HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roan@convex.com (Russell Roan)
Subject: CoA's _War for the Union_
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:51:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


	I stumbled across Clash of Arms' _War for the Union_
last night at a game store.  It's a grand strategic simulation of 
the U.S. Civil War, with a publishing date of 1992.

	Last year, when I threw away $40 on the Fresno civil war
disaster, I vowed never to again buy a game without some kind of idea
about whether it was a turkey.  However, this game looked too good to
pass up, so I bit the bullet and purchased it.

	The first sign was very good.  Unlike the Fresno excrement, this 
game actually has a complete rulebook.  I read through the first few sections
and it looks promising.

	I guess this post is a sort of call for impressions of the
game to soothe my uneasiness about forking over the money sight unseen
for this game.  If you have had any experience with the game
( or with Clash of Arms in general ) please drop me a line at
roan@convex.com .

				Thanks,

				Russ
-- 
Russell Roan
roan@convex.com
Vox: 214-497-4841
"Those who are about to flame salute you."
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to The Space Gamer?
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:25:08 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <1992Aug12.184816.15818@oz.plymouth.edu>, sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>ddh@world.std.com (David D Hooton) writes:
>>Whatever happened to The Space Gamer?  The last I heard, it
>>had been taken over by Future Combat Simulations.
>
>I heard it had been taken over by Better Games.  If so, this would be a
>shame, unless Better Games has significantly increased their language
>skills.  I own one of their games, and it is one of the worst edited
>games I own - though the system is basically sound, and even
>potentially very good.

The Space Gamer has in fact been bought by Better Games.  While I'm not a big
fan of theirs, I get their newsletter (just got the announcement that they were
putting out the Space Gamer today), and it's not that badly written.  On the
other hand, they were asking for submissions.....

For those who care, the Space Gamer will be (according to Better Games) a 96
page magazine, and will cost $5 an issue or (this cost seemed tentative) $25
for a 6-issue subscription.  Each issue will supposedly contain a game which
will stand by itself, but I got the impression that these will be primarily
intended as add-ons for the Better Games games like Era Ten (Battle Born) and
Conrad's Fantasy (Barony).  NOTE:  I still haven't been able to figure out
which of these names are the names for the games themselves, and which are the
names for the settings, so I've included both.

Disclaimer:  I have no affiliation with Better Games other than having played a
couple of games with their people at conventions.


-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
From: cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: unknown game
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:36:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.cummings.713756193
Distribution: rec.games.board,world
Organization: University of Washington

hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:

>In article <HARRES.92Aug13141308@sundance.uwyo.edu> harres@sundance.uwyo.edu (John M. Harres) writes:

>>+-------+-------+
>>| O O O | O O O |
>>| O O O | O O O |
>>+-------+-------+
>>
>>The O's are bowls in the wood surface.  He also knows it is played with beans.

>The game is called "Oh Wa Ree".  I think there are some other names for it.
>You might be able to find the rules in a book on (ancient) games.

	There are many games that use this setup.  Others are called Kalah
and Mancala.  I can't think of any others offhand.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: rec.games.war?
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:01:15 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I second the objection to this proposal that there are many strategy games
which are not strictly war games.  I think the convenience of having these all
in one place outweighs the inconvenience of having to ignore some games in
which you have no interest.

It also seems to me that the number of postings for the "strategy" (non-chess,
non-go) games is very small, compared to war and non-war games.

In other words, I'm not convinced there's anything broken here which requires
fixing.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Third Reich Glitch???????
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:23:10 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona

In article <1992Aug13.191047.15261@julian.uwo.ca>, allan@gfx.engga.uwo.ca (Allan Flanagan) writes:
> After the US entered the war they DoW on Germany and sent lots
> of stuff to free French Africa and England.  In summer, the US
> invaded Portugal (note:  Not enough armor was present to exploit
> to the capital so it was not taken on turn 1)  Portugal has
> no ports so Germany couldn't effectively intervene.
> [ bla bla bla]
> The roles are now reversed.  I am the Axis and am worried for I
> know what is comming.  (I guess I deserve it.)  I would thank
> everyone who responded.  Great game.  If I wasn't so poor right
> now I would go buy A3R.

