HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (ACE)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Btech/RoboTech comparison
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:47:05 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

eda858xcot@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>Clantech is superior in aerospace tech as well. The reasons they don't use
>warships often (Turtle Bay -1 City in a day) is that they are just a tad TOO
>powerful to use against the inner sphere. The range of there weapons is large.
>around 30 hexs (aerospace) for some. [I'm not to sure just how far across an
>aerospace hex is as i don't play it that often, mainly stick with BT]

	Clan aerospace tech is better because they are just better in general.
Smaller, more powerful weapons, better armor, better targeting, better pilots,
etc. BTW An aerospace hex is 10,000 km across in outer space, and approxiamately
500 m in lower atmosphere (it's meant to be one standard btech map sheet).

>So now why I think about it what is everybodies opinion of the ships of the two
>different systems!! (Please don't flame me for this suggestion)

	Once again, it would be neccessary to define some assumptions before
an accurate comparison can be made. One person has already asked for me to
write some, and seeing that I have both systems, I think I just may. So stay
tuned, and maybe we can sought this out.

	Last thing I want to note, for a much more realistic feel to this
sort of combat, people should have a look at Centurion : Blood and Steel, also
made by FASA Corporation ( Noticed how they added this after printing 
Shadowrun ?).

			ACE
	( Where the hell's my .sig file ? )
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: heflingb@columbia.dsu.edu (Brian Hefling)
Subject: 2 Kill Chaos
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:53:49 GMT

Well I haven't faced them directly but it appears that you should avoid 
close combat if possible invest in some psychic support and use lots of 
barrage weapons (basilisks work well) also the vindicator companies are good 
for routing daemon hordes in cover.

??**??
From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Victory in the Pacific
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:45:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: ll.1992Oct14.014559.23076
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Hello Admirals,
I just got a new set of VitP and after a few clueless games with equally
clueless opponents (and in preparation for the MIT-SGS tourney) I need some
advice. In particular I am interested in how to play Japan.

Anyone cares to tell me what his favorite First turn for Japan. What goes to
Pearl? What to Indonesia? What to other sea zones?. In Pearl, what units
should Japan attack on the first air-raid round? 

Should Japan try to take and hold Pearl and Samoa to prevent the U.S. from
getting the heavy reinforcement later in the game or is this a hopeless task?
Should Japan bother with Ceylon?
Are the two north pacific zones (the ones that start with no one controlling
them) ever worth taking/holding?

When should Japan go all-out for POCs? When should the US?

In the games I played, the US ignored POCs the first few turns (all raiders)
and mostly won. Is this normal?

Any other hints are more than welcome. (Feel free to brag about your extensive
experience, I will use "brag-factor" when comparing conflicting suggestions).

I will (if requested) email anyone who responds a file containing all other
(e-mail) responses.

Thanks in advance

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Fortress America
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:58:11 GMT

In <geqDo8a00WAu84iJRn@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Anyone ever played it? I am curious--my games always come out with
>America getting beat upon. However, some of my friends claim the game is
>heavily balanced _towards_ America. Any thoughts on the matter?

I think it's fun, though not very balanced.  The first time I played America,
I won since the foreign player wasn't watching his supply lines, and some
extremely lucky rolls.  But the rest of the time the foreigners have won
easily.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: warren@nscf.org (L3 Warren)
Subject: Re: SFB anti-retrograde ?
Organization: National Science Center Foundation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:57:52 GMT

mcsbc3maw@dct.ac.uk writes:


>	Does anyone out there know of a good way to defeat the
>	Federation Retrograde maneauver with a klingon force ?
>	(Year 180+)

Move very fast, stay near the fire breaks (8-9 hexes, and 12-13 hexes),
concentrate your fire on the ship you can damage the fastest to cause
it to have to drop out of formation. You can slow down and pick it off
or he'll slow down to save it (at which time it degenerates into a 
more normal game).

Staying near firebreaks is useful. If you stay 13+ hexes, you minimize his
hit chance, even with proximity fused weapons. If you stay in 8-9 hexes,
he is taking a risk firing proximities, and you can shoot a few ships into
overload range if it looks like you can get internals.

Don't waste your drones. They're worthless here. Even fast drones.

All in all, a very painful thing to fight.

The BEST thing to do, however, is to simply let him run away and not
waste your time on him.

