complicated enough to generate
>much discussion.

So why aren't they in their own newsgroup?  The reason there are so many
posts on chess is that chess is popular.  The reason there are so many
posts on go is that go is popular.  In both those cases newsgroups were
created just for those groups, to free up rec.games.board for everyone
else.

So why not put wargames in their own group, and free up rec.games.board
for everyone else? 

This seems to me to be the sensible thing to do.  And no, a newsgroup
does not need to be getting 100 posts a day to be worth splitting.  All
it needs is to have a significantly large portion of its traffic 
dedicated to one special interest group.

Why not create either:

rec.games.wargames        OR
rec.games.gamers          (would include the non-war "gamer" games)


rec.games.simulation       another good suggestion someone made.


												  Justin
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: tmartin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Martin)
Subject: Re: BattleTech MechEditor -- Whatta Piece of Work!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 04:13:31 GMT

cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows) writes:


>I just FTPed version 3.30 of the MechEditor from wuarchive.wustl.edu
>(directory \pub\MSDOS_UPLOADS).  All I can say is "Wow!"  It's 
>amazing!  It actually makes it EASY to design 'Mechs!  I've designed
>about ten or twenty already.

	I will relay your praise to Henry Link. Better yet, do it yourself
by writing to him and sending him a couple of bucks. <grin>

>The only problem with it is that it won't print to an ascii file on 
>disk for some reason--it says something is wrong with the printer.
>Oh well.

	There's a routine that automatically checks for a printer connection.
It comes up if you don't have a printer connected to your computer. He's going
to take it out in the next release.

>Kudos to the program's designer (can't remember his name) for such
>a great game utility!

	Like I said, I'll relay your praise.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 09:08:38 EDT
From: Carl Fago <CDF1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Europa
 <1992Aug27.230738.29382@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
 <28AUG199209322252@vxcrna.cern.ch>

I have also gotten a couple of email replies and it would seem that Europa
is just plain incomplete and maybe just another rehash of SPI's War in the
East and War in the West.  So if Europa isn't the definitive small scale
war against Germany game, then what would be recommended?

I am looking for something that is more detailed than WiF and maybe a little
less than WiE/WiW.

I see Europa as trying to be a game _system_ with varying theatres of operation
such that I don't have to fill up a garage with maps to play one game but
can link theatre scenarios together in a "campaign game" of sorts.

This is the style I am looking for but, unfortunately, Europa is not complete
and the promises of game companies are, in my experience, worth about as
much as the hot air they are made of.

It seems that all the pieces are out there, just that no one has managed to
put them all together.

 *-=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!      |

Newsgroups: rec.games.board,news.groups
From: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu (Another casualty of applied metaphysics)
Subject: Re: rec.games.strategic
Reply-To: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu
Organization: Big Bear Solar Observatory, Caltech
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:06:57 GMT

os9ug@gkcl.ists.ca (OS-9 User Group) writes:
>So why not put wargames in their own group, and free up rec.games.board
>for everyone else? 
>
>Why not create either:
>
>rec.games.wargames        OR

Because "wargames" is WAY too limited a subject area.  Would, for example,
1830 and Civilization go here too?  It seems that's what you (and others)
want, but these are hardly "war games".

>rec.games.gamers          (would include the non-war "gamer" games)

This, I really don't like.  It seems that what you're REALLY trying to do
is *discriminate* against the serious game-players ("gamers").

>rec.games.simulation       another good suggestion someone made.

This is a more reasonable suggestion, but not all "gamer" games are purely
simulations; this hardly seems the place to discuss games like Civilization
or 1830 either.  Now, if we wanted to kick out all the WiF people...  :-)

Taking someone else's suggestion and modifying it, why not create the group:

rec.games.family (or rec.games.traditional)

which would be not only for the discussion of less "serious" board games
like Scrabble, or Can't Stop (my fave), but also more traditional non-
board games, like Uno, Yahtzee, etc.  Then rec.games.board could be left
to the "gamers".  (Why not put the whiners in their own group, and free
up rec.games.board for everyone else?)  :-)

-G.
******************************************************************************
Glenn Eychaner, Big Bear Solar Observatory, California Institute of Technology
NSI/DECnet: SUNCUB::EYCHANER        Internet: eychaner@suncub.bbso.caltech.edu
USmail: 40386 North Shore Lane                eychaner_g@caltech.edu
        Big Bear City, CA  92314    Phone: (714) 866-5791 or (818) 356-4014
                                           (909) after November 14, 1992
From: rreed@terapin.com (Rick Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Opinions on Tyrrano Ex
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:26:23 GMT
Organization: BBS

Just seen this game and was considering getting it, but it looks like AH has
packaged it as some sort of educational game.  A quote from the back of the box
read, "Education was never so sugar coated!".

Opinions?  Game looked interesting.  I'm hoping it's simple but not simple
minded!

        -Rick

rreed@terapin.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: c9036991@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (WHEN YOUR SEARCHING OUT FOR SOMETHING, DON'T TRY SO HARD.)
Subject: Re: BTECH-Poser Repostclo
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:56:36 GMT

In article <31AUG199215464310@zeus.tamu.edu>, elm4252@zeus.tamu.edu (MOORE, ERIC LEE) writes:
> 
 
> Do all of the LB-X cluster shot work in the same way?
> 
>  		Yes .. i think it would.

