HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs)
Subject: Re: Fortress America
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:22:58 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <geqDo8a00WAu84iJRn@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Anyone ever played it? I am curious--my games always come out with
>America getting beat upon. However, some of my friends claim the game is
>heavily balanced _towards_ America. Any thoughts on the matter?

I and a friend have played this game extensively, it is a very good
game.  I highly recommend it as a two-player game (because there
are really only two sides, the US, and the rest).

There have been some comments about which way this game is balanced,
some saying it favours the US, some the attackers.   What we found
was that for people who are inexperienced at the game, it favoured
the attackers, but as the players got better, it tended to slowly
tip the balance towards the US player.  BUT this game is extremely
easy to play-balance without in any way changing the nature or
feel of the game.

To play balance this game: If the US player tends to have a tough
time of it, give him one extra Laser tower at the start of the
game (so after his first re-inforcement he has two towers), as
the US player gets better, go back to the default start up, and
then as the players become quite familiar with the game, start
the laser tower re-inforcements on turn 2 instead of turn1.
(We also rule that if US gets the lasers hit on 3 on the
first turn, when he has no towers, he instead gets one laser
shot at the normal percentage.)

My friend and I have found that we almost always get close games
playing with the delayed laser tower, no matter which one of
use plays which side, unless one player gets incredibly lucky
or unlucky.  Generally our games will end with two turns 
worth of critical battles -- ie invader is sitting at 
victory plus one cities (I think 18 is win, so this would
be 19) and the US has 3 battles, two of them close that
he has to win at least 2 of to make it, and then next 
turn the invader takes back two cities again... 
It can go either way.

Of the three MB games in this series I have played (Axis&Allies,
Fortress America, Shogun), I would say that Fortress America
is the best as a two-player game, and the most balanced as
a two-player game.

As for playing multi-player, Shogun is the only true multi-player
game of the three (both A&A and FA are two sides, with one or
more sides sub-divided).  I would not recommend Shogun unless
you have at least 4 people.  A&A is not balanced as written
(see long discussions -- generally an Ally win) and can not
be easily balanced the way FA can be (ie without changing
the basic setup or strategy).

-David Gibbs
(dagibbs@quantum.on.ca when our email isn't broken)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EIA: naval abstraction
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:21:09 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <Bw7up9.J4H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, by charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau):
> Obviously, ships-of-the-line would not ordinarily carry troops (and
> if they did, most of their guns would probably be removed).  This ap-
> pears to be an abstraction on the part of the designers to avoid the
> necessity for separate transport counters.

Now, I'm not an EIA player, but in general, this assumption is not
valid.  The Droit's de l'Homme, which was destroyed by Pellew in 1796
near Brest, was a 74-gun ship of the line carrying at least 400 troops
which had been intended for the aborted invasion of Ireland.  No guns
were removed.  Indeed, the troops were used as gun crews during the
fight against Pellew's frigates, allowing the ship to achieve a higher
rate of fire than usual with French crews.  Also, at the battle of the
Saintes, the French ships had about 5000 soldiers aboard which were
intended for the invasion of some island.  (Of course, the Grande
Armee is on a different scale :-)

  It appears that, historically,
> it took one transport for every 100 men carried (this is based on the
> fact that the French required 400+ transports to carry about 40,000
> men to Egypt)

I would say such a low number per transport is arrived at because most
of those transports were busy transporting supplies and material.  
-- 
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: fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EIA optional rules
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:41:50 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Protocol Engines Incorporated

In article <Bw5vMx.1DG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>I would suggest using all the optional rules except for the channel crossing
>arrow.  This is the only rule that severely change the balance of play,

True, but I personally think it has a *good* effect on play balance.  It
hurts the British and French and helps everybody.  And who does everyone
complain about being too strong in this game?...

I do concede it may not be very realistic, though.

