jeffh@brl-sem.ARPA (the Shadow) (08/30/85)
OH BOY !!!!!
a pristine newsgroup just waiting for me jump in and dirty
the waters!
WHEEEEEE !! <splash>
this is sort of like walking into a new house that was built
just for you. all empty and ready to have the corners filled
in with interesting stuff.
ah well, enough celebrating. it's time for some serious game-
oriented discussion. so i guess i'll start this off with a few
open-ended discussion type questions:
1) What are the relative merits of political interaction games
vs. conventional war games?
I tend to prefer the political games because they usually pro-
vide better opportunities for multi-player games. I almost in-
variably prefer a 4-6 player game when I can find one. This is
not always possible, of course, and that is when i really appre-
ciate some of the better designed two-player games.
They also seem to allow for more strategic flexibility (i.e.
there is no definite opening strategy that will assure victory).
Some of my favorites of this type are:
Civilization (Avalon Hill):
Long and moderately complex, but very playable once you
get used to it. The game is played at several different
levels: territory aquisition, trading, cultural growth.
I highly recommend it.
Illuminati (Steve Jackson Games):
I reviewed this recently in net.games, so I'll just say
that it is great for anyone with a slightly warped sense
of humor and a cynical mind. Fast and playable.
Diplomacy seems like it might be good game for that sort of thing,
but I haven't played it yet. I will be starting one soon on the
net, though.
2) How does one go about getting other people interested in "war
games?" (using the term in its generic sense.)
I have some friends who like cards (pinochle and spades, mostly)
whom I would like to introduce to war gaming. I am going to try
springing Nuclear War on them sometime soon. Then, if they like
that, I might try a more conventional board game. Unfortunately,
most of my games are somewhat unconventional. Does anybody have
any suggestions for a good next step?
3) Not really a question at all:
I have great difficulty understanding the current computer game
craze. I don't just play games for the strategic challenge, but
for the human interaction, as well. Some my gaming friends have
been my best friends, on and off the board. I sometimes worry
about a society that is so willing to abandon human society to
interact with a computer. Anybody else feel this way? Anybody
think I'm all wet?
Oh well, that's enough philosophising for now. Nice to "see"
you all here. Y'all come back now, hear?
"Do not throw cigarette butts in the urinals ...
... for they are subtle and quick to anger"
the Shadow
ARPA: <jeffh@brl>
UUCP: {seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!jeffhccrdan@ucdavis.UUCP (Dan Gold) (09/01/85)
> 1) What are the relative merits of political interaction games > vs. conventional war games? > I find that there still is enough "uncharted territory" out there with regards to political-type games to make them interesting. Conventional wargames these days are mostly just rehashes of some beaten- to-death topic. For a really good multi-player political-type game, with a dash of "war" for the blood-thirsty, try "Spies." It is SIMPLE to learn (only TWO TINY pages of COMPLETE rules!) and can be easily played in an evening. For you purists out there, there are still copies of the SPI (not TSR/SPI) version with the awful purple cover available. Also, see if you can find a copy of "Empires of the Middle Ages" (I got mine right when it came out). It is kind of long but very easy and fun. > Some of my favorites of this type are: > > Civilization (Avalon Hill): > Long and moderately complex, but very playable once you > get used to it. The game is played at several different > levels: territory aquisition, trading, cultural growth. > I highly recommend it. Me too. Get the expansion set from AH to add more flavor. > > Illuminati (Steve Jackson Games): > I reviewed this recently in net.games, so I'll just say > that it is great for anyone with a slightly warped sense > of humor and a cynical mind. Fast and playable. > > > Diplomacy seems like it might be good game for that sort of thing, > but I haven't played it yet. I will be starting one soon on the > net, though. > > > 2) How does one go about getting other people interested in "war > games?" (using the term in its generic sense.) Try MB "Axis and Allies". It is really