HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:56:52 GMT

I agree with treating such players as cry-babies and excluding them from
future games - and I also agree that each game should be treated separately,
unless a series of games are being played where the scores a linked (a "Grand
Prix").  Many games are meant to be simulations of history - if a player does
something that's completely unrealistic, he or she is only taking advantage
of the designer's unwillingness to outlaw such actions.  In a few games this
might be reasonable, but in most the player is just "wrecking the game" - in
more ways than one.

To put it another way - if the player was really the leader of his country
and tried to implement a completely irrational strategy, he or she would
probably be overthrown in a coup.  This isn't a bad test.  There are almost
always constraints on decision makers.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: Civilisation on a Sun or a Mac
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:30:51 GMT

>>Recently I played a game of "Civilisation" on an amiga
>>and enjoyed it a lot.
>>Graham Matthews
>
What surprised me when I saw the game Civilization for the computer was
that they omitted the multiplayer option.  Without tinkering, it is not
possible to have more than one human controlled civilization.  It does
not seem that it would be very difficult to modify the program to allow
for multi-player use (in fact I know of one person who has already made
his copy such that by tinkering with save files, he *can* have
multiplayers, but the process of running a game is a bit kludgy because
of the nature of the hack).

So if there are any microprose people out there: I WOULD PAY THIRTY
BUCKS for an UPGRADE which made my legit copy of civilization work in
multiple player mode.  You have most of the code written, so overhead
shouldn't be too bad (compared to designing from scratch).  At least 
mention it to your suervisor/friend in high place/whatever at
headquarters.

Mel
From: sclera@milori.ccit.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: EiA: Solve a problem
Summary: Prussia wants to live
Keywords: Empires in Arms
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:27:46 GMT
Reply-To: bob@sclera.physics.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Nntp-Posting-User: sclera

Time for y'all to display your Empires in Arms wisdom.  1805 scenario,
we are in April.  France has crushed Austria in one month, so the HRE lost
2/3 of her corps and Mack was captured.  Before that, war erupted between
Prussia (me) and Russia over Denmark.  We reached an informal peace after
Alexander botched an attack from Copenhagen.  Oh, and the Austrians refused
our summons, so that when France attacked, justice was served 8^|

The evisceration of Austria scared everybody else into forming alliances.
France refused to ally with Prussia (yikes), so we allied with a rather
hapless Brit, as did the Russians.  Austria and Turkey allied with France,
and Spain is being "clever."

Now, I read carefully the talk last month on reasons to dump on England
early on.  My attempts at convincing our group of this wisdom fell on 
deaf (and dumb) ears.  This is why Prussia has the Danish fleet counter,
and is building its own fleet - to be placed at a later date 8^}  OK, we
are really doing a fleet for the sheer fun of it.  We have a referee who
is keeping track of where ships are built, in case of overuns.

Napoleon has a stack moving down the Italian boot, and two more sitting in 
Bavaria.  The Russians are poised on the Prussia/Austria border.  And the
Germanic horde is currently taking the Duchies.  The Turk has not even
raised his feudal corps yet, and is bogged down in Egypt due to poor die
rolling.

* My question: Given the botch job in the game so far, should the Russians
and Prussians DOW on France now, or wait for them to come for us?  Natch,
the Brits will fund us, ship us, etc.  Yes, if victorious we intend to 
keep the French fleet intact at all costs.

bob@sclera.physics.arizona.edu
From: baldwin@carina.unm.edu (Chris Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Blood Bowl Question
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:00:36 GMT
Organization: Atheist for the Development of a Better God
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu

	Recently, we had a star Werewolf lineman come up with Dislike/Animosity
Werewolf. He used to play for a werewolf team. The question is, is he allowed
to transform into a werewolf, since you can't have players with animosity
on the same team? Recently, he was traded to a team with no other werewolves
on it, so it is not a real problem, but it is still something I'd like to
know if anyone has found a real rule covering this.

	One other thing that might be of interest, one of our player asked
what happens with a mutant with Regeneration and Temporal Instability
blips into another player. Our solution, drawn from the Fly, is to
average ALL the stats of the 2 players, make the resulting player
Colorblind and Beserk. 
	We, also, decided that a Mutant with Regeneration and Spontaneous
Combustion who explodes whould just be dead.

-- 

"My essential point is that the First Amendment does more for men
than it does for women by protecting speech that supports patrimony"
  -- Law Prof. Mary Becker, U of Chicago Law School
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: frank@hypnos.bssi.bls.com (moo)
Subject: Seeking Dragon 125
Organization: BellSouth Systems Integration
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:29:35 GMT

I'm looking to buy a copy of Dragon #125. (Or beg somebody to photocopy
me the Clay-o-Rama rules from that issue--which is all I really want.)

