HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu (Bruce Carter)
Subject: BattleTech game/tools for Macintosh?
Organization: Boise State University - CBI Product Development
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:15:40 GMT

Greetings,

Is anyone working on anything similar for the Macintosh to the BattleTech tools
and the game that have recently been discussed here for the PC?  I would be
interested in either hearing about it, or failing that, working with the
authors of the PC tools/game on a Macintosh port.

Thanks for any information.
                                     <->
Bruce Carter, CBI Product Development                bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu
Simplot/Micron Instructional Technology Center       amccarte@idbsu (Bitnet)
Boise State University, Boise, ID  83725             (208)385-1851@phone
Newsgroups: rec.games.board,rec.games.pbm,bit.listserv.dipl-l
From: eschneid@sparc53.tamu.edu (Erich R Schneider)
Subject: Re: Star Trek III Combat Simulator
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:50:44 GMT

In article <rreed.1n0a@terapin.com> rreed@terapin.com (Rick Reed) writes:

>The big thing about STIII is that it's really a game of energy
>allocation, since there never is enough to power everything to full.
>You have to actually tactically "guesstimate" what firing arcs your
>targets are going to end up in and allocate the proper shields and
>weapons and such.  Very interesting, IMHO.  From what little I
>understand of SFB, don't the ships start out with everything at full
>capacity, and everyone just blasts away, basically degrading the ships
>and their respective systems as the game progresses?  This is in
>marked contrast to STIII indeed.

Energy allocation plays a _very_ big role in SFB. Like ST3, ships have
a certain amount of power which they must allocate among various
systems; there is never enough power to do everything one would like
to do. Also, like ST3, ships start out with all of their systems
fuctional, and as they take damage systems go out of commission. (SFB
ships tend to have many more system types than ST3 ships, which only
have engines, superstructure, weapons and shield generators (and
optional cloaking devices. As a result, SFB's damage allocation
system is slightly more complicated, but is not "directional" the way
ST3's is.)

You are probably confusing the fact that systems start out functional
and are gradually destroyed in SFB with the fact that they must be
powered in order to operate. In general, SFB and ST3 are very similar
in terms of "what goes on", except that SFB has more complexity
available.
--
Erich Schneider  eschneid@cs.tamu.edu

"The Hierophant is Disguised and Confused."
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Kryst the Philosopher)
Subject: Re: PBEM A&A gamers wanted for a game
Organization: Quitters Inc.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:22:19 GMT

891078p@ace.acadiau.ca (CARL TREVOR PERKINS)
>In article <BuK23t.566@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> erisande@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Kryst the Philosopher) writes:
>>	If there are any more PBEM A&A, I would like to join in.  I
>                              ^^^^^^^^
>                      please explain this. I am Just naturally stupid.

	Play By E-Mail Axis and Allies...  I got someone to play with
now, so this article is a bit out of date.
-- 
He waits to hear her say 'forgive',
but she just drops her pearl-black eyes
and prays to hear him say 'I love you',
but he tells no more lies.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: clarka@netcom.com (Andrew Clark)
Subject: Re: Btech/RoboTech comparison
Summary: duh!  I muffed it. 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:43:06 GMT

In article <s903609.718350723@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU> s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (ACE) writes:
>Why are people comparing two VERY different systems ? The technologies are
>inordinately different. Robotech is based on the ANIME style of combat,
>whereas BTECH is based on the realistic style ( chuckle, chuckle ), and
>never the twain shall meet ! Comparing the two systems will never give an
>accurate picture of what there like, unless you make wide-sweeping assumptions

Why not compare the two?  It's a great way to point out the weaknesses of
both game systems (and hope that some bright person out there will come up
with something better.)   

>This has already occured with the 15 second to 10 second turn difference.   
>Most writers are assuming that any BTECH weapon deserves to do 1.5 times its
>value because it fires more often. WRONG ! VERY VERY WRONG ! In Robotech, the
>weapons have Rates of Fire, ie they fire more than once, depending on the pilot
>For most mecha this will enable it to fire its MOST powerful weapon anywhere
>up to FIVE or SIX times. This invalidates MANY of the current postulated
>theories for converting stats. People who want to compare the two should at
>least TRY to be a bit more familiar with the rules of both systems. This means
>no more "I don't have any of the relevant rule books with me, but I think I'll
>just spout on like a BTECH/Robotech guru anyway." 