kind of fun (really!) and everyone loves the 3-D pieces. Also, "Rommel in the Desert" is supposed to be pretty good and quite easy. You might also consider the classic of classics, Risk. > > 3) Not really a question at all: > > I have great difficulty understanding the current computer game > craze. I don't just play games for the strategic challenge, but > for the human interaction, as well. Some my gaming friends have > been my best friends, on and off the board. I sometimes worry > about a society that is so willing to abandon human society to > interact with a computer. Anybody else feel this way? Anybody > think I'm all wet? > As long as humans remain unpredictable and clever they will always remain the favored opponents. Take that(!) all you jokers who read the source to "hack" and then get those awesome scores. Dan Gold ...ucbvax!ucdavis!minnie:ccrdan
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (09/03/85)
[...] Odds and Ends on topics that have come through here: Diplomacy is the ultimate in "human interaction" games. Strategy is certainly important, but it doesn't mean doodly-squat if the other players decide to gang up on you. And you can be absolutely certain that someone is going to gang up on someone in Diplomacy -- it's the only way to get ahead. You have to make an alliance with someone and cross your fingers that you don't get stabbed in the back...or that you will figure out when you're going to get stabbed and do some stabbing of your own. Diplomacy is a very frustrating game to play if you can't find any allies. Major disadvantage of Diplomacy: it is a _very_ long game. I'm told the gametesters never played a game to the end during playtesting; they played until they got tired, then waved their hands at who would likely come out on top. Machiavelli is like Diplomacy in many ways. My boss calls it "Diplomacy with the rules fixed". If you already know how Diplomacy works, you can understand Machiavelli easily by thinking of supply centres as cities inside provinces instead of provinces themselves. It's not too hard to take a province -- same principle as taking territory in Diplomacy -- but taking the province doesn't give you the city. You have to besiege the city itself once you have the surrounding territory secured, and winning the siege is quite tough. The result is that you don't lose your home base nearly as easily as in Diplomacy, and you stay in the game longer. Add to this spying and assassination (which can be done even when you're low on troops) and you have a game where you are much less at the mercy of your fellow players. Alliances are still going to make or break you, but you aren't so helpless. Civilization is a wonderful game...fairly long, like Diplomacy but you always feel as if you're accomplishing something. You can lose fairly early in the game, unfortunately -- drop behind the pack and you'll probably never catch up -- but you still have a powerful effect on the game's outcome. Nuclear War and Illuminati are also nice games. I don't know why anyone would call them "unusual", as games. Their premises are a little odd, of course, but they play very nicely. A nice game that no one has mentioned yet is Empire Builder (known as British Rails in England). The rules are trivial and easy enough for a ten year old to understand (if you want to play with your kids). You are constantly accomplishing something (a characteristic I really like in games). At the same time, it is an adult game and requires a fair amount of strategy. It's non-violent too, if that matters to anyone. (And it DOES matter sometimes. Even in these liberated times, wives and girlfriends are often turned off by war-based games, but will happily join a game of Empire Builder, Acquire, Scrabble, etc.) Speaking of which, I don't know why Acquire hasn't achieved the classic status of Monopoly and Risk. It's a game that anyone can understand, it's challenging and it's fun. What more could you ask? Someone called Supremacy the Risk of the 80's. Maybe so, but the group of people I play games with have developed several strategies which really screw things up. First of all, it's useless to play with two people -- the first person simply borrows gross amounts of money from the bank to do nuclear research, builds an appropriate number of bombs, and nukes the opponent off the map. If the first player doesn't do this, the second will. And if you agree not to do this on the first