Reply to vapspay@prism.gatech.edu

I have a dozen cans of play-doh waiting.


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Winning isn't everything
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:19:25 GMT

The thread "An interesting question (any game)" has been fragmenting
into a few different logical threads, so rather than shread it any worse
I thought I would start a new thread rather than follow up the old one.

The points I most want to respond to are those made by Fred Scott and
Bruce Harper (among many others rapidly becomming too numerous to
mention) regarding sportsmanship.

The question was raised whether a person placed in a position with "no
chance to win" is justified in attacking the person who put them in that
sort of position.  Most of the arguments fell into two categories:

1: Yes, because this forges a reputation for vengence which can help
the player out in future games.

2: No, because not playing to win is poor sportsmanship and such people
should be ostracized.

I disagree with both, and refer you all to the words of Emmanuel Lasker,
who so eloquently posits: "From a lost position there are no wrong
moves"

If a person did make a move which hurt my position to the point where I
had litlle or no chance of winning, and then is surpised when my forces
do not blindly attack "the leader" but appear on his border, then
accuses me a being a "spoilsport" I must disagree.

The concensus on board seems to justify the notion that "if it helps
you to win, it's okay" and the inverse "if it doesn't help you to win,
it is WRONG.  This is too simplistic.

The problem is the sort of player who tries to manipulate this sort of
rule to his/her own ends.  Examples are a bit hard to provide, but the
idea involves a situation where player A, who wants to win, make a very
devastating attack against player C, leaving B in the lead, A a close
second, and C a far third.  It is unrealistic to ask C in this situation
to attack B "becuase he is the lead" or to promote balance and such.

C is perfectly justified in attacking A rather than B, not because of
any possible hope of winning this game, not because of any reputation
building which allows victory in future games, but because A DESERVES
to be attacked.  This is simply a matter of retribution and justice.

Certainly I don't deny that there are people who *are* abusive and who
are spoilsports, it's just that the simplistic idea that "a spoilsport
is anyone who is not playing to win" is just that --- oversimplistic.

In the example I cited, if player A had turned a close ABC race into
the situation above, and then counted on C's action as part of A's
own "winning" strategy, we might (and I actually have) heard something
like "well I would have won if you had played right."  In that case it
is the person being suicided against who is the "spoilsport" and not
the one making the attack.

In short, getting along with the other players is an integral part of
playing any game, and making undue assumption about what other players
"have" to do can often be just as bad as the sorts of things that sort
of assumption is designed to prevent.

Mel
From: cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:22:21 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1993Jan8.165042.3596@ncar.ucar.edu> kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.edu (Rodney Kinney) writes:
>>  The most blatant example of this I can think of is a Monopoly
>>game I was involved in; Player A, facing four of Player B's hotels and about
>>a 70% chance of landing on one and going bankrupt to Player B, instead offered
>>to buy Water Works from Player C for all his cash on hand, then sell all his
>>properties back to Player C for $1.  (In other words, basically go bankrupt to
>>Player C, rather than taking the chance of going bankrupt to B.)  To his
>>credit, C told A exactly how much of a jerk he was being, and refused to deal
>>with him; A landed on B's hotel and went bankrupt, and C would up winning 
>>anyway.)


My version of a Monopoly horror-story is this:  Some friends and I were
at our first game convention and trying to have a good time in spite of
the staff having neglected to register us for any of our pre-registered
events.  One friend entered a monopoly tournament because there was space
and ended up making it to the final round.  My friend was clearly winning
as the time deadline neared.  For some unknown reason, all of the other
players sold all of their stuff to the player in second for $1 each.  
Needless to say, this person won.  We never saw the sense in this, 
especially as my friend was extremely likable and mild-mannered.  
I've been kind of sour on conventions ever since.  

-Carl

-- 
	Carl J. Schnurr					1-919-684-8256
	Duke University Dept. of Physics        	cjs@phy.duke.edu
	Durham, N.C.      27706			
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: garbett@utkvx2.utk.edu (Garbett, Shawn)
Subject: Space Marine: Towns & Questions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:20:00 GMT

Just got in a copy of Space Marine and played my first game. Naturally
a few questions arose from this first game. If a result of town is
generated for scenery, how many buildings do you put on the table?
If an Eldar Warlock uses his psychic storm ability on troops inside
a building, what happens to them? If they were in the open, my understanding
was that they would be flung in a random direction to the edge of the template.
Also there is a noticable lack of Eldar & Orc troopers, is this a
marketing ploy or what. 
 I,m thinking about getting battle for Armeggedon for playing a campaign
style game. Anyone out there tried this? What did you think?

