HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Near-Future War
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:59:13 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <gf3ebkm00iV242zHsc@andrew.cmu.edu> by24+@andrew.cmu.edu (Benjamin S. Yu) writes:
>Q.  Can some one please tell me the justification for gaining money
>after killing enemies in RPGs?  Why does every single monster carry

	Depends.  Perhaps the enemies are coming back after raiding
some people and the party has been tracking them....  Perhaps the
"enemies" are really just some average Joe's out on the town with
their latest paycheck.  Maybe they're paranoid and don't trust
banks.  Depends on the game world, of course.

>around gold when they have no need to spend it?  Granted there are

	Depends on the monsters.  Some monsters may very well use
money...otherwise why have it?  Some just have this irrational
desire to Hoard Gnifty Stuff.  Some just like the glint.  Others are
given it as Reward To The Players and shouldn't have been made in
the first place....

>monsters that tresure stuff, but every single one?  And furthur what

	You're talking about generic AD&D mentality, really.  Not
every AD&D monster has gold in every game (certainly not in the ones
I've played in for the past 4 years).  Average citizens in the
Modern Day will carry some cash and maybe some credit cards....

>about modern and futuristic RPGs, why do fighters carry money when their
>living is provided by coorporations?

	Maybe because they want to spend some?  I mean, what if
Boffo wants to go to a bar and get a drink?  He can't just say, "I
work for Zonko Corp.  Gimme beer."  He has to give them SOME form of
accepted currency be it a chip card, credit card, or cold cash...

>i'm not trying to be picky or flamy, but i'm designing a futuristic RPG
>system and need some reasonable logic here.  Please help...

	Use common sense.  Easy enough.

>Please direct all mail to me at by24+@andrew.cmu.edu
>
>Thanks
>
>Ben Savageley
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: tactical solution II
From: rwilley@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Hrothgar)
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:23:28 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

as i mentioned in an earlier post, a second possible solution to the attack
on the heavily defended planet would be using Romulans.
In this case, I think a force consisting of a battleship, three scouts, and
nine King Eagles would probably work best.  Set up groups of three king eagles
with supporting scouts arround the bases.  every so often, uncloak and launch
three enveloping R torps, and six f-torps.  use the f-torps to knock down
fighters or scare the D5 varients.  use the R-torps to nail the bases.
the battleship should be used to scare off sorties.
(as a possible substitue, consider a pair of killer hawks instead)
the assualt will once again be fairly slow and deliberate, but should lead to a
dead base once you burn through all those damn weasels he'll throw out.
(oh yes, don't forget all of those free NSMs that you'll get)
this tactic shares something with the neotholian assualt I described earlier.
you have substantial "shielding" against the majority of the defenders fire
power.  In the case of the tholians, it comes about from the web and the
restricted firing arcs of the ground based phaser-4s.  in this case, it is
because the klingons have weapons which fire every impulse, and very limited
mobility.  the r torp is a three turn arming cycle weapon, with proportional
damage.  the majority of the defenders firepower will be completely ineffective
due to the cloaking on 2 out of three turns.

this is the problem i have with the proposed fed attack.  the feds will get
fired on EVERY turn, and can't avoid all those phaser-4s.

if you would be interested in a photon assualt, i might recommend using orions
instead.  you have a substantial steath bonus, the ability to cloak on reload
turns, and engine doubling will allow you a great deal of shield reinforcement
for those turns that you uncloak.


				Richard Willey
				rated ace as of 1:15 PM, 11/15/92
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A - I think the AXIS may be able to :)
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:20:42 GMT
Organization: Sonoma State University

Thank you, Dewey. :)

I have played a lot of games, and against the "Karelia stack", I always
loose heavily, even if I send it all there(economically).
By splitting all my forces, I can force them to choose(good strategy), 
as well as the fact that I loose 10i and 2a, 3i and 1a of which are in
Norway, and are fodder anyway....

