HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arp2@ellis.uchicago.edu (andrew robert polis)
Subject: Re: BTECH: two questions on targetting and leg destruction, and a design
Keywords: multiple targets, leg destruction
Reply-To: arp2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:13:06 GMT

   Thre's a few points I'dlike to mention about this mech design that RVFHOUT
posted.  First of all, its a great design: awesome long range fire power, a
strong support mech that can also handle itself up close with the ERPPC and
TSM.
In article <Bx8JAv.I8v@cs.vu.nl> rfvhout@cs.vu.nl (Houten van RF) writes:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Type:PLC-DIN Diana
>Tonnage:                 75 tons                     75      51
>Internal Structure:      (Endo Steel)          7.5->  4      14

Someone (I forget who) mentioned that you could put an extra h 1/4 ton of
armor on it since the internal structure actually only weighs 3.75 tons;
and while this is logical (and I myself do it), the rules do state that 
armor can only be added in 1/2 and whole tons. So I can understand why you did
not add the extra 1/4 ton. (also, see below).
>Engine:                  XL 300                       9.5     6
>  walking MP:            4
>  running MP:            6
>  jumping MP:            0
>
>Total Heat Sinks:        13 (double)                  3       3
>Gyro:                                                 3       0
>Cockpit:                                              3       0
>Armor Factor             262                         14.5     0
>                    Internal             Armor
>                    Structure            Value
>Head:                  3                   9
>Center Torso:         29               29/28
>Rt/Lt Torso:          19               20/18
>Rt/Lt Arm:            15                  30
>Rt/Lt Leg             19                  30

There's a couple problems here.  First, the internal structure points you have
listed here are for a 90 tonner.  A 75 tonner should have the following:
    Center Torso:       23
     Rt/Lt Torso:        16
    Rt/Lt Arm:          12
    Rt/Lt Leg:          16

Also, 14.5 tons of standard armor comas to 232 points not 262, but the good
news is that this amount works out almost exactly with the correct internal
structure.  (only one point over I think).  So you don't need any major
changes, just a re-allocation of the armor.  Nothing compared to the errors
FASA publishes.
>
>Triple Strength Myomer                                0       6
>
>Weapons and Ammo    Location            Critical
>ER PPC                 RT                  3          7       3
>LRM-5                RA(6)                 1         12       6
>LRM-5                LA(6)                 1         12       6
>ammo*120               LT                             5       5
>ammo*48                RT                             2       2
>heat sink              LT                                      
>-----------------------------------------------------------------


-Andrew Polis
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Games that belong on every gamer's bookshelf
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:08:37 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

Alec Habig writes:
>If Wiz-War compares to Planet Busters, I'll have to try to find Wiz-War.

How about this, if Planet Busters is so favorably compared to Wiz-War, 
I'm *already* looking for it.  Can anyone shed any information on it?
Thanks in advance.

-- 
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.
From: mage@morse.cns.vt.edu (Kurt Adam)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Eurorails (or Empire Builder, XX Rails) question
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:04:44 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA


	I was playing Eurorails last night (I just got it a few weeks ago) and
we started wondering about an unclear area in the rules.  During rail building,
the rules say that you can either build from existing line or start at any
major city.  The cost for building into a major city is 5, but coming out is
usually only 1 (actually just the value of the milepost built to).  Now, we
figured it would be possible, since it's not explicitly outlawed, to build
from two major cities to a milepost in between both cities, thereby getting
around the 5 million for entering the major city.  We decided that was pretty
sleazy, so played that if you were already connected to the city you could
build to/from for the cost of the regular milepost there.  Has anyone else
run up against this?  I was wondering how other people resolved this situation.
My other idea was that when you build out from a major city you could only
connect to track that existed before your current turn.  This also came up
for smaller cities, but we adapted the original rule to apply.  Thanks a lot.
E-mail replies would be great, and if anyone is interested I'll post a summary.