Well, now we have something to sink our teeth into.  So, you're the
Axis and you expect the US to make a grab for Portugal?  What you do
depends greatly on how things are going in other fronts.

How is the war in Russia going?  If not well, then you already have
most of your forces over there, with France only sparsely defended.
In this case, the US dallying around in Portugal is a blessing.  He's
wasting his time in no-man's land, buying you valuable time.  When he
should be mounting an invasion against Calais, he's sunning himself
in Lisbon.

If the war in Russia is going well, or Russia is out of it, then you
have created a more formidable defense in France, probably leaving
the Spanish border untouched.  What's the status of the Vichy?  Can
you afford to cross their territory?  The Spanish/French border is
mountainous, and very defensible.  If the allies are mounting a
European invasion via Iberia, you can slow them down at the French
border with little more than small boys armed with pea-shooters.
And, with all the allied forces in Iberia, what do they have left to
invade Calais with?

The retaking of France, once the US gets into the war, is pretty much
a given.  The question is, how much will it cost the allies and how quickly
will they achieve it.  It's a game of applying their forces to best effect
and with greatest efficiency.  IMHO, invading Iberia does not achieve that.

So, to answer your question, do nothing about America invading Portugal.
Let him waste his time and resources.  Another possibility - beat him
to the punch.  If things are going really well in Russia, and you want
to create a truly formidable Fortress Europa, go ahead and take Spain,
Portugal, and Gibraltar.  It's not a cake-walk, but if you get it, it's
well worth it.

Reminds me of one game where I launched simultaneous attacks on Gibraltar
and Alexandria in the same turn.  1-1 odds each attack, I figured I'd get
one of them, and got both!

Let us know how it turns out, eh?

--------------------
J.Baker.
enuucp!gtephx!bakerj
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Which is better? Axis & Allies or Diplomacy??
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:18:55 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <s9100433.713662542@win4>, s9100433@win4.vut.EDU.AU (Duncan M Jurisic) writes:
>I am looking to buy a game for about 6 players....
>Until now, I had planned on getting Diplomacy, because I had played it before
>and I liked it, but then someone said that Axis & Allies would be a better game
>to get...
>
>I would like some advice and suggetions, not " Axis is better " or anything 
>like that ....
>
>I want to know what Axis is like and what's it's all about...could someone send
>me something (or post here) about it??
>
>Thanks for all your help.....:)

Well, first I ought to point out a few things about the number of players, I
suppose.  Axis & Allies can be played by 5 players, MAX.  No more.  Diplomacy,
on the other hand, is best suited for the full 7 players.  Any less just isn't
the same.

As for what A&A is like and what it's all about, it's a quite abstracted
strategic WW II game.  Basically, the game starts in 1942 and the two sides
proceed to whale on each other until the Allies win.  (1/2 B^)  Okay, it's not
quite that bad.  As a simulation it fails miserably (there's essentially no
reason for the Allies to commit troops to North Africa, as they don't NEED a
stepping-stone to Italy), but it is still a fun game.  It's not quite as
abstracted or as simple as Risk, but it's not a whole lot more complex, either. 
If nobody in your group of possible players has played it before, I suspect you
won't have the problem with "the Perfect Allied Strategy" which seems to plague
so many here on the net, so it'll probably be quite a fun game for you.

Hope that helps,

-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: paul@sierra.com (Paul Stratton)
Subject: Re: 1830 "first" stock round
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.193244.22944@uwm.edu> bruno@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
>Most of our questions about the rules were answered by a set of answers
>someone sent me that had been posted a while back.
>There are still a few things about the "first" stock round that I haven't
>seen an answer to.
>If no public company is bought in the first stock round does the prohibition
>on not selling stock apply in the following stock round?