This also, more importantly, allows me to build all I for a turn.
I then can buy tanks(8 of them) next round.

Germany needs about 6-8 men at all times to deal with any invasion that
might occur, as well as to take cheap losses.

This strategy makes Russia think twice about any action, and as I have a sub
and transport in UK(so I got lucky), the other Allies cannot touch Norway.
Hence, their(Russia's) problem: Attack now, or wait, or which two or three to
take?

This also allows me to use my fighters and bombers elsewhere the first round,
which I feel is critical.  I can delay the Allies from invading until round 4
by just buying 1 or 2 fighters by turn 3 to hit the UK fleet.  
(Turn three if none bought)

With a little modification, this plan would work against RUssia with attacks
allowed, if they only attack Ukraine and Norway(most likely), or any other
combination of two places.  Have to see, though...

Joe
P.S. Question:
What would you do if you were UK in the following situation:
2i, a, 2f, b in UK
-UK sea zone has sub and transport in it(ENEMY)

1i in S. Africa
(enemy)1f in lybia, 1a and 1i in egypt, 1a in syria, 1i in FrWAfrica
(enemy)bs in syria(has control of suez), plus trans.

2i and 1f in India, plus transport
30 income
Based on my game, this is likely to happen first turn(It did, twice).
WHAT should UK do for its turn to keep from being crushed?
WHAT is their best strategy?

Any ideas would be useful.
From: vkr@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH: Few questions
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:08:20 EST
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cornell University

Konnichiwa (Hello),

I am a new member on this board.  My friends and I play Battletech very often
but we have a few questions.

1.   What is MechWar ver. 1.2?  Is it similar to the MechWarrior Game for
the IBM (the one in EGA with a only a few mechs (like LOCUST,JENNER,...))?  If
not, then is there a new version of this incredible game?  Please send me
some information on this.

2.   Is there any one on Cornell University that plays Battletech as often as
we do (about every week)?  How about in Chicago?

3.   Is FASA coming out with new technology and a new book other than Merc2nded
.?

4.   Simple question:  When using mapsheets with elevations, what general rule
do you use on hexes with multiple levels?  Another:  When using hidden RAVENS
are they seen when they use their TAGS?    

5.   Is it true that SEGA is coming out with a new Battletech game?  Are there
computer programs for BATTLETECH other than MechWarrior, Crescent Hawks'...?

Thanks

Rahul "Geobaldi" Saggar
vkr@vax5.cit.cornell.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: alumni107@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Subject: Re: Eastern Front Poll (Trial of Strength)
Summary: Trial of Strength is great
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:50:45 GMT

In article <1eh6e4INNj25@crcnis1.unl.edu>, ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu
(kevin soutor) writes: 
> 
> What is your favorite game dealing with the Eastern Front during
> World War II?  I would like a short review/synopsis; I want to
> build my meager collection.
> 

My favourite game is an obscure strategic-level game called Trial of 
Strength. 

It is corps-level, with fairly abstract air and naval rules. 

Its strengths are :

1) a 'reaction' system that allows for a move to be interrupted by the 
opponent. This system is based on HQ units; German HQ's are much more 
likely to be able to react than Russian ones (tho the gap narrows 
year-by-year).

2) continuous combat/movement in one phase. Elegant modelling of
breakthroughs and overruns. Multiple 'levels' of attacks allowing
tradeoffs between attack strength and speed. Essentially, units spend
TIME to do things instead of 'movement points'. All units get 10
action points (game uses 10-day turns) but movement/combat costs
differ by unit type. 

3) Complete solution to the classic problem of other games with
exploitation - that rear-area units move up and cause a breakthru 
which is then exploited by front-line units who can use all their 
movement allowance as if the breakthrough took no time at all to 
create - by 'movement penalty' markers in combat hexes. 

4) Step-reduction combat instead of AE/DE stuff.

