HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters)
Subject: 1830 questions                          
Reply-To: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:51:00 +0000

>1. When you play the operating round, does each railroad play a token,
>set up railheads, ect. or do you alternate.

Each company finishes everything in one round before the next company starts.

>2. In other words can I have two trains running routes over that tile?

You can't have two trains running over the same *track*.  So more than one
train can go on the same *tile* IFF they don't use the same bit of track.

>3. When the first railroad buys a 4 train,

... all the 2 trains on the board get removed.

  //\/\/  iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk

>>>MATRIX version  1.21e
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: OGRE/GEV: is there a FAQ???
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:58:40 GMT
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.

hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb) writes:
>
>	Mr Jackson used to have a magazine called "The Space Gamer" which
>published a lot of material on OGRE & GEV, the best ideals from this have
>made their way into the Miniatures book.  

Mr. Jackson will once again have a magazine that covers Ogre
Miniatures, at least.  Starting hopefully by mid-year, SJG will combine
Roleplayer and Autoduel Quarterly into one journal, and add Ogre and
Hot Lead coverage as well.  It will also feature reviews of non-SJG
games.  The magazine will be called Pyramid, of course . . . more news
about it later, I'm sure.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: SPI's Air War
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:21:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.061325.22761@leland.Stanford.EDU> stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:
>Anyone know what happened to SPI's boxed game Air War?  It was my
>favorite of the modern air combat simulation games since the scale was
>right (one turn = 2.5 seconds, one hex = 500 feet) and the
>charts/tables relatively easy to deal with.  Has anyone else played
>this game?
>
Dunno what TSR is doing with it now; their reissue was basically the old
SPI game with update.

IMHO, the scale was too detailed, energy was not handled well at all, and
the turn charts of most aircraft maintain pretty constant turn *rate* at
all speeds (note that turn *radius* does vary).  Therefore, the game is
not really true to how aircraft actually work, and imposes serious tactical
distortions.  Since I like tactical games where actual tactical doctrine
works, I don't like the game as much as I did.

Try _The_Speed_Of_Heat_ by Clash of Arms, which is basically second edition
_Air_Superiority_ (published by GDW back when it was a wargame company).
SoH deals with the earlier days of jet aircraft, Korea to Vietnam, which is
where the neat tactics are.  (No, I don't like games with all-aspect missiles.)
This game works pretty well, too, with a less detailed scale, and the aircraft
will work more like the real thing.

Alternatively, AH's _Flight_Leader_ is simple and reasonably accurate, and
was developed from a USAF training aid.  I don't like six-point facing with
unmanuverable aircraft, myself, but the abstractions don't interfere with
the tactics too much.

DHT
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Watters)
Subject: Re: 1830: stock round question          
Reply-To: iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:46:00 +0000

Ian:
>> The original game in the series, 1829, forbade it though.

Dave:
>1829 doesn't forbid it either.  I'm not sure if you can buy and sell in the
>same *turn*, but you definitely can buy a share in one turn and sell it in a
>later turn of the same *round*.

Hi Dave, I forgot you had taste <huge grin>

>These games are all about timing.

... and this time I'm back in London without my 1829 sets.  But I actually
looked this one up at home.  The original green rule book allowed it. The
errata stopped it.  The yellow second edition rule book, I thought, also said
no, but it's probably me confusing turns with rounds...

  //\/\/  iwatters@cix.compulink.co.uk

>>>MATRIX version  1.21e
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: blum@medici.ils.nwu.edu (Dan Blum)
Subject: Re: Games for sale
Reply-To: blum@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:37:12 GMT

I can't mail to you either.  I will bid $10 on Blackbeard and $25 on
Russian Civil War.

--
_____________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum           Institute for the Learning Sciences   Room 327
blum@ils.nwu.edu   1890 Maple Ave., Evanston, IL 60201   708-467-2306

"It's nothing, honey - the dog's learning how to juggle."
_____________________________________________________________________
From: torbenm@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius Mogensen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:39:25 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

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?

When it achieves it's purpose. I've never used this strategy, but I
can see that it is in some sense "reasonable" if you can expect to win
by using it. This, of course, is especially true for Diplomacy.

I think the question really is "When is it reasonable to let the
player get away with this strategy". The answer, I believe, is
"never".