>all the rest are merely nifty addtions that make the game much more fun.  If
>you have any specific complaints about a particular rule, I could rebut them,
>but I can't think of any reason NOT to use them right now (and my group of
>gamers is really contentuous, if anyone can shoot down a rule, it's these
>guys :).

OK, here's a few complaints:

1) The rules about specifying where ships are being built is too much paper-
work to be worthwhile.  It's much more realistic, but it has such a small
game function that it's not worth the bother.

2) Proportional army losses affect play balance in a way I don't like at all.
One of the Turks main diplomatic cards is to offer to take losses in battle.

3) Allowing people to pay to upgrade militia makes a travesty of Prussia's
one interest advantage - stockpiling manpower points.

That's all I can think of right now.  Most of the rest of them I like.

Fred
From: s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (ACE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: <Btech> Two Engines Question
Date: 7 Oct 92 06:07:31 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

Greetings,
	  What do people think about having two engines in a Battlemech ?
	  A Absurd
	  B Ludicrous
	  C Innovative
	  D Brilliant
	  E All of the Above

	  Please respond, as I would like to know what people think about the
concept, and try yo get some feedback on how they might work. Respond how you
want, email, post, praise, flames, etc.

			       ACE
                   s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
	        " How deep is the ocean ? " - Eric
" No Silicon Heaven ? But where would all the calculators go ? " - Kryten
      " Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast." - Hero Rimmer
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND)
Subject: Re: TITAN: questions about Bo-Yin Variant
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:05:37 GMT

In article <92288.073709ICECW@ASUACAD.BITNET> <ICECW@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.012940.22743@ll.mit.edu>, shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel
>Shoham) says:
>>
>>In article <Bw2E2K.MD6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> MULLEN@scorpion.ag.uiuc.edu (Evil
>>Twin) writes:
>>>Hi there.  I have some questions concerning the Bo-Yin variant of Titan
>>posted
>>>March of 1991 and September of 1992 (so it took me a while to look at these
>>>things).  I would have sent mail, but Bo-Yin Yang hasn't logged into his
>>>account since the middle of August.  So here they are.
>>
>
>This sounds really interesting!  As I am just getting into Titan and I really
>like it could some kind soul out there in netland send me or post this variant?
>I would be eternally grateful!
>
>Please email at icecw@bitnet or
>icecw@asuvm.inre.asu.edu
>
>Many thanks!

   Agreed...I have been trying to get a complete copy of these for
about a month now (I missed the posting in September) and have only
managed to scrounge a half-complete creature list. Maybe some kind-hearted
sould wouldn't mind posting them here again?

-Jason
From: Mark E. Johnson <mjohnson@force.decnet.lockheed.com>
Subject: WANTED: Starfire & Triplanetary
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Organization: LMSC
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:19:10 GMT
X-XXDate: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:27:56 GMT

I'm looking for copies of Task Force Games' STARFIRE and/or STARFIRE II.
Also TRIPLANETARY, by GDW. If anyone has these, in any condition, please
e-mail me!
From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Subject: Re: EiA: #of depots in the countermix
Organization: Information Services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:10:45 GMT

I count:

Austria 9 + 1 freikorps
France  8
Britain 8
Prussia 7 + 1 freikorps
Spain   8
Russia  8 + 6 cossaks
Turkey  7

I'm beginning to feel that AH didn't give too much thought to the number of
depots each nation gets.  France certainly deserves much more than the
standard 8, and why in the world does Austria need 9?!  Argh.

Maybe AH wanted nations to negotiate the use of other nations' depots.

But still, I remember having to lay a loooong series of depots from the
French homeland to Vienna just so I could reinforce my Imperial Guard Corps
at the front (a supply chain must consist of only one nation's depots).  If
the supply chain didn't reach my Imperial Guard Corps at Vienna, all my new
Imperial Guard factors would've had to come in as regular infantry!  I was
using depots to fight a war in Berlin at the same time.  Grr.