Kurt Adam
mage@morse.cns.vt.edu
From: nroworth@nl.oracle.com (Nick Roworth)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Republic of Rome
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:21:35 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe

There was an article posted a few months ago answering a lot of queries on 
ROR. I either did not save it, as I did not have the game then, or have
subsequently deleted it. Can anyone E-Mail it to me.

Does it answer any of the following queries I have?

If there are two or more matching wars is the fleet strength also doubled?

If a Dictator does not win a victory in a battle does he become an ordinary
Pro-Consul. If so what happens to his Master of Horse? If the Dictator dies and
the Master of Horse survives does the Master of Horse become a Pro-Consul?

The advanced rules for provincial wars are very unclear to me. Stalemates and 
standoffs are mentioned, but what happens in the case of a disaster or defeat.
In the case of a defeat there may be legions and fleets remaining on the war card
can they defend the province? A disaster means there may still be a commander
as well can he be involved in the provincial war?

Playing solitaire, or two players, is the money gained for ship building or
armaments given to the senator holding the card or split up as per the faction
guidelines?

According to the rules The General Vol. 27 No. 4 featured ROR, what did it
contain? and is it worth getting?

Thanks for any help.

-- 
Nick Roworth, ORACLE Europe             "Bugs Mr. Rico! Zillions of 'em!"
Rijnzathe 6, NL-3454 PV De Meern        Starship Troopers - Robert A. Heinlein
Phone: +31-3406-94211                     
nroworth@nl.oracle.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: arp2@ellis.uchicago.edu (andrew robert polis)
Subject: Re: BTECH: Us vs. Them vs. who?
Reply-To: arp2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:30:23 GMT

Karl Gunnar Hultland writes:
>andrew robert polis (arp2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: Hmmm...  Interesting point about the intelligence capabilities...
>: Maybe a year from now we'll all be playing 'Battlespies'?  :)
>
>
>This is not really Battlespies, but I think I remember something
>about a sourcebook detailing the different intelligence agencies
>of the BT universe.
Yeah, I just saw it today in the november issue of Preview{: "Intelligence
Operations Handbook" should be out in January I think.
>
>
>
>			Karl
>
>-- 
>
>Karl-Gunnar Hultland              Vox Dei, Vox Populi
>m91kgh@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se



_

-Andrew Polis
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: cg533@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James Eugene Alloway)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: RE: Classic Games
Date: 13 Nov 1992 14:18:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


First, I wnat to say i like the categories Roger made for games.  I totally agree
with them.  So here's my Oscar nominees -- 

1)I think Diplomacy is good, but for sheer diplomacy, I prefer:
   REPUBLIC of ROME.  Greed, nobility, religion, and world dominance.  What more
could you want?

2)I have not played on of the Columbia games, But I am on the verge of Buying
NAPOLEON.  So there.

3)Eclectic game?   CONQUISTADOR by AH.  I found it enjoyable, never plays the
same way twice, good solitaire, and a helluva lot of fun. For the player at
least.  Native Americans in the game are cannon fodder.
  
4)Eclectic just because?   STARSHIP TROOPERS by AH.  Nothing like equipping
a group of Marines, and jumping down into Hell.  Really make ya wonder if
Aliens drew from these ideas.  Good play, always different, getting ready 
almost as much fun as playing.  Truly a game that deserves second looks
for future design.

5)Fun group game?  TITAN by AH.  Plenty of new rules on the net (Thanks
people!!! the rules are GREAT!!!) good playability, enjoyable, good replay
potential.   
    
And no, not every game is going to be from AH.

6) Beer and Pretzel:  NUCLEAR anything.  I don't know how many times I have
played these things and laughed my ass off as the world wnt up in 
nuclear fire.  HACKER by SJG and Modern Naval Battles are close tho.
   
7)Monster Game:  well I consider EAGLE AND THE SUN by FGA or SPI's PACIFIC
game the contenders here.  I played a little of SPI's thing in the early 
80's and E$S recently.  Both were fun, but huge.  Oh, and the Japanese 
always lose.  It's just the price to the US that is being haggled over.

