HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomlee@yoko.rutgers.edu (Thomas J Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A 2ed Sub Rules
Summary: Clarification
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:38:44 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <qjsj30_@lynx.unm.edu>, emullins@vesta.unm.edu (Eric Mullins) writes:
> sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Scott Zimmerman) writes:
> 
> >>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).
> 
> It might make sense, but it makes fighters much less useful.
...
> 
> With current implementation, tanks are good if you don't need to defend
> territory after capturing it.  Otherwise, fighters should be used.  Infantry-
> fighter combinations are very powerful.  If tanks are to have the ability
> to retreat after combat, then they should cost more.  What cost makes the game
> playable?  Who knows, that's what playtesting is for.  I volunteer!! :)

When I raised the point, I should have specified that if you allow a
victorious attacker to retreat, the *defender* retains control of the
territory, and *all* attackers must retreat (to any one place from
which some attacker came). So fighters' value isn't diminished.
The main effect of this interpretation/modification would be to
allow an attrition attack to kill *all* the units in a territory
instead of a few. By attrition attack, I mean one that is intended
to cause casualties instead of grab territory. If you force the
attacker to occupy, he sometimes has to worry about rolling *too well*
on an attrition attack.

The distance moved to do an attack should not be significant in
allowing retreats, if only for ease of bookkeeping. I haven't
seen anything in the 2ed rules stating otherwise.

I've started putting the edition of A&A I'm talking about in
the subject header, since the editions have some profound
differences which cause a lot of confusion and traffic.
There's the 1st and 2nd editions, the published suplement
that's been mentioned in some postings, and infinitely
many house rules.
----
Tom Lee, tomlee@paul.rutgers.edu
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Axis&Allies Germany attacks U.K.
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:30:26 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Apr8.152315.18927@uwm.edu> sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Scott Zimmerman) writes:
>In article <31440@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?) writes:

>Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't tech only good on Newly purchased
>units and not the initial units on the board?  If I am correct, the
>theory that Germany can attack Brits on first turn with heavy bombers
>and or long range air craft is shot full of holes!

>Mike.

>sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

You are wrong, I'm not sure where (but obviously with the development
rules), it does mention that _as soon_ as you get and technology, it
goes into effect.  So, if you get ind. tech, for example, the units
you purchase _that turn_ cost 1 IPC less each. 

Keep in mind that industrial technology does not reduce the cost of 
weapons development, it still costs 5 IPCs.

Have fun playing!!

Dewey
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Empire of the Middle Ages & Sword and Stars
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:45:00 GMT
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr16.144734.19806@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, morzinpl@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes...
>In article <1992Apr15.205227.19554@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, ttmech@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Paul Mech) writes:
>>In article <kujq3aINNjqr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> elric@imryrr.Eng.Sun.COM (Rick Heli) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr13.021050.4359@citec.oz.au>, sgccstr@citec.oz.au (Shaun Travers) writes:

>>>|> Empires of the Middle Ages would be my favourite game of all time
> 
>This sounds like a good game.  Could someone post a description?  Who makes it?
>How much?  How many players?  How long does it take to play?

Unfortunately, EotMA has been out of print for a long time.  It is a simulation
of the Middle Ages including miltiary, political, religious, and diplomatic
elements.  Each "turn" is 25 years, but the smallest quantum of time is a year.
Each player is the head of a kingdom.  The goal is to improve the territory you
start with and expand it.  Military conquest is only one (expensive) way to
expand.  The game is highly abstract, as you might expect for a game covering 
700 years, but also has definite feel of realism.  All the elements of the
Middle Ages are there: the moslems, the Pope, the Mongols, the Plague, the
Crusades, raping and pillaging your neighbors, oppressing the peasants, etc.,
etc.  Kings come and go, and an excellent leader can redeem an Empire that seems
hopelessly lost, while a miserable one can destroy a previously invincible one.
The system is set up so it is difficult for a player to be completely eliminated
from the game.  The game runs from the coronation of Charlemagne until the fall
of Constantinople.

The Sword and the Stars is a derivative which transplants the same system into
a galactic setting.

