HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baidins@barney.cis.udel.edu (Juris Baidins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Legends: Realms of the Immortals 9
Summary: Is anyone in Legends ROI 9
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:51:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: udel.1992Jul26.155126.28690
Followup-To: rec.games.pbm
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark

Is anyone out there in Legends ROI 9 and even better
is anyone starting near Southguard ?

Juris Baidins
baidins@cis.udel.edu
From: amead@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Alan Mead)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: GALAXY: A transport by any other name?
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:08:10 GMT
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology

A lot of people (including Galaxy's creator) seem to want to complicate
the development side of the game by mucking with the "transport"
design.  [Can you determine my opinion? :) ]

How do you hope to operationalize a "transport"?  Once you put a gun or
a shield on a ship, it is no longer a "transport"?  What if you build a 
[10 1 10 10 10] ship?  Could that be a transport? 

And I don't think this is trivial...  If Bampton's victim had built armored
transports like [2 0 0 1 1], then Bampton would have been in even more 
trouble.  

And I'm not at all sure that the fact that large transports are rarely
used represents a game flaw.  It simply means that people are not
shielding their freighters.  And *that* implies, IMHO, that the Galaxy
galaxy is just a relatively safe place.   Certainly, that could be
changed.

---

[Tangentially releated to this, some one asked about transporting
Materials.  I once calculated the "tonnage" each of my planets
produced.  I think the difference for a fully developed world of size
900 between having a materials value of 10 and a value of .1 was on the
order of 20 "tons".  So you definitely wouldn't get much of a pay-back
from building ships to transport MAT.  You might set unused ships to
hauling MAT, but I really mean unused (because at the same time, you
have to devote a world or two with good materials value to producing
MAT instead of ships).]

---

I think a much better improvement to the transportation part of the game
would be:

- ability to haul ships (of any sort) 

- new resource, AGIcultural product.  It would be just like MAT except 
  it would be neccessary or else your population would start to
  diminish (die, be frozen, etc).  Then abolish population levels (and
  if your pop rises above the level supportable by that world's AGI
  value+the amount of AGI stockpiled, you'd start freezing them)

What does the net think?

-alan mead
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Wednesday, 22 Jul 1992 16:10:33 EDT
From: <34RIPSE@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Want Monster Island info.

I would appreciate any and all information regarding the Monster
Island PBM.  I am familiar with the basic concept but that is it.
Where is it? How do I get on? What does a turn go like? etc.

Thanks in advance.    Gary L. Anderson
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:28:14 GMT

In article <l7dk7sINNh6@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, bampton@cs.utk.edu (Howard J. Bampton) writes:
> 
> Having had the (mis)fourtune to attack several planets where the enemy
> had 100-200 unshielded cargo ships, I have this to say:
> As an attacker, I would MUCH rather that they had built fewer ships,
> even if they were heavily shielded. Do you have any idea how
> frustraiting it is to have your warships spend several rounds
> attacking unshielded cargo ships, while the enemy's warships are
> pounding your warships?

I'm missing something here. If the enemy has (say) 1000 cargo and 10
warships, doesn't that mean that they only have a 1% per combat round
of actually having a warship fire? So while you don't hit a warship
very often, their warships don't get to fire very often.

Does the combat generator cull out ships that can't hit first?

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: Galaxy idea - maping (was capturing planets)
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:24:40 GMT

In article <BrEABF.1LD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> amead@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Alan Mead) writes:
>... and if you are using UNIX, I always make a new file with just my
>groups.  When vi'ing the file you can type "!Gsort +9" and it will sort
>on the planet name.  I find that printout more valueable than any other
>aid I have.  You can also sort on some other column like shipname or
>tech level (or group number to get the original back for some reason).
>Remember that sort counts columns starting at zero.
>
>You can also use sort from the command line, redirecting input and
>output.

Slight improvement:

From the command line, "sort +9f -11" (on a file with just your groups)
sorts by planet name first, travel distance second.

