HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ttmech@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov (Paul Mech)
Subject: Re: Empire of the Middle Ages & Sword and Stars
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:52:27 GMT

In article <kujq3aINNjqr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> elric@imryrr.Eng.Sun.COM (Rick Heli) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.021050.4359@citec.oz.au>, sgccstr@citec.oz.au (Shaun Travers) writes:
>|> Empires of the Middle Ages would be my favourite game of all time
>
>It's one of my all-time favorites also.  I've only managed to complete the
>campaign scenario once however.  Please describe your games!

One of my personal favorites was the time the Mongols made it to the
English Channel twice in one game.  I was playing the Byzantines and
walled myself off from them by raiding the region to my North into
oblivion.  In one case, I captured territory from Poland and after
ruling it into better condition, magnanamously returned it to him.
It was a "Mongol Magnet" and steered them straight through Warsaw
and into Germany.  They ended up showing up five times in the scenario
and battered continental Europe (sans Scandinavia) into oblivion.
This left England and the Byzantines in good condition and vying for
the win.  But France was in reasonable condition and thirsting for
British blood, and a substantial "grant" of Byzantine money lead to
a rather "amusing" and debilitating war ... .  Hey, I didn't say
it was going to be a nice story now, did I?
-- 

Paul J. Mech					ttmech@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: brandon@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Garland Operator 7-G)
Subject: Re: Game Collapse
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Anime Doujou
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:41:00 GMT

In article <foo> gdewan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Geoffrey DeWan) writes:
>>Are there any game besides Republic of Rome where the players are essentially
>>at odds with each other but may require the players to cooperate to keep 
>>events from causing everyone to lose? I am talking about outside events, not 
>>several players engaging in Mutual Assured Destruction.

The Avalon Hill game WIZARDS. You start the game by putting large hexes onto
a plain hex grid in order to make a terrain map. The object is to collect the
shards of a magic crystal in order to stop the spread of evil. The thing is,
after every fortnight or so, one of the big terrain hexes is flipped over and
destroyed by evil. This keeps happening until there is a winner or the world is
destroyed.

Personally I dont like this game because there is too much chance involved.
I didn't like seeing 4 hours of quest work go up in smoke just because I rolled
snake eyes.

Domo. Ja na.

Brandon Freels (Garland Operator 7-G)
brandon@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu  -or-  brandon@uokucsvx.bitnet
"I'm witty naturally, I don't need quotes."
From: db@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Update on 1830 by email
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:24:08 GMT
Reply-To: db@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <GFINK.92Apr7193253@bonzai.eecs.ucdavis.edu> gfink@bonzai.eecs.ucdavis.edu (George Fink) writes:
>There are rumors of an extant pbm (possible postal?) system for 1830,

I don't have a copy of the rules, but I know they're based on conditional
orders.  So in your example, Player 4 would write "Buy C&SL if available,
else buy C&A if available, else ..."

Dave.
--
 Dave Berry, LFCS, Edinburgh Uni.      db%dcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk

Authority is arbitrary.          Nobody is normal.         Assume nothing.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: s666@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Romulan SparrowHawk Carrier]
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:13:46 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <eJHXiB2w165w@angus.mi.org>, thx1138@angus.mi.org (Scott Abfalter) writes:
> I tell you, for 4 BPV a fighter carrying a Type-F Plas is a _scary_
> thing.  Consider that you can buy three times the cost of F-14's in 
> Romulan fighters.  
> 
    Isn't there some stupid arbitrary rule that only half of the fighters on
a Romulan (or Gorn) carrier can be the Pl-F armed assault fighters?

Sean Dzafovic
Dalhousie University
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu (kevin soutor)
Subject: Re: Tactical Question
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:20:02 GMT

Mark,

The method of cracking the line will depend in large part 
upon the weapons available, rules in use, terrain, forces 
available, etc.  It is difficult to generalize but here is 
my opinion.  In the situation that you described the best 
possible choice is to achieve local superiority at a sigle 
point.  Use screening forces along the rest of the line to 
prevent the encirclement of your attacking force and keep a 
LARGE reserve ready to reinforce the attack group, beat back
a counterattack, or exploit the breach.  Use the 
artillery/missile weapons available to soften up your target
before your assaulting troops go into the breach.