EotMA was published by SPI, which went out of business almost 10 years ago.
Some SPI titles were re-released by TSR, who I believe still owns the rights
to EotMA, but inexplicably this highly acclaimed game was not one of them.
I spent years looking for a copy at conventions until I finally found one last
summer.  I happily handed over the $65.  Now if only I knew some players here
in Europe...


Dave Casper
CERN - Geneva
casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: purtill@idacrd.UUCP (Mark Purtill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Republic of Rome players?
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:36:40 GMT
Distribution: nj, pa
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj


	Anyone in the mid-New Jersey area interested in actually
playing the game?  Individuals or existing group who have room for
another player.  Drop me a line and I'll coordinate if there's any
interest.  
	(And, no, I won't insist on using my strange variant rules :-)

^.-.^ Mark Purtill, IDA/CCR-P, Thanet Road, Princeton NJ  08540; (609)924-4600.
((")) Email: purtill%idacrd@princeton.edu; uunet!idacrd!purtill. (609)497-0526.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: daily@a.cs.okstate.edu (DAILY STEPHEN RICH)
Subject: Re: SFB: Romulans & Torps
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 07:30:50 GMT

In article <911414p.40@ace.acadiau.ca> 911414p@ace.acadiau.ca (PIOTR CEZARY  PROSZYNSKI) writes:
>In article <shawni.702969379@tis.llnl.gov> shawni@.tis.llnl.gov (Shawn Instenes) writes:
>
>>aha@meryl.csd.uu.se (Anders Hallberg) writes:
>
>
>>Thanks for the correction.  You are right, it takes a somewhat larger
>>explosion to expose a cloaked ship.  I'll have to verify that a t-bomb
>>counts (I'm pretty sure it does, but it has been a while).  Then you'd
>>just drop a shield when fighters were docked, lay a bomb where the fighters
>>disappeared, & detonate it yourself.  Since the fighters would have to
>>wait 8 impulses before firing, you'd have time to raise the down shield,
>>just in case he manages to launch one.
>
>>Or overrun him with a Lyran ESG, since you have such a good fix on his
>>position just by watching fighters.
>
>Oh no....Please tell me I'm wrong...
>You guys actually take cloaked Roms off the board?
>As in: secret? as in INVISIBLE ?
>Brrrrrrrr...... Scary; we play the on-the-board-hard-to-fire-at-yet-clearly
>-visible Romulans and they *still* fry my Kzinti cheeks. How do you ever 
>manage to maintain play balance? - or do your Romulans have the Universe at 
>their mercy?
>                        (PCP) The Tailor-Cat.


Actually I believe that if you are using hidden cloaked movement then
the romulan's BPV is increased by a major percentage.  Don't have it with
me but its in the rulebook.
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Sub Rules
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:00:29 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

I've deleted most of this, I just want to clarify a few things, it
doesn't really matter who said it....

>legal ) AND then retreating to another unoccupied territory???
>Of course not.  Only tanks can do this ( Blitzkreig ).
>
>What I'm trying to point out is that infantry can only move 1 space/turn
>and if they decide to withdraw from an attack ( they are attacking ),
>then they must retreat to their original position.( no pain , no gain)

Not quite right.  Page 18 of the second edition rules tells us that if
the attacker "can retreat by stopping combat and moving ALL attacking
units in the battle BACK to ONE adjacent friendly territory from which
any of the attacking units came."  (emphasis from the manual).

So, for example, Germany could attack Karelia from East Europe, Ukraine,
and Finland Norway (assuming they still control all 3).  If the Germans
attack, ALL surviving units go to ONE of the three territories
mentioned.  This is actually a nice way of getting the units out of
Finland-Norway, if that's what you want to do.
Note then that you can end up moving infantry 2 spaces and armor up to 3
by doing this...

Anyway, that what the rulebook says :-)

>You wrote the answer yourself.  A submarine can move MAXIMUM 2 spaces
>per turn whether it is attacking or defending.  The Rules are explicit
>in this regard.

I'd like to know where you read this explicitly in the rules.  As I read
them, you can move two spaces with a sub, enter into combat, and then
withdraw to any sea zone that any of their country's attacking units came
from.  In the manual, page 17, in the highlighted block:

"Where: attacking submarines must withdraw BACK to ONE adjacent sea zone
from which they or any accompanying attacking naval units moved into
combat; defending submarines must withdraw to ANY ONE adjacent friendly
or unoccupied sea zone - if none exists, defending submarines cannot
withdraw."