I've played many games where people have tried this strategy on me.
I've never let myself be intimidated by them, and has taken quite a few
losses in the process. But if I didn't I would convince the offending
player that threathening is a good strategy for winning. If the player
never wins while attempting this strategy, he will soon stop. Of
course, there is the possibility that none wants to have the player
in their games, but that may be a bit drastic. I prefer the "let him
try and fail" measure.

	Torben Mogensen (torbenm@diku.dk)
From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:34:57 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <C0psE7.5xJ@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) writes:

>My approach is:
>1) Try to win
>2) If you can't win, try to come second.
>3) If you can't come second, try to be third
>...
>n-1) If all else fails, try not to come last.
>
>If in attempting to make (eg) third place, 1st and 2nd being beyond
>my ability, I end up ensuring that player X comes first, or that Y
>comes last, why should I care. I try to get the best position I can.

Actually I generally buy into this approach and encourge my opponents to do
likewise. Unfortunately, many players frustrate this strategy with the "coming
in second doesn't count" philosophy.

Problem arise when I must weigh the relative merits of the objectives:
say I have a secure 2nd place. Should I accept a 5% chance at victory with a
failure sending me to a hopeless last? (I say yes!) How about 1%? (starting
to get chancy) Where do I draw the line?

{I arbitrarily draw the line at (games_I_play_per_year)^-1 or so. So if I play
20 Britania games/year, I will draw the "hopelessness-line" at 5%. That way,
once a year I will have a "you-won't-believe-this-come-from-behind-story" to
tell, as my compensation for losing all those other games I could have been
second on. For places other than first, I simply play a maximizing position.
That is I will risk losing a 3rd place to gain a 2nd place only on plays that
have better than 50% chance of working.}


Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jeff@maggot.gg.caltech.edu (Jeff Goldsmith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: good three-player games
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:17:41 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: all
NNTP-Posting-Host: maggot.gg.caltech.edu

In <lk2ribINNee@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> elric@imryrr.Eng.Sun.COM (Rick Heli) writes:

>>Another excellent three-player game (for the same reasons) is SOURCE OF
>>THE NILE.  It's playable solitaire, and any more players up to six.
>>Three appears to be the optimal number for an enjoyable game, however.
>>Too bad it's out of print :-)

>Same goes for Empires of the Middle Ages, i.e. great game for 3, but now
>out of print and tough to find.

What scenario is playable with 3?  I think that the five player
game is the best, and six or seven is preferable.  In a 3-player
game, there need be no combat between players at all, so HRE has
a huge advantage.

My current favorite 3-player games are:
	Blackbeard 	
	    Definitely best with 3; 4 tends to see the leader
	    obliterated by KCs very quickly.
	City of Sorcerers
	Merchant of Venus
	Fast Food Franchise
	    We've now had winners with five of the 8 
	    companies as their major holding, including
	    Dark and Gooey.  (That 5-franchise expansion
	    card is golden for them.)
	Acquire
	Wizards
	Canasta and Pinochle (oops, wrong group)
	
				--Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney)
Subject: Re: Need to identify an out of print game...
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:20:03 GMT

In <1993Jan5.035705.26053@ils.nwu.edu> mccoy@ils.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.212709.14052@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>[regarding my game query]
>>
>>You are thinking of "Divine Right". [...]

>Many thanks, that's the ticket...  Well, if anyone has a copy they might
>want to part with for some $$....  :)

>I have been looking for that one and Kingmaker for so long it drives me
>nuts.   This sort of thing is about as frustrating as searching for an out
>of print book, but at least you can find a book in a library...

>jim
>-- 
>Jim McCoy          |  PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
>j-mccoy@nwu.edu    |  61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
>mccoy@ils.nwu.edu  |  finger mccoy@ils.nwu.edu for public key


For what it's worth, Gamescape, in San Francisco, has 2 copies of the old
Philmar edition of Kingmaker.  Be prepared to spend a few bucks on it.

