HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: webber@gbm.ocunix.on.ca ( Andrew or Patti Webber  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Has there been a TITAN issue of "The General"?
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 22:49:21 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Games by Mail, Ottawa, Ontario

In article <1ie7jvINN7e9@shelley.u.washington.edu> 
(Danger Mouse) writes: 

> I'm not a "GENERAL" reader or subscriber; has there been an issue (or
> issues) focusing on TITAN, and if so, what was the focus? Rules
> clarifications (I've picked up the addenda/errata already), Variants,
> Strategy?

General #20/3 (July/August 1983) featured Titan on the cover.
Articles include Titan: A Game Player's Fantasy (introduction to the
system, strategy, etc.); Titan Design Notes; Tactical Titan ("Lost
in the Battlelands"), as well as stuff on other games.

Andrew
From: emk9267@rigel.tamu.edu (KLINE, ERIC MICHAEL)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Games for sale
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:37 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan7.204520.13157@hypnos.bssi.bls.com>, frank@hypnos.bssi.bls.com (moo) writes...
>I am cleaning out my games closet to make room for new acquisitions and will
>start a minor game auction. Shipping will be handled on a per case basis
etc...

I've been unable to send you mail so I'm posting my bid of $4.00 for 
Blackbeard here.

Eric

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: Scrabble
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:50:10 GMT

Thank you for a wonderful posting!
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 07:35:40 MST
From: <ICECW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject:    SPI Sniper/AH Gettysburg for sale

I have the following games for sale:

Sniper ziplocked game by SPI  $6.00 plus $2.00 postage

Gettysburg boxed game by AH 1964 version $20.00 plus $4.00 postage

Thanks!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: povlphp@uts.uni-c.dk (Povl H. Pedersen)
Subject: Mail order games. Where ?
Organization: UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Education
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:56:15 GMT

Where do you buy mail order games in USA or England/U.K. ?
Guess the U.K. solution will be cheaper no that I don't have to
pay danish VAT on EEC purchases. As far as I remeber U.K. has
no VAT on games, and Denmark has 25% on everything.

Povl
-- 
Povl H. Pedersen   -   Macintosh specialist. Knows some DOS and UNIX too.
pope@imv.aau.dk    -   povlphp@uts.uni-c.dk
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: COLUMBIA GAMES REVIEWS NEEDED
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:16:48 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1ikcinINNmu9@crcnis1.unl.edu>, by ksoutor@unlinfo.unl.edu (kevin soutor):
> I would like reviews of Columbia's EASTERN FRONT and WESTERN FRONT and
> also Columbia's Mail Order Address.  
> E-mail please to avoid further waste of bandwidth.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hardly - if anyone has comments on these, please share them with the
rest of us.
-- 
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
From: frank@pappus.ss.uci.edu (Frank Gilson)
Subject: Re: SFB: photons & warp use
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Jan 93 04:37:35 GMT

In Article <1993Jan8.193253.28405@nscf.org>,
    warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) asks:

>Warp use. Let's say you are in a cruiser. Who cares what kind. Move cost
>is 1. You cannot HET at speeds greater than speed 26, because of the lack
>enough warp to do it.
>Likewise, if you've allocated for an HET, you've used 5 warp, and the rules
>on mid-turn speed changes (C12) say you cannot ever be doing a speed in
>excess of the available warp at the start of a given turn. Thus, you could
>not speed change to greater than 26 for the same reason, even if your
>allocation permits enough power to do it.
>The question is this: Does this also apply to charging photons? I think it
>does.
>An example may be in order. The Fed TC has 38 power: 30 warp, 4 imp, 4 AWR.
>Paying 4 for maintenance, and 8 to arm standard photons leaves 26 points
>of power for movement and other stuff. 
>He's used 4 AWR to arm photons. He has to use 4 warp to finish arming them,
>and 5 warp for the HET, leaving 21 points of warp. Is his maximum speed
>thus 22 for the turn, even though he could do a 15/26 split for only 20
>points?
>Warren
No, the warp energy used for arming things that need warp is not being
used for a "movement purpose". It only restricts the total number of
hexes of movement usable that turn, and has no restriction on an
impulse by impulse basis. So, the above Fed tournament cruiser could
have a speed during the turn of 26 and perform an HET, or have a
speed during some other part of the turn of 31, so long as a max of
22 hexes was moved. I believe rule C12.383 or something around there
is the one you want.

-- 
...adrift in a sea of indecision...
......sapped of all will and motivation......
.........without hate, without love, just frustration.........
From: cscoging@unpcs1.cs.unp.ac.za (Chris Scogings)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Test
Date: 12 Jan 93 09:39:59 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, UNP
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc092.cc.unp.ac.za

This is a test - please ignore

Never try to teach a pig to sing
It wastes your time and annoys the pig
                               - Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Sante Fe game review
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:55:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <rbr.725792414@well.sf.ca.us>, rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney) writes:
> Santa Fe is an excellent game.  It is essentially a cross between an old
> (and, sadly, out of print) Ravensburger game called Wildlife Adventure and
> Alan Moon's own Airlines.  Both of those are excellent games, and their
> offspring is healthy and wise.

