HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse)
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:09:23 GMT

Without a doubt, AH adding vehicles and the "extras" to Up Front.  The 
40+ page rulebook scared away many new gamers from what is (basically)
a very simple game.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: roan@convex.com (Russell Roan)
Subject: brigade series questions ...
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:31:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


	I have just made my first attempt at playing a Brigade Series
game ("Embrace an Angry Wind") by _The Gamers_, and have a few
questions/clarifications.

(1)	If an extended line counter is forced to retreat, does the 
parent unit have to retreat also if the retreat makes the extended
line not adjacent to the parent?

(2)	"Embrace an Angry Wind" starts with a division ordered to
"attack & capture Spring Hill."  The rest of the corps shows up a few
turns later.  If the division gets a "corps attack stoppage", does the
corps continue the attack after it arrives, or does the divisional
attack stoppage apply to the corps as well?  Does the initial division
roll as a single division corps, or does it consider the remainder of
the corps which doesn't show up until several turns later?

(3)	If a corps HQ is overrun, thus causing emergency corps
retreat, does the retreating corps immediately execute the retreat, or
does it wait until its movement & close combat phase?

(4)	If, after conducting close combat, a brigade has MPs left.
The rules say that the brigade may continue moving.  But if it is in 
an EZOC after close combat, must it stop movement. i.e., move no more 
( unless it conducts a 2nd close combat )?

(5) 	Finally, a philosophical question regarding following orders.
The initial orders in "Embrace an Angry Wind" has Chalmers' cavalry
division attack Spring Hill.  This seems always to result in 
wrecking both brigades if close combat is attempted with them.
How much vigor should be applied to an order of this nature?

			Thanks,

			-Russ
-- 
Russell Roan	  |"Less food on the table ... Less clothes on the kid's
roan@convex.com   | back (sic) ... less money to go to the doctor ...
Vox: 214-497-4841 | just less of everything."
		  |  - The most obnoxious woman in America.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: 1830
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:32:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.170059.18569@cs.hw.ac.uk> ngm@cee.hw.ac.uk (Neil Milne) writes:
>Can someone mail me the name of the company that sells 1830, if it is still
>sold that is. Also the price if you know!
>
>--
>Neil G Milne    RA    Dept. of Computing and Electrical Engineering
>JANET:ngm@uk.ac.hw.cee | OTHER:ngm@cee.hw.ac.uk | or... eeengm@uk.ac.hw.clust
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Did anyone see where that small black screw went...?

Avalon Hill - $29 (US) --- I have no idea about shipping cost to UK or
any UK distributors, though.

Mel
From: rreed@terapin.com (Rick Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: New STARFIRE revision
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:06:05 PST
Organization: BBS

Let me just start out by saying that I think TFG unnecessarily added much too
much to what used to be a simple system!  I think the SFB mentality crept in
too much in this latest revision...

There are some interesting changes, however.

- The system now uses a 1d10 and 1d100 at times rather than 2d6.
- Any weapon hitting an internal system (not armor or shields) rolls for a
critical hit on 1.  A critical hit does double damage (As I remember, at least)
- Projectile weapons do ten times as much damage if the target lacks an active
drive field (running engines).  Says something about how engine distortion
fields surrounding a ship cause projectiles to explode in the proximity of the
target rather than by direct impact, unless of course there is no drive field
surrounding the target!
- Engines are now reactionless drives rather than the ion engines they were
previously stated to be (hence the "I" notation).  Additionally, they are now
placed in engine rooms (looks like "(IIi)" or something).  The loss of an
engine room causes the ship to lose a movement point.  Larger ship types now
require multiple engines per movement point as opposed to the old single
engine, variable cost & size system used before.
- Fighters' arc of fire is DIRECTLY in front.  No 60 degree fan, just a single
hexrow!