Shawn Garbett
From: craa27@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( Steve Holmes, Computer Centre )
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: craa27@ccsun.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Strathclyde University Computer Centre.

In article 6Bs@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu, hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong) writes:
>Ah, but there is a difference in
>
>"Do this or suffer" 
>and
>"I will kill myself and take you with me"
>
>many historical examples can be found for the first, but the second
>(i.e. Kamakazi) seems to be fairly uncommon, and even then usually
>limited to individuals, rather than entire cultures.
>
>Can anyone provide historical examples of a culture which was willing to
>face  cultural anihilation in order to dismay a foe?
>
>Bruce Hoover
> 

Well during the Jewish revolt against the Romans, several Garrisons ended
witn mass suicides rather than be captured. However this didn't really seem to
dismay the Romans much,  These weren't complete cultures, but were complete
fighting bodies plus dependants.

In a more contemporary age one could look at the Mutually Assured Destruction
of the Super Power Blocs as a willingness for anhilation (Thankfully not enacted).

Neither quite fits the gaming situation described,  since neither is part of a
multi-player scenario.

Steve
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Any games in 1650 - 1750 Europe?
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:18:08 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <memo.835523@cix.compulink.co.uk>, iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters) writes:
>>Are there any strategy or diplomatic games for Europe in 1650 to 1750?
>
>Not AFAIK.
>
>The nearest I can remember was _Mercenary_, a 70s UK-designed game that was
>taken over by Fantasy Games Unlimited for its second edition.  It covered
>1494-1560 and was big on things like your expensive armies becoming obsolete
>with new inventions.
>
>There was also a game _Holy Roman Empire_ in an early _Wargamer_, but again,
>I think it stopped before 1650.
>
>  //\/\/  iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
>

I think Avalon Hill put out a Frederick the Great game (I don't remember the
title, and don't know if it is still in print... I last saw it probably 8 or 10
years ago), and if I remember right that's around 1750 or so.


-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.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 10 Jan 93 13:44:11 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <1993Jan7.123925.231@odin.diku.dk>, torbenm@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius Mogensen) writes:
> cracicot@us.oracle.com writes:
> 
> >I have a moderately philosophical question for all you net-folk.
> 
> >Is it a reasonable game action (in game of your choice) to threaten
> >someone as follows, then carry through if they call your bluff:
> 
> >"If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
> > the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
> > badly it wrecks my position."
> 
> [examples deleted]
> 
> >Under what circumstances do you think such things are reasonable
> >actions?

I dunno about you but I wouldn't bother playing with someone like this.
They sound like someone who is overly competitive. Its a game remember!

-- 
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Dept Comp Sci, Edinburgh Uni    When fact is fiction and T.V. 
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk                is reality
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: STARFIRE: comments
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 14:26:06 GMT

Well, we played Starfire last weekend.  There are several things that
should be noted about the game:

1. There seems to have been no attempt to balance the scenarios.  In 
scenario 4 the Terrans should do twice as much damage as the KON per
turn.  There is no range at which the KON have equality, much less an
advantage.  At some ranges they will do almost three times as much damage,
this is without even counting the fact that the Terran ships have twice
the point defense of the KON.
   This does not make the game a bad game, just don't feel bad when you
lose the scenario.  I've made a chart of weapons average damage in several
range brackets and if I receive enough requests I will post it here.  It's
not exactly BPV but it's close enough.

2.  Combat tactics with the included ships is almost completely a case of
whoever has the most firepower will win.  It looks like the real point of
the game is to quickly fight out battles from the strategic game.  Ship
design will also be more important than tactical ability.  This is not
necessarily bad.  The strategic game should be playable, unlike F&E.  I've
seen three groups start F&E games and no-one has finished one.  The first
thing normally dropped is attempts to actually play scenarios in SFB 
generated by the F&E game as this is next to impossible.  It should be
no problem in Starfire.

3.  Combat is quick.  There is no energy allocation.  The SSD's can be 
quickly handwritten before the game.  A CA has 3-6 weapons.  Ships 
have no damage repair within a scenario.  Scenario 4, which was 2 CA's and 2 
CL's vs 3 CA's, took us an hour.  It would have taken much less time but we 
were not familier with the rules so much of the time was spent figuring out 
exactly what our weapons did and how they worked.  (Two of us had never 
played and 1 had only played an old version years ago.)