turn, you'll do it on the second...or the third... or sometime. It's such a damned successful strategy, it's hard to resist turn after turn, and you eventually give up avoiding the move. House rules are definitely necessary to prevent it, and we have yet to come up with an appropriate phrasing for such rules. This strategy will not work when you have more than one player, but in this case, there are a few other strategies that can be used in a way that gives you a vast edge over the opposition. Gross amounts of money and resources can be acquired if you and the player to your right or left agree on a systematic program of deflating and inflating the market. In this case, the pair of you can rapidly acquire enough funds to nuke everyone else, or you force the other players to pair off as well. Nasty if you're playing with an odd number of people. It also leads to really spectacular arms inflation, with consequent Mexican stand-offs. Maybe we're missing something in the rules... Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
mgibson@aero.ARPA (Michael Gibson) (09/04/85)
In article <47@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdan@ucdavis.UUCP (Dan Gold) writes: > For a really good multi-player political-type game, >with a dash of "war" for the blood-thirsty, try "Spies." It >is SIMPLE to learn (only TWO TINY pages of COMPLETE rules!) and can be >easily played in an evening. I also highly recommend "Spies." A word of warning -- the mechanics are simple to learn, but the game is very difficult to master. >> Civilization (Avalon Hill): >> I highly recommend it. > >Me too. Get the expansion set from AH to add more flavor. > I seem to be one of few people who refuse to play with the expanded trade rules. I have the extra cards but it just changes the game too much (in my opinion) from the original design. Some nations need calamaties to strike in order to be brought down to the level of the other nations. (i.e. Assyria and Italy are especially vulnerable to Civil War, and Africa can be crippled by several early famines.) Another very good multi-player game with simple mechanics is "Cradle of Civilization." (No relation to AH's Civ game.) The mapboard covers all of Eurasia and Africa -- it's a fun "hack and slash" game that also requires some advance planning and strategy to win. >> >> 2) How does one go about getting other people interested in "war >> games?" (using the term in its generic sense.) > >Try MB "Axis and Allies". It is really kind of fun (really!) and >everyone loves the 3-D pieces. > Be forewarned here: Axis & Allies takes a long time to complete, and the Russians have a hard time doing anything against Germany. "The Russian Campaign" is a good middle-complexity game that is fairly typical (i.e. similar to other 2-player boardgames). "Napoleon" from AH is unconventional but lots of fun and a good simulation too. Especially if you like Napoleonics (like I do). Finally, I can't let an article on board games go by without mentioning "Empires In Arms," definitely the best Napoleonic grand strategy game around. Good combat and supply systems make it realistic and fun to play. Mike Gibson mgibson@aerospace
electrohome@watcgl.UUCP (electrohome) (09/04/85)
I feel that the second and third questions are definitely related. If you can't *find* anyone to share your gaming fanaticism, you need a computer to play against. I was extremely happy when SSI came out with games like Operation Market Garden and Germany 1985 for the Apple since it now meant that I could play wargames without dragging an unwilling victim into the game. --- Carlo Sgro Formerly of Electrohome (electro!carlo) but my work term is over so I'm currently: ...!ihnp4!chinet!dagwood until mid-September when the U of Waterloo sees it in their hearts to make me: ...!watmath!watrose!cjsgro for the second time.
ekblaw@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA (09/04/85)
Concerning the war games aspect: Mr. Gold suggested Risk. Not a bad suggestion, but it does not really prepare a person for all the intricate aspects of wargaming. My suggestion would be to try some of the Avalon Hill games, like Kriegspiel (sp) or Richtofen's (sp) War. Both of these ae fairly easy to learn and can prepare a player for the more involved games, like Kingmaker or Wooden Ships and Iron Men. Robert A. Ekblaw, ekblaw@uiucdcs. "Every I said here is solely the opinion of myself (though I'm sure Avalon Hill loved the PR)."
