HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Wanted: Info on Modern Warfare
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:33:15 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Rd, Harlow, Essex, CM19 9NA, U.K.

In article <01GMXNYDRH1UAKVL0K@ccmail.sunysb.edu> jflint@ic.sunysb.edu (Jesse Flint) writes:
>   .....
>   "Desert Storm" scenario. Specifically, I need to know where
>   I could find information on modern units, and the relative
>   capabilities thereof. 
>   ......
>   to compare the _types_ of systems. In other words, how do I relate
>   the effectiveness of a given ATW with a given tank or vehicle? I
>   could rate bombers according to their bombload weight, but how does
>   that affect their capability to take out (say) a T-80 or a hardened
>   air-defense site? Or do I just fake it and hope nobody notices?

Rather than wade through highly technical info on the real items, I'd go to
existing rules for wargames.  I used to own some for modern warfare but they
have vanished and would probably not be considered modern any more.

Jonathan (not the other one)
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  With fearsome eyes and fiery breath the dragon burnt the girl to death
                    -- from "Too Late Saint George"
From: remilld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jason Remillard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Other Design Groups?????
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:56:03 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada



Hi there!  I couldn't think of any other group to post this to so here
I am!  I work in the Continuing Education Division of the University of 
Manitoba.  At the Downtown campus, we hold Design and Professional studies.
These include subjects such as Archeticture, Landscaping, Interior Decorating,
etc.  What we want to do is somehow tie in the Internet to the courses.


Thus, I am asking anyone if there are any other news groups that support this
or if you know of anywhere on the internet where they are doing the same
sort of thing (University, club).


*Any* sort of information would be greatly appreciated!!!

Thank-you very much!!

________________________________________________________________________________Jason Remillard
University of Manitoba - DOWNTOWN        REMILLARD@ceddwntwn.lan1.umanitoba.ca
Continuing Education Division                      --  or  --
Winnipeg, Manitoba.                            REMILLD@ccu.umanitoba.ca

MicroLab Assistant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: complexity vs. playability
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:15:59 GMT

(Steven Mathers) writes:
>Heres a question for you...
>Which makes for a better game in general- a complex game with lots of
>strategy and tactics involved,or a simpler game that is easier to play.

Depends on the game.

>How long are people prepared to play a game for? Some take a few hours,
>some last over a day.
>
>I favour a game that can be played in one sitting, mostly for practical
>reasons. I also prefer a game that is simple in concept, but complex in
>action.  Sort of like Chess.  Its not a complex concept...ie: not too
>many rules at all, and yet the complexity of the game in play can be
>staggering.  I think this should be the ideal for any game rules.

It depends on the game. I like a complex game with lots of tactics
strategy etc AS LONG AS someone ELSE is doing the book-keeping eg: a
computer.

I think people should be very careful about confusing complexity with
variety. To me a good game is not a complex one, but one that has a
lot of variation in it. In the case of chess it is both complex and
full of variety.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: Comments please - unwarlike strategy games.
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:03:57 GMT

In article <9207270941.AA16724@vassal.cm.cf.ac.uk>, Andrew.Stratton@cm.cf.ac.uk (Andrew F Stratton) writes:
|> 
|> 	I know that war plays a very important part in human history, but I
|> would like to know of any ideas or systems for strategy games (which I enjoy)
|> that aren't infact based on battles, death, war etc.
|> 


No flames at all.  Your point is valid and it is one I am trying to
avoid in  a design I am doing at the moment.  A lot of empire games are
based totally on military conquest.  The winner is judged on territory
only, and the only way to get territory is to take it from someone else.
Therefore in these games, there is no reason not to be at war.

Now this is OK if you are designing a war game of course, but I think a
general empire game should go further.  War takes a lot out of a country
and if not won quickly, drains both to the point where they are ripe for
takeover by a third party.  These are very good reasons not to go to
war, and the player should have to weigh the merits of possible benefit
from warfare against benefits from using resources for other means.

This all boils down to having victory conditions which are not purely
militarily based, and the rules framework should reflect the loss of
resources inherent in warfare.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Comments please - unwarlike strategy games.
From: CDRESSER@eagle.wesleyan.edu (CLAYTON J. DRESSER)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:11:58 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au's message of Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:03:57 GMTLines: 23

In <1992Jul29.050357.17489@trl.oz.au> mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au writes:

> Now this is OK if you are designing a war game of course, but I think a
> general empire game should go further.  War takes a lot out of a country
> and if not won quickly, drains both to the point where they are ripe for
> takeover by a third party.  These are very good reasons not to go to
> war, and the player should have to weigh the merits of possible benefit
> from warfare against benefits from using resources for other means.
> 
> This all boils down to having victory conditions which are not purely
> militarily based, and the rules framework should reflect the loss of
> resources inherent in warfare.