-- 
Michael Hall            \ 
NASA Ames Research Center\ 
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford)
Subject: Re: SFB: PBeM
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: USA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 21:39:36 GMT

In article <Brz0t6.FKp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cap40944@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher A Parrinello) writes:

>Are there any Star Fleet Battle play by E-mail games starting up?
>I haven't played SFB in a while and would like to play some through email
>to see what it is like...
>

Yes there is, but I think it's too late to join the most recent bout.
But what you should do is write to Henry Cobb
(hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu), put "SFB" somewhere in the subject line,
and tell him that you want to be put on the tactics line and the
battle line.

Scott Stanford
stanford@leland.stanford.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:17:18 GMT

I haven't played in Galaxy much recently, but I always use a 

Teleport 1 0 0 0 1

for cargo shiping. The reasons I choose this (Maybe everyone who
uses this design feels the same way, don't know, never discussed it. :)
is that you get the maximum speed per cargo point, you can easily
spread your ships out, and you never "waste" space. For example, 
if all your cargo ships carry 100 units, and only 1 needs to be
transported, you are wasting 99 units of transportation. If you had
an array of 100 ships with 1 cargo space, only one would be
sent, and 99 would do other things. Also, 99 ships makes great inexpensive
fodder for combat. (Not as nicely as a 0 0 0 1 0 but what is?)

I think if a change in cargo ships was made it should be to make it
non-linear. Some sort of curve, where 10 costs only 7 times 1, and 100
costs only 5 times 10. SOmething like that. (I'm just pulling numbes out of the
air.) The more cargo units you have, the less they cost. Perfect example:

1 cubic foot of space in a cardboard box. The box is made of 9 sq. feet.

2 cubic foot of space in cardboard box. The box is made of 16 sq. feet.

As you can see, from a simple cost-of-cardboard standpoint, the 
larger box is cheaper. 1 100 cubic foot box should cost alot less than
100 1 cubic foot boxes...

See the rational?

---

I'd also like cargo ships to be able to carry different items, and
a 200 cargo space ship able to carry a 200 mass ship as a sort of
"hanger".) This way a large, massive shiop could carry hordes of smaller
ships into combat. (Sort of a battlestar galactica idea.) This would
change combat, for the better I think. Now you'd be able to build a massively
huge
battleship, and load it up with a large number of smaller fighters (with 0
drive). The fighters wouldn't have hyperdrive ability, but the carrier
would...

Enough rambling for now. I don't want you to fall asleep. (grin)
Xref: sparky rec.games.pbm:2217 rec.games.board:7416
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm,rec.games.board
Subject: Diplomacy standbys
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:44:38 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

**********************************************************************
  I NEED STANDBYS  I NEED STANDBYS  I NEED STANDBYS  I NEED STANDBYS 
**********************************************************************
         
             I have almost run out of standby players!
 
I need help in getting all Diplomacy games on Usenet running 
smoothly.  Please volunteer if you can.  
 
                                                            Eric Klien
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Another Galaxy Suggestion (Tech non-linear)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:34:32 GMT

ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy) writes:
>I like the idea of non-linear tech growth, but perhaps it should be
>much more curved. If you are going to do it at all, do it right. (grin)
>Say.....  >Tech 1: 5000*1 >Tech 2: 5000*2 >Tech 3: 5000*3
>Or something like that. Thus, to gain tech 3, you'd need to spend 30K
>production on research... Maybe this is too steep, but it's more realistic.
>We went from from gound-based to airplanes in a short period of time, but
>it was a while before we hit jets, and another while before we hit
>space. It'll be a massive amount of time before man makes it to another
>star system. (grin)

You're forgetting one thing:
You're talking about exponential jumps in "power".  Galaxy is a linear
jump in "power".  Tech 2 ships are twice as powerful as tech 1 ships.
Thus there is no need to "scale".  By the way, we "hit space" in the 60s
and 70s and are now starting to exploit the potential of economic space
travel.