There are a heck of a lot more rules, but I can't possibly remember them all! 
Egad!!  I think I prefer the 2nd edition rules.  The manual's introduction
states, "Old STARFIRE hands will find it does many of the things the older
games did in different ways, but they will still recognize the clean "feel" of
the system."  Yeah, right!  TFG may have another SFB on their hands!!!

        -Rick

rreed@terapin.com
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Up Front: Marsh Terrain
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:31:55 GMT
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.

bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu (Benjamin L. Peal) writes:
>
>  I purchased Up Front recently, and I'm a bit confused about the Marsh
>  terrain card.  The card indicates that there's a +1 Fire Strength modifier
>  to attacks against groups in Marsh terrain, but the rules description of
>  the card says that there's a -1 modifier.  Which is the correct modifier?

The rules are correct; the card is in error.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Ricardo.Sedan@launchpad.unc.edu (Ricardo Sedan)
Subject: Re: Guild of Adventure Gaming
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 09:51:37 GMT


In article <C03MMJ.IGK@csulb.edu> hancock@csulb.edu (Don Hancock) writes:

>Could somebody please post or email me the phone
>number of the Guild of Adventure Gaming.
>
>
>Thanks.
>
>Don


guild of adventure gaming
p.o.box 8111
kentwood  MI  49518

phone #: (616) 531-5460

mail order game seller.

35% off most games (a few things are 30% off).


$10 one-time-only/lifetime membership fee.

tell them i sent you!
-ricardo sedan
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: viktor@mgr.hjf.org (Viktor Kaufmann)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Fire in the East, German Strategy
Date: 23 Dec 92 12:22:54 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

My big question deals with the German strategy.  When a group of friends
and I played the Leningrad scenario, and then another scenario of our
own creation, which expanded the Leningrad scenario to include
Army Group Center (and Army Group South, if it fit on the same map), we
found that the Germans were having a hard time breaking out.  Although
it may be a result of our playing in too restricted an area, we decided
that the Germans were attacking incorrectly.

What is a good strategy for the Germans to use while attacking?  Is it
a good idea to create three overrun stacks per Army group, and use a
"damn the torpedos, attack at all cost" approach, in which defenses are
completely ignored?  Or can the German achieve similar effects on a 
broad frontal attack.  It struck me that encirclement of the Soviet
units was a better choice, since they would ultimately die anyway,
yielding many fewer replacement points.  How difficult do experienced
FITE/SE players find this to achieve?  As mentioned before, as far as
the eastern front goes, I've only played the Leningrad scenario from
The Europa Magazine, and a slightly expanded one of my own creation.

Thanks much for any input,

Viktor


-- 
testing
From: stone@gershwin.cs.unc.edu (Donald Stone)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Across Five Aprils
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:12:23 GMT
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science


I picked up "Across Five Aprils" a few days ago and have played through it a
bit solotaire.  I generally agree with the original review ... a
straightforward and interesting game.  It was clearly intended to fill the
niche once filled by the SPI quads.  From my first impressions, I think it
does so admirably.

And now a quibble.  AfA has one of the same problems the old quads did.  Units
ahistorically go running for the nearest forest hexes, avoiding clear terrain
like the plague.  Very Panzerblitz.  Very unhistorical.

If any of you read it, there has been a long and violent debate in the letters
pages of "Operations", the Gamer's company magazine.  Seems that many players
were surprised that there is no defensive benefit to woods.  Debate ensued.
Very ugly.  But the argument that eventually swayed me was that the reason
Civil War commanders didn't line up in the woods was that you couldn't
effectively control troops in line formation.  In woods, cohesion and
firepower would be reduced.  Along these lines, a final suggestion from one
letter writer was that troops firing from woods hexes should be penalized.

Along that line, how about the following change to AfA:  if any units involved
in combat are in woods hexes, they are penalized with 1 column shift.  Roads,
trails, etc, negate this penalty.

Thus, if both units are in woods, there is no effect.  Units in a field firing
at units crashing through the trees (i.e. Shiloh) get a benefit.  Etc.  