More than just keeping track of lost resources and weakness to third parties,
try an entirely different measurement for victory conditions.  Focus on the
entire empire you are building and the happiness of its citizens.  Then, to
figure out your score, multiply the average happiness of your citizens by the
number of citizens.  Also, make people who have a long cultural history of
peace happier than those with war recently in their background.  Thus, you
can't just win by taking over lots of planets then declaring peace a few years
before the game ends and victory conditions are determined.

Clay
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu (Jonny Ray Purvis)
Subject: Re: How many gadgets are too many? How many are enough?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:32:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.031108.14655@Veritas.COM> apple!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!gdavis (Grant R. Davis) writes:
>Someone recently posted that if he had known that the Street Samurai Sourcebook
>was 50 pages of weapons & cyberware and 10 pages of new rules, he would have
>photocopied the 10 pages and made up his own weapons.
>
>Who else feels this way? As GMs, do you prefer to make up your own weapons,
>cyberware, equipment, etc. or do you prefer to have them ready-made? How much
>trouble do you have with players who know (and want) every piece of equipment
>in the book, and what do you do about them?

I definitely feel this way.  Most gadgets are just fluff to round out the
book, and are seldom anything new.  Most gadgets can be created by anyone
with a modest understanding of the rules and 5-10 minutes time.  After
a while it becomes tiring to read of the newest rules for cameras and 
calculators, especially since most do not need actual rules - we know how
they work already.  The only time when gadgets are needed to be published are 
when they are integral to an adventure, the campaign is very dependant on
point totals and/or rules to a large degree, or if the gadget is either
completly new or modified significantly from the norm.  The only gadgets
I've ever approved of being published is the Traveller and 2300 AD stuff.
This is because they are new/significantly different, and most campaigns
revolve around the high technology, and thus it is imperative that
everyone understand the gadgets in the same way.  These 2 are also the only
games that wrote and illustrated them well enough to gain my interest.

Jon Purvis
jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jjsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jonathan J. Smith)
Subject: Re: Printing Cards
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:17:20 GMT


Actually thats not entirely correct, to state that business cards are printed 
2 at a time.

This IS the way that most small print shops print them yes, but its not the only
way that business cards are printed up..  Hrm, besides small printing companies
usualy have some fairly reasonable prices on printing jobs, if you want enough
of them to be worth while.. (probably on teh order of 500 sheets)

Jonathan
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Game balance (2)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:17:46 GMT

In article <14578@umd5.umd.edu> wildstar@moeng2.minc.umd.edu (Derek Wildstar)
writes: 
]In article <1992Jul21.062408.10464@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: 
]>In article <1992Jul21.000621.6964@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
]>>From a military point of view, I guess that a larger empire has a much
]>>bigger circumference to defend.  This makes it vunerable to attack from
]>>more than one direction.  As long as there is only one problem to deal
]>>with at a time, the empire can mobilize all of it's spare resources and
]>>eradicate the problem.  But if attacked on several fronts (and the
]>>larger you are, the more likely this will be) takes a lot more resources
]>>in proportion than a small empire.
]>
]>That doesn't sound plausible.  The resources should be proportional to the
]>area, the length of the border to sqrt(area).  Hence bigger is better from
]>that point of view.
]>
]I'm afraid you are failing to take into account two things: natural
]defences, and the nature of the growth of empires.

This is amusing.  I was trying to argue that just looking at sizes is
simplistic. Now everybody is telling me that just looking at sizes is
simplistic...  :-)

SR
"Mission accomplished, I guess..."
---
From: Zarniwoop.Woop@f99.n121.z1.FidoNet.Org (Zarniwoop Woop)
Sender: FredGate@p0.f99.n121.z1.FidoNet.Org
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: More stats queries
Date: 20 Jul 92  22:13:15 EST

Tottaly untrue.  Computer freaks, like myself and more prone to sickness 
because of their dormant nature.

Atheletes do get sick, probably because of exposure to the elements, ie

running 10 miles inpouring rain/hail.

However, the athelete might get sick but his FUTURE health (heart 
condition, amount of cappilaries etc) will be MUCH better.

Most atheletes are too into it to stop excersizing for bad weather.

Computerphiles don't get sick because THEY DON'T EVER DO ANYTHING!!!

DON'T RUN (much less leave their house).