I've never seen this happen in any game I've played (lots) and I can't
imagine it happening.  The only way to make money in 1830 is invest it.
Having cash laying around is worthless if there is stock available to
buy.  If you're going to win you have to invest.  Period.

>If there are outstanding unresolved bids on private companies at the end of
>a stock round, do they carry over to the next stock round?

The first stock round keeps going until all the private companies are bought
.  You can't buy public companies until they are all sold.  The price on
a the least expensive private company drops $5 for every lap around that
it is not bought.  You cannot continue play until all private companies
are bought.

>So far this has only happened once. What we played is that the bids still
>applied in the following stock round and that stock could be sold.

See previous section.  You MUST buy all private companies before continuing.


-- 
Paul Stratton               -----   -----   -----    -----    -----    ------
Sierra Geophysics, Inc.    /          /    /        /    /   /    /   /     /
P.O. Box 3886              -----     /    /---     /-----   /-----   /-----/
Seattle, Wa.  98124            /    /    /        /   \    /  \     /     /
From: daybell@nunki.usc.edu (Donald Daybell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Advanced 3rd Reich
Date: 14 Aug 1992 05:50:28 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nunki.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug13.125844.10208@exu.ericsson.se> exukozi@exu.ericsson.se (Tom Koziatek) writes:
>
>It wasn't that absurd. Prior to the Lusitania, there was a lot of Pro-German
>sentiment in the US. Had Hitler curbed his maniacal tendencies a bit, iand 
>Britain make a few anti-US mistakes, we could have entered on the opposite
>side. What would the US reaction to say, a British sub sinking the Lusitania ??

Uh.  Chief, the Lusitania was sunk during World War ONE, not Two.  It's what 
brought us into the Great War, or at least it helped a bunch.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bumper sticker seen on stealth bomber:

"IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN WE WASTED 50 BILLION BUCKS."

Donald Daybell		daybell@usc.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman)
Subject: Re: JUNTA - help please
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:58:05 GMT

gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.100252.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> engjs@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (James Smith) writes:

>>The government players try to position theirs to protect three of the five
>>buildings, the rebels decide which of those three is easiest to capture.

>And it's worth remembering that players can switch sides at the end of
>the coup -- the rebel/loyalist declaration at the beginning only
>decides who gets to get an extra move. In our games, this often
>results in one side winning militarily and then the other side
>actually winning. Or that's how I faintly remember it.

You can even switch sides during the coup. A common tactic is for someone
to declare as a rebel and then support el Presedente. The one drawback to
this tactic (or the reverse, declaring as loyal and acting as a rebel) is
that if el Presidente wins, he can execute any (or maybe any one) of the
"declared" rebels, likewise the rebel, if they win, can execute one of the
"declared loyalists". This happened to me once.
-- 
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Philip Dutre)
Subject: Miniature based Naval Wargame
Organization: Dept. Computerwetenschappen
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:22:52 GMT


In our Mighty Empires Warhammer campaign, we want to resolve naval 
engagaments as tabletop battles. 

Therefore we're looking for a miniature based naval wargame, situated in the
Middle Ages, the Renaissance period or a fantasy era.

Any suggestions?



-- 
| Phil Dutre                    | philipd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be                 |
| Dept. Computer Science        | Phone: 32 16 201015 x3094 / x3552         |
| Kath. Univ. Leuven            | Fax:   32 16 205308                       |
| Celestijnenlaan 200A  B-3001 Heverlee  Belgium                            |
From: melody@grad00.math.ncsu.edu (Patrick Melody)
Subject: Robotech miniatures? 
Organization: NCSU Mathematics Dept.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:50:28 GMT