I have been burned.  You're absolutely right.  I forgot about the rates of
fire (which make Veritechs even more invincible, BTW.)  On the other hand,
I didn't pretend to be a guru.  Gurus have special .signatures. (-B 

>People do notice this, and
>they consider the author STUPID when they read the article. Anyway, try and
>define any RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE assumptions before further comparisons. I
>would like to see some system of comparison, although I feel that the basis
>for comparisons is none too good when the mass and power systems are so
>different between 'Mechs and mecha.

OK, you want a system of comparison.  Write one!  I was just trying to 
answer the question of "what if a Veritech fought a Stinger?"  So sue me
if I made a mistake.   

>			       ACE
>                   s903609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

-- 
clarka@netcom.com     Andrew Clark     My ignorance is my own fault.
"We have virtual reality today: George Bush lives in it." | Bad cop! 
"Macs are to computing what television is to journalism." | No donut! 
Secondary account at aclark@UCSD.EDU -- prefer mail at netcom site.
From: emullins@triton.unm.edu (Eric Mullins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A&A: Allies buy how many dice?
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:25:03 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:
  "Jonathan T. Moore" <jmci+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>What US fighter and carrier? Surely you've all seen the Pearl Harbor
>>strategy implemented? The Japanese on their first turn can bring two
>>battleships, a sub, a transport, two fighters, and a bomber to go whale
>>on the carrier, fighter, and sub.  The U.S. should get pummelled,
>>setting them back at least two or three turns, and the Japanese should
>>only lose the transport and sub (with average luck).
>
>Yes I've seen it, but I don't like it.  [etc. discussion of who gets
>                                         naval advantage deleted]

You mean you're going to waste your planes to destroy a navy which,
though big, is insignificant?  Were I the Japaneese player, I would
merly loose a couple of battleships [after sub] and laugh.

Also note that planes do not "crash" into the water should their
carrier be destroyed.  They get two movement to land with.

All this assumes the russian wasn't idiotic enough to attack Manchuria,
and the brits weren't stupid enough to attack kwangtung.  In that case,
pearl harbor should be attacked somewhat differently so as to retain
the battleships, transports, & planes to destroy all opposition in asia.

All this business with bombing is pretty ridiculous too.  There is a much
more efficient way to trash the Axis: a direct and immediate assult on
germany.  To do this, those planes which you wasted trying to kill an
already "dead" navy with can perform a much better task--like landing
on the newly built brittish carrier on the first turn and eternally holding
the sea so that troops may be brought onto the mainland immediately.

Another thing to do with planes is land them in Karaelia.  Okay, fighters,
not bombers.  Anyway, with russia totally defended, the german can't break
through barring extreme luck, and Japan who will own most of asia by the
time germany falls, will be unable to do anything with its vast resources.
-- 
   Eric Mullins			Internet: emullins@triton.unm.edu
Mars the God of War		Bitnet:   emullins@unmb.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: goudswaa@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter Goudswaard)
Subject: A&A: how much time do you have?
Keywords: A&A
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 08:11:19 GMT

Regarding Eric Mullins' guide to crushing Germany, interesting piece of work.
You know guys, I don't know *how* you can reply to these so quickly!  Hey
Dewey, I read all your responses, gawd, you're pretty active, guy!  Late
nights?  Or do you have an A&A board set up at work/school?

BTW, no one commented on the post I made about the pictures on the back
of the A&A box -- old news?  Sorry.  Must be before my time, at least
a year in this group.  But I still think it would be interesting to
find out the pre-production rules to A&A, and why they didn't work,
or what changes they made.

I've been collecting various strategies and testing them out against
each other, and finding out which are crap, and which work sometimes.
One thing I did learn quickly was that there is no single strategy
that will work everytime.  I think it's hilarious when some newbie
posts "hey, carriers for Russia wins everytime!".