Galaxy does not allow "brilliant new advances" with technology, which
makes it differnt from many other games.  At tech 2 you get *no*
production bonuses, *no* technology add-ons (like newer weapons, newer
shielding).  It just multiplies the power of your craft.  There is no
need for exponential scaling since going from, say, tech 7 to 8 already
is much less an "accomplishment" than from 1 to 2.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Galaxy suggestion
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:58:59 GMT

In <l7dp83INN3c5@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> bampton@cs.utk.edu (Howard J. Bampton) writes:

>In article <1992Jul29.182313.3743@uwm.edu> bruno@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
>>One thing that would probably help Galaxy is a method of having groups of
>>different types of ships.
>>If these groups moved at the speed of the slowest ship in the group, then
>>they could be used for organizing battle fleets.

I deliberately didn't include this in Galaxy, because I find that you
spend more time transferring ships in and out of fleets than you would
have just moving the ships individually in the first place, in the other
games I've played in which do have fleets.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:26:08 GMT

In <JCHO.92Jul30151026@dante.nmsu.edu> jcho@nmsu.edu (CHO) writes:

>Actually, I have seen several players adapt the mega-freighter design...
>In Galaxy Game 1 under Russell Wallace...I saw several large freighters...
>but for the most part had no shields...

>I've already mentioned this to Russell...but what about transport ships
>that can carry small fighters???  That would really revolutionize
>the strategy and tactics of the game... 

This would be mucho hassle to implement. Also, how do you distinguish
between fighters and satellites?

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: M22367@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Another Galaxy Suggestion
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:21:24 GMT

Howbout making the increase in technology more expensive the higher you go?
Right now it's a linear growth - it costs the same to get from TL 1 to TL 2
as it does to go from TL 7 to TL 8.  Wouldn't it be possible to make this a     e?
curve?
 
Thus:
Cost   Level
----   -----
5000     2
5100     3
5250     4
5450     5
5700     6
6000     7
etcetera ad nauseum...
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Subject: Re: Galaxy transporter design
Originator: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:40:49 GMT

There are a couple of reasons to modify transport designs.
If you have no interest in shielding your transports it makes sense to have
the smaller of drive and cargo just over 1 for maximum flexibility. You will
want to use a value a little over one to prevent left over production from
being wasted. The ratio between drive and cargo will be deterined by what
speed you want the cargo ship to travel at.
There are a couple of reasons you might want to build larger cargo ships.
The main one being if you want to shield your cargo ships, it is a lot more
efficient to shield a single big ship than a lot of small ships (so that all
of the ships are immune to a particular attack strength).
The other reason to make big cargo ships is to have all of your eggs in one
basket in case of attack. Depending on what kind of defense you are using
this may be a good or a bad idea.
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: jerry@uni-paderborn.de (Gerald Siek)
Subject: Galaxy transporter design
Organization: Uni-GH Paderborn
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:46:59 GMT

Hiya Galaxians!

To continue the discussion about our favorite game let's talk about the
design of transport ships.

So far it's pretty obvious that there is nothing like an optimal
fighter/battleship design strategy.   Sure - some models are better
than others but all in all your battleship design depends heavily on
what your enemy has.

Now take a look at the transport ships.   There's but one standard design
used by every experienced player:  (x,0,0,0,1),  where x is a number
between 1 and 3 (usually).   This transporter offers good speed and 
maximum flexibility.   Sometimes paranoid players modify this ship by
adding small gun and shields but all in all this *is* the standard 
transporter.  Nobody builds mega freighters or something similar.

So my suggestion is:
Make transporter design a bit more interesting.  Players should be 
encouraged to build other freighters that the one mentioned above.  For
example a rule could be that the transport component of the ship costs
one more point than it's capacity.   Thus a `normal'  (1,0,0,0,1)
transporter would cost 3 points, while a (10,0,0,10) transporter would
cost 21 points.  So on a size 1000 homeworld you could only produce
about 30 (1,0,0,0,1) transporters which equals a total load capacity of
30 tons, while you could produce 3 (15,0,0,0,15) transporter with a
total of 45 tons load capacity.
This way the player pays for the flexibility the small transporter
offers.

