HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: Optional Rules Version 2.1
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:32:44 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Sep27.222247.1218@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> Optional Rules for BattleTech			version 2.1
> 
> Weapons:
> (1) Autocannon: First, if the AC is mounted on a wheeled, tracked, or naval
> vehicle flip the ranges of the AC/2 and AC/20, and then of the AC/5 and AC/10. 
> Next, take 3 tons off the weight of all ACs. Finally, if the AC is mounted on 
> a wheeled, tracked, or naval vehicle, double the range.
> 

	Just when I thought it was ready to send out...

	Delete the last line, and replace it with:

	"After flipping the ranges for selected vehicles, add 5/10/15 hexes
	to the short/medium/long range of all the ACs for those vehicles."


Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Looking for a few games...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:42:00 GMT


Hiya,

I was looking for a few of the following out-of-print games in case they
are gathering dust on anyone's shelves.  They are all only moderately rare,
so you won't raise enough money to retire on, but anyone interested in talking
price, please e-mail me.  Thanks.

Looking for:

Narvik (GDW Europa Series).  I presume this one will eventually be reissued for
Grand Europa.

USN (SPI / S&T).  Not the best strategic Pacific game, but at least the first.

The Crusades (SPI).  Designed by Richard Berg.  May have been an S&T game, but
definitely issued boxed too.  Either format is acceptable.


Dave Casper
CERN - Geneva
casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH - Rules and realism
Date: 26 Sep 92 12:00:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

From: rb6t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Robert Everett Brunskill)

> lunatic@netcom.com writes (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex): 
> >  ___
> >   |hink for a minute.  That "biggest problem" of BattleTech is
> > actually the only thing that keeps the game playable.  If the armour
> > rules in BattleTech were truly realistic, every game would be over
> > in the length of time it takes to get a line of sight to your
> > opponent.

	> Anyone out there ever play SF3D?  It's relatively simple but does a
> good job in combat realism.  First hit immobilizes or disarms your armor
> suit (if you're lucky) second hit kills.  Not much room for roleplaying.
 > If you want real REAL military combat games turn to large scale
> strategic games - they can afford to kill off the infantry.

	I wouldn't say that it is such agood game, you must mean SF3D
	II! The first one is so convaluted.

	> Of course it is ultimately your own decision as to how you want to
> play.  Remember - I don't really know you so I don't care much - as long
> as you have fun.

	Right.

> By the way, anyone know where I can get the first SF3D game?

	GenCon had oodles of the game. Sold roughly 30$ a pop. Mint.
	I'll see if I can find the address of the Game Shop that sold
	it.

> Rob Brunskill


Roll!       ___      +---------------------------------------------------+
Over!   __ ( . )      From        : Stephane I. Matis
      _/__\(___)      Internet    : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca
    / /\\[==]//\ \    Working for : Monenco Systems Group 
   /_/  |THOR|  \_\   Working  at : Newfoundland Offshore Contractors 
  [00] _//==\\_ [00]  Writing for : Mecha*Press and FASA's BattleTech
      / _/--\_ \      		    Dream Pod 9
     |__|    |__|     "It Just Works... " - Steve Paul Jobs, CEO NeXT
     (__]    [__)     "Clam Warships are landing on Toycod !" - Anonymous
    [_=_]    [_=_]   +---------------------------------------------------+
From: s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (ACE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Btech/RoboTech comparison
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:52:03 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

Why are people comparing two VERY different systems ? The technologies are
inordinately different. Robotech is based on the ANIME style of combat,
whereas BTECH is based on the realistic style ( chuckle, chuckle ), and
never the twain shall meet ! Comparing the two systems will never give an
accurate picture of what there like, unless you make wide-sweeping assumptions.
This has already occured with the 15 second to 10 second turn difference.   
Most writers are assuming that any BTECH weapon deserves to do 1.5 times its
value because it fires more often. WRONG ! VERY VERY WRONG ! In Robotech, the
weapons have Rates of Fire, ie they fire more than once, depending on the pilot.
For most mecha this will enable it to fire its MOST powerful weapon anywhere
up to FIVE or SIX times. This invalidates MANY of the current postulated
theories for converting stats. People who want to compare the two should at
least TRY to be a bit more familiar with the rules of both systems. This means
no more " I don't have any of the relevant rule books with me, but I think I'll
just spout on like a BTECH/Robotech guru anyway." People do notice this, and
they consider the author STUPID when they read the article. Anyway, try and
define any RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE assumptions before further comparisons. I
would like to see some system of comparison, although I feel that the basis
for comparisons is none too good when the mass and power systems are so
different between 'Mechs and mecha.