In a quick glance at the map, it looks as if this change would not affect the
games too much.  In particular, in Shiloh, there are an equal number of
defensive lines, they just move around by a few hexes (i.e. line up in the
fields, not behind them ...)

So what do folks think?

--
Donald Stone (stone@cs.unc.edu)
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Europaphiles - where are you??
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 01:30:22 GMT
 <gdwds*+t1@caleb.UUCP> <1993Jan2.020217.3200@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan2.020217.3200@athena.mit.edu>, John F Carr writes:

> In article <gdwds*+t1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >> I've found playing FiTE that the winter rules are not enough to prevent
> >> continued German advance, leading to at least one major breakthrough in the
> >> spring.
> 
> >They shouldn't.  The Soviet player should do that.  In the actual event, the
> >Germans did continue some advances during the winter - until they reached the
> >end of their ability to continue advancing.  Don't count on weather rules to
> >do everything.
> 
> I meant, even with Soviet resistance the Germans have it too easy.  In the
> early winter short supply lines are effective at stopping the German advance.
> In the second half of the winter, supply lines have caught up to the front in
> enough areas that the Germans can start attacking again.
> 
> In the games I've played or watched, the Germans have been able to break
> through Russian lines in the central plains after the end of the first winter
> because they were able to push too hard in the winter.

Well, I haven't seen that (or interpreted it differently.)  Did the Soviets build
forts?  Although the Soviets probably can't completely halt the Germans, by then
they should be able to prevent most breakouts.  (I assume that the Soviets have
double lines of overrun proof stacks in most places by now.)  During the winter,
the Soviets should be making many carefully chosen attacks on the Germans.  Also,
the Soviet air force should be quite strong by now.  The perennial German fighter
shortage should be starting to be felt too.

As I said before, I believe that it is the Soviets who have it "too easy."  Just
because the Germans take lots of territory and kill lots of units doesn't mean
that they will win in the end.  I think that many Soviet players get intimidated
into quitting from a winning position.

I really would like to watch one of these games where the Germans supposedly win
easily.  I've never seen it happen.  I have seen Soviet players quit in despair
when they should have continued playing (and probably would have won.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters)
Subject: 1830: stock round question              
Reply-To: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:40:00 +0000

Diane:
>The 1830 rules explicitly prohibit selling, then buying the same stock in
>the same stock round.  A quick perusal of the rules did not turn up any rule
>that said whether you couldn't or could buy THEN sell a stock

Yep, so we've been playing it that you can (with some "interesting" tactical
implications).  The original game in the series, 1829, forbade it though.

  //\/\/  iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk

>>>MATRIX version  1.21e
From: philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Philip Dutre)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: MB/GDW: HeroQuest & BattleMasters
Date: 28 Dec 92 13:29:59 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computerwetenschappen

In article <1992Dec27.010436.12344@u.washington.edu>, harmonix@stein.u.washington.edu (Chaz Stevens) writes:
|> 	I've recently seen two games from Milton Bradley working with GDW in

It's GW (Games Workshop), not GDW (Games Designers Workshop). Big difference :-)

|> my local toy store, namely HeroQuest and BattleMasters.  I am interested in
|> knowing how playable they are.  Can someone who has seen or played one or
|> both of these games give me a review of them?  E-mail or posted is fine.  
|> Thank you!

Okay, short:

Heroquest:

Some sort of back-to-the-very-basic-roots-of-roleplaying game. In fact it's
a RPG without the roleplay component. Each player has one character (dwarf,
elf, barbarian, wizard), one player is Morcar, the evil wizard, who acts as GM.
Each scenario is a dungeon, which the characters have to explore. Rules
are very elementary. During your turn you move and perform an action. An action
can be fighting, casting a spell, search for treasure, search for traps/hidden
doors. Monsters (controlled by the GM) act in the same way, and have one goal:
killing the players.