8)Group Cooperative Game:  I agree that this would be a good type of game to
have, but I don't know of any, so I can't answer this one.  I do feel that since such a g
since such a game is really a good idea, I would like suggestions from anyone who couldwne
who might suggest one.

9&10) Looks like these are open so....
    9) Great battles of Alexander (and pther games that use its system)
        Some of the best  rules for tactical recreations I have ever seen.
         follow up games SPQR, Juggernaut, and War Elephant are also
        superb and add a great deal.  They are even going forward in time
        with the system to the 30 years War next year.

    10)WORLD IN FLAMES and associated games.  I have never seen a system that
        covers the political manuvering before a major war nearly as well.
        And it is playable, intersting, has room for a lot of players, and can
       allow play to actually al;ter historical outcomes (yes, even for the JapanesHHH     
       Japanese).   
    
  So there you go.   Ask me again next year, and I might be including games
like NAPOLEON ON THE DANUBE from New England Simulations or any of a dozen
more games I haven't tried yet or that are coming out this year.
   
 Gene
From: aodn307@bongo.cc.utexas.edu (Joshua Henry Geurink)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Btech: Favorite Mechs
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:18:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <BxBAqv.4sr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
>aodn307@bongo.cc.utexas.edu (Joshua Henry Geurink) writes:

>>The Widowmaker is a @#$% CURSED 'mech!  I've NEVER seen so many consecutive
>>head shots scored against any one class of 'mech in so many scenerios!
>>I LOVED the DW when I first saw it -- then it became the first 'mech to die
>>in THREE CONSECUTIVE BATTLES (OK, it tied once).  I couldn't take it anymore.

>Was it just unlucky, or did it suffer from "Holy S**T, it's so huge, we have
>to kill it NOW!!!" syndrome? I've found that really tough 'Mechs tend to
>draw more firepower than they are worth. Was it a case where the volume of
>fire led to a higher chance of criticals, or just bad luck?

Bad luck.  Period.  The Widowmaker lumbers on over the first hill, the biggest
'mech on the other team takes aim, fires a gauss rifle, and *pfffft*, off
comes the Daishi's head.  
My friends and I've developed a sort of strategy; the triad of death.  The
Widowmaker, a custom 100 -tonner, and generally a MadCat stumble around in
tight formation, totally demolishing everything in front of them.  The
Daishi ALWAYS gets shot at first by the biggest opposing 'mech.

>>If you want class, you want style, and you want conservative power,
>>	NOTHING tops the COPPERTOP
>>		That is, a slightly customized Warhammer.

>The Warhammer, from what I've seen, is the basis for more customizations
>and modifications of any 'Mech FASA has issued yet. I don't really know
>why, but I know that I can list at least 10 Warhammer variants that I've
>seen and that's 10 in 3025 and 10 in 3050/3055 era. It seems to be the
>hot rod of the FASA world.

That's because there's just so much you can do with a Warhammer -- especially
dropping some of those little weapons (death before machineguns) and adding
heat sinks.  It's impressive when, outweighed by 25 or 30 tons, the Warhammer
vanquishes the big, bad Marauder II in a slugfest...

=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
King Rat                     |  "You got the power, (Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!)
aka Josh Geurink             |   You got the might, (No Way!)
aodn307@bongo.cc.utexas.edu  |   Get ready for battle, (Give me your money!)
                  Defeat the Black Knight!"
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`



Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: BattleTech - Elementals query
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:12:55 GMT
Keywords: BattleTech query elementals

8911266@cuslm.ca (THIBODEAU MICHEL) writes:

>I have a few questions regarding elementals:

Don't we all.

>1) In the Technical Readout 3050, on page 225, it states that "Each
>suit of BattleArmor has an armor value of 10 points." but in the
>BattleTech Compendium, on page 46, it states: "Each suit of
>BattleArmor has an armor value of 11 points."  Though the rules in
>the Compendium takes precedence over the TR3050, I think it's a
>typo.  Has anybody else noticed this?  