			       ACE
                   s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
	        " How deep is the ocean ? " - Eric
" No Silicon Heaven ? But where would all the calculators go ? " - Kryten
      " Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast." - Hero Rimmer
From: carlton@apollo.hp.com (Carl Hommel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: BSK - 1C The Basilik
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:06:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

Tony Taia posts a great Thunderbolt variant:

>Basilisk BSK - 1C
NAME           Tons Pow W/R/J Arm H Cen Side Arm Leg HS Weapons
TDR-5SE Basilisk 65 260 4/6/4 208 9 30/11 24/6 20 29 11 ML(2) SL(2) AC/5(2)

I would use this mech as part of a screening force.  Its role would be to
go out about 10 hexes in front of the assault mechs, and slow up the opponents
advance.  It has enough armor to divert two or three enemy mechs to waste
time firing on it, rather than its side's assaults, which is all you can
really expect this weight class to do.

This mech can lay down 10 pts at 10-18 hexes, and 20 pts from 3-9 hexes.
It can jump and fire an alpha strike at an adjacent mech (perhaps to the
rear of an assault), delivering 26 pts while only going up 3 heat.  Heck,
you could replace the extra heat sink with another medium laser, and still
not have bad overheating problems.

Carl Hommel
carlton@apollo.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: WAS-Re:Looking for.....; NOW- Marc Miller?
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Date: 27 Sep 92 05:13:46 -0700

In article <1992Sep27.035125.9333@ils.nwu.edu>, blum@news.ils.nwu.edu (Daniel Blum) writes:
> Marc Miller has a mint copy of Russo-Japanese War for $45 (or at least
> he did a few months ago). 

Speaking of Marc Miller (I assume you mean THE MM of Traveller fame),
what's he up to these days? I haven't heard a thing since he the news
that he had left GDW, except for a few whispers that it may have had
something to do with the new Traveller v3.

PHIL
From: hship@sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Icehouse pieces
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:23:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

I have the "Origami" Icehouse set.  Although I think the game is very cool,
almost none of my friends have been interested in trying it out.  Still,
I am thinking about getting the expensive wooden set.  Has anyone else out
there gotten this set?  Are the wooden pieces the same size as the paper
ones?  Are they durable and/or worth the expense?

-- 
"I can't believe I had the Anti!"
Howard_Ship@vos.stratus.com
From: maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: vs MEKTON
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 21:50:35 EDZ
Distribution: world
Organization: Sweet Oblivion

m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland) writes:

> For the first time I've seen the MEKTON II rpg at the local shop, and
> now I wonder how the system is, and how it compares with BattleTech. 
> What I've seen looking in the book I'll probably not like the "gaming world"
> but if the system is good I might buy it anyway.

You're right - the "official" game world is horrible, but doesn't take
up too much space.

MEKTON is an anime game and PROUD of it, instead of trying to hide it's
roots like BTECH does.

MEKTON rules are not without holes, so as a straight wargame BTECH wins
unless you are willing to do some work. This is maybe too harsh. The
system is good and early edition BTECH had holes too.

Bad rules are mecha design (unclear, inconsistent) and initiative
(unclear) otherwise it's rather good with simple yet realistic
mechanics. It (MEKTON II that is) uses RTG's Interlock system, which
means basically - roll 1d10+your mods, opponent rolls 1d10+his mods,
higher total wins/hits/whatever.

Weapons do set damage, mecha have different hit locations which may be
hit randomly or aimed at, several ranged and hand weapons, different
movement systems covered (flight, hover, etc.) Armor reduces damage, but
is gradually destroyed.