--
hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)    :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Unix Geek for Swarthmore College        :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Information Services, Swarthmore, PA, US.       Copyright 1992 by Eiji Hirai.
I don't speak for Swarthmore College.                    All Rights Reserved.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A Fixing the imbalances
From: oberland@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:22:27 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

Well, lessee...
I agree with Dewey.  The game is screwed, historicaly, so any attempt
on my part to fix inbalances is not going to do any more damage to
history.

The game currently *IS* screwed.
the first options are just thoughts.
BUT, I feel that the Rockets for Germany at the beginning is almost
needed(Hey, a free IPC DOES even it out quite a lot).
Helps to even out the bomb g  the Allies.

best heard to date:
1:No russian attack on Japan
2:mine, rockets for Germany

Try this:
(how I usually play)
add a sub to germany's fleets, and add the Rockets.
-or- add a transport to the med fleet

I personally HATE making a "no attack here/this turn" rule.
I feel it goes against the game too much.  I feel it is far better to
alter the placement or pieces on the board.A small change is all that is
needed, IMO.

I DO like the no factory in Karelia option. going to try it out by myself
a couple times.Maybe in conjunction with my place a man or two in each empty
territory that Russia has idea....

Ag.  SOME people are soooo falme-happy. a simple "I don't like this"
would be sufficient.  And.... *()*()^$% the manual!!!  It has holes
which I am trying to remedy!

I am a GOOD Axis player, and need only a little push to even it out.
I find that I can win, but only if I follow a narrow plan and make NOT ONE
mistake.  I also have to hopwe the Allies make several.
Playing myself, I have found out that the Axis need some real buffer for
errors and bad planning, like the Allies have.


Against good Allied players, I always get killed, even though it is close.
I am sick of this, and wantto fix it.
Well,

Keep the ideas coming...
Joe
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: saint@ida.dei.unipd.it (Gian_Uberto Lauri 228495)
Subject: Re: <Btech> Two Engines Question
Organization: Universita' di Padova, Italia
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:27:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.092533.2420@netcom.com> lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex) writes:
>In article <s903609.718438051@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (ACE) writes:
>>Greetings,
>>	  What do people think about having two engines in a Battlemech ?
> 
> 
>    ][ hear strains of the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice...."
>     _
>    (_onsidering that EACH and EVERY BattleTech fusion engine can
> dissipate 10 points of heat above and beyond its own heat output...
> even engines that weigh only .5 tonnes...  There'd be no reason to
> add extra heat sinks.  Just add a 10 rated engine for .5 tonnes and
> get 10 points of heat dissipation.  It'll take 6 critical hit
> locations, but that's still a lot less than the equivalent number
> of heat sinks.

 #    #    ##    #####    ####    ####   #    #
 #   #    #  #   #    #  #    #  #    #  ##  ##
 ####    #    #  #####   #    #  #    #  # ## #
 #  #    ######  #    #  #    #  #    #  #    #
 #   #   #    #  #    #  #    #  #    #  #    #
 #    #  #    #  #####    ####    ####   #    #

Big error in allocating Heat sinks. Take the formula that tells how
many HS actually are embedded in the engine (and how many you need to
place somewere else in the mech) and evalutate it for .5 tons
engines...

o   oooooo	Gian Uberto Lauri	
      o    o	saint@alessia.dei.unipd.it
     o o
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: *** New York ***
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:41:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

From: wilhelm@cs.cornell.edu (Wilhelm Uwe Georg)

> Hi folks,
> 
> quite a while ago, someone was asking the question:
> "Where to go in New York"
> I have the same problem... unfortunately I can't find
> the files where I put the answers to this question :-(
> Can someone help me and send me the answers to the 
> original question or some new tips? 
> (I'm looking for game-stores, sf-book-stores and other
> intersting stuff.)

	I'd like to know too! I was offerred a trip to
	NYC for a tour of the UN and etc ...

	Just what is the best etc ... near/during Halowwen ?