Bob Rossney
rbr@well.sf.ca.us
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cbekar@fraser.sfu.ca (Clifford Bekar)
Subject: A&A--Bombing
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:58:57 GMT

I'm a newcomer to Axis and Allies (got it at Christmas),
and have only played some very light games (i.e. no
serious gamers present).  Now that were starting to get a
little more competitive I have notice something that seems
very strange to me.  So, submitted for confirmation/explanation
or correction is the following problem:
-each country gets its IPC's at the beginning of the round, and
in that round decide what to spend
-if that country spends all of its IPC allocation then it holds
0 IPC's
-if it is subsequently bombed there can be no economic damage
done (i.e. no IPC's held to be destroyed)

What this essentially does is to take the US airforce out of
the strategic bombing bussiness, when its really the only one  
of the Allies which can afford to produce a decent bombing fleet.
Basically, all that happens in our games is that the Axis never
save any IPC's, and in light of the time and unit pressures on the
Axis, this isn't really much of a constraint anyway.  So, where have
I gone wrong, or have I?

Cliff Bekar
Simon Fraser University
.
From: Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: S&T's latest
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:08:21 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

There is official errata posted in the Wargames CAT on the GEnie network,
I'll see if I can post it here.

Peter Szymonik
xorg@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: blum@medici.ils.nwu.edu (Dan Blum)
Subject: Re: OLD SPI FAVORITES RE-RELEASED?
Reply-To: blum@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:49:43 GMT

kevin soutor (ksoutor@unl.edu) wrote:
> 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 
> Martin at TSR and show their enthusiasm for this project.

> --
>        Kevin Soutor        | "Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms!" |
>  ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu   |               -- Outlaw Josey Wales  |

FGA (which is now out of business) was "negotiating" with TSR only in
the sense that they had said they were interested.  They also were
engaging in massive copyright violations, which they basically
admitted (their flyer for Bastogne and Kasserine said that they were
new editions of the SPI games, explicitly).  I called David Fox, TSR's
VP for Business Affairs, after I got that flyer, and he said that the
"negotiations" did not exist as such - FGA had expressed interest, and
TSR had told them to come back with a serious offer, which they had
not done at that time.  It's all kind of academic now, of course.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum           Institute for the Learning Sciences   Room 327
blum@ils.nwu.edu   1890 Maple Ave., Evanston, IL 60201   708-467-2306

"It's nothing, honey - the dog's learning how to juggle."
_____________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: Following the rules
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:07:25 GMT

This is a tough one, Bruce.  I for one LOVE to make games and work them
into a balanced, playable state.  As an example, I've even set to work
trying to invent a game which can be played with Supremacy components,
since even though the game itself is pretty pathetic, the components are
so gorgeous they just cry out for a game to play with them.

That said, I've also noticed that the BIGGEST thing a good game design
needs is a flavor.  One of the things which made Hartland Trefoil's 18xx
games so popular was the refreshing deviation from the umpteen million
wargames which had been on the market when 1829 was released (that WAS
Trefoil's work, right?  it feels like his, anyway --- apologies and
complements to the real author if I'm wrong).

The game was about being a Robber Baron, and had the absolutely charming
challenge of laying track.  The variety of interest in 1830, with the
economist grinding and abusing the stock market and others just setting
out to create some visionary or "cool" track configuration, and we have
even avoided the problem of worrying about who is going to win to some 
extent as often many of the players are more concerned with developing
"cool" track than a wining portfolio.

One change I have wanted to try with 1830 is to change the track laying
rules so that track must conform to a technolgy level (roughly
corresponding to what appears on the yellow green and brown tiles) and
then allowing an infinite stock of track provided that type of tile is
legal at the time.  This change highlights the problems of change in
general --- it may conflict with the part of the game which gives it
flavor for the other players.

Changing the tile laying rule will remove this aspect of the game: using
up all of a type of tile to deny someone else its use.  It return, it
will add this ascpect: more configurations of track will be possible,

To some (like myself), that part of the flavor of the game which is
removed was a bad thing, so it's loss is a good thing.  To those who
liked that aspect of the game, it will be a bad thing.  Beyond that,
this is just a matter of taste, so I'll stop there.

In summary, changes to the rules will change the flavor of the game.
Those aspects of the flavor which are most important are a matter of
taste, and the subjective perception of whether the change is good
will have to do with whether the good things gains and bad things lost
make up for the bad things gained and good things lost.

Mel
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Question on Victory Games' Carrier - plane ranges
Keywords: Carrier
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:16:09 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

In Carrier from Victory Games, the US twin engined medium bombers
(type not specified, but presumably B-25's and B-26's) have a range of
11 hexes.  This gives them an action radius of 165 miles, or about 60%
of that of a Dauntless dive bomber, which contradicts about everything
I know about these planes (I had assumed that at top load, upwards
from three hundred miles should be possible).