If you want anime style wargame, you might want to try MECHA! by
Seventh Street Games. It's fast, furious and a lot of fun, if you can
find it. However, it's really a miniature game, so if you use hex
maps/counters, you have do some work on it (not much, just some).

--------
maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Titan rules question
Date: 30 Sep 1992 18:00:20 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.46
Originator: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1669@idacrd.UUCP>, by desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins):
> Charles Poirier <poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com> writes:
>> I had a Ranger and wanted to move it four spaces, ending on Sand.  The
>> terrain effect on movement reads "Non-flying non-natives are slowed
>> when entering Sand."  Compare this to the effects of Bramble and
>> Drift, which both read "Non-natives are slowed when entering."
> 
I am pretty sure that rangers pay one movement point to land in sand. This
is different than bramble and drift.
The official rules clarifications are being done by Bill Scott. He has made
some minor changes to clarifications previously given by AH.
I am pretty sure there is a clarification to the sand question, but my
copy of his rulings are at home.
There is also something about the dune question earlier in the week. I think
that natives were allowed to carry, but nonnatives weren't and were not
permitted to roll less dice to do so either.
For bonuses and penalties affecting only skill level, the ruling has been
changed somewhat from the rules. To be able to carry to a unit, you need to
have been rolling for at least what you would have need to hit the unit you
want to carry to if it had been the original target. This is different from
the original rules in the case where you had a bonus against one unit, but
the second unit had a lower skill factor so the same strike number is needed
against either unit.
I will try to remember to look up the dune/desert question tonight.
From: hauck@cs.washington.edu (Scott Hauck)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Hornet Leader: MiG 27's and Su 24's
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:03:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <BvM1z2.M6n@rice.edu> minnotte@stat.rice.edu (Michael Minnotte) writes:
>I just bought Hornet Leader over the net, and am really
>enjoying it. My only problem is the MiG 27/ Su 24 counters.
>None of them have any values on them except the name of
>the aircraft.  Does anyone have an errata sheet or a later 
>printing that includes the correct numbers for each?

MiG 27's and Su 24's are strike aircraft, not fighters.  They are only put into
play when the "Fleet Air Defense" target is selected.  They do not attack
Hornets, but are only passive targets.  So, no attack information is given.
For defense ratings, it's +0.  Details can be found in 4.3 Fleet Air Defense 
Missions, 8.4 Determine/Place Enemy MiGs, 10.2 Engagement (there may be others,
these were what I can find).

Good luck, you bought a great game!  If you like this, you'll love Thunderbolt/
Apache Leader (and no, I'm not selling my copy of either game).

Scott Hauck
hauck@cs.washington.edu
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Results of Game Auction (SPI/AH/HERO/TSR etc)
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:37:30 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.board
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

The results of a recent game auction are posted here to show the current value
of the listed games.  The auction was run with no minimum bid, so the results
are based solely on the market.  All games listed are in good condition,
with the counters punched and the maps having only minor creases at the fold
points.

Those who participated in the auction will receive this list by e-mail with
the addition of those who gave the winning bids.

Game					Publisher	Final Bid
--------------------------------------	---------------	-----------
Alpha Omega				Battleline	$ 8.00

Car Wars: Deluxe Edition		Steve Jackson	$10.00
  with Expansion Set 5: Double Arena	  Games
  and Road Expansion Set

Car Wars: Uncle Albert's Auto Shop and	Steve Jackson	$ 0.00
  Gunnery Catalog, 2036 Update		  Games

Dune					Avalon Hill	$20.00

Freedom in the Galaxy: The Star		SPI		$18.00
  Rebellions, 5764 AD

Hero System Beastiary			ICE		$ 6.00

Juntland (flatbox)			Avalon Hill	$15.00

Justice Inc: The Role-playing Game of	Hero Games	$ 7.00
  the '20's and '30's

Snapshot: Close Combat Aboard Starships	GDW		$ 8.00
   Starship & Mayday: Ship to Ship
   Combat

Snit's Revenge				TSR		$16.00

Sorcerer (flatbox)			SPI		$15.00

Swords and Socery: Quest & Conquest	SPI		$ 8.00
  in the Age of Magic

UFO					Avalon Hill	$ 5.00

War in the West (3 flatboxes)		SPI		$34.00

-- 
-----------------------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\---------------------------
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\\   ...!uunet!digi!jtisdel
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\\        jmtisdel@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)
Subject: Old, old "Tactics" game - Help?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 17:50:32 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

I got no response when I posted the following two years ago.  Perhaps there
is someone new on the net who can help me.