Everything is represented in 3D: miniatures for every monster, miniatures for
all kind of furniture, etc...

IMHO, the game is very playable, is suited for small children to adults, and
all the playing pieces are excellent for use in your "normal" FRP campaign.

Further expansion sets are available, with new monsters, new traps, new spells,
new scenarios etc...: Kellar's Keep, Return of the Witch Lord, Against the Ogre
Hord, Wizards of Morcar & The dungeon Design Kit, that allows you to produce your
own scenario maps.

GW also produced Advanced Heroquest, with one expansion Terror in the Dark. Don't
be misguided by the term "advanced". It's certainly not as good as basic HQ.

Battlemasters:

This game is based upon the same principles as HQ, although there are now
two armies facing each other. Gameplay is fast, but luck plays a major role
in the game.
Both players have an army of about 50 miniatures a side, organised in regiments.
Each turn a card is drawn, which indicate what regiments are able to move/attack/
shoot that turn.
We found it less enjoyable than HQ, but it's worth the money if you're interested
in the miniatures (e.g. for your fantasy wargames).


If I had to recommend one of these two games, I would definitely recommend
Heroquest

-- 
| Phil Dutre                            Dept. Computer Wetenschappen        |
| philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be             Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL)|
| Phone: (32) 16 201015 x3094/3552      Celestijnenlaan 200A                |
| Fax:   (32) 16 205308                 B-3001 Heverlee, BELGIUM            |
From: Ricardo.Sedan@launchpad.unc.edu (Ricardo Sedan)
Subject: good three-player games
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:33:04 GMT

there are many great two-player games out there,
and many games that work great with many 
(more than three or four players).
can people recommend some outstanding three player games?
most multi-player games i like don't quite work with three,
at least not well enough for my tastes.

just so you all know what i like:

some of my favorite 2-player games:
chess 
go
plateau
up front
house divided
attack sub
afrika korps
i'm starting to get into:
panzer blitz
squad leader/advanced squad leader

some of my favorite that work best with four or more players:
civilization/advanced civilization
cosmic encounter
rise and fall
blackbeard
i'm pretty sure i will really like world in flames,
as soon as some of my friends can be talked into diving
into it (hint, hint!)

as you can see, my tastes are pretty eclectic.

by the way, here are some games I think work ok with three:
titan (haven't played it much)
rise and fall
amoeba wars (we play with the house rule that you MUST, at least
once during the game, when the appropriate card is playyed, yell at
the top of your lungs, "provoooke aaan aamoeeebaaaa!" it works well :^)

anyway, any entries? 

-rock

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mdm@bnr.ca (Diane MacMartin)
Subject: 1830: stock round question
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 03:00:58 GMT

The 1830 rules explicitly prohibit selling, then buying the same
stock in the same stock round.  A quick perusal of the rules did
not turn up any rule that said whether you couldn't or could
buy THEN sell a stock in the same stock round.

In our last game, one of the player's actions made us wonder whether
to add such a prohibition to the rules.  Has anyone else ever found
it necessary?  How did it work out?

-- 
Diane MacMartin       Bell-Northern Research, Ltd     Ottawa, Canada
mdm@bnr.ca            Any opinions are my own and do not represent BNR.
=========>> If this is printed on paper, please recycle it <<==========

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher)
Subject: Metagaming list, incl. TFT
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 15:28:44 EST


Boxed or Ziplock Games

  ???? - YTHRI
  1101 - STELLAR CONQUEST
  1102 - GODSFIRE

The Fantasy Trip

  2103 - ADVANCED MELEE
  2104 - ADVANCED WIZARD
  2102 - IN THE LABYRINTH
  2201 - TOLLENKAR'S LAIR
  2301 - FANTASY MASTER'S CODEX
  2302 - FANTASY MASTER'S SCREEN
  xxxx - WARRIOR LORDS OF DAROK
  xxxx - FOREST LORDS OF DIHAD