I think that's pretty clear.  The question I had had was whether subs
that withdraw in round 2 had to go to the same zone as subs that
withdrew in round 1.  My answer was no, as is that in the Rules
Clarifications.  So, as long as attacking subs withdraw to an adjacent
zone that had (or has) units that were involved in the battle at hand,
they can withdraw there.  

In such a case, of course, a sub can end up with an effective movement
of 3.


Hope this helps to clear things up!!!!

Dewey Barich
barich@brahms.udel.edu
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: ASL comments on: Re: AH RELEASES 1992
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:51:11 GMT
Reply-To: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Organization: Dept. of Biology, Columbia Univ., New York, NY

In article <i2F5iB2w162w@micor.ocunix.on.ca> gamesbymail@micor.ocunix.on.ca (andrw) writes:
>We got a flyer from Avalon Hill last week.  It listed their planned releases 
>for the next year or so.  That list follows
>
>        $15.00  ASL Annual '92

         Not worth the money, IMHO. Release just the scenarios, and charge
only $5.

> Oct               Croix de Guerre (French ASL)
    
         I'll believe it when I see it.

> Jan               Armies of Oblivion (ASL)

         What is this?  Is it minor armour?

Danz

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: staats@athena.mit.edu (Richard C. Staats)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 5-6 player games
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:28:02 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Here are some additional games our group of 6-7 has found enjoyable:

WizWar (covered in detail on this net---by Chessex)
Oregon Trail (put out by Fantasy Games Unlimited [FGU])
New World (reissue of Conquistador by Avalon Hill[AH])
Dragon Hunt (AH?)
Roman Imperium II (Excellent political/military/economic simulation by West End
                        Games)
Gladiator (AH)
Cosmic Encounters

	Oregon Trail is a historical simulation of the dangers facing wagon
trains in the US west for the pioneers.  Roman Imperium II is a historical
simulation covering the entire history of the Roman Republic-Empire.  New World
is a historical simulation of the "Age of Discovery".  Dragon Hunt is a fantasy
game where players attempt to garner forces to hunt the dreaded Brimstone; simple
idea with surprising amount of sophistication (fun, not tedious).  Gladiator and
WizWar are both games for the not too serious occasion.  Gladiator is a
simulation of gladitorial combat in the Roman arena; it sounds kind of heavy, but
we run it in a multi-player mode.  We have not had a session yet where something
"goofy" did not happen, e.g., player loosing badly gets down on ground and rolls
thru two or three other gladiators, knocking them down and causing ensuing chaos.
WizWar and Cosmic Encounters are both "Beer and Pretzel" games.

	Hope this helps.

	In service,

	Rich Staats
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: orac@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Giovacchini)
Subject: Semi-Review : Wolf Pack novel
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:33:19 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

	I spent 5.5 hours reading this book.  I will say that it was
 a good read, but the 3 Falcon Guard books are much better.  But, given
 all that happened in the book, it will have a great impact on the
 BattleTech universe.  

	The story follows Wolf's Dragoons.  I wont go into detail because
 you must read the book.  In any case, a few things to remember.
 This book is told in the First person, but tends to get confusing because
 it switches to thrid on a whim.  Just go with it is all I can recomend.
 The style is not a good as I would have liked ( but I am no expert either,
 but I know what I like. :-) ).  The 3 Falcon books and Trilogy are much
 better to read.  I have read those books each over 5 times ( Lost Destiny
 over 10 ) but I can't say I will do the same with Wolf Pack.  Its just
 not a grabber like those were.  Like I implied above, this will be a necessary
 read because of all the happenings ( I.e.  Nicolas Kerensky had a similar
 problem ).