I think this is a typo on the 3050 end. The 3050 Elemental sheets
show 11 pts of armor, so I assume that is was just a misread due to
the odd numbering system that FASA used for the armor boxes (00 - 10).

>2) On page 8 of the TR3050, it states that the BattleArmor "is
>totally impervious to flamers." 

This doesn't get carried over to the compendium. We (being my gaming
group) aren't certain if FASA wanted this deleted or just forgot about
it. 

>What I'm getting at is this: Can
>you overheat an Elemental?  Though flamers don't "slag"
>BattleArmor, it must still get pretty hot in there!  The Elementals
>have Jump Jets, an ER Small Laser plus a SRM2 launcher, it must
>have heat sinks.  If so, how many? 

I would assume they have the heat dissipating capacity to use all
it's weapons and jump without overheating.

>If you shoot Inferno Rounds and
>a Flamer on an Elemental, should there be a possibility of Ammo
>Explosion? 

Inferno's cannot be used on infantry of any type. ( I know, cheesy FASA 
rule #205) Flamers may/may not have no effect on Elementals. Considering 
that the average Elemental can operate in space and is dark enough
that it would really suck up heat there, I'd say that it could easily
ignore the heat from the flamer. 

>Or does anybody care at all about such petty trivia?  These
>questions have caused me deep insomnia last night, so please reply.

I'd say that these things just aren't worth worrying all that much.

Axly

********************************************************************************
*   Axly      *  "Is Axly tough? Yes. Talented? Yes. Brave? Oh, certainly.     *
* Red Sword   *   He is also erratic, irresponsible, accident-prone, and a     *
*   Targa     *   constant threat to public safety. The trick is to keep him   *
*             *   pointed in the right direction. "                            *
*             *         -Niki                                                  *
********************************************************************************
From: kuaxe@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Blood Bowl -- Info request
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:15:16 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

	Alright Blood Bowlers,
	I have another request.  I'd like a copy of the rules on Grave Diggers
if you still have them somewhere.  I'm compiling all my rules and for
(hopefully) a league next semester.  Also, I'm interested in seeing any and
every race you out there may have created.  Thanks for the info.

			Tim Benninghoff
			kuaxe@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ken@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Ken Primer)
Subject: Mayfair games questions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:57:26 GMT


     Is it true  that Mayfair is going to start releasing it's rail games
in tubes like they did with Nippon Rails? :-(

-- 
 A friend is someone you can call on to help you | ken primer  ken@uxc.cso.uiuc
move. A REAL friend is someone you can call on   | .edu        
to help you move a body.                         |     Galoot Cullognum
                            -Gurps Illuminati    | Don't buy it folks!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - Can Allies ever win (IIa)
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:57:29 -0500 
Distribution: world
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


>2) If you attack with infantry only, your attacking power will decrease
>   each round of attack. If you are attacking by a force of fighters and
>   infantry, a major part of your attacking power will come from the fighters.
>   But for casualities, you'll remove some infantry, of course. So, you're
>   attacking power will not decrease so much.
Your attacking power will decrease at the same rate.  Consider

Each side has $24 worth of stuff
	8 infs 		compared to		4 inf + 1 fighter
	2.67 hits	compared to		1.83 hits
1st round you lose 2 inf
	6 infs		compared to		2 inf + 1 fighter
	2 hits		compared to		1.17

Both sides have lost .67 expected hits, but the fighter group has lost
a higher percentage of its combat abilities!  This is because dollar
for dollar fighters don't attack (and certainly don't defend) as well
as inf.  So the fighter group as a percentage takes *worse* loses than
the inf group.