So, you must consider long term health or present minor health (nobody 
ever died of a cold)


 * Origin: NineJackNine / 608-256-5697 / Madison WI / (1:121/99.0)

Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: axc@fct.unl.pt (Acacio Cruz [pm])
Subject: Re: Wanted: Info on Modern Warfare
Organization: Universidade Nova de Lisboa -- Lisbon, Portugal
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:12:55 GMT

In article <JPG.92Jul29083315@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:

   >   .....
   >   "Desert Storm" scenario. Specifically, I need to know where
   >   I could find information on modern units, and the relative
   >   capabilities thereof. 
   >   ......
   >   to compare the _types_ of systems. In other words, how do I relate
   >   the effectiveness of a given ATW with a given tank or vehicle? I
   >   could rate bombers according to their bombload weight, but how does
   >   that affect their capability to take out (say) a T-80 or a hardened
   >   air-defense site? Or do I just fake it and hope nobody notices?

   Rather than wade through highly technical info on the real items, I'd go to
   existing rules for wargames.  I used to own some for modern warfare but they
   have vanished and would probably not be considered modern any more.

 Why don't you try "harpoon" or Twilight 2000.

 
--
Acacio Justino Calcada da Cruz| BITNET/Internet: axc@fct.unl.pt
Universidade Nova de Lisboa   |            UUCP: axc@unl.uucp
FCT - Dpto. de Informatica    | Fax:   (+351) (1) 295-5641
2825 Monte Caparica, PORTUGAL | Phone: (+351) (1) 295-4464
--------------------------------------------------------------
"MOM!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Subject: Re: Bureaucracy, management, and empires (was Re: Game balance (2))
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.192723.9722@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> pychen@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Peter Y. Chen) writes:
>	But, isn't it always the case in history where large empires 
>eventually get clobbered by one (or many) small, uprising empires?  It seems
>that as an empire gets larger, there are certain advantages gained (such
>as more productivity, resources...) but at a cost of some advantages lost,
>for instance, the governing system can simply get bogged down by the sheer
>size of the empire -- bureaucracy becomes inevitable.

If I may add another cost of a large empire:  The bigger the size, the more
opportunity for internal damage.

If you are one person in charge of five people who you know personally, loyalty
isn't a problem.  Things don't get lost in paper shuffles.

As bureaucracies grow larger and larger, they are no longer designed and
overseen by one person.  There is much more room for miscommunication ("Oops, I
thought you were going to take care of that."), more room for corruption to be
unnoticed (in larger empires, how many emperors have personally encountered
even 1% of the people working under them?), and more room for structures to
become entangling - the lack of a needed peocedure may cause trouble, or a rule
long outliving its usefulness could entangle legitimate needs.

An excellent example of this is provided in the world of Star Wars and company,
where a large Utopian republic of a million planets, with the Jedi knights
guarding peace, knowledge, and prosperity, became slow, sluggish, and corrupt.
The Senator Palpatine was able to work his way to power, by cunning and
manipulation making himself Emperor of the greatest tyranny ever.  There are
many books sold by West End Games (yes, Star Wars is an RPG), one of which (The
Imperial Source Book) explains this in extremely good detail.  I would
reccomend it (as well as the movies) to anyone who would want to see one good
model of how a larger empire could internally collapse.

################################################################################
# If you disagree, think I'm missing an important point, or would like me to   #
# elaborate, then by all means send me e-mail.  We probably both have          #
# something to learn from the other.                                           #
################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # But the greatest    # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love.   # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################
From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Too much math! (Or is it??)
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:24:01 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <92210.135539DK6TOPER@MIAMIU.BITNET>, DK6TOPER@MIAMIU.BITNET (Dan Karipides) writes:
> rating = log (points)
>  
> My fear is that designing a system with "log" in it will scare away 99.9%
> of the gaming population.  Note that access to a scientific calculator is
> not necessary.  I'm only concerned with "rating" being accurate to one
> decimal place. So it would be easy to include a small table such as:
>  
> rating         points
> ------         ------
> 0.0            1
> ...            ..
> 0.5            3
> ...            ..
> 1.0            10

Okay, so why not use this formula?

Rating = 10 * log (Points)

Only use integral values for Rating. That way your one decimal place
accuracy bit doesn't scare off the mathophobes. And you only really need
to make a conversion table between ratings of one and ten, the rest is
simply moving the decimal point. e.g. a rating of 13 is ten times as
good as a rating of 3, and a rating of 23 is a hundred times better than
3.

This is the way Torg works, except that Torg uses a 5x multiplier
instead of 10x.