	> adTHANKSvance, Uwe


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stephane I. Matis |  E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca  | Viva NeXTSTEP 3.0 ! |
|.............................................................................|
|------------ bla bla Mecha*Press bla bla Dream Pod 9 blabla FASA ------------|
| BATTLETECH ----------------------------------------------------- NeXThead ! |
|------------ aka : Major Adrian Hammerhand, WolfNet Intelligence ------------|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (ACE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BattleTechnology development (Was: Re: Btech/RoboTech comparison)
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:28:32 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex) writes:

>>After 300 years of unhindered development shouldn't they be a lot better ?
>     _
>    (_
>    __)imple answer: The Clans didn't GET 300 years of unhindered
> development, due to the Clan "civil wars."  I suppose the effort
> required to find new worlds, settle on them, and develop them could
> be factored in, as well.
> 
Greetings,
	  The clan civil wars only took about 15 years, colonization about 20
years, reintegration after the civil war about another 15 years. These figures
are rough, but pretty close. This would leave 250 years worth of devolopment
for the clans. One point, war often inspires leaps forward in technology, but
considering that the IS was CONSTANTLY losing tech, 250 years of peaceful
development would still be worth a LOT more than it is. I'm not to worried
about the realism, but I was wondering what people think the clans MIGHT have
developed, or FASA might have let them developed, if the 250 years of tech
improvement were taken into account. This is the chance to parade all those
technological marvels in front of many avid btech groupies and gurus, mainly
so we can shoot them down, but that's beside the point. So do it now ! Post
those marvels at once ! Someone wants them !
	
>>GAME BALANCE.
>    ___
>     |hat's the reason the Clan "civil wars" were put in.  FASA
> had already detailed the Succession Wars, so they had to put in
> something that would keep the Clans occupied over that time, to
> keep them at a level of technology only slightly higher than the
> Star League.

	Civil war can't account for it. See explanation above.

>-- 
>   _______________________________________________________
>  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
> /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
>/______________________________________________________/
You call that a sig ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Watch this :

			       ACE
                   s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
	        " How deep is the ocean ? " - Eric
" No Silicon Heaven ? But where would all the calculators go ? " - Kryten
      " Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast." - Hero Rimmer
Engineering : The art of using something without actually understanding it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: EIA optional rules
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:52:09 GMT

I would suggest using all the optional rules except for the channel crossing
arrow.  This is the only rule that severely change the balance of play, all the
rest are merely nifty addtions that make the game much more fun.  If you have
any specific complaints about a particular rule, I could rebut them, but I
can't think of any reason NOT to use them right now (and my group of gamers is
really contentuous, if anyone can shoot down a rule, it's these guys :).

A special case : the new naval rules from the general.  These rules are really
fun, but tend to make life easier for the British.  Consider that using these
rules, a british blockading fleet can run the guns of most any port, beat the
snot out of the defenders 90% of the time, win the battle, exchanging roughly
equal numbers of ships but gaining mega PP.  You might want to consider a house
rule on this special case, and use a previous poster's numerical superiority
mods as well if ytou want to use these new rules.

	Alec
From: glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: New Cosmic Encounters (where's the expansion set???)?
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov
Distribution: rec
Organization: N.I.S.T
Posting-Front-End: Shinbun -- the OpenLook newsreader




I've been playing CE for almost 10 years now.  I have one of the old
sets with about 7 expansion models.  When the new game came out I
jumped at it and was somewhat disappointed.  Alot has changed, I'm
stuck playing the new one because our puppy (possibly of the Schichzoid
variety) at the time (last year) shredded half of my old set, and I'm
not too happy with some of the changes.  I've been waiting IMpatiently
for the promised "More Cosmic Encounters" and have been "plague"ing my
local gaming nook for information.  They had hopes that something would
have come out in August, but so far, nothing, (I guess the Silencer has
been busy at MF).  Any News out in netland?