Is there some explanation for this that I missed (US doctrine)?  Or
are the range values on the counters misprinted?  Has Victory released
any official errata for Carrier?  Thanks for any input.


-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: blum@medici.ils.nwu.edu (Dan Blum)
Subject: Re: Divine Right Game
Reply-To: blum@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:57:46 GMT

Paul Dutta-Choudhury (dutta@cognex.uucp) wrote:
> I have a near mint copy of the game:

> 	"Divine Right"

> If anyone is interested in obtaining this game from me please contact me via e-mail.

> Paul Dutta-Choudhury
> Cognex Corp
> Needham MA

Well, I can't seem to get e-mail to you, but I'm interested.  What
kind of price were you thinking of?  An auction would probably be a
good idea... 
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum           Institute for the Learning Sciences   Room 327
blum@ils.nwu.edu   1890 Maple Ave., Evanston, IL 60201   708-467-2306

"It's nothing, honey - the dog's learning how to juggle."
_____________________________________________________________________
From: jcg@tools9.teradata.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: S&T's latest
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:31:49 GMT
Reply-To: jcg@tools9.teradata.com ()
Distribution: world
Organization: ATT/NCR Teradata Business Unit
Originator: jcg@tools9

Has anyone found out what the supply schedule should be???

Jon.
From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:51:24 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

In article <1iso60INN6fk@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, coxa@ucs.orst.edu (huh?) writes:
|> .....
|> Well, I am not a military historian but I know a few people who are.
|> The impression I get from them is that no country chooses a military
|> option without a perceived chance of winning with acceptable losses.
|> Every situation has slight differences but in all the nation has to 
|> have some idea of whether they will accomplish their goal or not.
|> ...
|> --Mark

Does that mean that Iraq perceived themselves winning with acceptable losses?
(not a rhetorical question)

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: kinney@ra.cgd.ucar.edu (Rodney Kinney)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:50:42 GMT

>  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.)

	You were lucky.  In my group this targeted-suicide tactic became
so common I finally had to lay down the law.  As we sat down to one
game, I stated "If anyone tries this business of selling all their
property to player C for $1, I will immediately sell all of my own
property to the same player C, and we can just call the game and start
something else."  Apparently, no one ever felt it was worth calling my
bluff, and our Monopoly games becames much more enjoyable thereafter. 
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: edandavi@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Allen and Avi Rappoport)
Subject: Re: OLD SPI FAVORITES RE-RELEASED?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:53:51 GMT


Considering that FGA is about as sleazy as they come in business practices,
and rumored to be belly-up, I have no enthusiasm for them getting the
rights to any of the good games originally published by SPI.  AH would
be okay, or GMT or The Gamers or GDW or GRID ( forget where the / goes
in that name) or SJG or damn near anyone else would be better.

Ed Allen
edandavi@well.sf.ca.us
From: mitton@dave.lkg.dec.com (Dave Mitton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 1830: Track construction
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:35:16 GMT
Reply-To: mitton@dave.lkg.dec.com (Dave Mitton)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA


In article <1993Jan6.170716.29820@dms.agames.com>, lipson@dms.agames.com (Pete Lipson) writes:
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lipson@dms.agames.com (Pete Lipson)
Subject: Re: 1830: Track construction
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:07:16 GMT

>Diane MacMartin (mdm@bnr.ca) wrote:
>: In article <1ibtl8INNu5@news.uni-paderborn.de> jerry@uni-paderborn.de writes:
>: >A question on constructing track:
>: >
>: >The rules say that the green tiles, once they are available can be used
>: >to REPLACE existing yellow track tiles.   Is it possible to use a green
>...
>: 
>: want to place - you must then free up a yellow tile, which some other
>				^^^ really?
>: alert player will now place on his track, so you must then replace
>: THAT yellow tile, which will again be used by someone else ...
>: It's part of the essentials of this game.
>
> I thought you always STACKED the tiles, and thusly had no yellows left
>when you move 'up'.....

	Then obviously you didn't read the second to last sentence of 
Rule 18.1 Replacement of Tiles;
"Yellow and green tiles which have been replaced are availible for re-use."

	Dave.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board