	On a side note, what is the release date for the TR3055?
 I am getting impatient!  Think I will go to FASA and see what they
 have to say for themselves ( If they are taking extra time to correct
 errors, etc, then I will be a happy person... ) :-)

 ================================== 
         Paul J. Giovacchini        | My file system is in such bad shape...
      ( orac@chinet.chi.il.us )     | When fsdb saw it, it dumped core twice! 
 ==================================
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Rules (was Re: Re: Japan ...)
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:01:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware

[Stuff not related to what I'm about to say deleted]

>Not really related but:  during an amphibious assault can attacking
>cargo ships be removed as casualties?  I seem to recall a conflict in
>the rules where two rules seemed to apply - one said you could remove
>them, the other said you couldn't.  We've lost our rules so we can't
>argue anymore, we just say you can't  :-)

>Comments?

>Kevin
>colton@bnr.ca


	Everything I see in the rulebook says that you _can_ lose the
transports at any time, whether there is an amphibious assault or not.
The only thing I can think of that you might have thought the transport
cannot do is enter an enemy-occupied sea zone by itself.  Actually, it
could, but the defending units would get to fire until the transport(s)
were dead or withdrew.

Dewey
barich@brahms.udel.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nfs410c@kepler.unh.edu (Neil F Sorenson)
Subject: Wanted: Bug eyed monsters and War of Ring
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:57:55 GMT

  I am still looking to buy copies of WEG's Bug eyed monsters or/and SPI's
War of The Ring... anyone having either in fair-good condition.. please leave
a price... thanks.
  Also interested in buying used Games Workshop games and figures...
From: josh@gacvx2.gac.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Axis&Allies - Using ally's IC.
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:21:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: gacvx2.1992Apr8.232127.729
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota

Just to clear up some rules, I will quote from the 2nd edition rules.
Page 21 --  Using an ally's industrial complex:  You CANNOT place units
at an industrial complex owned by an ally.  EXCEPTION: you can use an
industrial complex in an ally's territory that you liberated if the
capital of this ally is in enemy hands.

Also when I purchased Axis & Allies, I received the 2nd edition rules
and a 4 page Rules Clarifications sheet.  This Rules Clarification
comments on Gameboard Map, AA, Retreats, Transports, Amphibious
Assualts, Carriers and Fighters, Captured Capitals, and Misc.

Under Miscellaneous:  "A captured enemy territory with an industrial
complex will give you LIMITED unit placement capacity on your next
turn.  It will be equal to the territory's IPC value.  This rule
applies even if the complex was an ORIGINAL one - that is, one
the enemy started the game with."

Some more rule clarifications that surprised me:

Submarine's first shot attack:  Subs get the first strike attack at the
beginning of EACH round of combat, not just the first.

You can move non-air units into a just-captured territory during the
non-combat phase of the same turn, provided that these units did
not engage in combat on that turn.
	Example:  If Russia attacks Ukraine first round with 3 tanks,
	and 5 infantry (infantry from Caucasus) and WINS, Russia
	may move infantry from Karelia into Ukraine during the
	non-combat portion of their turn provided these Karelia
	infantry did not attack anyone this turn.

That's all for now.   Josh@gacvx2.gac.edu
From: otran@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oai Tran)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Third Reich vs. World War II
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:32:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

This is just a poll for all those who played 3R and WWII.

1) When during the game date is the game basically over?

2) How long does it take to complete a game, either to the end or
till someone surrenders?

3) What is your favorite country to play?

4) What side is the balanced tipped, or what side usually wins?

5) Which game is more complete, complex?

6) Which is your overall favorite and why; just a short replay is
ok.

7) On strategy:
a> Doesn't it seem that taking USSR in 3R is easy if done so before
the US enters the war?
b> Isn't it easy to take Britain since Germany has the initiative at
the begining and as a result can elect for the UK to move its ships
first which makes it impossible for them to guard against an
amphibious invasion.

Thanks for any replies.