4. The game has no #&$^ index.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:10:53 GMT

|> _If_ you did have some appreciable chance at winning _AND_ you are
|> demonstratably decreasing this chance by making this attack, then
|> I say yes, indeed you are being a spoilsport.
|> 

Dont underestimate revenge as a motive, even on a large scale such
as empire vs. empire.  People (and nations) do dumb things for the
wrong reasons all the time.
From: alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher)
Subject: Re: OLD SPI FAVORITES RE-RELEASED?
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:46:45 EST

ksoutor@unl.edu (kevin soutor) writes:

> Saturday I read in the last issue of BOARDGAME JOURNAL that FGA 
> (Fresno Gaming Association) is negotiating the rights to some old SPI 
> favorites with TSR.  Has anyone else heard something about this 
> venture?  The article urged all good boardgamers to write Michael 

I thought FGA went the way of the dodo...  At any rate, nice of them to 
ask as it seems (I wouldn't know poisonally) they've already been using
nearly unmodified SPI components for some of their games.

Michel

C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Private user                   |
Ottawa, Canada                 | member, Christina Amphlett fan club
CANADA                         |
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Stress Kitty)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:50:17 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: psycho.ecst.csuchico.edu


Changing the focus of the topic one second, I would sometimes
put myself in a worse off position the stave off someone from
winning, just so I would have a chance to (maybe) win myself.
Each game is a separate entity, and I don't repeat this
strategy only on one person.  However, if I can, I will delay
the game should I not be winning until I have a shot at the
gold.

Case in point is SJG's Hacker.  I've been in a few games
where my position was less than optimal, so to prevent another
player from winning, I crashed the systems I had control of.
(The victory conditions stipulated that the winner need have
accounts on so many systems for so long...) 

In one game, I managed to win with this, and another, a 
dark horse won.

Opinions on such delaying tactics wanted.

-- 
"Not only is this incomprehensible, but the ink is ugly and the paper
is from the wrong kind of tree."
		--Profesoor W.
From: hooverb@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (Bruce Hoover,Armstrong)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:45:32 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Engineering Research Center
Originator: hooverb@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu

From article <1993Jan7.000751.1@us.oracle.com>, by cracicot@us.oracle.com:
> I have a moderately philosophical question for all you net-folk.
> 
> Is it a reasonable game action (in game of your choice) to threaten
> someone as follows, then carry through if they call your bluff:
> 
> "If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
>  the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
>  badly it wrecks my position."
> 
Disscusion followed...


In our "group" such players have been dealt with in a very effective
manner...we never play with them again.

We call this sort of player a crybaby, and consider it very bad form.

Bruce Hoover
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:24:09 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

Here's another situation.

In a multiplayer game once I was "ganged up on" by 2 of the other players
early in the game and basically knocked out of it.  I had absolutely ZERO
chance of winning and nearly a certain chance of finishing last.  In
examining the tactical situation I realized that I could hurt one of the 2 
of them enough that his neighbor would be able to hammer him so I did so.
I also shortly later dropped out of the game which ended up taking 6 more
hours.

Both of the "gangies" were upset with me 'cause I "spoiled" the game for
them.  Huh?  And what had they done for me?

In "real" terms what I did made sense, a last thrust just before I was
"overrun".

One problem everyone has is that different players have different
perceptions of the goal of the game.  Some people only want to win.
Some want to have fun.  Some just use the game as an excuse to socialize
a bit.  Striking a balance between various player goals is difficult
and usually the intent of the designer is what the game allows best.  That's
why some of my friends refuse to play some of the B&P board games I have
while others refuse to play the serious war games.  Sometimes I get lucky
and find a game that satisfies most of them.
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rollins+@cs.cmu.edu (Gene Rollins)
Subject: Re: 1830:  More track construction
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:17:51 GMT


Well, technically, the ERIE's hex is tinted yellow.  So, the ERIE CAN
lay its token on its home base without laying a green tile on it.  It
cannot make a legal route from that base until the green tiles are available.
But, if the ERIE buys the D&H private company it can then lay its second token
on the D&H hex and lay track from there forming a legal route.  I've never seen
it done that way, but it is possible. ......gene
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: To ULTRA subscribers
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:34:59 GMT

Due to printing delays, the recent issue of ULTRA which contained the
questionnaire arrived at most people's mailbox a few days after the
"deadline" (December 31, 1992).

Feel free to ignore the deadline and send in the questionnaire anyway.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: phd87@keele.ac.uk (V.S. Kumaraswamy)
Subject: Star Trek Combat Simulator
Organization: Keele University, England
Distribution: w
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:23:53 GMT

A few years FASA used to publish a magazine in which they 
give stats for new ships to be used in STCS.

Has anybody got the stats for the Romulan version of the 
L-42 frigate. Unfortunately I cannot rememember which issue
this was in, only that it existed.

Thanks

Sagar
--

Oh lord no more film scanning please!!