HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: SFB: The Trouble with Hellbores
From: stephanf@sasb.byu.edu (Hawk's Blood)
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:59:48 -0700

In article <1hnot2INNf4c@shelley.u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
[...]
>This is Mary, the Hydran player on the other side of this argument.  I
>have some comments to add to Jon's.
[...]
>[The situation is an Overlord BC (shuttles in place of her fighters) vs. ISC
>Star Cruiser.  The Overlord seems to have a very easy win in our games,
>despite BPV equality; she can even do decently against the ISC Command
>Cruiser which should be much too big for her.]
>

I have found BPV equality is not always the best guide, but that has been 
mentioned before. 
I spouted off a bit of general anti-hellbore tactics on this one. Looking at 
the OverLord I can see a few of the problems the ISC might have. The OL's a 
SWEET ship, looks to be the best BCH in the game up there with the Gorn BCH. 
I've never liked the ISC CA, but it has real problems with the OL. The OL 
has much better power curve and variety of weapons in this circumstance. 
What to do? The one PPD is very vunerable, so the ISC must avoid internals, 
so that would dictate long range sniping, but Hellbores are pretty good at 
that, though it sandpapers all shields, and closing is suicide because of 
the fusions and gatlings. EPTs are useless, because of the power 
requirements. The CA does have lots of Ph-1's so use them alot, and use the 
plasma to force the OL to use phasers on them so she can't use them on you, 
which will cause her to use power for them. Part of the problem is I don't 
think the ISC capital ships were designed for the duel, the CL's are but 
they are mostly equal to the CA class. They are more fleet ships. 
In this case the CA has some problems but I think it can win but it must be 
a ballerina, she can't really trade alphas and expect to come out ahead.

[...]

>>What you should really do is try standard ISC doctrine with a CS, DDG, and
>>FF. The ISC scale up in fleets better than everyone else, though the Feds
>>and Hydrans are pretty good too.
>
>Hm.  Against that I'd get maybe a Dragoon, a Traveller, and a Cuirassier?
>(We don't like to use fighters, so delete all fighters from these
>ships.)  I'd feel fairly confident about that, too.  I have seven
>hellbores to his 2 or so PPD's....
>

I've never tried the ISC conquest of the Hydrans, but I think that the lack 
of fighters are part of the problem. You might try it with fighters just 
once with equal BPV and see what happens. I've always played with fighters, 
I like them :-), and most fights have been even. In the one fight I played 
without fighters was a blow out on his part, so I am beginning to think that 
the fighters are a balance factor. I don't really know though.

>>>Jon Yamato (mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu)
>
>>BTW, are you playing against a female?
>
>He is.  (He usually beats me, too, but the Overlord is a *nasty* ship.)
>
>Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu

Glad to see that some females are playing I've only seen two so far.
Enjoy.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: edandavi@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Allen and Avi Rappoport)
Subject: Re: REALLY good simple non-abstract board games
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:14:54 GMT


A House Divided and Wiz War are both really simple and fun.  AHD is Civil
War srategy at a beer and Pretzels level and Wiz War is silly fantasy.
Shanghai Trader is another good one, with similarities to both Monopoly and
Junta.
Britannia is a sweeping look at a millenium of history in the British Isles
and would count.  The Buck Rogers boardgame from TSR is another to look at.

Ed Allen
edandavi@well.sf.ca.us
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Subject: Re: Mindless games
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:45:47 GMT

While I agree that "mindless games" play a social role (this Christmas we
played Monopoly and Mickey Mouse Yahtzee, as well as Boggle and Scrabble [the
latter not so mindless], I think the earlier comments about the decline in
intellectual capacity in America (which I would expand to Canada and, over
time, the rest of the world) also have some merit.

The culprit is television and computer arcade games.

One only has to compare the sales figures for a company such as Avalon Hill
and the MB-Parker Brothers giant.  There's no comparison.

A analogy might be drawn with the rise and fall of countries as chess powers
- when times are tough chess is an attractive profession, but when things are
going better talented young players divert their energies to other fields.
More people are inclinced to turn on the TV and vege than to take on a board
game which requires thought and social skills.