Always remember that a single defensive line, a hard crust 
if you will, is difficult to penetrate but once this is done
there is little to hold back an attacker.  Hold the 
initiative to keep your opponent guessing, even if it means 
a small retreat along one part of the line to avoid having 
your units destroyed or to pull part of the opposing forces 
out of good defensive terrain.  Hope that this answers your 
question in some small way.

Kevin

ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu
From: otran@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Oai Tran)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: 2nd Edition A&A
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:51:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


	When I wrote 'Germany's only chance' I had no clue that
there was a second edition of Axis and Allies.  I bought the game
when it first came out in the mid 80's and have not kept up with its
revisions.  With the first edition, it was very hard for the Axis to
win when decent Allied players were playing.  I stated that Japan
had no chance in Asia because, according to the first edition, the
US would build a industrial complex in Singkiang and have all other
Allied units converge to defend it.  Using this strategy, Japan
could not take it on turn one or two unless it was very lucky.  As a
result, the US starting on turn two could pump over 30 BRPs into
mainland Asia.  Japan could not possibly do anything if this were to
occur.  With the second edition, it seem like Japan could hold on
and even make ground.  This limit makes all the difference.  The new
rule definitely balances the game and I take back my claim that the
Axis could only win with awesome luck or Allied ineptness.

Oai Tran
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Empires of the Middle Ages
From: kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 06:53:39 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland

I hear that TSR now owns the rights to this old SPI game. Does anyone know if
they have any plans to re-release it?

If not, does anyone have a copy they wish to part with?

PS any replies are best posted to the net, since my account is due to be
terminated real soon :-(. I can still use someone elses here to read news tho'.

					    Thanks,
						    Kemp.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Scott Zimmerman)
Subject: Re: A&A Sub Rules
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:17:55 GMT

In article <Apr.9.12.34.26.1992.19580@yoko.rutgers.edu> tomlee@yoko.rutgers.edu (Thomas J Lee) writes:
>
>I've played that the subs may withdraw, and land forces need not occupy.
>I think it makes sense for land forces -- why should they have less
>flexibility after *winning* an attack than after a failed offensive?
>(Okay, I can think of some reasons but they're not very compelling).
>
>The sub rule makes them a bit more useful and "tricky". Some interpretations
>of the rule would allow the sub to move 3 in one turn, which is fine
>with me but might bother some folks.
>
>Tom Lee
>tomlee@paul.rutgers.edu


So what you are saying is that Germany can attack Kareily ( pardon the spelling)   
with all his tanks and some infantry, destroy the Ruskies, leave his remaining
infantry there and retreat his tanks to a well defended adjacent territory?

As I have played, you can not retreat from an attacked territory once you
have destroyed all enemys and you cant send reenforcents in of any kind
during the non-combat move.  So basically, germany's tanks are sitting
ducks.  This way, you have to consider the consequences when attacking and
make sure you have enough infantry left to defend the remaining tanks.

What do the rules say?
From: shawni@.tis.llnl.gov (Shawn Instenes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: Romulans & Torps
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:23:37 GMT

911414p@ace.acadiau.ca (PIOTR CEZARY  PROSZYNSKI) writes:

(My own stuff about exposing a cloaked vessel with flash from a t-bomb
removed)

>Oh no....Please tell me I'm wrong...
>You guys actually take cloaked Roms off the board?
>As in: secret? as in INVISIBLE ?
>Brrrrrrrr...... Scary; we play the on-the-board-hard-to-fire-at-yet-clearly
>-visible Romulans and they *still* fry my Kzinti cheeks. How do you ever 
>manage to maintain play balance? - or do your Romulans have the Universe at 
>their mercy?
>                        (PCP) The Tailor-Cat.