I really hate being such a lurker, but I really never have time to
analyze the strategies, only collect them for later (manual) analysis
and playtesting.  So who is it who has the program that fights multiple
battles and gives odds?

-- 
 Peter Goudswaard                  _________                     _________
 goudswaa@sfu.ca                  |         |      __/^\__      |         |
 pgoudswa@cue.bc.ca               |         |      \     /      |         |
 peterg@quesnel.education.gov.bc.ca         |   _/\_\   /_/\_   |         |
                                  |         |   >           <   |         |
 "Peace through superior          |         |    >_________<    |         |
    firepower" -- ad for EP607    |_________|         |         |_________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: cwk@athena.mit.edu (Chuck Krueger)
Subject: Re: A&A PRE-PRODUCTION VERSION!!!
Keywords: A&A
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:17:10 GMT

I don't know how many people out there realize that A+A was not "invented"
by MB. About 12 years ago I played a game called Axis and Allies put out
by Nova games (I believe the same Nova that makes Ace of Aces). I later 
bought a copy for myself which I still have, although it is not quite 
complete anymore. In the Nova version (which I'm sure MB bought the rights
to) many of the unit costs were the same and the map was similar but had
a few more territories. The most major change that MB made was in the land
combat which was attack/move in the Nova game (allowing armor breakthroughs).
Another major change was in the sub operations (In the Nova version, subs 
were purely defensive, electing to take first shots if desired when enemy 
ships entered their zone -- only then could the sub be counter-attacked). Also
in the Nova game, the carriers were 1-1 (defense = 1 not 3), instead of heavy 
bombers as an available technology you could get the atom bomb -- build for 
1000 (MB $10) pts, destroys everything in one zone, and AA guns were weaker 
(getting only one shot per fly-over). Finally, income was collected at the
start of the turn so that newly captured territories did not yield income
until they were controlled for one turn. The game had cardboard counters and
a paper mapboard costing less than $20 in its day. Just a little FYI.

Chuck
From: 91vanderkolk@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: BTECH: MNA Rankings & Clan Honor
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:33:50 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

I have some questions about how MNA determins its rankings. We are running a
league and are using our own "unique" ranking formulas. Comments, ideas, and
etc are appreciated.
[(Cmbt Value Attacker-Cmbt Value Defender)/CV att+def]*Dam to def=Base Rank
Attker. (It's the same for the defender just switch things around)
+50% if objective is completedAlso if anybody can supply any info on MNA
rankings it would be helpful.

Also here are some rules we have been using for Clan Honor. With Clan honor and
the Clan at half tonnage gives us some very close battles.
1) Clan Battlemechs cannot initiate a physical attack. They can only physically
attack another battlemech if that mech has engaged the clan battlemech in
physical combta
2) A clan battlemech must declare enemy targets. This means no other clan
battlemech can fire at a delclared target. This is to be enforced at all times.
A clan battlemech can have multiple declared targets.
3) The only was to override the declared target rule is as follows: A clan
battlemech can return fire (at anytime) on any battlemech that has fired upon
the clan battlemech\


Ideas?

John
From: rreed@terapin.com (Rick Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Star Trek III Combat Simulator
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:27:31 PST
Organization: BBS

Yeah, the rules for STIII are a bit vague, but I think the rest of the system
is simple enough and fun.  The big thing about STIII is that it's really a game
of energy allocation, since there never is enough to power everything to full. 
You have to actually tactically "guesstimate" what firing arcs your targets are
going to end up in and allocate the proper shields and weapons and such.  Very
interesting, IMHO.  From what little I understand of SFB, don't the ships start
out with everything at full capacity, and everyone just blasts away, basically
degrading the ships and their respective systems as the game progresses?  This
is in marked contrast to STIII indeed.

BTW, what ship can survive the wrath of an Enterprise class's front firing arc?
 Most ships simply disappear when toasted by the 6 10 point phasers and 2 20
point photons!  Pray that shield was up!