					Oai Tran
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: roach@milton.u.washington.edu (Jared Roach)
Subject: Re: Game Collapse
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:53:56 GMT

	Pax Brittanica is one of t classics.  It happens to be
an incredible game, as multiplayer games come.  All players
attempt to colonize the world to their best advantage during
the 19th century.  Everyone loses if a world war (i.e. WWI)
breaks out.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cjudd@esk (Craig Thomas Judd)
Subject: Re: Btech: Tech Discussion
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 08:23:52 GMT

In article <6hjjj=p@lynx.unm.edu>, begley@carina.unm.edu (ivan m          92feb05 begley) writes:
>
>>
>>Alas, your argument about "'Mechs that couldn't fight their way out of a
>>paper bag" doesn't stand when you look at the Clan equipment. And if you
>>want to flame me about it being "unavailable" to Inner Sphere pilots ...
>>then take a pill and wait for Technical Readout 3055. If you think those
>>'Mechs are useless ... sign into a Robotech Mental Hospital.
>>
>> :-)   .... I smile ... You ?

Personally, I dislike all 'mechs. I really shouldn't start this argument again
because I've just finished having it with a friend, and only because he moved
away...

A Robotech Mental Hospital? Yar, we know Robotech is stuffed, but have you seen
the original Macross? Same mecha, different story (slightly). All us at rec.
arts.anime blame this on the Evil Makeck...

Yeah, 'mechs may be more realistic than Veritechs, but I don't need to tell
you which one I'd rather be piloting - a Veritech or an LAM... Mecha may
be more unrealistic, but I'd rather be driving one of them than one of those
'mech-walking-tank-couldn't-turn-if-you-kicked-it thingies!

Yours controversially;

-- 
   \/\  "Men, we're going to the Olympics."  The Colonel, Akira (movie)  /\/
====\/\       "You REFUSE to drink my wine...?"  Kahm, Outlanders       /\/====
=====\/\      *** WANT ANY MANGA ARTWORK DONE? Just email me! ***      /\/=====
      \/\   cjudd@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au    a.k.a. Kuro to Shiroi   /\/
From: cchiang@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Huh?!  Wot?!?)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Romulans & Torps
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:45:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Apr3.232503.17990@news.Hawaii.Edu> nishiha@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Gregory Nishihara) writes:
>Can a Romulaan fire it's torps and then cloak? Will the toprps hit the
>target after the Romulan goes under?

	Yes.  The discussion on SFB is held on a list in Berkeley.
If you want to be added to it.  Post on this board, I'm sure
somebody will tell you how to get on the mailing list (I can't
remember right now).

					- The Tasmanian Devil
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Talisman
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:22:22 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

My favorite solution is to make a rule that you can cast no more than one
spell per player turn (not per your turn, though that's another possibility).
Counterspell, Reflect, and the Command Spell don't count toward this limit.

-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.
From: starflt@athena.mit.edu (Derrick Kong)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Romulans & Torps
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:36:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: air-traf.STARFLT.92Apr16153621
	<911414p.40@ace.acadiau.ca> <1992Apr14.073050.6821@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


   In article <911414p.40@ace.acadiau.ca> 911414p@ace.acadiau.ca (PIOTR CEZARY  PROSZYNSKI) writes:
   >In article <shawni.702969379@tis.llnl.gov> shawni@.tis.llnl.gov (Shawn Instenes) writes:
   >
   > (stuff deleted)
   >
   >Oh no....Please tell me I'm wrong...
   >You guys actually take cloaked Roms off the board?
   >As in: secret? as in INVISIBLE ?
   >Brrrrrrrr...... Scary; we play the on-the-board-hard-to-fire-at-yet-clearly
   >-visible Romulans and they *still* fry my Kzinti cheeks. How do you ever 
   >manage to maintain play balance? - or do your Romulans have the Universe at 
   >their mercy?
   >                        (PCP) The Tailor-Cat.

   Actually I believe that if you are using hidden cloaked movement then
   the romulan's BPV is increased by a major percentage.  Don't have it with
   me but its in the rulebook.

I believe that the suggested BPV "compensation" is to increase the
Romulan ship values by 33% if you use hidden cloaking.  (I don't
remember the exact rule number for this.)  "Standard" cloaking indeed
does not remove the counter from the board.

I ordinarily play with non-hidden cloaking and find it to be reasonably
balanced.  Hidden cloaking, especially in one-on-one duels is really
nasty.  However, with a fleet of ships you can often triangulate
positions well enough not to get completely overwhelmed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a sucker born every minute.
		-P.T. Barnum			Derrick Kong
And they die about that fast too.		starflt@athena.mit.edu
		-Grimtooth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board