I think it's quite possible to hold this view without criticizing a company
such as MB, which simply gives 'em what they want....
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Fire in the East
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 01:46:01 GMT
 <Tgwds*-t1@caleb.UUCP> <1993Jan2.020715.3368@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1993Jan2.020715.3368@athena.mit.edu>, John F Carr writes:

> 
> How long do you usually allow for setup and move?  The people I play with
> usually allow a day per side for setup (i.e. you get to optimize stacks,
> moves, and attacks as much as you want), but put time limits on moves after
> setup and German surprise move.

Mostly we haven't imposed time limits.  We usually allowed something like 3 or
4 hours per turn for each side.  Usually we didn't have a fixed limit.  At the
cons, we did have fixed (and very short) time limits.  In my opinion, short
time limits hurt the Axis player more (his decisions are more critical.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: FAQ?????  rec.games.board.sfb????
Date: 24 Dec 92 23:09:27
Organization: /rubin/hcobb/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: fly2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jmconnel@oregon.uoregon.edu's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:32:42 GMT


	What?  Allow a rec.games.board.sfb, and give up my absolute
tyrannical power over the SFB mailing list?  ;-)

	Sure, post a RFD and I'll support you, but I won't moderate it.
(I'm sick of being moderate. ;-)

	I was working on FAQs for GEV and SFB, but they seem to have gotten
task-swapped due to my working 6+ days/week.  (I'll get back to them, right
after I've caughtup with all the "Unix Admining for Fun & Profit" books...)

	BTW: So far it seems to be MUCH easier to PBeM GEV than SFB.
--
	Henry J. Cobb	hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu	SFB Tyrant
	"Once it becomes possible to do something, it gets very difficult to
undo it.  Whether its automobiles, computers or nuclear weapons, invention has
always been the mother of necessity."
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Titan rules addenda/errata
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:44:50 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <1992Dec15.221526.13245@news.arc.nasa.gov>, nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH) writes:
|> After presiding over half a dozen RISK and Chess tourneys, I think the
|> rules change to 20.3 (and the original rule 20.3) is a bad idea.
|> Anywhere you set out to penalize someone, there exists the threat of
|> abuse by trying to be penalized on purpose, and leaving the "offended"
|> player the option of refusing penalty is no good either because of the
|> threat of collusion.

This is a little late in coming, but I was wondering if other Titan players
permit 'deals' during battles to expedite games.  We (my circle of opponents)
do this all the time in order to speed up games.  For example, we might just
have two wimpy little stacks (2 gargs vs. 2 ogres in the plains, etc) nuke
each other rather than fight out a stupid battle like that late in the game.
Or we may deal pieces in a large battle to save time.  I.e: 3 lions, 2 rangers,
and 2 cents attacking 2 trolls and 2 rangers in the desert...  In this case,
the two parties may deal lion/ranger/cent for all the defending pieces to
avoid playing a long drawn out battle that may end up someething like that,
anyway.  (that was just an idea off the top of my head --  I didn't work out
the battle to see if the attacker can expect all 3 lions to live -- in that
case, the deal is not that good for the attacker -- assume no angel to summon,
if you want to work that one out for us).  Anyway, you get the point.  I
don't think this last case is explicitly against the rules since the attacker
may neglect to bring the 'dealt' pieces onto the board and then the defender
can concede the battle.  The case where 2 little weenie stacks nuke each
other may not be legal, though.  What do you think abou these two cases?

-Andy

-- 
================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
From: nv89-pla@hemul.nada.kth.se (Peter Laan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Any games in 1650 - 1750 Europe?
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:54:20 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In <edandavi.725871414@well.sf.ca.us> edandavi@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Allen and Avi Rappoport) writes:

>There is a good game on the campaigns of Marlborough that was in an issue of
>The Wargamer several years ago.  It was a worthy successor to Frederick the
(Stuff deleted)

Does anyone know in what issue it was?
I would realy appreciate it.