I didn't think about this at the time but, you are absolutely right about the
game owing some of it's origins to Wildlife Adventure.  Actually, this is not
that surprising as Wildlife Adventure is one of Alan's all time favorite
games.
   
> The other game that White Winds (Alan Moon's self-publishing company) came
> out with this year is Elfenroads.  It's a marvelous game.  I'll post a more
> detailed review of it when I get a few minutes, but our group finds it even
> better than Santa Fe, which is quite a climb.

I haven't tried either of White Wind's new games yet but, just based upon a
reading of both games rules I would have to agree with you.  Elfenroads 
definitely looks like a more entertaining game than Santa Fe.  However, 
Santa Fe still looks like a good game and, Sid Sackson liked Santa Fe alot 
which is the strongest recommendation I can think of. 

Nick Sauer
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: garry@archsci.arch.su.edu.au (Garry Stevens)
Subject: Brittania Rules Question
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Organization: Dept Architectural Science, Uni of Sydney
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:44:35 GMT

I have a question on Brittania, the game of the conquest of Britain through
the Middle Ages. Can anyone clarify the raiding rules? It is not clear when
they have to return to sea to get victory points. The rules vaguely imply
the very same turn, but provide no clear mechanism for this to happen.

Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural & Design Science
University of Sydney
Australia
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Whom do you pound? (was: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:26:52 GMT
Organization: Biochemistry

The question of "is an ultimatum of vengence valid" reminds me of a gaming
"incident" that occurred in the recent past in our group.  We were playing
Tyranno Ex with 4 players. At the midpoint of the game, the "balance of power"
was such that player #1 was significantly ahead of me.  I had a somewhat
smaller lead over player #3, and player # 4 was just a little bit behind player
# 3.  When the Attack round rolled around, player #3 was in possession of that
turn's "Mega-Monster" and had his choice of creature to crush.  His most likely
target was my lead creature and player #1's lead creature.

Both myself and player #1 cast some "propaganda" about whose critter deserved
to be toast.  My argement was that attacking player #1 would weaken him, giving
everyone else more of a chance to win.  The game was still at a point where
anyone could win, if things stayed close.  Of course, I did not say that,
because I was in second place, that my chances would improve the most, IMO.  An
additional argument that that I used, as the tides turned against me, was that
attacking me would REALLY hurt me (as it would, since I had no animals in
"backup" to my lead critter that turn, thanks to the environment.), and give me
little incentive to bring player #1 back to the pack in future turns.  Player
#1 argued that attacking me would move player #3 into second place, and give
him a better chance of winning in the future.

Eventually player #3 decided to attack me.  My critter was toast, I received NO
points that round, and I fell into 3rd place, trailing by a substancial amount.
 Since I felt that player #3 had been warned, I spent my next turn sabotaging
player #3, using my +5 chit to give me the last environmental play, which I
used to insure that player #3 would have only one sickly critter left for the
battle round.  Of course, player #1 won handily.

We discussed this game at some lenght afterword, and I've been thinking about
it for a while.  I am of the opinion that, in general, whenever you have a
situation where 1--2-3:4,(where -- and : indicate relative position of place),
it is in the best interest of 2,3 and 4 to attack 1, trying to bring him back
to the pack.  When player 2 jumps out ahead, then attack him.  Player #3 was of
the opinion that, given the above situation, it pays to attack #2, bringing him
back to 3 and 4.  Then all players will have common cause to attack #1.  I
disagreed with this, because it seems to me that this tactic can allow #1 to
cement his lead and presumes an awful lot on the good nature and forbearance of
player #2.

Anyhow, for your consideration, given 1--2-3:4, whom do you pound?  1 or 2? 
What if 1-2-3:4?  What if 1:2-3:4?  Any other variables to consider?

Eric Roush			"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
fierkelab@			Pogo,Walt Kelley
bchm.biochem.duke.edu	
				
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jdoucette@venus.cc.hollandc.pe.ca (JOHN DOUCETTE)
Subject: Re: Do YOU play to win?  (was: Re: Winning isn't everything)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Holland College - Charlottetown PEI
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:19:00 GMT

In article <1iue0gINNmtk@news.uni-paderborn.de>, jerry@uni-paderborn.de writes.
.
>Paul Kinsler (kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au) wrote:

	[rules for playing deleted]

>I think this should be rule #0 for every game!  I really dislike players
>who desperately try everything to win.   After all, a game is just a game.
>I always try to win, too, but when the game becomes too boring I will surely 
>take some unusual or silly action just to have fun.   When playing
>BattleTech I always try to move my 'Mechs in the very best positions, but
>when no heavy hits have been scored after 20 turns or so tend to move some
>of the 'Mechs just between the enemies forces to start a fistfight even if
>I can expect to have my 'Mechs blown to dust.
> 
>I have met many "serious" players who did not agree to my position.
>What do YOU think?