It is very risky, but if you know he will continue to retro, you might
risk splitting your forces, slow down a tad (he probably will too, to keep
in range and take advantage of the power to overload or repair shield)
and shove some drone-firing ships behind him. The ships can slow, overload
and do lots of damage. If he is stupid enough to let you get behid him.

All this takes a huge amount of time, and is often just impractical.


						Warren.

Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: BTech, Aquatic Mechs
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:51:10 GMT

In article <UeqvtDu00WA1A5FYYr@andrew.cmu.edu> Robert Everett Brunskill <rb6t+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>On the subject of 'rising' lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce
>E'Sex) writes:
>
>>   ][ think this manouvre should be scaled back a bit.  How different
>> is it from a mech simply moving from a depth 2 water hex to a depth 1
>> water hex?
>
>My concept of a higher MP requirement was based on the fact that it is
>very difficult to throw something 'out' of the water.  This observation
>is based on many attempts to throw small rocks out of the water in a
>swimming pool. Basically that's what rising does - it propels a Mech and
>the swim jets out of the water, which is quite a feat.
 
     _
    (_)k.  How about it costs the MP required to move into the
 depth 1 hex, +2 MPs?  Unlike a rock, the mech has flotation and
 ballast tanks.  It simply needs to dump all of its ballast very
 quickly and fire all of its swim jets downwards and it'll pop
 out of the water like a cork, thanks to the floatation tanks.
 I've seen film of real submarines doing this.
 

>And yes the elimination of a piloting roll is an advantage that
>would be gained by the jets.  I guess these would probably help if the
>Mech were walking along the bottom too, what do you think?
 

    ][ would think so.  The ballast and flotation tanks are what
 really make the difference, keeping the mech neutrally bouyant
 at the depth that it's at.


-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: tw1r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Timothy C. Worsley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BattleShip Question
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:17:01 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Air-craft carrier: 5 long
BattleShip: 4 long
Crusier: 3 long
Submarine: 3 long
Destroyer: 2 long

ZZnew guy
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: A3R - attacks on Britain
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:26:45 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I don't know how many A3R players are on the net, but here's a question:

In your games, are you finding that Britain is being attacked (too)
frequently?  And are Axis anti-British strategies successful?
From: bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E Gibbs)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: A&A -- tips for Axis?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 05:26:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (U
Reply-To: bz978@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles E Gibbs)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Well, does anyone have any?  I've heard 80 million tactics on how the Allies
can win.  I usually play the Axis, but since I don't play with that experienced
group of players, I've gotten away with some stuff.  Namely, an industrial
plant for Japan in French Indo-Burma China.  Usually I can hold it with the
inf. already there plus stuff from the Phillipines.

I've also tried changing the focus for Germany from attacking Russia to attacking
Britain. I don't abandon Russia completely.  However, if Germany can maintain
a moderate foothold in Caucasus, Russia never has enough income to remain a 
sustained threat to Germany and keep Russia safe.  Meanwhile, Germany buys two
subs and then devotes the rest of the income on 1st turn and most of the income
on the second term to inf.  Usually, 3 to 4 subs can cause enough havoc for 
Britain's navy so that they really can't accomplish that much in the first two
turns.  Then, Russia ends up fighting a two-front battle with little support.

BUT, I know I'm missing something.  So if there are any GOOD suggestions for
Axis players, let me know.

Charles Gibbs
gibbsc@ac.grin.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: s6200776@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Operation Battle)
Subject: BattleShip Question
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 02:30:21 GMT

A friend and I are attempting to implement the Battleship game on a multi-
user talk program. We need to know the exact number of ships, their lengths,
and the names of the ships.

any information would be greatly apprecaited. Please respond to the return
address in the header, that is:

	s6200776@titan.ucc.umass.edu

Thanks in advance.

Richard Resnick and Kevin Mocklin
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: rday@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E Day)
Subject: Re: <Btech> Two Engines Question
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.092533.2420@netcom.com> lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnat
han Bruce E'Sex) writes:
>In article <s903609.718438051@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.
au (ACE) writes:
>>Greetings,
>>     What do people think about having two engines in a Battlemech ?
>    ][ hear strains of the Beach Boys: "Wouldn't it be nice...."
>     _
>    (_onsidering that EACH and EVERY BattleTech fusion engine can
> dissipate 10 points of heat above and beyond its own heat output...
> even engines that weigh only .5 tonnes...  There'd be no reason to
> add extra heat sinks.  Just add a 10 rated engine for .5 tonnes and
> get 10 points of heat dissipation.  It'll take 6 critical hit
> locations, but that's still a lot less than the equivalent number
> of heat sinks.