>Ed Allen
>edandavi@well.sf.ca.us

-Peter Laan
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: A&A Question: Placement of Ships
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:15:20 GMT

In article <hassink.724818583@manning> hassink@cs.UAlberta.CA (Hassink Brian John) writes:
>2huwbeach@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>
>>	In my 1984 version of A&A, Britain is to place a Battleship at
>>Gibraltor at the beginning of the game.  Also Germany is to place a sub in 
>>the Southern Europe Sea Zone.  The problem is that both Gibraltor and 
>>Southern Europe share the same sea zone.
>
>Bingo! Since Gibralter is in two sea zones, and Germany is specifically
>told to place its sub in South Europe, then Britain has no choice but to
>place its Battleship in the Atlantic zone of Gibralter.
>
Excuse me?  Gibraltar on my board is in only one sea zone.  There's at
least a quarter inch between the west-most part of Gibraltar and the
vertical line that separates the "atlantic" sea zone and the Gibraltar
sea zone.  But that's not the line in question.  You say that Gibraltar
and Southern are in the same sea zone.  That's wrong.  Look in the folds
of the board, there is a line there.  It's upper (northern) intersection
with europe is in the same place that the land territories Western
Europe and Southern Europe meet.  OK?

The UK battleship goes just south of Gibraltar on the board the German
transport and battleship go just south of Southern Europe, and the lone
German sub goes in the territory marked "Atlantic"

Dewey
From: hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu (Henry J. Cobb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: Why does America fight Germany?
Date: 26 Dec 92 11:11:02
Organization: /rubin/hcobb/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: fly2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hamaguch@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu's message of Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:35:09 GMT


	Try this:

	Forced "Midway" rule:
America can not land any units in Africa or Europe while Japan is holding
any part of the Americas or Hawaii.
--
	Henry J. Cobb	hcobb@fly2.berkeley.edu	SFB Tyrant
	"Once it becomes possible to do something, it gets very difficult to
undo it.  Whether its automobiles, computers or nuclear weapons, invention has
always been the mother of necessity."
From: arkoff@lclark.edu (Gary Arkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: AH games for sale  (attn:  origional poster)
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:25:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Dec30.172518.17636
Distribution: na
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1992Dec14.185108.251@unislc.uucp> gwd@unislc.uucp (Greg Davis) writes:
>The following Avalon Hill games are for sale, $10 each, plus postage.
>Postage in US: $3 for 1 game, $1 per game for each additional.
>P = punched, U = unpunched.

>Gregory W. Davis
>UNISYS Corporation, MS: B1C05 |  Internet: gwd@unislc.slc.unisys.com
>322 North 2200 West           |  UUCP: ...!{sun, uunet}!unislc!gwd
>Salt Lake City, UT 84116      |  Voice: (801) 594-5410

Hey!  Gregory!  I want some of those games, but my mail to you is bouncing!
Please contact me!

arkoff@lclark.edu
-- 
"The question is not, can animals reason? Nor, can they talk?  But, can
they suffer?"    -Jeremy Bentham, philosopher, 1748-1832.

                   Gary Arkoff --   arkoff@lclark.edu
From: fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Opinions Wanted on Mac WWII comp games
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:40:08 GMT
Organization: Biochemistry

In article <1992Dec20.133834.45811@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
2huwbeach@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>
>	I've seen these 2 Mac computer games in a catalog and am looking for
>opinions on them.  The titles are V for Victory and V for Victory II: Velikiye
>Luki.  I realize this isn't alt.computer.games but figure that anyone
>interested in SL and ASL, etc might have played these WWII comp games.
>
>		Thanks
>
>		Matt Rose
>		Univ of Kansas
>		Remote Sensing Lab
>

Well, I haven't played them yet, but I've been asking similar questions
elsewhere, and here's the answers I've gotten.  V for Victory is generally
considered to be a very good tactical simulation at a divisional/battalion
level.  The first version of the first Battleset was pretty buggy, but most of
the bugs have been worked out.  People that I've talked to said that the 2nd
Battleset (Veliki Luki) incorporates more features and is more competative than
the first Battleset, in which the Americans generally hammer the Germans.

