HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: Attention Dewey's opponents ;)
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:25:10 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <geoKcI_00VpZIwBV8=@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Lauer <el0g+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>josh@gacvx2.gac.edu writes:
>>options 
>>	1.  Attack the USA fleet.
>>	2.  Wait for the USA to attack the Japan sea zone.
>
>Well how about
>3.  Put fleet in another costal sea zone
Fine, although you may expose the capital and/or Manchuria.  Easily
gotten around, of course.

>4. Put sub in the way so US Fleet can not reach yet.

No good, as there are two routes from Alaska to Japan.  Unless you have
more than one unit to spare...

>What do you do if Japan bases at kwangtung anyway?   We lost our copy of
>the rules, so we are not sure if Japan can move his transprts from
>kwangtung to japan, pick up, and move back down in one turn (if not, you
>can wait next turn, though by then you will not have land area close
>enough).  People here play you can, which means the US must move up
>further, then get destroyed by the Japanese air force (well, some fleet
>shows up to absorb damage...)

If you want to order another copy, I posted the address the other day,
or drop me a private note...

But, yes you can pick up, move, pick up move and then drop off.  The
only real restrictions are that you must stop in the sea zone you unload
in and the transport can only move 2 zones.  And the obvious things,
like not dropping in a enemy-occupied sea zone...

I'll have to look into this whole idea, but I have the gut feeling that
it's going a little too far from the USAs point of view.  We'll see...

Dewey
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 1992 22:46:54 -0400 
From: "Benjamin L. Peal" <bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: 300 years of development

  While the Zulu victory over the Victorian British Army was astounding,
  there was more to the British defeat than being outnumbered 20 to 1.
  I believe the primary reason for their defeat was due to their inability
  to get enough ammo to their soldiers.  Being technologicly greater by
  300 is really cool, but not when you don't have bullets...
  
  - Blep
bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: SHOCKWAVE/OGRE
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:06:24 GMT


Once upon a time I had the Ogre/GEV boardgames from Steve
Jackson/Metagaming. I never got the Shockwave rules. Now I'm trying to
replace my Ogre/GEV rules, but I can't get Shockwave because it is out
of print. What am I missing? 
	I can sort of piece together rules for GEV-PCs, LGEVs, and SHVY Tanks
from the Ogre book. But I am clueless as to how Missiles, Shockwave and
Line of Sight were handled. Also, is there anything else from Shockwave
that I should know about?
	Does anyone know if Shockwave is included in the new GEV/Ogre
boxed edition?

Thanks in advance,    
	Tom 

Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.pbm,bit.listserv.dipl-l
From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Diplomacy - Gunboat Youngstown openings
Originator: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:05:11 GMT

I have been asked to announce that there are some openings in
the Youngstown gunboat game bali on the judge.  The game is
presently in Fall 1909, and need four replacements to get moving again.
This is a non-press Gunboat game.

There are openings for Russia, Germany, Italy and Turkey
To join, send the command

signon rbali password    to the judge (judge@u.washington.edu)
to take over Russia (for example).  The password is any word of
your choice  (ie, you do not need the old player's password.)
  
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: heflingb@columbia.dsu.edu (Brian Hefling)
Subject: Space Marine Tactics
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:50:40 GMT

One of the best "surprise" tactics I have used is drop pods turn one with 
thunderhawk gun ships.

Drop pods cause mass choas amongst your enemies formations (especially if he 
is clustered).  Most folks assume they are same to have troops in vehicles 
on turn 1 --- not so --- the thunderhawk gun ships then disembark their 
toops --- who then engage rhinos in melee pinning troops inside their 
vehicles.  (good for quick game other units can grab your objectives and you 
basically get a 1 or 2 turn win

anyone else noticed that the game often ends a bit fast
I have been trying larger boards and that helps a little but the victory 
points seem destined to go to the person with the largest amount of fast 
moving "survivable" vehicles.

also anyone have complaints about some of the rules (pop-up attacks or 
woods in general?)

???
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 22:35:27 -0400 
From: "Benjamin L. Peal" <bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Some Car Wars Questions

  >I think you're missing the fact that in general, laser guidance is IR,
  >so any smoke blocks it.
  
  Non-IR lasers are blocked by smoke.
  IR targeting lasers are blocked by a certain amount of smoke.  Check
  the second edition of the Compendium for the exact amount.
  IR lasers (not TLs) have their damaged reduce by one point per die of
  damage per a certain amount of smoke fired through.  Again, check CWC II
  for the exact amount.
  
  Also, regarding the question about HMGs doing zero damage, the minimum
  damage for weapons fire is 1 point.  On a related note, the minimum damage
  from rams is zero.
  