Weaknesses :

1) time-consuming rail/supply rules

2) very weak naval rules

3) beautiful maps made from thin, glossy paper which tears easily (but
does resist spills). Virtually requires that they be laminated.

Published by Panther Games, an Australian company, in 1985.

However, I must also give an enthusiastic second place to Columbia 
Games' East Front, another of them wooden block games. It was 
described by another netter, so no more detail from me...

Jeff Johnson; .sig agnostic
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cleggp@aix.rpi.edu (Paul Jason Clegg)
Subject: Thansk for 183x info!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:02:03 GMT

Thanks to all who responded to my inquiry about the 183x games.  I had
originally thought they were all put out by AH, like expansions or "sequels",
but I guess not!  I think I'll stick to 1830, then.  I'm not really a big
boardgame buff, preferring RPGs, but I was instantly hooked on 1830.  Thanks
again, everyone!

...Paul


-- 
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
  Paul Clegg, cleggp@aix.rpi.edu.   Project Galactic Guide Coordinator.
            System One RPG designer.   But generally unknown.
+                +        +    +  + + +  +    +        +                +
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:19:01 MST
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software)
Subject: Re: SFB: Which Cruiser is the Best?
Organization: BYU


I am mainly talking about the CA and NCA class of ships. I consider CWs as 
a light cruiser class, but CC and CCH classes are fun to talk about to, 
BCH's are little too powerful but that could be a different thread.
This should be about how well a cruiser can function in a variety of roles.

Why is everyone so down on the Fed CA? Okay, so until the refits it has a 
hard time with drones but then whose going to fire that many at her. If
you get bored with it you can upgrade the hull all the way to a CCH if you 
want or turn it into a GSC or CVS. 
While photons tend to miss at modest ranges it still hurts if it hits even at
range 30. and all Fed ships have the same range heavy weapon. 
If you play against monsters the Fed CA is great with all those labs. And 
with EDR it can come back in a hurry if it can open the range for a turn or 
two.

my worst experience vs. a Fed was in a tourny. I was in a Gorn and he hits 
with 4 overloads and blows my engines off, literally, after we resolved 
damage I had no warp, I was unhappy to say the least.

enjoy.
_____________________________________________________________________
|Stephan Fassmann  Internet: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu  GEnie: S.FASSMANN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|The Random Acts of Kindness will Continue until Morale Deteriorates|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: jeff@smoggy.gg.caltech.edu (Jeff Goldsmith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Wizards [was Re: Classic Games]
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:27:32 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
NNTP-Posting-Host: smoggy.gg.caltech.edu

In <lgh81pINNck8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> woods@colossal.Eng.Sun.COM (Don Woods) writes:

>If anyone's interested, I can mail them a PostScript file that produces a
>modified version of the reference sheet that comes on the back of the score
>pad sheets.  The modifications incorporate all our changes, plus it includes
>some useful info from the rules so you don't have to refer to the rulesbook
>as often.  (E.g., it gives the table for the Types of Random Encounter, it
>has brief summaries of the effects of various Animals, etc.)

Please do post it.  

I have a group that plays this game once in awhile, and we've had to 
tweak the rules, too.  Our problem is not that someone can get screwed
early, but that it is trivially easy to win the game with the rules as
published.  The major changes we added are:
	1) Demons can stack.  You can use a spell against only the
	   first demon in a stack; after that you roll dice.
	2) After the second fortnight, fortnights are only 9 days
	   long.  This doesn't affect the Lair Time, though.  The
	   9th day is usually run by the bad guys, of course.
	3) The number of completed tasks needed for a thwart is
	   3 times the number of players.
	4) Druids can walk onto the sacred circle.  They still have
	   to roll for Ruktal, but they don't have to get onto the
	   circle.  Before this rule, no one ever played a druid
	   without complaining.
	   