I want to find a copy of the rules for an OLD game called "Tactics".
NOTE, this is NOT the more recent land-based "Tactics" game which was
succeeded by "Tactics II".  It is a boat-oriented game, with hidden
submarines and battleship pieces that look exactly like Monopoly battleships.
It is most likely long out of print.  The publisher is unreachable.  A friend
of mine has the game but has lost the rules.

The only known specifics:

Tactics (Trade Mark) Popular Edition
World Conditions Today
Game of World Strategy
Copyright 1940 Northwestern Products, St. Louis, Mo.


Please contact poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com or phone (919) 248-5844 w.

	Thanks,
	Charles Poirier
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: blum@news.ils.nwu.edu (Daniel Blum)
Subject: Re: Convention Auctions
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:48:47 GMT

>	Plus they charge the seller 50 cents to put each item on the auction
>block, which is non-refundable even if the game doesn't sell.

>SS
>CLF@ECL.PSU.EDU

Actually, GENCON this year charged a nickel for each item, although
the auction was run by the same people who did Origins '91 and
Atlanticon '92.  Either way, it's reasonable.
						Dan Blum
						blum@ils.nwu.edu
From: 00nderwin@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Star Trek III Combat Simulator
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:18:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.075752.6445@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>, rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
> 
> That's exactly my problem with ST3 [1]  In SFB, if you play an equal force
> duel, you are typically going to need several attack passes to defeat your
> oponent.  This has the effect of emphasizing skill and de-emphasizing luck.  A
> second (IMO) game-breaking defect was the set of rules governing movement:
> they made knifefights impossible, and severely hampered saberdancing.
> 
> SR
> [1] Weasel-words/disclaimer:  I have very little experience with ST3, and what
>     little I have was under the guidance of someone biased towards SFB.  If
>     I'm wrong in anything I wrote here, would some ST3 expert please correct?

In STIII, you still need several passes to defeat an opponent, unless you get
lucky with a plasma shot.  You can play an equal battle by matching up the
combat efficiencies of the ships.  You can also make it easier to play if you
use the TAC values for weapons, shields, and power.  I have found that the
Excelsior has enough power (when configured how it should be by the
construction manual) to do basically anything you want.  Another note on how I
play:  I don't rearm each weapon every turn.  In other words, I save weapons if
they weren't fired.  I still repower shields and such.  Just a little tip from
my standpoint.

	Fleet Admiral Nathan Erwin
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: Bteck/RoboTech comparison
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:13:35 GMT

.
    |
    |_et's see how a few of the mech(a) compare, with just 3025
 TECHnology (I don't have the 3055 readout, so I can't use the values
 of the IIC Clan variants).
 
            STG-3R Stinger     VF-1A Veritech/Valkyrie(*)
 
 Weight:     20 tons            18.5 tons
 Speed:      91.6 kph max       96.5 kph max
 Armour:     48 pts + 21 IS     1149 pts (not counting gun/util arms)
 Weaponry:    9 pts max damage  80 pts max damage
 Range:      270m max           1200m max

 (* All stats are for Battloid mode only.  I'm not going to bother
 comparing it to the Stinger LAM.)