  For those of you who haven't put the money into keeping up to date with
  current Car Wars rules, the Car Wars Compendium, Second Edition (CWC II)
  is the current set of "official" rules.  The one exception being jumping
  rules, for which the current "official" rules are in Uncle Al's Catalog
  From Hell.
  
  - Blep
  bp14+@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: A&A Fixing the imbalances, NOT!!!
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:37:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.031130.23624@julian.uwo.ca> allan@gfx.engga.uwo.ca (Allan Flanagan) writes:
>I think that the easiest way to balance out the game would be to NOT 
>allow a Russian attack on JAPAN.  Keeping Russia from attacking Germany
>would not really help the Axis or be historically correct.  I'm not
>saying the no attack on Japan is correct but it is easier to justify 
>than a no attack on Germany.

I think that the no USSR attacking pretty much balances the game
(assuming equally capable players) for the most part.  The Allies have
an inherent advantage in that there are 3 Allies and only two Axis.
This you cannot fix (until you take Moscow).

As for picking balancing techniques, I would not worry about historical
accuracy.  There is already plenty of error in the game, to worry about
making historically correct changes is not important in terms of game
appeal.

Here is a balancing technique I've used a few times, not enough to
decide overall effectiveness.

1) Set up the board.
2) Remove the Industrial Complex from Karelia.

When I played this way, the Axis at first won hands down, and quickly.
But that was only 2 games.  The next were hands down for the Allies.
The last game I played was rather close, so the jury is still out.  I
have been wanting to play with this variation with someone else for
sometime, but haven't had the time.  If anyone tries it, please let me
know how it went!!

Also, we had kicked the idea around of giving the USSR something in
return for the loss of the 15 IPC complex.  Either cash or more units or
something (not to exceed the 15 IPC value, I suppose).  Gee, this would
be the PERFECT time to advertise USSR bombers.....

I think the key to this variation is a radically different game plan
from the USSR (duh!).  That's what I haven't been able to work out yet
(for lack of effort).

Talk to you later!!! 

				Dewey



>I can win with the Axis and come to think of it, they were games where
>the Russian didn't attack Japan.
>
>
>                
>Allan...                 allan@gfx.engga.uwo.ca
>


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: helen@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu (Helen Rapozo)
Subject: Re: SFB: D7V escort group
Organization: Honolulu Community College
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:48:28 GMT

In article <$stephan.183.0@sasb> $stephan@sasb (Stephan Fassmann, Software) writes:
>Anyone know what the appropriate escort group would be for a D7V in year 
>Y181-2. 
>I know it's in R3 but I don't have it yet.
************
From Module R3, Y177 to 84 has the D7V with 12 Z-Y fighters and a
AD5 and AF5 for escorts.



Honolulu Community College            cs_rapozo@hccadb.hcc.hawaii.edu
874 Dillingham Blvd.                  helen@pulua.hcc.hawaii.edu
Honolulu, HI 96817                    rapozo@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Ph#: (808) 845-9202
From: s892341@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Matt=Goodall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: House Rules
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:00:36 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

91vanderkolk@gw.wmich.edu writes:


>Since the idea of a home rules book has come up, I though I would post some
>of the "home rules" my group plays with and see what the opinions are.
>Have at it...

>1) All jump movement requires a piloting skill roll, regardless of terrain.

Maybe for the IS, BTW do you have to make a piloting check when jumping with 
a damaged Gyro?

>2) SRM streaks all hit in the same location.

No thanks, only if I am the only one with streaks.

>3) When spotting for indirect LRM fire the spotter can fire his weapons as
>normal and you don't count any of the spotters movement or terrain modifiers.

What, no terrain mods! If you can't see it how can someone else hit it?

>4) CASE vents an ammo explosion out the rear of the mech without damaging the
>internal structure.

No this is not going to work!

>5) Gauss Rifles can be CASEd.
>6) Initiative alternates.
>7) Any SRM or LRM can be loaded with infernos.

Possible, but remember the Are's convention and also an ammo explosion=
shutdown for many turns, no matter where the ammo is placed.

>8) Clan can use vehicles (this one hurts the most).

Sure they do, to transport supplies. "What, fight in a truck, where's the
honour in that?"

>John
>"You have one leg and you are kicking me. Right......."
-- 
Matt Goodall
s892341@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Famous last words: "Who's the bitch with the spiders?"
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:04:42 -0400 
From: "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Impossible Checker Position

>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.board: 12-Oct-92 >Impossible Checker
Position sabat@iccgcc.decnet.ab.c >(413)

>I know this probably doesn't belong here, but I didn't >know where else
to post
>it.  My son and his cousin were playing checkers the other >day and although I
>don't know how they did it, one of them got into a state >where it was
his turn
>but all of his pieces were stuck and he could not make a >move at all period.
>What is the official ruling when this happens?  Does >anyone know?