Microquest (TFT Solitaire)

  3201 - DEATH TEST
  3202 - DEATH TEST 2
  3203 - GRAIL QUEST
  3204 - TREASURE OF THE SILVER DRAGON
  3205 - SECURITY STATION
  3206 - TREASURE OF UNICORN GOLD
  3207 - MASTER OF THE AMULETS
  3208 - ORB QUEST 

Microgames

  3101 - OGRE
  3102 - CHITIN: I
  3103 - MELEE
  3104 - WARPWAR
  3105 - RIVETS
  3106 - WIZARD
  3107 - OLYMPICA
  3108 - G.E.V.
  3109 - ICE WAR
  3110 - BLACK HOLE
  3111 - STICKS AND STONES
  3112 - INVASION OF THE AIR EATERS
  3113 - HOLY WAR
  3114 - ONE WORLD / ANNIHILATOR
  3115 - HOT SPOT
  3116 - ARTIFACT
  3117 - DIMENSION DEMONS
  3118 - LORDS OF THE UNDEREARTH
  3119 - HELLTANK
  3120 - TRAILBLAZER
  3121 - STARLEADER: ASSAULT!
  3122 - HELLTANK DESTROYER

Microhistory

  3301 - ROMMEL'S PANZERS
  3302 - RAM SPEED
  3303 - STALIN'S TANKS
  3304 - FURY OF THE NORSEMEN
  3305 - FIRE WHEN READY

Metagames
 
  5101 - AIR-EATERS STRIKE BACK
  5102 - DRAGONS OF THE UNDEREARTH

Metahistory

  5201 - HITLER'S WAR
  5202 - TROJAN WAR
  5203 - COMMAND AT SEA

****************

It should be noted that Metagaming tried to modify TFT after Jackson
left.  They created (well, Keith Gross did) the Lords of the Underearth
concept which was supposed to have many more games.  In fact it only
has two (LORDS OF THE UNDEREARTH and DRAGONS OF THE UNDEREARTH), the
first being a boardgame, the second being a microtactical combat system
for use with further modules that were never produced.

DOTU is is fact slightly modified MELEE.  Mind you, I assume it's
slightly modified although I haven't really looked at it carefully.
There was much made in INTERPLAY of upcoming material (two additions
to the AIR-EATERS game series, one western RPG, more LOTU stuff), and
it all disappeared when Metagaming went under.

Sich is liff...

Michel

C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Private user                   |
Ottawa, Canada                 | member, Christina Amphlett fan club
CANADA                         |
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: centaur@netcom.com (Paul Blair)
Subject: New StarFire edition info?
Summary: looking for info on the new Starfire edition.
Keywords: starfire TFG
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:02:16 GMT

	Hi there.  Has anyone picked up the new edition of starfire
which came out recently?  I've played my older edition quite a bit, and
I was wondering what's different between this one and the last one.  
Did they include Empires?  Etc.  A review or summary would be appreciated!


     Paul
-- 
--
*******************************************************
     centaur@netcom.com 
*******************************************************
 
A subject that is beautiful in itself gives no suggestion to the
artist.  It lacks imperfection.
 
			-Oscar Wilde

*******************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu (kevin soutor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: FOR STEVEN E. NEWTON
Date: 31 Dec 1992 15:59:32 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

Steve,

I also have all of the TFT stuff as well, except THE CODEX that you 
mentioned in your recent posting to this newsgroup.  Would you give me
an idea as to what this is?  Thanks.

Kevin Soutor

ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu

--
       Kevin Soutor        | "Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms!" |
 ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu   |               -- Outlaw Josey Wales  |
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher)
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 17:30:04 EST

Traveller was out in 1977 or 1978.  D&D dates back to 1974 and the
Chainmail combat rules go back even further into the mists of time.

Michel

C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Private user                   |
Ottawa, Canada                 | member, Christina Amphlett fan club
CANADA                         |