No, it would take 15 crit. slots.(6 for the engine, 9 for the "free" heat sinks 
that are not on the engine)

>     _
>    |_
>    |_very time you add a PPC, simply add another .5 tonne engine.
> Voila, heat problems all solved.

7.5 tons, & 18 crit slots. It could be usefull, but not as overpowering as it 
may seem at first.

-
-- 
If the price that I must pay to obtain my *  Robert E. Day/Syr Otto von    *
freedom, is to acknowledge that the Gov-  *  Schwartzkatz, Shire Mugmort   *
ernmet was granted the power to infringe  *  Barony Middle Marches,        *
on them, then I am not free. Paul Anderson*  Middle Kingdom                *
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: SFB: preplotted movement?
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:34:45 GMT

In article <fuhrman-161092133113@litmac13.epfl.ch> fuhrman@litsun.epfl.ch (Cris Fuhrman) writes:
>Hi,
>
>For a few years in college, I played my fair share of SFB with a regular
>group of friends. Surprisingly, I've never played it without pre-plotted
>movement as the friends with whom I played preferred this method saying
>that it added a level of complexity to the game which was quite interesting
>(trying to second-guess your opponent).

I agree with your friends.  I used to play in college (late 1970's) and
we ALWAYS used pre-plotted movement.  In fact, the trend towards free
movement has led me to quit playing.
From: 91vanderkolk@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH: Mechwar 1.01 Where is it?
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:10:27 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University




      Where or how can I get a copy of Mech War 1.01? I haven't been able to
find it in my area. Any ideas would be helpfull.
Thanks

John
"What do you mean it's not fair that I shot you in the head?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: t89dsp@tdb.uu.se (Daniel Spahr)
Subject: Empires in Arms
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:32:27 GMT

I've just recently been introduced to Avalon Hills superb game: Empires in Arms
and I'm playing Spain. So far things are quite calm due to all the peace trea-
ties that have been signed. I'm playing Spain and I'm wondering if there is 
anyone that has any hints and/or reccomendations on Spanish tactics.

I'm allied w. the Englishman and I've been at war with the Turk. The Turk is 
allied w. France (Yuk!).

Either reply to this posting or mail me:

t89dsp(at)bellatrix.tdb.uu.se

/Dan.

	
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cmeadows@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Meadows)
Subject: Re: 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 16:49:43 GMT


Robotech is NOT a copycat, in that the Robotech RPG is based directly
on the Robotech TV show.  True, Carl Macek took three different Japanes
cartoons and melded/mangled them together into Robotech, but Robotech
the RPG is based directly on the mecha from the TV show.  They did
NOT rename the mechs and do other strange things to their internal 
mechanics!

Which reminds me--on the back of the BattleTech game box, it shows
color pictures of Stingers, Wasps, etc.  When I saw them, I laughed
so hard...the artists didn't even bother to remove the RDF symbol!
Or the other symbols on the Destroids.  How blatant can you get?

--
---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
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: BattleTechnology development (Was: Re: Btech/RoboTech comparison)
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:56:56 GMT

In article <s903609.718867712@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (ACE) writes:
>	  The clan civil wars only took about 15 years, colonization about 20
>years, reintegration after the civil war about another 15 years. These figures
>are rough, but pretty close. This would leave 250 years worth of devolopment
 
     _
    (_)nly 20 years to colonize all those worlds and get everything set
 up for their civilization?  That seems a bit optomistic.  I will
 admit that I don't follow FASA's BattleTech "future history" too
 close.  I just like playing the game.  Please provide references as
 to what published FASA books to look in for the Clan history
 detailing the length of time their civil war(s) and colonization/
 settlement took.  Book titles and chapters/sub headings would be
 sufficient.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BattleTech Versus Robotech
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:38:23 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

>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...)
   From what i heard, both got their ideas from other shows that started before
robotech hit the scenes-in essencde, they both copied designs from the same 
source and then translated them into their own world-Which is why you
similarities in designs in both worlds (like the Maurauder and zentraidi
officer pods and the veritechs and LAM's)