jeffh@brl-sem.ARPA (the Shadow) (09/04/85)
In article <47@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdan@ucdavis.UUCP (Dan Gold) writes: > >You might also consider the classic of classics, Risk. Risk is a perenial favorite. (Funny how the games with the simplest rules seem to last the longest -- e.g. Diplomacy) We used to drag it out after we'd gotten "rules overload" from some other game (Star Fleet Battles Expansions, for example), and play for an evening. I have noticed that the games tend to fall into some definite and recognizable patterns, especially in the latter part of the game. I was wondering if anyone out there has any interesting ways of avoiding this end-game stagnation. Someone recently posted an ar- ticle about "Thermonuclear RISK" to net.games. This sounded like fun, although i have not had a chance to play it yet. We used a variant on rules for turning in cards to make things interesting: when the number of armies for a set reached 25, the next set would only bring in 4, then we would use the same progression up to 25, where it would drop again. I'm sure there are other possibilities out there. Let's hear 'em. "I saw a man once leap into a pit to see how deep it was. But no doubt you are wiser." the Shadow ARPA: <jeffh@brl> UUCP: {seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!jeffh
ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) (09/04/85)
> A nice game that no one has mentioned yet is Empire Builder (known as > British Rails in England). The rules are trivial and easy enough for > a ten year old to understand (if you want to play with your kids). You > are constantly accomplishing something (a characteristic I really like > in games). At the same time, it is an adult game and requires a fair > amount of strategy. It's non-violent too, if that matters to anyone. > (And it DOES matter sometimes. Even in these liberated times, wives and > girlfriends are often turned off by war-based games, but will happily > join a game of Empire Builder, Acquire, Scrabble, etc.) > Not sure how you meant this. But just so that no one is confused... Empire Builder is one game. British Rails is another. The first is set in the United States and Canada while the second depicts railroads in the U.K. Both are available in the United States (from Mayfair Games). -- --rick heli (... ucbvax!ucdavis!groucho!ccrrick)
keesan@bbncc5.UUCP (Morris M. Keesan) (09/05/85)
One variation we've found to work well is double-board Risk. You combine the
two sets, place the two boards next to each other, mark the country cards from
one set to identify which board the countries are on, and the connections that
normally go between the right edge of the board and the left edge connect the
two boards together, instead.
And remember: whoever owns Kamchatka at the end of the game wins.
--
Morris M. Keesan
keesan@bbn-unix.ARPA
{decvax,ihnp4,etc.}!bbncca!keesanrick@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/05/85)
In article <16323@watmath.UUCP> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes: >[...] > >Odds and Ends on topics that have come through here: > > ... > >A nice game that no one has mentioned yet is Empire Builder (known as >British Rails in England). The rules are trivial and easy enough for >a ten year old to understand (if you want to play with your kids). You >are constantly accomplishing something (a characteristic I really like >in games). At the same time, it is an adult game and requires a fair >amount of strategy. It's non-violent too, if that matters to anyone. > > Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo How does this game compare to another "train" game: Rail Baron. I've been playing it for about 7 years and, although I sometimes put it away for a couple of months, I never get tired of it. Several players (I find 4 to be best) start with home cities on a map of the USA, with many of the major rail-lines of the late 19th century marked. The object is to make it back to your home city with $200,000. You make money by travelling from (randomly determined) destination to (randomly determined) destination - the payoff depends on many factors. You may buy a single railroad when you arrive at a destination so strategy is important ("gee, should I save up to buy that nice railroad, or buy the cheap one I can afford now"). Of course, if another player rides your railroad you get a paid (a la Monopoly). I've seen several stategies for playing the game - none of which work for me, but always work for other people (sniff). Anyone got new suggestions? rides -- Rick Gillespie ARPANET: rick@ucla-locus.ARPA or (soon) rick@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: ...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick SPUDNET: ...eye%rick@russet.spud
dta@cpsc53.UUCP (Doug Anderson) (09/05/85)