Is there any place that sells lead miniatures of Robotech mecha?  I am
aware of Ral Partha's Battletech line which includes the mecha FASA
ripped off from Robotech.  I am specifically interested in Invid mecha.
Thanks -- Patrick
melody@math.ncsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris &)
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:15:56 GMT

carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu writes:
: 
: Yes, they are, but the _really_ useful wording in that section is "before cards
: are played." With Gambler v. Negator, Negator has already played his card, and
: the statement of value on Gambler's side is his version of playing the card.
: Thus calling a bluff automatically comes after cards are played and cannot be
: negated. Doncha think? (All this courtesy of IMHO, Inc.)
: 
: -----
: Douglass Barre - carterk@cgsvax.claremont.edu
: "Are you bigger than a breadbox?" -- Lord Julius, _Cerebus_ 160


My previous post was a general argument for Negator being able to negate
decisions as well as physical actions.  It was not intended to apply to
the specific case you present.  (I agree that Negator/Gambler does not work.)

Chris
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: gkatz@csws4.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz)
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos AND Loser
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:28:51 GMT

In article <NMf-R6B@engin.umich.edu> jlb@engin.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey) writes:
>More importantly in this case, Gambler is doing something related to his
>power, something clearly un-Negatable in Negator's description.  Negator
>could negate the selection of the card, but he couldn't do that after
>Gambler had laid it down and declared its value, because I believe the power
>says "immediately".  Negator could only make the first card Gambler tried to
>play off limits, and that's not more nasty for Gambler than it is for anyone
>else.
>
>In another field, I once played the Loser in Mayfair and almost ground the
>game to a halt waiting for an ally to accept.  He kept asking if I was going
>to declare an upset, and I kept waiting to determine if he would commit (and
>it would then be worthwhile to try and win).  There seems to be no clearly
>defined point (other than an arbitrary time limit) to end the phase.  What
>opinions do I hear?
>-- 
>-- Jeff Bailey, jlb@ccs.itd.umich.edu (Open 24 Hours a Day!)
>Standard disclaimer - If you wanted U/M's views, you came to the wrong place. 
>"The owner of the game deals and plays first." -- Nuclear War/Escalation
>


It was up to him to ally without any assurance from you.  Perhaps if
he had the Wild Seeker Flare would he had have any inclination of what
you were planning.  So, did he ally?  Did you declare upset?  Did you win?


Don't forget to tip the Butler!
						gkatz
From: Scott Abfalter <thx1138@angus.mi.org>
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Duh
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:44:18 EDT
Reply-To: thx1138@angus.mi.org
Organization: North Star BBS

That's BLANK cards.  Cards printed all black wouldn't be much use, now, 
would they?!

THX

--
Scott Abfalter (thx1138@angus.mi.org)
North Star BBS, Royal Oak, MI --------------------------------------------+-
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: dmccart@gomez.intel.com (D. J. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Insect vs Changeling
Organization: Architecture & Software Technology Group, Intel, Santa Clara CA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:44:15 GMT

Laura L Perkinson (praxis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu) wrote:

> 	IMNSHO, no two ways about it. Gambler's right. The power applies to
> what he played (he did play a five.) Empath's power makes it count like a
> Compromise,

	The wording on Emp is stronger than that.  Emp doesn't "make it
count like a Compromise", it *changes it into* a Compromise.  There's a
world of difference.


> but I don't think it can rearrange the ink on the card the
> player just put down.

	To coin a phrase, Ink Is Irrelevant in this case.  It doesn't
matter what pattern the ink is on Gam's card; Emp's played card and Emp's
power turn it into a Compromise card.