Rob G.
glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| K. Robert Glenn, Computer Scientist |  glenn@osi.ncsl.nist.gov        |
| NIST                                |                                 |
| Bldg. 225/ B215                     |  "Developing OSI protocols      |
| Gaithersburg, MD 20899              |   bit by bit."                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: craa27@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ( Steve Holmes, Computer Centre )
Subject: Re: Blood Bowl:  General Questions
Reply-To: craa27@ccsun.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Strathclyde University Computer Centre.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 10:09:07 GMT

On the question "Can I design a similar game for free"

The answer is probably Yes in this case. That said, I quite like
the bits and pieced that came with BB. My preference is also
for a relatively simple game which plays consistently.
So Games Workshop products are generally unacceptable to me.

Am I alone in thinking that "Basic" Blood bowl is a reasonable game
but that the reams of rule amendments have the structure of
spaghetti, and while including the odd amusing gimmick, tend to
be marketing ploys aimed at separating the fool and his/her money.

If you want to play the game, and don't have the rules, my friends
who know such things tell me that blocking is very similar to
Warhammer combat. If knocked over, there's a chance of injury,
different races have differing stats. Away you go and have a nice game.

Before taking this as gospel, please note that in gaming terms
I am something of a minimalist, disliking bulky rule sets.
I am definitely not a fan of Games Sweatshop, their employment practices, or their general marketing policy. So, I'm biased.

Steve
From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Subject: For Sale!!!! WH40k mini's
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:21:33 GMT

WarHammer Minuatures For Sale

1 Lead Nurgle Chaos Renegade (primed)
5 Lead Chaos Fantasy Squats + Cannon
1 Lead Chaos Hound
3 Lead Beastmen

All items go to this highest bidder
within reason. All buyers pay the cost
of shipping unless I deem fit you buy enough to
warrant me paying the shipping

send all bids to jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu
-- 
Join the Omnipotent Overlords of the Omniverse today. Add to intelligent    	
political, environmental, and social discussions. Buck the growing trend of 
apathy in the world today, and most importantly have some well earned fun.  
Read all about us on alt.overlords or e-mail : jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu    
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: kermits@ikaros.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths)
Subject: Newbie: Empire in Arms
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Crete HELLAS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:39:04 GMT

I would be interested to learn and play this game.However,i don't know
 much about it.Is there any ftp site to get info ?
Thanks
  Aggelos
From: webber@gbm.ocunix.on.ca ( Andrew or Patti Webber  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Rules Wanted for Titan by Avalon Hill
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 06:46:11 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Games by Mail, Ottawa, Ontario

In article <1992Oct10.031603.18465@lclark.edu> (Gary Arkoff) writes:

> I would very much appreciate if someone would send me a photo copy of the
> rules for Titan by Avalon Hill.  I would be more than happy to reimburse you
> for postage and photocopying expenses.

Gary,

Avalon Hill will be thrilled and delighted (I'm sure) to sell you a copy
of the Titan rules for $5.00.  Their number is 1-800-993-3222.

Andrew
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A House Rules
Date: 9 Oct 1992 07:54:28 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:

>>TRANSPORTS:
>>A Transport must do all its pick-ups (in a given turn) at the same place.
>OK, I'll but it
>>A Transport must do all its drop-offs (in a given turn) at the same place.

>Again, this is the rule (actually, not quite.  You can drop off units to
>more than one territor provided that this is non-combat AND the two
>territories are adjacent to the same sea zone).

Oh?  Is this the rule?  I thought that once you dropped off a unit somewhere,
the transport was finished.  Hmm...

keith

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: abick@sebastian.carleton.ca (Alan Bick)
Subject: Re: URGENT HELP NEEDED ON JUDGE (PLEASE READ!!!)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:20:52 GMT

Please send me email as opposed to posting it here becuase I may not get
the message here before it is cancelled.

Thanks in advance,

Alan Bick