Our house rule on this subject:

We give the cloaked ships a counter AND make them do plotted movement-
the counter must stay within a given number of hexes from the actual
position of the ship.  The number varies depending on what we agree
upon at the beginning of the scenario; usually something like 5-10
hexes.  Other than that, we give 'em the ability to move the counter
whenever they want.

This of course makes the cloaking device somewhat less daunting to your
enemy (who can now [sometimes] figure out which shield is going to take
the R-torp :-}), but it seems to avoid BPV value arguments.
There are various bluffs the cloaked player can make (short term), but
the more the counter moves around the more data the other players get
about the ship's position.

-- 
Shawn Instenes, shawni@tis.llnl.gov, shawni@s1.gov
Distributed Computing Support Program, LLNL
From: elric@imryrr.Eng.Sun.COM (Rick Heli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Empire of the Middle Ages & Sword and Stars
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:00:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: imryrr

In article <1992Apr13.021050.4359@citec.oz.au>, sgccstr@citec.oz.au (Shaun Travers) writes:
|> Empires of the Middle Ages would be my favourite game of all time - I
|> have played the campaign games several times (it takes about 100
|> hours) - as well as many senarios.

It's one of my all-time favorites also.  I've only managed to complete the
campaign scenario once however.  Please describe your games!

We did it playing about a century a week with 4 players:  a Byzantine, French,
Italian and German.  The French took over Spain and England.  The Italian the
Balkans and the German Scandinavia and points east.  Though there was lots of
conflict between the Byzantine and the Italian, it was fairly peaceful in the
West, until the last 50 years or so when everyone tried to be in the lead for
the end of the game.  In the end, the German won mostly on the strength of
points gained for conversions.

We found though that the Saracen raiders were too powerful and tended to put
the Mediterranean players at too great a disadvantage.  So they were 
elminated.  Anyone else ever take steps in this regard?

Rick Heli
From: elric@imryrr.Eng.Sun.COM (Rick Heli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Empire of the Middle Ages & Sword and Stars
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:07:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: imryrr


In article <1992Apr13.232626.4035@citec.oz.au>, sgccstr@citec.oz.au (Shaun Travers) writes:
|> The six players are England, French, German, Italian, Polish and
|> Byzantine.  We have fairly balanced games. With the six players it
|> does get a bit crowded. Which is what you want!

|> Poland always has it unlucky in our games but manages to finish in
|> the middle.  Byzantine tries to take over Serbia and Croatia
|> a lot (it also takes as much of Poland as possible just before
|> the Mongols arrive - much to the distress of the Polish player).

Have you considered handicapping the Campaign Game?  I'd hate to have
to try to win with those measly areas around Poland...

|> Poland always seems to get converted Catholic, and we never have
|> a change in the Schism (although we came close once).

Yes, we came close too once, but the Byzantine didn't own the right places
anymore.

|> Once the Mongols got as far as Germany (they never go through Byzantine),
|> but generally stop in Poland.

Yes, that's our experience too.  Usually they get stopped in Hungary or a
little further.

|> If you play with six and have an Italian player, you will realise why
|> the Saracens hang around for so long - Italy has it so good once 
|> they are gone!

Yes, not only do they have wonderful areas, but they can colonize like mad!

|> P.S. Something tricky that can stop Magnates (and Outworlders in S&S).
|> If you have a claim (treaty) with the base of the magnate (outworlder),
|> as soon as the magnate (outworlder) appears play a Dynastic Inheritance
|> (Diplomatic Success) card. This allows you to take a province (system)
|> you have a claim (treaty) with. If it is already owned by someone
|> else you have to vote for it if the owner does not want to give it
|> up. Magnate (outworlders) are NPCs so you just take the province 
|> (system) and the magnate (outworlder) disappears! 
|> Very useful for removing the Syrian Magnate (which is why the
|> Italian player took Syria).
|> This make the Dynastic Inheritance (Diplomatic Success) card very
|> useful for removing a magnate (outworlder) who appears in one of
|> your systems while it was in unrest.
|> 
|> Anybody else utilise this rule? We had a lot of discussion over
|> it and many people reading the rules and found it is fairly
|> clear and this rule should be allowable. 