	I personally enjoy playing to win, especially when things get 
desperate.  I will try almost everything to win as long as the risks are 
not too great.  If the game slows down, then I wait.  It'll pick up and the 
lull can be used to good effect as I 1)prepare an overwhelming attack or 2)
desperately and fanatically dig in while uttering prayers to every known 
Diety.
	I feel that if both players don't play to win then that means one 
of the players doesn't take the game seriously.  By that I mean the 
experience of the game.  There is nothing better than a hard-fought victory 
or hard-fought defeat, for that matter.  If the other player deliberately 
commits a "stupid" move, then I feel that he's throwing the game and what's 
the point of continuing?  Now if the stupid move is part of some overall 
tactic...I enjoy ethically devious opponents.  If he's doing something 
stupid just because he feels the game is boring or slow...well, maybe both 
are playing the wrong game.

John Doucette
From: lang@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (John J. Lang)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:19:34 GMT
Subject: Re: brigade series questions ...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board

In rec.games.board, roan@convex.com (Russell Roan) writes:

> (1)	If an extended line counter is forced to retreat, does the 
> parent unit have to retreat also if the retreat makes the extended
> line not adjacent to the parent?

The few times I have played, the other parts of the line become
disorganized, and retreat, also, the whole group collapses into
a single counter again.

One question I have.  When attaching troops to a new corp, who
is the order sent to, the old corp commander, the commander of the
division being attached, or the new corp commander?

John Lang
lang@fc.hp.com
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: 3rd Fleet
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:58:34 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1993Jan6.203115.24456@news2.cis.umn.edu>, by thornley@tera.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley):
> In article <1993Jan6.193910.24712@nscf.org> warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) writes:
>>Has anyone ever played the game "3rd Fleet", or 2nd or 6th or any of those
>>games? [...] I'm wondering how good they are.

I only own 7th Fleet, so take the following with a grain of salt.

> Pretty good, actually.  Low unit count and significant decision-making.
> The combat sequence is not real intuitive, but it gets pretty good with
> practice.  The turn sequence still seems pretty artificial, though.

There was an article in some General in Volume 27 which introduced an
interactive turn sequence, but personally I thought upon reading that
it would make the game so slow as to be almost unplayable (apart from
the significant increase in complexity).

> The basic rules are fairly simple (combat is fairly abstract), and you
> can use optional rules like nukes and logistics if you like.

And the basic scenarios are playable in a fairly short time.  (Not
true of the advanced scenarios, though!)

>>What are the better and worse points of these games? Are they accurate?

> Are they accurate?  Who knows?  Aside from the sinking of the _Belgrano_
> in '82, I don't remember a single naval engagement in the world on this
> scale since WWII.  I hope (and think) we'll never find out.

I think the system works quite well overall, even though I've heard
certain criticisms - combat does not adequately represent the
importance of saturation missile attacks, US planes (especially the
carrier planes) are over- and Soviet subs are underrated, and so on.
Personally, the system works well enough for me to prefer 7th Fleet to
Computer Harpoon - for all the details and limited intelligence that
one gets with the latter, most of the key decisions are the same and I
don't have to put up with all those bugs and the clunky interface.
 
As for the situations depicted in the game, with the demise of the
USSR, most of the scenarios amount to pure science fiction.  The
background stories for the basic scenarios in 7th Fleet were not based
on terribly realistic assumptions even before that event, but at least
they had the right forces in place.  Nowadays, there's no Soviets in
Cam Ranh, no US forces at Clark AFB, the Soviet carriers are mostly
being scrapped.  It might be similar for the other games.  This does
not mean that these scenarios are not fun to play, but they certainly
are not a simulation of any real conflict we are likely to see (and a
good thing that is, too).


-- 
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
From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Whom do you pound? (was: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:55:00 GMT
Organization: Nerds On Parade

cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr) writes: 
>In article <1993Jan8.220848.11269@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick
>>Scott) writes:
>>Your rationale is much better.  The obvious question I have for #3 is, why
>>doesn't the 2nd place player *already* have a good incentive to attack the
>>1st place player, assuming all are playing for the win?  In short, the
>>common cause already existed - I can't understand why he believed he had to
>>attack you "create" it.
>>Fred
>
>
>Being the player #3 in question, I'll go ahead and answer.  First off,
>I was definitely playing for the win.  I felt that if I attacked player
>#1, the lead would shift to player #2, who would be attacked by everyone
>else, making #1 the leader again...and so on.  I didn't think that I (#3)
>or the #4 player would ever enter the contest and have a true shot at
>winning, or even placing second.