We've added a few tinkers with little rules, especially the endgame,
but found that with the rules above, just surviving is a challenge.
We win about 2/3 of the games we play, which is just about right,
I think.  The demon rule creates a phenomenon called "demon surfing."
If the dragon isle fills up with demons and a player gets transported
there, he can have a lot of demon encounters in one turn since many
of them will teleport him to a new stack of demons.  Sometimes you'll
get stuck, but most of the time you get out eventually.  In the meantime,
you get to roll lots of dice for your turn and have some fun even if you
are not progressing very far in the game.

The rule that we are going to adjust next is the table for player-
player encounters.  Currently, they are too good, causing players
to want to hang around each other.  Changing the Unicorn to "transport
to the dragon's lair" will probably take care of that.
					--Jeff
From: sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Scott Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: A&A Subs first attack rule question
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:41:29 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Keywords: A&A

I have always interpreted the subs sneak attack rule as follows:

Only in the first round of an attack can the sub get the "sneak attack"
with no return fire from the target.  The idea being...Any smart submarine
in my mind would be diving deep after just hitting a Carrier or BB if any
more units are around.  Besides, you can only "sneak" up on someone once,
after you fire your steam torpedo, there is "bread crumb trail" pointing
right at your front door.   

Anyways, after the first round all hell breaks loose anyways and, the chance
of getting another unreturned shot in is nill!

Now I read that you can get an unreturned sub shot EVERY round of a battle?
I could very well be wrong in my assumptions, but I cant see having it any
other way.  Why not just build 6-7 subs to attack a fleet then?  Who needs
CVs and BBs?

These are just my own opinions after playing for 4 years now and yours
are welcom.  I would like to know what you all prefer.

BTW, I tried a new rule that allows 2 hits on BBs and CVs and they worked
pretty well.  Of course your damaged ships attack and defend less, and it
costs some $IPCs to repair them, but it makes the game more realistic in
my mind, and makes these capital ships worth there money to have.

If your interested in the full rule, let me know, I need some play testing
done on some other ones too.

Mike    sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu



Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:13:15 -0500 
From: "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Eastern Front Poll
Distribution: world

I definitely think that one of the classics dealing with this part of
the war has to be Panzer Blitz, by Avalon Hill. The game is pretty
detailed, but once you learn to play, you can finish an entire game in
less than two hours (something which tends to be uncommon among
wargames). This is a tactical game, based on small groups of units being
represented by a single counter. The action is fast and furious, and
actually quite historically correct.

Jon
-----------------------------------------------
Jon Moore             (jmci@andrew.cmu.edu) 
 "What have I got in my pocket?" --Bilbo     
 "Let the truth of love be lighted,          
  Let the love of truth shine clear." --RUSH 
-----------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: helen@pulua.hcc.Hawaii.Edu ()
Subject: SFB: List of SFB products
Originator: helen@pulua
Organization: Honolulu Community College
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 20:59:35 GMT

Below is a list of available modules and sets for the Captain's 
Edition of Star Fleet Battles.  I guess you can email me
any questions, comments or suggestions about this list.


Basic Set:
This set contains rules, map, dice, SSDs and 2 counter 
sheets for the Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, 
Gorn, Tholian and Orion races.

Advanced Missions:
This set contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for the
Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn, Tholian and
Orion races.

Module C1:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 1 counter sheet for the
Hydran, Lyran and Wyn races.

Module C2:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 1 counter sheet for the
Neo-Tholian, Andromedan and ISC races.

Module J:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 3 counter sheets for
races that operate fighters and carriers.

Module K:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 3 counter sheets for
races that operate Fast Patrol Ships and tenders.

Module R2:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for
the Federation, Kzinti, Orion and Andromedan races.

Module R3:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for
the Klingon, Wyn, Lyran and Hydran races.

Module R4:
This module contains rules, SSDs and 2 counter sheets for
the Romulan, Gorn, Tholian and ISC races.