Reactions?

	Jerry
-- 
  Gerald Siek  -  jerry@uni-paderborn.de  -  University of Paderborn, Germany
From: crip@eebbs.isis.org (Garth Werner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: DM: Due Dates
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 22:00:08 EST
Organization: Electronic Encounters BBS

ccmdenis@fella.ucdavis.edu (Donald Trump) writes:

> In article <geO_7oy00UhWM2Yl4n@andrew.cmu.edu> tw1t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Theodore
> >Are the due dates printed on the turn publications ANYWHERE.  Has anyone
> >suggested it?
> >
> >            T
> 
> The due dates are printed on the first page of the newsletter, about an 
> inch from the top of the page, and on the left-hand column.
> 
> >PS.  Any warnings about arena 8
> 
> The only team I know of that runs there is Fingal's Fiends, and I don't
> even know if Fingal is around anymore.  If he is, look out!  He's run
> more AB's than anyone: that's all he runs!
> 
> Trump


        Actually I used to run a team in arena 8, and I may come back one 
day once I work my way down the priority list.  The team is "Ladies in 
Waiting" if you want to keep your eyes peeled in about a year's time.  In 
the meantime, I can tell you that Smithsonians are a team well worth getting 
in touch with.  He used to run around 60+ warriors a month (mainly in fast 
arenas '$$$$') but cut back because of financial circumstances well beyond 
the scope of the game.  But he has recoverd and arena 8 is now one of 3 
games his is in (& his only slow one).  Just tell him I sent him your way, 
and that you are already getting help here on the net.  He probably wont 
mind sharing info on opponents, always good to have in an ally.

PS.  I haven't seen Fingal, Pontiff, Wildman (Mr. Aim Blow in several slo 
arenas for a least a year now.
From: afoss@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Aaron Foss)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Galaxy idea - maping (was capturing planets)
Date: 16 Jul 92 16:05:01 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.


        Something that might be added in later:

        Whenever tech is upgrade the older fleet become out of date.  The
upgrade makes generation in the ships.  Something to counter act this would be
the power to upgrade old ships to the new tech levels.  This rule would be
very realistic and very useful.  Think of it the government doesn't want to
spend tons of money on building more ships when it has a good sized fleet and
so they bring a couple ships in to dock (out of action for a couple of turns)
and get them refited.  Even now fleets do this.
        It would really only be worth it to upgrade the larger ships because
otherwise you would be wasteing production points.
        It would take maybe half of the ships production costs to bring it up
to par, but in that turn if the planet was attack it couldn't fight or defend
itself.

BTW I really really do like this game, I have gotten about five more people
active in it.  Thanks again.
afoss    Supreme Commader of the Stellar Shiites
jduffin  Minister of Extremely Foreign Affairs
jlarson  Ayatollah of the Stellar Shiites
farley   Supreme Admiral Farley of the Grand Council
leroyjt  Proper Prime Minister of the Planet Israel
      
        "EMPIRE OF THE STELLAR SHIITES"
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: bruno@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Subject: Galaxy combat results
Originator: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Computing Services Division
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:57:02 GMT

To minimize output from combats in Galaxy it might be a good idea to drop
the blow by blow description and just give a summary of the ships remaining
when the last friendly ship is destroyed or when the battle is over.
Note that there is a possibility of two ships meeting with a very low
probability of destroying each other. This could result in a large processing
time and a lot of output if this were to happen. Perhaps an upper bound on
the number of combat rounds in a single battle should be made. Something like
1000?
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Olympian work granularity
From: Bill.Viggers@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Bill Viggers)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:26:09 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


