Re: Legends / Alamaze comparison?

From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 18:10:30 +0000

koch@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (Andreas Koch):
>I am thinking about joining a fantasy PBM. From what I have heard
>thus far, Legends and Alamaze are the two leading contenders.
>Could someone please "compare and contrast" these two games?

The key differences are cost, pace, and level of detail.  Alamaze is
far simpler (in terms of game mechanics) than Legends, but it proceeds
at a headlong rate from the start.  Everything you do, from the first
move on, is of crucial significance.  You can't afford to miss a turn,
you can't afford to fail to contact many of the other players by the
second turn (probably by phone, at least initially) while the initial
alliances are being formed, every decision you make is important.  A
game takes about one year.

Legends is more leisurely.  A game will probably take two or three
years, and many players will spend the first six months of the game
just building up their positions and characters.  Diplomacy is necessary,
but there's no hurry, and it doesn't matter that much if your turn is
a week late.  The game has a lot more options, a lot more players
(two hundred, as opposed to fifteen), and a lot more detail.  (Eg, in
Alamaze, improving your fortifications requires one order -- a valuable
resource in itself -- and a requisite amount of gold.  In Legends, it
requires you to have obtained a certain amount of stone, of lumber, of
iron, a number of laborers, and a sufficiently skilled engineer.  Eg2,
in Alamaze, recruiting soldiers requires an order, a number of civilians,
and a quantity of gold.  In Legends, you also have to decide how the soldiers
will be armed, armored, and mounted -- and have the equipment on hand --
and what sort of training the soldiers will receive -- and you have to
have a trainer on hand with the appropriate abilities.)  Obviously whether
you prefer a game where you only concern yourself with essentials or one
in which you have a great deal of flexibility is a matter of taste.

All players in Alamaze play a kingdom, though different kingdoms have
different strengths.  (For instance, if you're playing the Underworld,
you'll have excellent agents, reasonable wizards, and a pathetic army,
whereas if you choose to play the Dwarves, you'll have poor agents,
pathetic wizards, an army optimized for mountain territory, and a very
good economic and diplomatic starting position.)  In Legends you can
choose to play a military/economic power or you can choose to play
characters, such as powerful wizards, thieves, or warriors.  However,
all but the simplest character positions will cost more than Alamaze.

Neither game currently accepts email turns.  Either will accept
faxed turns, but that gets expensive.  If you can't trust the mail
to get your turn in on time, don't choose Alamaze.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

'T is with our judgements as our watches, none
   Go alike, yet each believes his own
		--Alexander Pope

References

Legends / Alamaze comparison?
koch@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (Andreas Koch)
Wed, 21 Oct 1992 12:15:23 +0000

Referenced By

Legends / Alamaze comparison?
koch@eis.cs.tu-bs.de (Andreas Koch)
Wed, 21 Oct 1992 12:15:23 +0000