Module R5:
This module contain rules, SSDs and 1 counter sheet for
battleships and other heavy ships.

Module S1:
This module contains scenarios and a special map.

Module H1:
This module contains maps and counters to play SFB on a
larger scale.

Module H2:
More counters and planet cutouts to go with Module H1.

Cadet Training Manual:
Introduction to playing SFB.

Tactics Manual:
A compliation of various tactics of the game.

Playtest Modules:
	P1: The FRAX race, some scenarios.
	P2: X-Ships.
	P3: New scenarios.
	P4: Marines, ground combat.

Module D1: Veterans Master Ship Chart.

Module D2: Tournament Tactics Book.

Other products:

Tournament Book 1991:
Tournament rules, SSDs and 2 sheets of counters.

Captain's Rulebook:
The rules from the Basic Set, Advanced Missions, Module C1 and Module C2.

Captain's SSD Pack:
The SSDs from the Basic Set, Advanced Missions, Module C1 and Module C2.

Captain's Logs:
Books that contain fiction, tactics, backgrounds, SSD and other things
that relate to SFB.  Currently #8, #9 and #10 are available and are
for the Captain's Edition of SFB.

Star Fleet Missions:
Card game that allows 2 to 6 players to send ships on certain missions.


Honolulu Community College            cs_rapozo@hccadb.hcc.hawaii.edu
874 Dillingham Blvd.                  helen@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu
Honolulu, HI 96817                    rapozo@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Ph#: (808) 845-9202
Organization: Doctoral student, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: BTECH Advice Wanted: Moving to high tech finally
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:06:45 GMT

drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:

>I would appreciate postings or e-mail providing advice on
>the following topics:
>  (1) What are the better mechs in the new tech readout, or
>      what are important design criteria for mechs under high
>      tech?  It seems that with the advent of the gauss gun,
>      maneuverability is now foremost, with firepower next and
>      survivability (armor) last.

If this is regarding the IS:

Wrong, in my opinion. The most important thing a 'Mech can carry is
the maximum armor its frame will allow. The higher damage potential
that all the new weapons and equipment gives to almost all the 'Mechs
out there means that you NEED that armor or you will get blown out
of the water before you get a chance to fight back. 

Whether firepower or maneuvarablitiy is more important depends on
your style of fighting. I prefer to have a decent movement, so
I tend to carry an XL. The light class is where the speed tends
to increase most, the mediums can't go substantially faster than
before, and the heavies are pretty much as slow as before. Assaults
are pokey, but then they always have been.

Gauss is overrated. Yes, you can do 15 points to a hit location. 
It's also expensive in terms of weapon weight and ammunition reliance.
Taking two ER PPC's and attendant heat sinks seems the better bet
to me. Why? Well, the gauss rifle and 16 shots costs you 17 tons.
The two ER's and 5 heat sinks will cost you 19 tons, but you
get twice as many die rolls to hit.


>  (2) New tactics to employ given the new weapons and turbo
>      engines?

Same old tactic that worked in "old tech" - Gang up, gang up, gang up.

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: 91vanderkolk@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH:Re: Diff form of XL engine.
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:25:02 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Your XL engine idea is way off. It would upset game balance, plus it is so
much more unrealistic than Battletech currently is (and we all know how real
battle tech is don't we :)  ). A better application of that "force field",
which is actually and elctro-magnetic field to detonate missles, is as
some sort of defensive device for a mech against missles. In game terms it
could do this: Roll 3d6, that's the number of missles that are prematurely
detonated adn don't affect the mech. The field builds 2 heat plus one heat for
every missle shot down. If the generators are hit the mech takes a 5pt ammo
explosion. The generator weighs 3 tons and has a critical in each location.

Ideas? Comments? Flames?


John
"How do we defeat those Clan warships???? Easy, dropships with Thermonuclear
warheads that crash into the ships and then detonate. What about the pilots?
Oh, I hadn't thought about that."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board