> 1) What are the relative merits of political interaction games > vs. conventional war games? > > Illuminati (Steve Jackson Games): > I reviewed this recently in net.games, so I'll just say > that it is great for anyone with a slightly warped sense > of humor and a cynical mind. Fast and playable. > If you like this one try "Stellar Conquest" designed by Steve Jackson before his split with "Metagaming" I hear its been bastardized (new counters that look like death stars...etc) and put on the market by Avalon Hill. Not sure but thats what I'm told. "Stellar Conqest" is a political/economic/war game. Heavy on the economics. A "war monger" probably wont win but a accountant will be trounced....you need a little of both. GREAT GAME. (plays best with 4 players but in some tournaments I've been in we played three and 2 player games. > > 2) How does one go about getting other people interested in "war > games?" (using the term in its generic sense.) > > I have some friends who like cards (pinochle and spades, mostly) > whom I would like to introduce to war gaming. I am going to try > springing Nuclear War on them sometime soon. Then, if they like > that, I might try a more conventional board game. Unfortunately, > most of my games are somewhat unconventional. Does anybody have > any suggestions for a good next step? > How about "RISK"? kind of fun and if your any good at stratagy its a good starting point. then jump off into somthing like "Diplomacy" or "King Maker". > 3) Not really a question at all: > > I have great difficulty understanding the current computer game > craze. I don't just play games for the strategic challenge, but > for the human interaction, as well. Some my gaming friends have > been my best friends, on and off the board. I sometimes worry > about a society that is so willing to abandon human society to > interact with a computer. Anybody else feel this way? Anybody > think I'm all wet? > I agree with this 100%. I though do see a point for the computer craze. In my are the only gameing going on is D&D and that ilk. While I'm not down on D&D its just not my bag, so if I want to game its agains myself or a computer. Doug Anderson Founding Member of Bloodthirsty Unmentionable Gaming Soc.
ken@osiris.UUCP (Ken Harkness) (09/06/85)
> 1) What are the relative merits of political interaction games > vs. conventional war games? > I, like you, find political interaction games much more interesting and creative. I basically was never interested in conventional war games, but instead like playing games such as Illuminati, Junta, Cosmic Encounters (which doesn't really fit in, but is fun, and fast), Kingmaker, and Diplomacy. Forming and breaking alliances and making deals, etc, allows for greatest interaction. One does have to remember, however, (in these types of games), not to let "real and personal feelings" enter into the game. Likewise, gaming results should not affect your personal feelings about someone(s). > > 2) How does one go about getting other people interested in "war > games?" (using the term in its generic sense.) > > I have some friends who like cards (pinochle and spades, mostly) > whom I would like to introduce to war gaming. I am going to try > springing Nuclear War on them sometime soon. Then, if they like > that, I might try a more conventional board game. Unfortunately, > most of my games are somewhat unconventional. Does anybody have > any suggestions for a good next step? I think that if they are card players (I am an avid bridge player), that they will find some board games very challenging and interesting. I've never played Nuclear War. You have to judge by the person -- some people are just not interested in gaming (I think everyone should try it once just to see what they think. I have one friend who dislikes political action games because he dislikes the idea of any kind of backstabbing, etc, which is necessary). A good first step is to invite them over for a game of Risk -- see how many people get into it! > > 3) Not really a question at all: > > I have great difficulty understanding the current computer game > craze. I don't just play games for the strategic challenge, but > for the human interaction, as well. Some my gaming friends have > been my best friends, on and off the board. I sometimes worry > about a society that is so willing to abandon human society to > interact with a computer. Anybody else feel this way? Anybody > think I'm all wet? Well, I think it is a matter that some people aren't interested in the "human interaction"... witness all of the gamblers who sit at slot machines -- or blackjack -- there are other motivating factors... Just the challenge or goal or search for the unknown is enough for most people. I find that I like to play computer games in my spare time while waiting for "backups" etc... and when rogue and hack came out, I played for about 2 weeks before the inevitable.. Computer games get boring after a while... either you crack the system, or it becomes run-of-the-mill (I think that a multi-user game like empire would be much more interesting, but I have never played one. Addendum: If you haven't played it.. try junta.. it's lots of fun. (It takes place in the little south american area known as the "banana republic" and is basically a game of diplomacy with a bit of dice.) ken harkness... ken!osiris!aplvax!umcp-cs....