>Ted			Sabat@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com

This position in fact, is not impossible. The rules of checkers state
that if one player is unable to make a legal move (i.e. either from
being in a position like the one you mention, or from having all his
pieces taken--the "usual" win), then that player loses.
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: GMT's Operation Shoestring - any opinions?
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:18:14 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

Anybody out there who owns or has played GMT's Guadalcanal game
(Operation Shoestring)?  I'm thinking of buying it, but I remember
seeing a comment in this group that someone did not like it.

So, how is it?  Thanks for any pointers.


-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: baldwin@carina.unm.edu (Chris Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Blood Bowl: Undead question
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 01:30:20 GMT
Organization: Atheist for the Development of a Better God

In article <1992Oct11.202232.43763@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> kuaxe@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Also, does anyone have different Undead "races" such as
>vampires, etc.  I'm curious to see what people have.  I was thinking of making
>vampires, golems, and ghouls.  I'd like any ideas you have on these races.

	I am working, in my voluminous spare time:-), on some rules for
Vampires. One thing we are thinking of doing is making the a Secret Weapon
instead of a race, but they still need some work.

	Also, I am working on a program to manage a BB league. It does
generation of nonstar players, star players and mutants. I decided to
write this program because our league commish wants to play, but I want
to try to reduce his workload. Also, since we want to have star abilities
unknown at draft time(except for racial mods) this will allow the commish
to draft normally. Right now, we have said that he can have any star he
wants out of the pool for 1000GC above the base draft cost, but he drafts
after the rest of the league.
-- 
"Hey, Guido! It's all so clear to me now. I'm the keeper of the cheese and
you're the lemon merchant. Getit? And he knows it! That's why he's gonna kill
us. So we gotta beat it. Yeah, before he lets loose the marmosets on us! - Ren
From: wlw@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Will Walker)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:05:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: A&A Fixing the imbalances, NOT!!!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board

In rec.games.board, oberland@vax.sonoma.edu writes:

> Well, there are two types of games.
> 1:Historicaly accurate simulations
> 2:Games maed for playing, set on a theme
...
> If I wanted historical accuracy, I'd play AThirdReich.
> I wnat to play a competitive game instead.

I've only playes A&A a few times but I have played other strategic
WW2 games and I've been following this discussion with great interest.

First, a word about historical accuracy...

My gut feeling about WW2 is that by spring of 1942 all the ingredients
for an Axis loss were present.  For example, if you're playing the
Axis in World In Flames, and spring '42 rolls around and you're not in
a better position than the Axis was in in the real war, you're
probably going to lose.

It just seems that the key strategic decisions occurred in '40 and '41.
That's when the Axis has a real chance to pull off something major:
	conquer China
	conquer India/Burma/Indonesia
	conquer Egypt/Middle East/Africa
	conquer Spain/Morocco
	conquer Turkey/Persia
Any of these will give the Axis a real leg up in the rest of the war.

So... Why does A&A wait untill spring '42 to start?  How about a
variant that starts earlier, so the Axis has a little more
flexibility.  It seems that by backing up the start time you could
maintain whatever historical accuracy A&A has while improving the
competitive balance somewhat.

Actually now that I think about it, as popular as A&A is I'm almost
sure someone has done this already.  If you know of such a rule set,
how did it work out?

Just Curious,
Will Walker
wlw@fc.hp.com
From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: EiA: #of depots in the countermix
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:24:30 GMT
Organization: Information Services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA

adrian@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca (Adrian Earle) writes:
> Does anyone know the number of depots that each major
> power has available

That's a good question.  I don't have our copy handy but I've always
wondered why this wasn't written down somewhere.  In fact, shouldn't the
depot availability be part of the sheet that each nation gets for putting in
corps sizes, etc?

I'd hate to think that a there's missing depot counter in our game.  I
remember playing France and I was using all my depot counters in my deep
penetration campaign against Prussia and Austria (with supply reaching both
Berlin and Vienna at the same time).  One less/more depot counter would've
made a significant difference in my tactical planning.