    ][n weight and speed they're about equal.  Armour and weaponry
 can't really be compared, unless you figure out a conversion between
 BTech points and RTech MDC.  If you compare the amount of damage each
 of these can do in one turn to another of the same mech(a) in its
 own universe....  The Stinger can destroy almost 1/8th of another
 Stinger.  The VF-1A can destroy only about 1/14th of another VF-1A.
 Also, one RTech round is 15 seconds, compared to 10 seconds for
 BTech, so that would reduce the amount of damage over the same time
 period to 2/3rds, for all RTech weapons.  So the VF-1A would be
 reduced to about 1/21st of another VF-1A in destructive value over
 a 10 second turn.
     _
    (_onclusion: at close range the BTech Stinger would tear the RTech
 VF-1A apart, but at long ranges the VF-1A could simply sit back well
 out of range of the Stinger and reduce it to vapour long before it
 got in close enough to do anything.

     _
    /-\t another time I could compare the WHM-6R Warhammer to the
 Excaliber MK VI/MBR-04-VI Destroid Tomahawk, or someone else could
 do that and post it here.
     _
    |_
    |inal note, considering technology:  Some of the RTech mecha are
 very fast, especially the Zentraedi mecha (Officer's pod runs at
 482.7 kph -- that's 45.5 MPs in BTech terms).  Under 3025 technology,
 these mecha would run rings around the BTech mechs and easily wipe
 the board with them.  Using Clan tech (Targeting Computer, Pulse
 Lasers, improved Gunnery skills) speed advantages are all but negated.
 That's under BTech rules.  Under Rtech, the Clans would still get
 their clocks cleaned.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: Optional Rules Version 2.1
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:46:55 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <2317@cix.cict.fr>, dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES) writes:
> In article <1992Sep27.223244.1220@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
>> > 
>> > Weapons:
>> > (1) Autocannon: First, if the AC is mounted on a wheeled, tracked, or naval
>> > vehicle flip the ranges of the AC/2 and AC/20, and then of the AC/5
> and AC/10. 
>> > Next, take 3 tons off the weight of all ACs. 
>> 	"After flipping the ranges for selected vehicles, add 5/10/15 hexes
>> 	to the short/medium/long range of all the ACs for those vehicles."
> 
>   Well, I propose another change. Because direct fire weapons rarely
> have a kilometer-long LOS/LOF anyway. My concern is more on missiles,
> especially on indirect-fire LRMs. If an LRM is fired on direct-fire mode
> (that is, with a LOS/LOF to the target), the rules are quite valid. But
> on indirect-fire mode, the range is far too short. So I'd multiply the
> ranges for indirect fire by 2 or 3. Of course, it requires a forward
> observer with special "painting" ordnance or a NARC beacon.
>   As long as direct-fire LRMs are concerned, just give them a 50% increa
> se of all ranges.

	Most modern tank rounds (APFSDS especially) have an accurate range of
1000-2000 meters. Since there are already LOS/LOF rules in BT, I don't see any
need to reduce weapon ranges because of it (basically, you have two penalties
when there should only be one).

	Also, most direct-fire ballistic weapons stink when used for indirect
fire.

	I will agree with the point about missile ranges. Perhaps increasing
the size of the hex and the length of the turn?

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: crusader@lut.fi (Mikko Hy|kki)
Subject: Re: Battlefield Europe
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:56:19 GMT
Disclaimer: You can't bring me down!
Organization: Pikametallimiehet ( Speed Metal Men ), Finland

In article <1992Sep29.103519.7841@ac.dal.ca> s666@ac.dal.ca writes:

	In GDWs "Battlefield Europe", do vehicles have to pay MPs to turn?
   I tend to think that they would, although it doesn't say anything about this
   in the rules.

As I see it, they do not pay MPs for changing facing. They have a 360 arc 
of fire, so the only reason for expending MPs would be because of the weak
back armor ( to have your frontside towards the enemy ). 

I think it would have been mentioned in the rules if there would be a cost.
After all, it is a "First Battle"-series game and is meant to be an easy
lead to more serious (difficult) games.


--
I crusader@kannel.lut.fi I    /              I How can you call me evil ?
I Mikko Hy|kki	         I (==I-Crusader---> I Have you spoken to God today...
I Laserkatu 3 AB 222     I    \              I     ...And what did he say ?
I 53850 LAPPEENRANTA     I                   I          - Suicidal Tendencies
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.pbm