> This could have a VERY big repercussion(?) on certain scenerios.
> Grounded Dropships are considered to be a Level 4 building.
> I had redesigned StarLeague Rifleman armed with 2 LB-Xs each.
> I managed to sneak them around a battle and into a city where
> a Clan Union was sitting.  With a combination of luck and a
> little bit of strafing from an AeroFighter, i managed to walk
> up and start unloading my mechs on the DropShip.  After ruling
> that the missile table worked for LB-Xs the same as missiles, one
> round of 40 to-hit-location rolls, the DropShip was not happy.
> After two more rounds, the thrust was gone, the weapons on that
> side were gone, and the targeting computer had taken a hit that
> stopped it for that combat.  
> 
> So what say all of you out there?

	I think anything that is 4 stories high, and not moving, 
	would be very easy to hit.!
> 
>                                         Mok

-- 



	Wayne's World, Wayne's World, Party Time, Excellent!
        Party on Dudes.

	Well .. this is supposed to be a sig file. But i prefer to call 
	it ' Quote Corner '.

	All we are say --- ing ..... is ... "Mine the f_ck out of Kakadu!"
	--- Capatilist pig!

	Any original (and funny) quotes will be added, so email me ok!

		C9036991@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
	
			      OR

		C9036991@cc.newcastle.edu.au

	
		Just call me Mathew or BG
	
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: velardeb@tramp.Colorado.EDU (VELARDE BRANDON CRAIG)
Subject: BTECH:  Jade Falcon Source Book
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:26:22 GMT

I just purchased the Jade Falcon source book, and I noticed that there are
a few 'mechs in the Turkina Keshik that I don't recognize.  Two names that
I didn't recognize are the Turkina, and the Black Gyr.  I believe there was
one called the Lenner also.  Does anybody have any info on these 'mechs?

Also, do any of you have any opinions about this sourcebook?  I think it's
written pretty well, but I don't think it's as good as the Wolf Clan source
book.  I got the impression that a Clan Civil War may be a posibility for the
future.  It sounds like the Falcons hate the Steel Vipers, and absolutely
despise the Clan Wolf, the chosen clan.

Ivan
Clan Steel Viper
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: saint@ida.dei.unipd.it (Gian_Uberto Lauri 228495)
Subject: Re: BTECH: Couple o' Mech designs
Organization: Universita' di Padova, Italia
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:17:15 GMT

In article <185ns3INNscf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jjd3@po.CWRU.Edu (James J. Dibenedetto) writes:

>Take an Archer, and rip out the LRM-20 racks, and put the two rear-mounted
>lasers in the front, and move the other two medium lasers into the torsos.
>Add a PPC, a Large Laser, a small laser, and a hatchet (5 tons).  Also add
>jump jets (4 tons).  Ad half a ton of armor and 2 heat sinks, and you've got
>someting like an 3050 Axman - it doesn't have quite the punch the axman 
>does, but it has much better medium to long range punch and better
>armor.


That's funny. The Robotech alter ego of the Archer has a weapon pod
(30 mm autocannon, 180 mm grenade launcher, a laser and a flamer) in
the center torso (under the central 'hatch') is a short range fighter
and has an optional club....


o   oooooo	Gian Uberto Lauri	
      o    o	saint@alessia.dei.unipd.it
     o o



Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: farrell@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell)
Subject: Re: Machiavelli
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:55:57 GMT

	I've played Machiavelli a couple times and I'm not real sure it adds
anything meaningful over Dip.  There are two real problems:  1)  The Garrison
rules make it impossible to actually get anything done in a reasonable amount
of time.  Those lighting stabs from Diplomacy (did I ever tell you about by
7-centre stab?) are right out.  2) The geography has some problems. There are
sever situations (like Naples, Papacy, and Lombardy, I believe) where there is
a cluster of three powers and it is obviously more advantageous for one 
alliance.  Milan has serious expansion problems; and it's very difficult for
there to be cross-over between "sectors" of the mapboard.  Unlike Dip, where 
you have obvious divisions between East and West, but also several nations 
that are capabale of operating on either side of that line (France, Italy,
Germany, and Russia primarily), in Machiavelli everything is much more
compartmentalized with fewer options.

	I found that the currency system didn't help much.  All the random
events added, well, a random feel to the game which I didn't think was an
enhancement.

	If you have a group that regularaly plays Diplomacy, Machiavelli might
be an interesting break; but I think you'll find yourself returning to
Diplomacy until you play it out (after about 75 games most of us start to
find it a little dull - but that's still about 55 games more than most of
the titles on the market!)

							Chris


-- 
"Oh, what a wondrous piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite
in faculties,  In form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like
an angel, in aprehension how like a god ..." - Hamlet
"If all you told was turned to gold - if all you dreamed were new ..." - Enya
From: elvis@netcom.com (kEvin A. Thornbury)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Titan
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:40:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

demented+@pitt.edu (Scott E Berry) writes:

>I suggest 4 or more players at least. I think that this will actualy
>have little effect on the length of the game if reasonable time limits
>are enforced on movement.  I believe that more stacks means more fights


I, however, suggest no more than 4 players if at all possible. I've played
a great deal of Titan, and each additional player about doubles the
length of the game. 6 player games in addition, usually have at least one player
eliminated extremely early due to crowding and bad dice. I don't like that
random element, and I don't like waiting for an hour or so between what
are usually less than 5 minute turns. (In a 5 or 6 player gsame, you
can spend an inordinate amount of time watching the other players fight
battles that don't involve you)

I've found the game works well with 2,3 or 4 players, with 3 being
optimal. 2 player does go quickly, and with competent players, you
won't often see many really big creatures. 4 and 5 player Titan gives
an asymmetry that puts a couple of players at an advantage, and in
6 player Titan, the 6th player is at a tremendous disadvantage.

You really need to play with varying numbers of people to find
the size of gsame that you prefer.

later

kEvin
Newsgroups: rec.games.board