--
hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)    :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Unix Geek for Swarthmore College        :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Information Services, Swarthmore, PA, US.       Copyright 1992 by Eiji Hirai.
I don't speak for Swarthmore College.                    All Rights Reserved.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: <Btech> Two Engines Question
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:17:20 GMT

In article <4eolXri00WAv4B_UUb@andrew.cmu.edu> Robert Everett Brunskill <rb6t+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I was considering the possibility of two engines for a time, and it
>seemed that the fairest, easiest way to do it was to calculate the
>engine factor normally, then divide it by two so that you have two equal
>sized engines (one running each side of the Mech).  Also you can only
>use double engines if there is no single engine of the same rating or if
>there is no way to fit a sinlge engine of X rating on the Mech.
>
>Here are some additional suggestions I would make:
>
>This concept and the electronics involved could be consisdered "lost
>starleage tech"
>A syncronising system of X tonnage would be required between the engines
>Walk and run heat is doubled
>A maximum of only 10 free heat sinks can be gained
>Roles for overheating must be done twice (once for each engine)
>If one engine shuts down a Mech can only move at though it normally had
>only the one engine left (which it does)
>Each engine has half of it's crits in the CT and the other half in a side torso
>Keep track of seperate damage for each engine
>
>Here is my 'house rule' for engine explosions (which a lot of people
>probably have already):
>
>4 critical hits before an engine shuts down results in an immediate
>engine explosion (as in the "Battle for Twycross").  Pilot ejection
>works the same as it does for ammo explosion.  (either that or require
>some type of PS roll)
>
>Rob Brunskill
>no sig sig

Anyone who understands the meaning of circulating currents knows that matching
two identical powerplants is a problem even when both are working perfectly.
The simplest way to model this is by dividing total heatsinks between the
power plants.  For shut down purposes, only half of the heat is considered;
for all other heat related activities, the total heat is considered.  The
first hit to an engine cuases that engine to shut down, halving the mechs walk,
run ,and jump mp's AND the heatsinks for that engine go offline.  The total 
value is used for all purposes.  After the first engine critical, the pilot
can choose which engine to run, but cannot run both unless (s)he accepts a
double heat penalty (ie 0 hits/1 hit = 10 heat, 1/1 or 0/2 = 20 heat, and
1/2 = 30 heat).  If the two engines do not have identical ratings, the smaller
engine will suffer a critical hit if both are run, and one is damaged.  The
movement points are calculated with the rating of the running engine.
From: glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re:  Fortress America
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:51:51 GMT
Reply-To: glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov
Distribution: rec
Organization: N.I.S.T
Posting-Front-End: Shinbun -- the OpenLook newsreader



I've played and won at both sides and I'd agree that the game is balanced towards
America, but I probably wouldn't say heavily.  America eventually wins through
a war of attrition.  American troops keep getting replaced along with extremely
powerful lasers.  The allied force slowly runs out of steam as it tries to keep it's
supply lines covered.  Now this is slightly true in a 2-player game.  In a multi-player
game I'd say HEAVILY unbalanced.  Not only do the allies have to worry about
attrition but now they have to worry about each other.  This confusion and lack
of cooperation 9 chances out of 10 causes complete and utter failure for the
allies to get even close to their victory conditions.

I've tried some of their recommendations to balance the game and they do seem to work
for a 2-player game.  I wish MB would have kept producing this line, their simplicity and
pieces are great, although I'd probably replace the dice system with something
a little more reliable (where strategy is more in the mind and less in the rolling
cubes).  War's are won and lost from skill, strategy, supplies, attrition
of personel and equipment and a little luck.  AA and Fortress America are
frequently won because of the roll of the dice.  But now I'm babbling so
it's time to go.


Rob G.
glenn@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov


Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows)
Subject: BattleTech Versus Robotech
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: Fri, 16 Oct 92 06:06:19 GMT


When I first saw Robotech, I loved it.  Then I saw BattleTech in a
catalog and thought, "What a copycat."  That's pretty much my mind-
set, I guess...

When I actually saw the game itself for the first time, I laughed and
laughed.  Giant robots moved by ARTIFICIAL MUSCLES?!  Compare those
muscle drawings to the suitably impressive mechanical drawings found
in Robotech, and IMHO, Robotech comes off looking better.  Why, the
BattleTech mecha couldn't even transform!  (Of course, now that they've
come out with LAMs, they can--but that makes me scream, "Copycat!!!" 
even more...)
 
BattleTech may be a more "realistic" game--but who wants realism when
you're playing with 40-foot-tall robots?  Give me highly maneuverable
Veritechs over myomer-bound Stingers any day.

--
---Chris Meadows  CHM173S@SMSVMA or CMEADOWS@NYX.CS.DU.EDU
        "Wish in one hand and do something else in the other, then 
          squeeze them both and see which one comes true."
                    ---Corwin, NINE PRINCES IN AMBER by Roger Zelazny
Newsgroups: rec.games.board