Yes, we employ it also.

We did make a special rule though that if rolled, the Syrian Magnate always
appears, even if Syria is owned and not in unrest.  Otherwise, I suspect the
Syrian would never appear and there would never be a Crusade and of course,
you've GOT to have Crusades, if only to keep the Byzantine from getting too
powerful.

By the way, you mention treasuries of up to 80.  In our game, they topped 150
for more than one player.  But after a while it become fairly meaningless since
one only has 5 years per round after all.

Thanks for recounting your games!
From: jh@first.gmd.de (Joerg Heuer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Mail order game companies in UK?
Summary: Query for recommendations on mail order companies
Keywords: board games, mail order
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:42:44 GMT
Reply-To: jh@first.gmd.de
Distribution: eunet
Organization: GMD-FIRST, D-1000 Berlin 10


	A question to all the UK gamers:
	Are there any mail order game companies in the UK where I
	could order british and, perhaps, US games to Germany?

	I used to order my games from the US - but british games
	should be cheaper (and delivered faster) when ordered
	directly in the UK.

	I'm looking for fantasy/history/sf board games with
	medium to high complexity - no roleplays and
	NO World War <N> simulations.

		Any recommendations and addresses?

	Thanks in advance,
	Joerg.

| GMD-FIRST an der TUB | ** Don't reply to the 'From'-address in header **   
| Joerg Heuer          | ** use 'Reply-To' adress or jh@gmdtub.uucp     **
| Hardenbergplatz 2    | Tel: (Germany-30) 254 99 -134 / -172 (FAX)
| D-1000 Berlin 12     |                 You know how to dial - don't you?
               You put your finger in a hole and make tiny little cirlces.
--
| GMD-FIRST an der TUB | ** Don't reply to the 'From'-address in header **   
| Joerg Heuer          | ** use 'Reply-To' adress or jh@first.gmd.de    **
| Hardenbergplatz 2    | Tel: (Germany-30) 254 99 -134 / -172 (FAX)
| D-1000 Berlin 12     |                 You know how to dial - don't you?
From: emullins@vesta.unm.edu (Eric Mullins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Japan in Axis and Allies
Keywords: A&A, Axis & Allies
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:43:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.j=sja=k
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

cwk@athena.mit.edu (Charles W Krueger) writes:

> If the Allies really want to gang up on Japan, I suggest a Russian attack
> on Manchuria with a subsequent British attack on Kwangtung (transport two
> infantry from india, fighter support - lands in Sinkiang. Sure, the japs
> can take everything back, including India, but now find themselves very
> short of land units on the continent. I've seen more than one frustrated
> Japanese player following this opening.

As Japan after seeing such a strategy, I'm thrilled.  I just build 3
transports to get all those useless men on islands to the continent quickly.
Then I'll built an industrial complex the 2nd turn or if possible, 2.  If the
Allies go for that type of plan, then Japan can take the rest of Asia w/out
a fight since no other units on the Allies side will be there to defend with.

If the allies don't decide to do anything to Japan, then I build an industrial
complex and a transport on the first turn.  Either way, Japan gets huge but
at least Russia has some defense if nobody attacks Japan.

