PBM game reviews: GSI games From: tiresias@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Doug Ingram) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 1990 22:18:29 +0000 First, a disclaimer: I have no affiliation with GSI whatsoever other than the fact that I am a player. The only benefit I might recieve from this involves the fact that anyone who joins a game and mentions my name earns me a free turn. That is not why I am posting this. I am posting this in the hope that others will be spurred to do something similar for companies they are qualified to critique. I am definitely interested in hearing about other games since I would like to join in something new. Note that if you are interested in learning more about what I've said here, feel free to contact me via email. I've played pbm games for six years with GSI, and I've played in all five of the games they offer. Here are my views of the company and each game: Game Systems, Inc., has an excellent track record with getting turns out on time. To date, they haven't failed to send out turns on the day they were due. They also offer a handy phone-in line (at a cost of an extra $3) if you can't get your turn in on time. Also, in case your turn gets lost in the mail, they will read you your results over the phone for free. They are often reluctant to do this, though, until your turn is at least five days late. Their business practices are more or less sound. There is a charge for just about everything, including new maps if you're playing the same game twice (and, like me, you've marked up your original rather than making a copy of it first) and new rulebooks. This is reasonable, too. On the whole, I'd say that GSI is an average pbm company. I haven't been overly impressed by their services, but they haven't driven me away either. The reason I stay on with them is because of the enjoyability of two of their games. Before I go into the games themselves, let me wrap up the section about GSI by saying that they also publish a monthly newsletter (sub. rates range from $10 to $15, depending upon if you get in on one of their specials) called "Whispers of the Wood" which includes articles, personals from games (which you may send in for free if they're <40 words, $2 per 40 words after that), and game news. IMHO, it's not really worth it unless you post personals (and read those of others) all the time. Of course, game winners get a years free subsciption. Also, article submitters get free turns in their games, which is nice. Overall, here is how I would rate the company as a whole: Dependability: 9 Personal Service: 7 Magazine: 5 Games Offered: Varies Price: Varies depending on the game. GSI offers individual games indicated in the table below: Game $/Turn Set-Up$ Cplxity Exctmnt Overall Game ---- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------------ Dawn of the Ancients $3.00 $10.00 5 3 3 Earthwood $4.25 $10.00 7 6 6 Sea Kings $4.25 $10.00 7 6 6 Venom $4.75 $15.00 8 4 4 State of War $5.00 $15.00 10 8 9 Before going into a game-by-game analysis, there are some general things to be said about all of the games. In the set-up cost is included a map, a rulebook and two free turns. Current player set-ups do not include the map or rulebook (which can be bought separately), but they only are half of the indicated cost above. The turn-around times for all games is two weeks. There are some three-week games being started, but I understand (from the newsletter) that they are having trouble filling these games. The costs of the turns are, of course, nowhere near the costs of processing, but I think they are mostly reasonable and allow GSI to make meager profits. They only upped their prices last year by about 50 cents a game after holding out for five years at the previous level. Of course, you also have to pay an extra 25 cents for the stamp on your turnsheet envelope (provided with the turn) which can be tacked on. Dawn of the Ancients: -------------------- This game is set in Europe & the Mediterranean. Its premise is "what would have happened if many of the early Civilizations had started developing simultaneously?" There are twelve players on the map representing for example the Greeks, Macedonians, Gauls, Britons, Carthaginians, Romans, Persians, etc. Each player starts with five armies and a home city (marked on the map for all to see). The object of the game depends upon the type of game you want to play. If you choose at the beginning to be Barbaric, then your combat costs per turn (measured in Activity Points, of which you may spend exactly 100, no more or less, each turn) are cheaper. On the other hand, you can go for an economic victory (this is far easier) by choosing a republic, whose colony building costs are cheap. The middle road is the Empire, which is generally the best choice (it is the one I won with). The game moves at an excruciatingly slow pace, IMHO, but it is good for beginners, no doubt the intended audience. There just aren't enough AP's to spend per turn to liven things up. You can keep track of the current standings because they are published on the turnsheet. This makes it pretty dangerous to be in first place. Really, it is very easy to win economically as opposed to militarily, so I see no real reason why anyone would want to play Barbaric to begin with, although I'm sure some would anyway. Overall, I judge this game to be not worth playing unless you want a really slow and simple game. Of course, with 12 players there will be some Diplomacy, but usually not too much. There were only three major battles in the game I was in, and I imagine this is only a little bit below average. Of course, there is a computer controlled superpower, Atlantis, which can keep you busy, but there is really no reason to provoke it unless you have a death wish. Earthwood & Sea Kings: --------------------- Though