I think I'm going to get the second battleset when I can afford it.  My one
peeve is that the game is not networkable yet.  Presumably, that will be a
feature of the 3rd Battleset.  WE WANT NETWORKABLE WARGAMES NOW!!!  (or at
least I do ;)
Eric Roush			Deck us all with Boston Charlie
fierkelab@			Walla Walla Wash and Kalamazoo!
bchm.biochem.duke.edu	Nora's freezin' on the Trolley,
				Swaller Dollar Cauliflower Alla-ga-Roo!

				Walt Kelley
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Fire in the East
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 02:07:15 GMT


How long do you usually allow for setup and move?  The people I play with
usually allow a day per side for setup (i.e. you get to optimize stacks,
moves, and attacks as much as you want), but put time limits on moves after
setup and German surprise move.

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From: jmconnel@oregon.uoregon.edu (John M. McConnell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: FAQ?????  rec.games.board.sfb????
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:32:42 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: jmcconnell.uoregon.edu
Summary: Is there an FAQ for this group?

Is there an FAQ for this group?  Also, has anyone thought of creating a
rec.games.board.sfb?
		Thanks,
		John McConnell
		JMCONNEL@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU
From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: good three-player games
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:28:06 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


	Another good 3-player game is Bar-Lev, by ... Conflict Games? Heck,
it's John Hill, the guy who did Squad Leader.

	Anyway, it's an Arab-Israeli game, covering the Yom-Kippur war. There
are 2 maps, with the Egyptian/Israeli war on one side, and the Syrian/Israeli
on the other. There are some weirdnesses about the game, but it is a lot of
fun, and plays well as a three/four/five player game.

	With 3: One Israeli, one Egyptian, one Syrian
	With 4: Two Israelis (who argue about who gets the reinforcements :-)
	With 5: Three Israelis (one for each front, and one High Command guy,
		who distributes reinforcements, controls the IAF, and just
		generally kibbitzes the Israeli front commanders)

Tom

P.S. Weirdnesses: Artillery Is God. The Israelis can rip armies apart with
	their artillery. Instead of adding to attacks, etc, as in many games,
	there's a special arty phase, where you allocate arty to enemy units,
	and roll to kill/disable them. Towards the end of the game, the
	Israelis have enough to kill about 5-6 regiments/turn. Might be 
	realistic, I haven't studied the war much, but it's kinda weird to
	see the Israeli player point and say 'dead, dead, dead, neutralized,
	dead, dead' :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: epwong@nyx.cs.du.edu (Elliott Wong)
Subject: Hex Board Help - All Thumbs!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 16:17:39 GMT

	Greetings all. I've begun to play Star Fleet Battles again
(but I suspect others have also encountered this problem) and I'm
having all sorts of problems with the counters and hex board that come
with the game.

	I think the counters are standard size, as far as wargames go,
and the map/hex board is a plain glossy finish hex board. As we play,
the counters invariably move and as we stack the counters, they fall
off and generally make an annoying mess.

	Now, Star Fleet Battles is not dependent on pre-printed stuff
on the map like BattleTech, so I could get another map. But what size
would I get? What is the "standard" size and what are the other sizes
that are available? I think if I get one of those vinyl maps, it would
help. And if I get one that has slightly larger hex boxes, that would
also help, but size do I ask for?

	Thanks in advance. Any and all suggestions are appreciated.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Fire in the East
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 21:14:59 GMT

In article <1h7ae3INNbu3@ua.d.umn.edu> kschroe2@ua.d.umn.edu (Kurt Schroeder) writes:
>Perhaps to stimulate discussion on the Europa series of games, let me ask
>a question.
>
[deletions]
>
>1. How large a stack does the Russian player need in order to guarantee that
>it will not be over-run.  Since the German player 
>needs to attain 10:1 odds to over-run, this question resolves into the
>question:  How large a stack can the German player construct on Game Turn
>One?  60 points? 
>
>Divisions: 3 x 12-10 Panzer divisions =             36
>Non-divisional units: 3 x 5-10 Pz XX breakdowns =   15
>Artillery: 2 x 5-8 motorized artillery =            10
>						   ____
>Total                                               61 points