Since Japan gets big anyway, the allies best bet is to ignore Japan and
concentrate on two things: Defending Moscow & Killing Germany

For the Russians this means consolidating all Asian infantry somewhere off
the coast.  The Brittish should vacate India in favor of Africa.  If the US
infantry survive, (usually not) they should march up towards Moscow, and
any fleet wreckage remaining should sail through the canal.  Ie, everybody
should run away from Japan on the first turn.  This makes defending Moscow
easier while putting more pressure on Germany.
-- 
   Eric Mullins			Internet: emullins@hydra.unm.edu
Mars the God of War		Bitnet:   emullins@unmb.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: sackett@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Michael Scott Zimmerman)
Subject: Re: A&A Sub Rules
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:32:02 GMT

In article <Apr.9.12.34.26.1992.19580@yoko.rutgers.edu> tomlee@yoko.rutgers.edu (Thomas J Lee) writes:
>
>Similarly, if an attacking land force eliminates its opposition,
>is it bound to occupy the attacked location?
>
>I've played that the subs may withdraw, and land forces need not occupy.
>I think it makes sense for land forces -- why should they have less
>flexibility after *winning* an attack than after a failed offensive?
>(Okay, I can think of some reasons but they're not very compelling).
>
Maybe this should be clarified as such:

If you have used your complete movement spaces getting to and entering a
combat zone, you cannot retreat them after knocking out all enemy.  This 
would be like traveling across the entire zone to clean up any enemy 
opposition.

For example...Germany attacks Karelie with all tanks and infantry it can.
No infantry can pull out after winning because they have only 1 movement
point and have used that traversing to the east end of the Karelie.  Like
wise, any German tanks that came from Berlin or Southern Europe must also
stay because they through 2 complete zones - first through Easter Europe,
and the COMPLETELY through the Karelie to clean out all enemys.  However,
the German tanks that attacked from East Europe, Finland and the other 
territory could withdraw to one adjacent  territory.  The logic - they used
1 movement point to travel to the east border of Karelie and 1 movement 
point to travel BACK to the western border.  

this would make sense to me in a realistic sense.

What do you think?

>Tom Lee
>tomlee@paul.rutgers.edu
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Greening the Light Blue
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:28:49 GMT
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce
Organization: The Internet

In article <coHXiB3w165w@angus.mi.org> thx1138@angus.mi.org (Scott Abfalter) writes:
>RE: Color of destiny cards
>  Who turned their brain off and decided to have Blue and Light Blue 
>  Destiny cards?  How _incredibly_ and _unforgivably_ stupid.  Green 
>  was unused and would have made a fine choice/ 

Uh, are you looking for a name?  Without commenting on the assessment
of his IQ, the person responsible for that decision was Jim Musser.

To be fair to Jim, his rationale was that some color-blind people have
an easier time differentiating between Blue and Light Blue than between
Red and Green.

Of course Jim is one of those color-blind people...

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn             AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
ISO Certified Lead Assessor    E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM)
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: CE, Vampire and Greening the Light Blue
From: peck@futon.sfsu.edu (Alexander &)
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:04:55 PDT

In article <coHXiB3w165w@angus.mi.org>  writes:
> RE: Color of destiny cards
> 
>   Who turned their brain off and decided to have Blue and Light Blue 
>   Destiny cards?  How _incredibly_ and _unforgivably_ stupid.  Green 
>   was unused and would have made a fine choice/ 
> 

Hearty agreement! And yellow and orange aren't always that clear, either.

Alex
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Definative Eon vs. Mayfair
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:13:45 GMT
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Followup-To: rec.games.board.ce
Organization: The Internet

In article <2091@transfer.stratus.com> hship@sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship) writes:
>So what is the difference between the Eon and Mayfair sets? From
>exploring the postscript stuff on the archive, I've noticed some rules
>changes (and changes to the graphics).  But I've also heard indirectly
>that some of the long established parts of the game (moons and lucre,
>specifically) aren't in Mayfair.

Moons and lucre were provided by Eon in two different expansion sets,
of the nine such sets that followed the introduction of the original
Cosmic Encounter.  The original Mayfair issue contained the equivlent
of a basic set and about 4 (Eon) expansion sets.  An expansion set to
the Mayfair game will be issued this summer, and will include the
equipment from the remaining 5 (Eon) expansion sets, including lucre
and moons, and a new expansion called "Technology." 

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn             AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
ISO Certified Lead Assessor    E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM)
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"