pritch@osu-eddie.UUCP (Norman Pritchett) (09/06/85)
My brother, a Marine captain, introduced me to a variation that I like a lot. After the attacker finishes his phase, he is allowed to move any number of armies from any number of countries to any number of countries (here's the catch, though) but at no point are you allowed to have more than 12 armies on a country, even during transit. Also, when moving distances further than one country, you must have an unbroken line of "communication" which is under your control (i.e. you can't get from Western U.S. to Kamchatka unless you control Alaska, Alberta(?)...). The second change is that the first person handing in cards gets 12 armies, but it only goes up in intervals of 2 thereafter. I can't remember if he imposed a limit thought because we usually didn't get that high. -- ----------------------------------- Norm Pritchett UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!pritch P.O. Box 3393 CSNET: pritch@ohio-state Columbus OH 43210 BITNET: TS1703 at OHSTVMA Bellnet: (614) 422-0885
dpb@cbosgd.UUCP (Dan Bidinger) (09/07/85)
would it be too much to ask as to where one would acquire such
games. I have never seen any of them before.
cbhydra!dpbjeff@utastro.UUCP (Jeff Brown the Scumbag) (09/07/85)
[munch]
On introducing new players to war board games:
We had a great deal of success playing SPI's Sniper!
(supposed to be real soldier-level combat: each counter
= one 20th Century infantryman, set in a built-up area,
one hex = 1 meter, one turn roughly 10 seconds of time)
in a multiplayer free-for-all variant called "get the goodies"
(it was suggested in MOVES magazine long ago). Basically
each of several players (we typically had 6 to 8, half or a little
more of whom would be newcomers) draws a weapon at random, puts a
quarter in the kitty and a quarter in front of him. In
the center of the board a special counter is put down
representing something like a valise full of cash or
recreational pharmacutica; players start at the board's
edge. The object is to get the goodies off the board.
If you "kill" somebody you get the quarter he has in front
of him; the one who gets the goodies wins the kitty.
The rules were "softened" a little to conform with everybody's
conceptions of how combat ought to be; Sniper!'s rules
are formidable and messier than they could be. The friendly
atmosphere, and vaguely intuitive way the game was supposed
to work, helped an awful lot.
Anyway, we had a great time many Saturday afternoons with
a mix of experienced and neophyte gamers with this. The
neophytes could gang up on the old pro's (who knew enough
not to trust each other), and the games tended to degenerate
into near-slapstick affairs as the guys who ran in and grabbed
the goodies first got pinned down by the others who set up in
nearby buildings to block access. We allowed deals, but you
had to trust the others not to shoot you in the back....
Jeff Brown the Scumbag
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!jeff
jeff@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
Astronomy Department, U. of Texas, Austinclif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (09/07/85)
> > I have great difficulty understanding the current computer game > > craze. I don't just play games for the strategic challenge, but > > for the human interaction, as well. Some my gaming friends have > > been my best friends, on and off the board. I sometimes worry > > about a society that is so willing to abandon human society to > > interact with a computer. Anybody else feel this way? Anybody > > think I'm all wet? > > > > I agree with this 100%. I though do see a point for > the computer craze. In my are the only gameing going > on is D&D and that ilk. While I'm not down on D&D its > just not my bag, so if I want to game its agains > myself or a computer. > > > > Doug Anderson > > Founding Member of Bloodthirsty > Unmentionable > Gaming > Soc. The primary reason I play games against a computer is a lack of human opponents.My gaming friends no longer play anything other than AD&D which is a real pity, because we use to have a good time playing Junta, Cosmic Encounters, King Maker, Risk etc. Occasionally, I get a chance to play Squad Leader but I believe that AH has really screwed up an excellent game by adding all of the extra rules. In defense of Computer games many can be played with two players albiet slowly and somewhat awkwardly. I have also played several computer games which are superior to any board game due to limited intelligence which only a computer is capable of keeping track of. My favorite are games by SSI which are not just translations of existing board games such as Guadacanal Campaign, Fighter Command, War in Russia, Kampfgruppe. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }
mike@rlvd.UUCP (Mike Woods) (09/10/85)
In article <394@brl-sem.ARPA> jeffh@brl-sem.ARPA (the Shadow) writes: >1) What are the relative merits of political interaction games >vs. conventional war games? > (warning: over-simplification ahead) political interation games == multi-player (solo play unlikely) conventional war games == two player (solo play probable) >Some of my favorites of this type are: > >Civilization (Avalon Hill): As an aside, does anyone know if there are differences between the Avalon Hill version and the original by Hartland Trefoil (apart from price)? >Diplomacy seems like it might be good game for that sort of thing, >but I haven't played it yet. I will be starting one soon on the >net, though. I made the mistake of admitting to be a novice in my first game of diplomacy; I was out in two years! >2) How does one go about getting other people interested in "war >games?" (using the term in its generic sense.) It's very hard. I have spent a long time trying to get my girlfriend to play and it is an uphill struggle. She is now at the level of TSR's Awful Green Things From Outer Space (and wins!) but I have found it almost impossible to introduce a serious game into her repetoire. >3) Not really a question at all: > >I have great difficulty understanding the current computer game >craze. One answer is to do with the factor I hinted at in question 1: many people have no one to play against! As there are very few good solo games around, most of the time I have to play normal games and keep changing hats. As this tends to slow the game down and as there is no input from another mind it can all get rather tedious. Computer games at least give some sort of oponent. Mike Woods. No signature: it's in the header.
db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) (09/10/85)
In article <47@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdan@ucdavis.UUCP (Dan Gold) writes: >Conventional wargames these days are mostly just rehashes of some beaten- >to-death topic. That's because these are the only topics that sell! There are plenty of topics other than the (somewhat hypothetical) Soviet invasion of Western Europe, the Battle of the Bulge, Gettysburg and Waterloo. >Also, see if you can find a copy of "Empires of the Middle >Ages" (I got mine right when it came out). It is kind of long but very >easy and fun. It also makes a superb postal game if you use a simultaneous movement system. If anybody can find a copy of this, I would be very interested in buying it. How much does it cost to send a package this size across the Atlantic? >> Civilization (Avalon Hill): >> Long and moderately complex, but very playable once you >> get used to it. The game is played at several different >> levels: territory aquisition, trading, cultural growth. >> I highly recommend it. > >Me too. Get the expansion set from AH to add more flavor. Get the expansion kit from AH if you want to ruin the game. Most people I've talked to think that the new trade cards reduce the tension in the game. They make it easier for everyone to do well at trading, and so reduce the conflicts between players. Civilization was originally published by Hartland Trefoil games in Britain. They do a few other games; I would recommend 1829 as their best (better than civilization). Like Civilisation, it doesn't use dice. It's more complex,; players buy shares in railway companies, which are run by the player with the most shares in that company. I haven't played AH's Rail Baron, but I'm told 1829 is much better. There are two British maps (North & South), and there is now an American map (for the American market, unsurprisingly). This game is definitely improved with the expansion kit containing extra track tiles for the end game. Railway Rivals is great fun for a couple of hours & 3-8 players (varying with the map used. It won the Game of the Year award in Germany, is now published by Games Workshop in Britain, I don't know about the USA. Someone asked about Pax Britannica. I've played this once, and quite enjoyed it. It's certainly a lovely game system (for example, the game ends when tensions between the European powers reach a certain point - WW1 breaks out!). I found it a bit slow-moving; very much a strategy oriented game. >> Illuminati (Steve Jackson Games): >> I reviewed this recently in net.games, so I'll just say >> that it is great for anyone with a slightly warped sense >> of humor and a cynical mind. Fast and playable. Cosmic Encounter is fun too (another game not available over here any more). The rules could be better defined, and some of the powers are ridiculously unbalanced, but I still enjoy it a lot. -- Dave Berry. CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh ...mcvax!ukc!{hwcs,kcl-cs}!cstvax!db