        -Rick

rreed@terapin.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters)
Subject: Re: Auction Prices for Wargames at Gencon
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:37:30 GMT

jvv@cornerstone.com (John Van Valer) writes:

>Well, I didn't attend Gencon or Origins, but I did hear that at Origins 
>Divine Right went for $100. 
[...]
>I attended Pacificon, a small N. California con, over Labor Day at some of 
>the prices at their auction were:
[...]
>Divine Right	~$80
[...]

I imagine that these high prices for DR represent games in fairly good
condition.... Can anyone give me a clue as to what my copy is worth? It's
quite shabby - the box is breaking, the cards are a bit worn, the rulebook
is functional but that's about it (I was stupid enough to take off the 
reference pages at the back, and you can imagine what happened over the
years), and 3 or 4 counters are missing (only one important one - a Zornish
army). At least the map is in good condition. Overall rating: poor.

(Life's weird.... I usually make a point of keeping all my games looking
as new as possible. But DR is an exception; for some reason which escapes me,
I allowed it to get thrashed. And of all my old games, it seems to be the only
one that's worth anything....)

Drin
--
-----------------
Gutted - Flame NA
From: lang@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (John J. Lang)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:13:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Auction Prices for Wargames at Gencon
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.board

> Speaking of the auction, has anyone received their money and/or merchandise
> yet?

I received my check yesterday (9/30).
From: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH: Optional Rules Version 2.1
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:57:12 GMT
Reply-To: dutech@reseau.Berkeley.EDU (Groupe ELEVES)

In article <1992Sep27.223244.1220@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
> > 
> > Weapons:
> > (1) Autocannon: First, if the AC is mounted on a wheeled, tracked, or naval
> > vehicle flip the ranges of the AC/2 and AC/20, and then of the AC/5
and AC/10. 
> > Next, take 3 tons off the weight of all ACs. Finally, if the AC is
mounted on 
> > a wheeled, tracked, or naval vehicle, double the range.
> > 
> 
> 	Just when I thought it was ready to send out...
> 
> 	Delete the last line, and replace it with:
> 
> 	"After flipping the ranges for selected vehicles, add 5/10/15 hexes
> 	to the short/medium/long range of all the ACs for those vehicles."

  Well, I propose another change. Because direct fire weapons rarely
have a kilometer-long LOS/LOF anyway. My concern is more on missiles,
especially on indirect-fire LRMs. If an LRM is fired on direct-fire mode
(that is, with a LOS/LOF to the target), the rules are quite valid. But
on indirect-fire mode, the range is far too short. So I'd multiply the
ranges for indirect fire by 2 or 3. Of course, it requires a forward
observer with special "painting" ordnance or a NARC beacon.
  As long as direct-fire LRMs are concerned, just give them a 50% increa
se of all ranges.

  Another thing worries me. It is the difference beween ranges of 'Mech-
mounted weapons and those of Aerospace fighters in atmospheric mode.
Does someone has an explanation other than "it is just for the flavor of
the game" ?

  As long as 'Mech construction is concerned, an Interceptor/Centurion
set of rules could be interesting, as long as power consumption is
concerned. There is only the problem of critical spaces to include...

  Well, something to work on...

							Redwing
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1992 10:15:26 MST
From: <ICECW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject:    more stuff for sale

I have the following items for sale:
Gettysburg (AH)
UFO (AH)
Foxbat and Phantom (SPI)  some pieces missing--please inquire if interested
Metagaming Games (all mint and unpunched)
Air-Eaters Strike Back
Rommel's Panzers
Stalin's Tanks
FRP:
Stormbringer Hardback (GW) some loose pages
Dragontales (out-of-print TSR)
Temple of the Frog
some Battle-Master figures left

All offers considered!  Thanks!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: A&A 2nd Ed. Rules
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.025622.20038@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>I own the first edition of Axis and Allies from Milton Bradley.  I want a copy
>of the second edition rules, as I hear they eliminate some of the major
>blunders and misbalances in the first edition rules.  Do I need to buy the new
>game? (Rather not) Can I just call or write Milton Bradley for a free copy?
>(Desirable) Would they make me pay for it otherwise? (That'd suck.) Thanks for
>your time.