>  3) If you attack with infantry only, you'll need a lot of them. Let's say
>   gemany has 3 infantry in the Caucasus, and you're going to attack these.
>   The defending infantry will hit in average 3*(2/6)=1 of your units. If
>   you want to do this, you need 6 infantry: 6*(1/6)=1. But due to the 
>   variance (see 1), you might better send 8 or 9 infantry. This is more
>   than Russia can build in a turn! And this infantry will not defend
>   the Caucasus. Let's say you'll eliminate the 3 german units and there
>   are 5 of your units left. Germany will kill them by a combined infantry
>   and fighter attack! You have lost all 8 or 9 infantry to stop germany!
Umm...how many *fighters* would you need for this attack.  Face this
simple fact:  for attacking infantry are more cost effective than
fighters.  Arguing it "costs too much" to attack with inf is silly,
the cost in fighters would be much higher.  

	joe
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: EIA: Re: Supply limits
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:48:19 GMT

In article <dodd.720929007@pekoe> dodd@csl.sri.com (Chris Dodd) writes:
>ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>>From the AH edition of EiA, rule 12.3.1 (Supply Limits per Depot) p36 :
>
>>"Each individual depot that is a supply source or part of a valid supply chain
>>may only be used to supply a maximum of 4 corps and/or besieged garrisons."

>Is it just me, or does this rule clearly say the exact opposite -- each
>depot can only supply directly or be used as part of a supply chain
>for at most 4 corps.  Thus if you have two depots in a chain (one in a
>supply source and one 2 spaces away), you cannot supply 4 corps from
>each, because then the one in the supply source would be supplying 8
>corps (4 directly and 4 via supply chain).

No, it says each individual depot that is in supply may be used to supply 4
corps.  The or is in the part of the sentance specifying how the depot is in
supply.  Here's how I'd parse this sucker :

"Each individual depot that is a supply source or part of a valid supply chain
^^^^^(subject)^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^(description of subject)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

may only be used to supply a maximum of 4 corps and/or besieged garrisons."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(what the subject can do)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>The original rule was basically `each depot can supply 4 corps', with
>no elaboration, leading to precisely this dispute.

that is certainly a better way of phrasing it, but the EiA rules writers seem
to have been taking writing lessons from political speechwriters!

	Alec
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH:  On artillery
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:48:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Nov9.151903.2202@gacvx2.gac.edu> phygod72@nic.gac.edu (Phil ) writes:
]The point has been brought up that my VTOLs will die off easily. 

Yep, no armor and those things are deathtraps. I liked the idea of a swarm
of VTOLs w/med. lasers to hunt the TAG VTOLs the best, though.

Speed is armor...... til you're hit.
 
]This is indeed true, especially against the Clan.  
]
]*However*, in my own defence, I should like to state:
]
]1) You think that the VTOL is going to be *in front* of you?  No way!

You may not have that choice, esp w/AAA vehicles (Partisan, etc.) rotating
their turrets to engage you. Equip said vehicles w/LB-10Xs w/cluster rounds
and you are going to have shredded VTOL.

]3) If worse comes to worse, I'll charge your legs, knocking you to the ground, 
]     essentially crippling you.  (granted, it would take roughly 6 of the 
]     buggers to knock out a leg, but...)

You definitely must be playing Draconis Combine forces. Where else are you
going to find kamikaze pilots.

]4) I would (with spare tonnage) have VTOL's with a ton's worth of lasers..just 
]     pile them up in the hex behind an assult mech (I can put 1000 of them 
]     there if I had them), and watch his rear armour vapourise!

Remember the AAA. Not to mention strafing fighters. Bunching up like that is
inviting some major hurt from above.

]The artillery force that I have posted is simply a point that I was trying to  
]make--I wouldn't seriously have 600 tons of artillery tanks...though it can be
]done!

I would hope you wouldn't. You don't seem to be someone who likes losing.


-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: Monopoly Rules
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:36:30 GMT

In article <lflg3jINNhom@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> mcgrew@ichthous.Eng.Sun.COM (Darin McGrew) writes:
>Some Monopoly variants that I've encountered are--
>
>+ If you land on GO exactly, then you get $400 instead of $200.

I think I know of a connection to this one.  Another monopoly-like game
called careers had exactly the rules that if you landed on the start
square exactly, you collected double salary.  Of course, this may have
been around in Monopoly circles before Careers was ever minted.


Mel