I still don't understand.  If you first pound #1, then pound #2, how come
#s 3 and 4 aren't catching up?  And if they aren't, what the heck difference
is it gonna make in which order you pound them?  But, by original poster's
reasoning, you don't risk getting so far behind that catching #1 becomes
impossible for whatever reason.  Depending on the game you're playing, this
may or may not be a consideration but I still just don't see anything you
gain by attacking #2 first (other than possible temporary bragging rights
about being 2nd).  If you really care about coming in first, then who's
second (and when they acheived that position) is totally immaterial.

The remainder of your post seemed to suggest a slightly different
interpretation of the conditions than the origninal poster.  (You see him as
having a rather larger lead over you than he did, in comparison to #1's lead
over him.)  It doesn't really make much difference unless you're claiming
#1 and #2 were so close as to make it pointless to differentiate between
them.

Fred
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: chinnici@ghost.dsi.unimi.it (Roberto R. Chinnici)
Subject: Re: 3rd Fleet
Organization: Computer Science Dep. - Milan University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:05:07 GMT

alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher) writes:

>warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren) writes:

>> Has anyone ever played the game "3rd Fleet", or 2nd or 6th or any of those
>> games?

>I've soloed through a few Seventh Fleet scenarios a while back.  From 
>what I can gather, 7TH FLEET is the best of the lot, although they all 
>use a similar system.  I'd recommend getting one only unless you're a
>fleet combat fanatic and you intend to build a room around your maps :-)

I've played both 6th fleet and 2nd fleet. They are nice games, though I think
house rules for CAPs and Air SSM attacks are needed. It's nice to have them
both, as they're quite different on a strategic level; of course if you plan
to play just the short, tiny scenarios, one of them is enough. I don't plan
to buy any more games of that series, mainly because 3rd, 7th and 5th all have
THREE maps, and I don't own a table that big! (and, as I said before, on a 
tactical base all the Fleet series games are equivalent).

--
Roberto R. Chinnici			 |Disclaimer:
<chinnici@hp2.sm.dsi.unimi.it>		 | Half of what I say is meaningless
Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Informazione| But I say it just to reach you, Julia
Universita' degli studi di Milano	 |		(Lennon/McCartney)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: alsandor@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Michel Boucher)
Subject: Re: Metagames Ramming Speed Wanted
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:30:20 EST

cg533@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James Eugene Alloway) writes:

> 
> Like the subject sez: Looking for the Ziploc game of oared combat from
> Metagames.
>   Gene

That's RAM SPEED, not Ramming Speed.  Just being picky.


C. Michel Boucher              | alsandor@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Private user                   |
Ottawa, Canada                 | member, Christina Amphlett fan club
CANADA                         |
From: ksoutor@unl.edu (kevin soutor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: OLD SPI FAVORITES RE-RELEASED?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:02:12 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

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  |
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: knw7719@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.N. Waterman)
Subject: New A&A rules booklet
Originator: knw7719@ultb
Reply-To: knw7719@ultb.rit.edu ()
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:05:03 GMT

Hello all Allies and Axis players,

I'm a poor grad student looking for some extra money.

I've been playing A&A for 5 years or so.
I've developed (some from the net) many different variants and new
rules.

I was thinking of putting together a booklet of these new rules and
charging some fee.

What do you think about such an idea?
How much would you pay?

My current list of variants is around 40 different variants and over
25 different special weapons.  I also have variants for a 1940 and 1960
scenarios.

I'd just like some input on such a venture.

Thanks,

Ken
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dutta@cognex.uucp (Paul Dutta-Choudhury)
Subject: Divine Right Game Auction Update
Organization: Cognex Corp., Needham, Mass
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:28:41 GMT

DIVINE RIGHT GAME AUCTION UPDATE:	1/12/93

To date, a total of 5 bids have been received.  All bids must be submitted in U.S. dollars.

----------------------------------------------------
Game			Min Bid		Current Bids
----------------------------------------------------

Divine Right		25.00		50.00	skrishna@mit.edu
					40.00	aristotle.ils.nwu.edu!mccoy
					35.00	fokus.gmd.de!wasserroth
					30.00	cs.utexas.edu!russw
					30.00   webber@gbm.ocunix.on.ca

A winner for this auction will be declared on 2/1/93.

Some people have had difficulty submitting bids via e-mail.  Here are two complete
e-mail addresses that should work OK:

	cognex!scorgies!dutta@ai.mit.edu
	cognex!scorgies!dutta@uunet.uu.net


Paul Dutta-Choudhury
Cognex Corp
Needham MA