>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.
   Well, I'D rather have a shielded, GAUS rifle and laser armer, heavily
armoured Centurion grav tank but, Ah well.  Anyways, one of the complaint 
people have against battletech is that is isn't REALISTIC emough.  ah well,
go figure (To those people trying to integrate centurion with Battletech, hows
it going-making any progress?
*******************************************************************************
 Like fun, excitement, the thrill of * Don Shaffer
saving humanity from alien battle    * dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu
fleets-then join alt.pub.havens-rest * 
when it is created, but first i need *
those replies-Btech and Rtech players*
your invited too along with everyone *
else                                  *
*******************************************************************************
From: arkoff@sun.lclark.edu (Gary Arkoff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Rules Wanted for Titan by Avalon Hill
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:16:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Oct10.031603.18465
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

I would very much appreciate if someone would send me a photo copy of the
rules for Titan by Avalon Hill.  I would be more than happy to reimburse you
for postage and photocopying expenses.

Thanks in advance,

Gary L. Arkoff
9050 SW Scholls Ferry Rd.
Apt. 301
Tigard OR
97223
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: EiA: "House Rules"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:57:16 GMT

Let me start with the question of supply.  Historically, the vast majority
of losses in pre-twentieth century armies were due to disease and other
forms of attrition, not to combat.  For example, in the American Civil
War, disease accounted for 70% of all deaths in service in the Union
army, and perhaps as high as 75% in the Confederate army.

In EiA, this kind of wastage is handled through the supply rules: One
forages and fails.  I believe that the level of wastage due to foraging
losses needs to be boosted substantially in this game.  Here are two
suggestions:

(1) Do away with the +2 limit on modifiers for additional corps in an
area.

(2) Set the maximum number of corps that a depot can supply to be equal
to the forage value of the area in which it is located.  Depots located
in low forage areas obviously won't be able to supply many corps.  This
will force more corps to forage, with subsequently higher losses.  As was said of both Spain and Russia: "Small armies are beaten, and large armies starve."
As an exception, allow depots located in ports to supply a number of corps
equal to the supply value of a depot located in another port, if a sea
supply chain is being used from the second port.

Comments?


-- 
Gary Charbonneau
charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
"En avant!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland)
Subject: Re: BTECH: House Rules
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:14:15 GMT

Matt=Goodall (s892341@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au) wrote:

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

Well if someone goes against a Daishi in a truck, I would consider
them honorable, brave and STUPID. To sacrifice oneself should be
considered a great honor.


				Karl
-- 

Karl-Gunnar Hultland              Vox Dei, Vox Populi
m91kgh@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se
From: dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Btech/rtech comparison(plus ceturion)
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:49:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: andromed.Oct.12.11.49.28.1992.8014
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


  To those who want to compare centurion to the others, heres my say so.
First, conmsidering how cneturion damage is scored compared to the other two 
sytems a direct conversion would be difficult if not well nigh impossible, 
therefore, info. comparison is needed. 
  So, in a fight between a typical centurion med. grav tank (say a liberator)
and any piece of fighting machinery in the other sytems, who would win?  My
vote goes for the liberator.  Not only does it have a laser capable of firing
at 4000 m, it has a fairly heavy GAUS cannon that has a range of 3000m, and two
different missile systems, fully laser guided, with ranges of 2000m and 1200m
respectivley.  Not only that, but with a grav tanks shielding and painting
lasers, and a maximum speed of 1188km/hour (in high altitude mode) fighting
a grav tank is going to be slightly difficult for a mech or mecha from either
of the other two sytems.
  While were at it, How do Leviathan ships compare to rtech and btech ships
ie. how many shivas would it take to wipe out the SDF-1 :) )
*******************************************************************************
From: tom@clipper.ingr.com (Tom Granvold)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Panzer Pranks still available?
Summary: Chaosium made Panzer Pranks
Keywords: Chaosium, Panzer Pranks
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:40:19 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Oct8.160922.13119@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
mchance@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Chance) writes:

>Is Panzer Pranks still available?  Steve Jackson Games used to put it
>out.  Great fun - "World War II the way it actually was - in the
>movies!"  The only wargame I know of with required sound effects and
>rules for ricocheting tank rounds.

    This games was made by Chaosium not Steve Jackson Games.  As far
as I know it is out of print, but you can contact Chaosium and ask
if they have any left in stock, probably they won't.  Their address
is:

    Chaosium Inc.
    950-A 56th Street
    Oakland, CA 94608

Tom Granvold
------------------------------------------------------
Mail:    2400 Geng Rd., Palo Alto, Calif., 94303
Email:   tom@clipper.ingr.com
------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.board