To receive the 2nd edition rules, and a 4 page insert of clarification
to those rules (a very useful thing!!), send $2.00 US (not too bad a
price) to the company.  Here's the address:


CO Department
Milton-Bradley Company
443 Shaker Road
East Longmeadow, MA 01028

If you only want the Clarifications, you could probably get them, but I
don't know the price...

Dewey

PS -- It says it will take 4-6 weeks, but it only took about 2.5 for
me....
From: snurmela@polaris.utu.fi (Sami Tapani Nurmela)
Subject: Re: Finnish Cosmic Encounter
Summary: Flaming (not Nick, just generally)
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 13:49:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.140830.10706@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> njs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (nicholas.j.sauer) writes:
>
>You might want to look for an expansion set, also.  When I spoke to
>someone at West End (back when they were doing CE) he said that sales
>of the game in Finland had been so good that they were releasing (planning
>to, that is) an expansion set there but, not in America (where sales were
>not so good).

The concept of expansion sets is unknown in Finland (with the lone exception
of MB's Hero Quest). 

What I mean is that 'board game' traditionally equals to 'family game'.
Board gaming is something that only children do (fortunately this 
has been changing after the invasion of RPG's when a few shops selling 
imported games appeared, but still the Finnish game companies seem to target
their games to children only).  So, this CE version I have has the text FAMILY
GAME on its box and I think it would be bad marketing to start producing 
additional material to some not-so-popular childrens game.  I wonder if the 
West End representative you talked to was referring to sales of their 
_English_ version of CE selling only via the few special game shops rather 
that the (poor, IMO *) sales of the Finnish (BRIO) version.

* I have never seen or heard of anybody who owns or has played 'Universumin
  Valtiaat' (with a name like that, I'm not surprised). I bought my set from
  a special sale at very low price (15 FIM, about $3 or 2 pounds, as the 
  original price was well over 100 FIM [$20-30])

Well, I apologise my rambling, but I just hate the public attitude to gaming 
here :)

/sami
From: gkatz@csws9.ic.sunysb.edu (Gerald W Katz)
Subject: Re: Players Resigning in Mid-Game...
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:10:21 GMT

In article <1OCT199217563196@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu> brandon@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Garland Operator 7-G) writes:
>What do you do if a player in Cosmic Encounter needs to leave the game in the
>middle of it (reasons due to work, getting late, someone's persistent
>girlfriend :-P, et al.)? They don't mention in the rules a way to handle this.
>
>Here is what we decided on the spur of the moment:
>
>The player resigns and all his tokens are removed from play. His tokens
>which are under "control" by another player (eg. Vampire, Fungus) remain that
>way until freed, in which case they are removed from play.
>
>The players system is still "open" to attacks directed there from the destiny
>pile, but attacks are made only at players who have a base on one of the worlds
>there. In other words, you attack another player's BASE in that system.
>If a time comes where there are no tokens on a planet in that system, the
>home system is removed from play and any future destiny flips of that color are
>ignored and the card removed from the destiny pile.
>
>The "terrorist" power automatically blows up any world in the resigning players
>home system where there are no tokens (where he may have placed a bomb) because
>noone will ever go there now. He may put a bomb onto another world for each
>one that goes off in this manner.
>
>What do you think about this? Do you think it is fair? Is there a better
>way in your opinion?
>
>Domo. Ja na.
>
>Brandon Freels (Garland Operator 7-G)
>brandon@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu  -or-  brandon@uokucsvx.bitnet
>"I'm witty naturally, I don't need quotes."

I like this except I don't think Terrorist should just get to plant new
bombs immediately.  Let his bombs in the leaving player's system go off,
but Terrorist should still only plant new bombs when all his previous
bombs have blown off.  If all he has left were in the leaving player's
system, and they blow up because they're empty, then Terrorist may plant
new bombs.  Also, the player with the Wild Pirate flare may bury a
new treasure as well as any other planet dependant affect.

Don't forget to tip the Butler!
					gkatz