Your analysis is correct. That's the largest stack that can be assembled
for normal overrun. There is one proviso: if you are playing with a
battalion stacking rule (two battalions may stack as one unit), four point
stacks are not safe from overrun in forest (or is it swamp? I've forgotten
the restrictions). There, the stacking analysis is:

Divisions: 3 x 8-6 Infantry               24
Artillery: 2 x 5-3-8 Art                  10
Non-Divisional units: 2 x 2-0-6 Siege II   4
2 x 2-0-6 Siege II                         4
1 x any 3 strength unit                    3
                                        ____
Total                                     45


>Can anyone construct a stack which reaches 70 points?

No.

>2.  Is this 60- or 70-point stack attainable everywhere along the front, or
>can the Russian player stack less than 7 points along some portions of the
>front (i.e., south of Pripet marshes)?

No, the southern portion of Army Group South can only overrun a five stack.
While I don't remember exactly where this starts, it can be arrived at by
counting out the requisite number of hexes from Army Group Center.

In addition, the northernmost four hexes of AG North's front only need
six strength points per hex.

>This problem could probably be solved by analysis, although I have never
>tried.  It probably smacks too much of game mechanics to suit the critics of
>Europa heard on this net, but some of you might have done some analysis along
>these lines.  Has anyone investigated this, or does anyone know of published
>sources of analysis?  It is roughly the Europa equivalent of calculating the
>value of all possible three-move openings in chess.

It is gamey, but allowing any set-up other than strictly historical is gamey.
I did the analysis (with Mike Faletti) for a set-up we used when playing a
group in Oregon. I'd offer to share the set-up, but we want to use it a few
more times. It also depends on our defensive strategy, and optimizes the
extraction of certain units (such as engineer regiments).
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Subject: Re: A&A - I think I found it!!!!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:15:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.091024.1@vax.sonoma.edu> oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>
>Any ideas on what to do to make it even and not have to resort to that rule?
>

	A good but ahistorical fix: make Russian inf cost $4. Give the Germs
a lot more chance, and makes the Russians actually think about doing something
other than buying Robots..

Tom
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com (harry campbell)
Subject: Re: GEV: More loot from the Ogre's lair.
Reply-To: harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:56:35 GMT

>I understand but a lot of us have no skill at painting, but still would love 
>a nice new edition of OGRE. Are you turn off because of the poor reception
>of Deluxe Ogre? I think the problem with it was the stands. I've never 
>understood peoples facination with them. I think it detracted from Deluxe
>OGRE

Maybe your lack of painting skill, is simply a lack of practice at painting.
Wasn't Deluxe Ogre supposed to be that nice new edition of OGRE?  I find it
hard to believe that someone would not buy Deluxe OGRE simply because the game
came with stands.  If so, why was Battletech such a hit?  Seems to me you have
four choices:  1) Buy the original pocketbox games, and use those chits,
2) Buy Deluxe Ogre and use the stands, 3)Buy the miniatures, and the miniature
rules, and paint them (the best way!), 4)Buy one of the above sets of rules, and
make your own counters.  Sorry, but OGRE was not made by Avalon Hill so you
probably won't see it with die cut counters with overhead pictures (Deal with it).
The game is available in several formats.  Miniatures and terrain help capture 
your imagination, and add to the gaming experience, but if a game is really worth
playing what difference does it make if you use chits, counters, or stands?


> Or like me, you have
>small children, who are going to eat or damage (or both) the mini's. What do
>we do?

Move to New York.


(please keep in mind I'm a micro-armor buff, so I love miniatures.)

Harry Campbell
harry@dseg.ti.com

                                <O>
                                 \\
                                  \\
                                   \\
                                   | \
                                   \  \
                        ____________\  \
                       /          ()==..)==.::: .. :::.  ...:::.
         ______________-----------------()==  . ....     ....    .....       
        /  ___________       ___________ >\
       /__/())))))))))\_____/())))))))))\__\
	  \___________/     \___________/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Newsgroups: rec.games.board