--
D. J. McCarthy <dmccart@gomez.intel.com>
A European is someone who thinks 200 miles is a long way.
An American is someone who thinks 200 years is a long time.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: jlb@engin.umich.edu (Jeffrey Lawrence Bailey)
Subject: Re: "Guaranteed" wins: NOT
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 16:46:34 EDT
Organization: Campus Computing Sites, University of Michigan

You set the victory condition as requiring at least 6 or so Lucre.  Then
either they pay the Lucre and can't win, or hold the Lucre and you make them
lose (or win something pointless).  While it isn't foolproof, it is _fun_
when the victory condition becomes public.  And as to Douglass Barre's thought
about Gambler vs. Visionary, it only becomes valuable if you know he has com-
promises or something.  Gambler just claims he has the card he really has, and
there's no effect except for standard Visionary.  It's when he runs out that
Gambler has some interesting decisions to make.
-- 
-- Jeff Bailey, jlb@ccs.itd.umich.edu (Open 24 Hours a Day!)
Standard disclaimer - If you wanted U/M's views, you came to the wrong place. 
"The owner of the game deals and plays first." -- Nuclear War/Escalation
From: phil@miracle.com (Phil Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
Subject: Re: Reincarnator queries
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:21:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: miracle.19Aug92162152
Organization: Miracle Computer Consultants

cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Clare West) writes:
>Two things I wanted to ask the group about the use of the
>Reincarnator:
>
>1. Reincarnator was an ally on a challenge that ended up with an
>unsuccessful deal. Does this count as a loss for him? The exact
>wording on the card is:
>
>"When you fail to make a deal or loose a challenge as a main player or
>ally, you must reincarnate..."
>
>I thought this didn't let him reincarnate but he thought it did.
>Opinions anyone?

Reincarnator does not get a new power.  He has to loose a challenge.

>
>2. If the Reincarnator draws a power like Changeling, when he uses
>that power does he swap both Reincarnator and Changeling or just
>Changeling? We played just Changeling (which managed to get Filth out
>of the game entirely, when he next reincarnated) but this seems at
>odds with the (confusing) sentence on the card:
>
>"...If you face a player who can copy your power, he copies only your
>current incarnation and must reincarnate himself if he mimics you and
>loses the challenge."
>
>that sentence seems to contradict itself - is the player copying the
>Reincarnator only (obviously not), the current incarnation only (well
>yes) or the combination of Reincarnator and current incarnation (well
>yes)?
>

The Reincarnator/Changling COMBO is switched.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Hill                     | "All you people in TV land,           |
| Miracle Computer Consultants  |   I will wake up your empty shells.   |
|                               |  Peak time viewing blown in a flash,  |
|                               |   as I burn into your memory cells.   |
| Email: phil@miracle.com       |  'cause I'm alive." - Peter Gabriel   |
Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce
From: lopez@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Chris &)
Subject: Re: More Tough Combos
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:25:15 GMT

mikem@ll.mit.edu writes:
: 
: The Negator couldn't be used this way.  Examples of negatable actions are
: somewhat muddied, and subject to individual interpretation, but here's the
: way I see it.  First, here's the relevant wording from the Negator power:
: 
: 	Once, before cards are revealed in each challenge, you may
: 	make any other player change a game action he has just
: 	taken, e.g. playing a particular card, pointing the cone at
: 	a specific target, selecting certain tokens, buying any
: 	cards, etc.
: 
: I would say that this does NOT give the NEGATOR the ability to stop a
: player from saying whatever he/she chooses.  A player can still ask for
: allies without being negated.  It's only the physical action that can
: be negated.  In essence, once per challenge, before cards are revealed,
: the negator can say "Don't do that" after a player action.  Examples:
: 
: [rest deleted]  (It only reiterated the above)

An action does not have to by physical.  My dictionary -- Webster's Ninth 
New Collegiate Dictionary -- gives the following definitions:

 4) an act of will.
 8) b: the process of betting including the offering and acceptance of a bet
    (ok, so this one clearly isn't the one intended, but it was so fitting)

This view is further supported by the later wording in the power:

    Once negated, the player must make a different decision
    affecting the same element of play and continue the play.

Decisions are clearly mental activities, not physical ones.

--
Chris Lopez

Newsgroups: rec.games.board.ce