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
The more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws -- Tacitus
Newsgroups: rec.games.xtank.programmer
From: bwoodall@bilbo.qualcomm.com (Bill Woodall)
Subject: Re: 1.3d vs 1.2e
Reply-To: bwoodall@bilbo.qualcomm.com (Bill Woodall)
Organization: Qualcomm Eng. Dept.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:54:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.020614.25514@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
rroman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Randall Roman) writes:
|> Having played version 1.2e for more than a year, I decided to "upgrade"
|> to 1.3 so I could get all these new weapons, sound, etc, when to my
|> surprise I found that someone went out and changed the skid code.
|> I now find it impossible to maneuver without skidding all over the place
|> like you were ice-skating or something.  What gives?  
|> Also, what happened to the landmarks in the Random maze.  There are no
|> ammo depots or armor squares.  

Yeah, that is still a bug 1.3 about the random maze (rumors of someone fixing
it, but I forgot who).  I believe the depots disappear on the second or so
game of using a random maze.  Have you tried to select a "real" maze and back
to "random" after the first game (this might reset a few things)?

|> 
|> I really do like the game, and would
|> like to have the new version, but IMHO, the changes have ruined the 
|> game.  Whatever skill you gained from maneuvering is lost.  We also
|> fought most of our battles in the Random maze, but no one wants to
|> since they can't reload and rearm.  
|> 
|> Does anyone know what was changed in the code between the versions?
|> If I can't find a fix, I'll just have to keep my old version, but 
|> it would be nice to have the new stuff.

A while back rpotter worked on the vehicle updates to make realistic, but
went back to something more fun (from update.c;

update_vector(v)

/* Updates the velocity and orientation of the given vehicle.  Rotation done is
   unrealistically.  So is acceleration, but a somewhat more realistic
   algorthim I tried was less fun.  Hovertreads should be treated separately,
   but are not.    */   )

Maybe try looking at update.c and the two copies of update_vector there are
to see if one fits you better.

.................Bill,

============================================================
	Man's capacity to learn is not fixed in any ordinary
sense.  It is not fixed in terms of the responses it will
produce;  it is not fixed in terms of absolute level of
knowledge it will achive. - 
============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.xtank.programmer
From: ratner@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (David Ratner)
Subject: Re: Anti-radiation
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:29:52 GMT

galcik%sinbad@EAGLE.NAVSSES.NAVY.MIL (Greg Galcik) writes:


>I've been playing version 1.3d of Xtank recently, and I'm wondering about this new weapon, Anti-Radiation. Is it working the way it's supposed to work? I ask for two reasons: one, it can only be mounted on the left or right, and it shoots out the front; two, it can usually go through walls. I was wondering if maybe there was a bug in the way it's handled.

>If that's what it's supposed to do...why? I was playing with atank that uses them, and I was killing people fairly well, but it sorta felt like cheating. I don't see the use of a wall-invisible weapon in a game like this. Seems to change things around too much.

>That's just my opinion, though; not like I'm demanding changes or anything. Although, what exactly does it home in on? I had assumed that, being called "anti-radiation", it would come after you if you've got a nuclear powered engine, but I made a tank with a turbine engine and it went after that as well.

I thought that the anti-radiation weapon targeted the opponents radar, not
some aspect of their engine.  And I interepreted their going "through" walls
as going over them.  But I do think that the code for them is unfinished, in
that sometimes the targeting seems wrong.

Dave
--
* *  ***  *     *    |   Dave "Van Damme" Ratner
* *  *    *    * *  / \  ratner@cs.ucla.edu
* *  *    *    ***  \ /  
***  ***  ***  * *   |   "Wham Bam, thank you Van Damme!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.xtank.programmer
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:57:15 BST
From: Chris Moore <moore@src.bae.co.uk>
To: xtank@eng.umd.edu
Subject: Bug with NewRadar/Taclink code.


During a game this lunchtime, we were having problems with xtank seg
faulting as soon as 'play - customised' was clicked.  After lots of
experimentation, I've been able to repeat the crash consistently.

Our code has probably drifted pretty far from any official release (it's
been a while, hasn't it?), so maybe this is our own fault.

It seems that if two people are on the same side, with one of them using
taclink and new radar (no 'old' radar is fitted), and the other using
taclink and 'old' radar (no new radar is fitted) then the game crashes as
soon as it starts.

The game dies in special_taclink, when it called with v = the guy with new
radar fitted, and crashes when trying to obtain blips from the guy who's
using the old radar.  GDB tells me it's line 601 that crashes:

					  tv != v &&
					  tv->special[(SpecialType) TACLINK].status == SP_on &&
=>					  ((newRadar *)(tv->special[(SpecialType) NEW_RADAR].record))->blip[veh].draw_radar);
			    }
			}

That's the one with the => before it.  The value of ((newRadar
*)(tv->special[(SpecialType) NEW_RADAR].record)) is (newRadar *) 0x0, so
*)(tv->indirecting through it causes the crash.

Is Aaron still around anywhere?  If so, he's probably the person this
should be addressed to.  Maybe he's fixed it already.

Chris.