mike@rlvd.UUCP (Mike Woods) (09/11/85)
In article <399@brl-sem.ARPA> jeffh@brl (the Shadow) writes: >Risk is a perenial favorite. > >I have noticed that the games tend to fall into some definite and >recognizable patterns, especially in the latter part of the game. >I was wondering if anyone out there has any interesting ways of >avoiding this end-game stagnation. > the Shadow I was quite surprised to discover that Risk has such a following in the US. This leads me to ask a question, how many people have heard of WARLORD (or its later incarnation as APOCOLYPSE by Games Workshop)? WARLORD was marketted privately in Britain so all you States-side people probably missed it but I think Games Workshop sell over there. Anyway, the games is vaguely similar to RISK in that you have groups of armies that bundle each other to gain control of land that produces more armies to bundle for more land... I think that jsut about end the similarity as you get different grades of territory (cities, industrial, agricultural, mountains, wasteland and sea) which produce more or less armies per go; nicer combat which involves much less luck (attacker chooses a number on a six-sided die and places it under a cup (there are rules to restrict his choice of numbers based mainly on the number of armies he is attacking with and the terrain the defender is in) and the defender has to guess the number, if he gets it right the attacker loses that number of armies, if he gets it wrong the defender loses one army, if all the defender's armies are eliminated the attacker moves in the same number of armies as he chose on the die) and gives plenty of room for tactics; and nuclear missiles which are really the heart of the game. The rules are quite short (about 8 sheets of sparsely typed A4; probably less than RISK) but the game if much more challenging to play. If this has wet your appetite enough then I am willing to give a full review. In my book, this game deserves much more recognition. Mike (Nuke um til they stop moving) Woods. (I disclaim all responsibility for Nuclear missiles) (In fact I disclaim all responsibility!)
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (09/16/85)
In article <669@utastro.UUCP> jeff@utastro.UUCP (Jeff Brown the Scumbag) writes: >[munch] >On introducing new players to war board games: > >We had a great deal of success playing SPI's Sniper! I remember many enjoyable games of Sniper, but there's a catch: > Sniper!'s rules are formidable and messier than they could be. And that's an understatement -- the rules on windows and visibility in particular can be interpreted in at least three ways. Because of that, I think Sniper wouldn't be that good a choice for a new player. How about Conquistador, an old SPI game? It's fairly simple, and rather enjoyable. jon
ccrdan@ucdavis.UUCP (Dan Gold) (09/22/85)
> the US. This leads me to ask a question, how many people have heard > of WARLORD (or its later incarnation as APOCOLYPSE by Games > Workshop)? WARLORD was marketted privately in Britain so all you > States-side people probably missed it but I think Games Workshop > sell over there. You are correct about the the US distibutor, Games Workshop. I have played the game, Apocolypse, several times and found it quite enjoyable. > of room for tactics; and nuclear missiles which are really the heart > of the game. The rules are quite short (about 8 sheets of sparsely > typed A4; probably less than RISK) but the game if much more > challenging to play. > In the US version, little plastic nuclear missiles are supplied. As one increases the size of a missile, little "towers" start to sprout all over the world. It is fun to watch the series of chain-reaction explosions occur once the start of a chain of nearby missiles is it. The only thing that might make Risk better is that it generally, not always, takes much less time. For a real QUICK game of nuclear war, try "Nuclear War" and/or "Nuclear Escalation" by Flying Buffalo. > If this has wet your appetite enough then I am willing to give a > full review. In my book, this game deserves much more recognition. Please do so. -- Dan Gold ...ucbvax!ucdavis!minnie!ccrdan