In article <1992Jul29.131029.29776@walter.cray.com>, rsocia@alberti.cray.com (Rick Socia) writes:
|>> want to, say, work until 543 arives, just
|>>          set idle "work"
|>>          wait char 543
|>> If he arrives on the 5th day, you get 5 days worth of gold, and continue with
|>> your orders.
|> 
|> 
|> I wish this were true.  I did the same thing with study, and did not get the wait
|> to execute until a weeks worth of study (the default) completed.  However if
|> the Olympia engine can be modified to work as you suggest, I would whole-heartedly
|> agree to remove the granularity.
|> 

	Actually this is how I understand it to work also.  The trouble is there
	are only certain wait functions implemented.  If I want to stack with 
	someone as soon as possible, but at the start of the month they are not
	friendly, I do :

	set idle "stack 1234; work 1"
	wait stack 1234

	If there was a wait attitude option on the other hand I could do

	set idle "work"
	wait attitude 1234 friendly
	stack 1234

	This does require the ability to do a work 1 (unless any Olympian turn
	hackers want to come up with another way of doing it....)

	But I don't really think that the first is that much worse than the
	2nd, it just means I have lots of 1 day works (which do mess up the
	turn report :-()
	
Bill
From: colin@Cayman.COM (Colin "Atilla" Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Novice PBM'er questions
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:04:55 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA


Hello, netters!

I've never played a PBeM game before, but am very interested in both
participating in one, and possibly starting up my own.  So, first of
all, are there any games open that I could join?  How do I play?

As far as running one, which games are considered the best?  Where can
I get the source for them?  (Maybe getting the source would also be
the best answer to "How do I play?")

Thanks, in advance,  for your time and your answers.
--


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Colin Steele     | Cayman Systems, 26 Landsdowne St., Cambridge, MA 02139
 colin@cayman.com | (617) 494-1916 x209 | applelink D0523 | Fax (617) 494-9270
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
From: dao@d62iggy.mitre.org (David A. Ondzes)
Subject: Re: Duelmasters: Roll-Up Help
Reply-To: picasso@bass.bu.edu
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:35:32 GMT


>	 Here's a roll-up I get recently (in an unspecified arena):
>
>	 ST 16 CN 10 SZ 7 WT 9 WL 10 SP 8 DF 10
>
>	 I'm seriously considering 17-10-7-15-11-9-15 TP, just because
>	 the hight ST/WT/DF appeal to me, and allows me to take advan-
>	 tage of the defensive bonuses the small SZ gives.


Dennis,
	
	Do you know that WT does not help your parry rating. It might be 
to add the points to WL instead.

Wizard of Oz
From: 860099w@dragon.acadiau.ca (Marty Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Duelmasters: Roll-Up Help
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:56:53 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

ccmdenis@george.ucdavis.edu (Donald Trump) writes:

>Here's a roll-up I get recently (in an unspecified arena):

>ST 16 CN 10 SZ 7 WT 9 WL 10 SP 8 DF 10

>I'm seriously considering 17-10-7-15-11-9-15 TP, just because
>the hight ST/WT/DF appeal to me, and allows me to take advan-
>tage of the defensive bonuses the small SZ gives.

A Total Parry should have more than 11 Will.

I would try ...

ST 16 +  0 = 16
CN 10 +  0 = 10
SZ  7 +  0 =  7
WT  9 +  6 = 15
WL 10 +  5 = 15
SP  8 +  0 =  8
DF 10 +  3 = 13

I would make this guy a Parry-Lunge.  Also, you may wish to try 
the TP, and even a WST would be neat.  If you really wanted a 17 ST
(and who wouldn't :) then you'd have to take points off DF.

Anyway, the PL would be a good style to run, as would the WST, and
both would probably need a good DF as opposed to high ST.  

In the case of the TP, I see you want lots of Strength to get
a good damge rating and so on, to make him an offensive type.
So, either give him the 17 ST to start or train it right off.
I find to make TPs initiate attacks, is to make the KD a 5 or
more.  OE can go up too.

Oh yeah, I'm back in Nova Scotia and can read this newsgroup.
Keith, can you get in touch with me as I don't have your address.

Marty