I really enjoy playing this game, I rated it a 6 because of some of the incongruities in the rules and the vast disparity between the two different types of players. Both of these games differ only in the maps (and very slightly in the movement rules) and the names of the players and NPCs on the board. The game has 25 players (16 Player Races [PRs] and 9 Player Characters [PCs]) to start with. Though the PRs start off with more stuff (troops and a city while the PCs only get a small number of NPCs), they are at a huge disadvantage to the PCs which are played competently. The object of the game is to take control of all 35 cities on the map, but the game really doesn't take as long as it seems it might, especially if there is a strong alliance on the board. Now, a little bit about the mechanics. The game is set in a fantasy world (a 38 x 36 grid map) with lots of different terrain. Since the map is imprecise, you often cannot tell the terrain type simply by looking at the map. Often, to find things out, you must experiment, and this was one of the joys of the game for me: gathering information. Since the terrain map, city characteristics, and troop/NPC strengths don't change between games, veteran info hoarders have somewhat of an advantage unless you can find a generous one who will trade data for goodwill or a city. Combat works fine and realistically makes defending a city much less costly than attacking one. There are other elements like spies that add to the fun. As I said, it is an all-around good game as long as you're not dealt a sour hand (read: Player Race). The main problem with this game that made me leave (besides the PR vs. PC disparity) was the fact that I often had to make my own excitement in the game. There is too much incentive to simply sit on one's gains while letting other players fight it out and weaken themselves. Too many players like to do nothing until late in the game when they can go around squashing the guys who fought early (I confess, I'm one of them because it is a winning strategy every time). Until the game mechanics change to encourage fighting, I cannot guarantee that you will have as much fun playing this game as I have. I had fun with it for two years, but it isn't for everyone. Venom: ----- I felt that this game was just an exercise in pointless complexity. I only played for four turns before deciding it wasn't for me, so I may not be as qualified as others to comment (I've won a game of each of the other four games GSI offers, making my total record with them something like 4-1-2 where the 2 represents games I dropped out of due to boredom only, not a bad position). Anyway, the premise of this game is that a bunch (20) of demigods are hovering around this huge (34 x 51 grid, I think) map trying to gain power of each other by fighting directly and recruiting worshippers to fight holy wars. That's a sound premise in my book, and at first, the game sounded interesting despite its steep cost. Once I started playing, though, I found that the rulebook was inadequate to explain the game. There are just too many different things to do and far too much going on and not enough time to do it all in the game. Of course, that helps make this a fast-paced game for those who understand and take advantage of the rules, but too often, many of the players drop out after a short while. I was one of them. One other thing I didn't like is that it is much too hard to take someone else out of the game. Even if you reduce Joe Blow down to utter ruination, that just makes him that much more powerful against you if you drop your guard one turn and let him cast a "revenge wish" on you. The game mechanics offer nice things like these to the players who are down and out so that, if it weren't for the game cost, I imagine everyone would be encouraged to stay in the game forever, preventing the truly good players from ever rising to prominence. To me, the "revenge wish" and other such rules are just contrived ways to get bad players to keep pouring money into the game to needlessly prolong it. Not that GSI came up with the rules with this in mind, but it is a result of the rules, all intentions aside. To explain the many other problems with this game, I'd have to dig up the rulebook again, and that's something I just don't feel like doing. State of War: ------------- It should be pretty obvious by the above table that I'm partial to this game. The premise is that the Federal government of the U.S. has collapsed after a series of global disasters, leaving the states to more or less fend for themselves while the still-present Feds try to assert their authority as their power diminishes. At first, this game's complexity scared me off, but I have since taken a second look at the game and decided that I love it for many reasons. First is the undeniably fast pace. Sit still for a couple of turns, especially near the beginning of the game, and you will find yourself OUT more often than not. If you don't "make your own excitement," you're probably going to lose. Note that I say "probably." An undeniable fact in this game is that the player on the offensive has a tremendous advantage simply due to the way the rules work. Diplomacy is this game is fast and furious, and it is pretty easy to run up a big long distance bill if you're not good about writing letters. Second is the flexibility one is given. There are many options to pursue, much like in Venom, only the difference is that the complexity is justified here. There is also a "point" to the game. There are several ways to win, and it's not an "all or nothing" type game like Venom. You can follow a strategy of sitting on your gains and defending them, but there is no real incentive to do so here. Third is the premise. It is much like a good box wargame, only it is much more complex. Be ready to spend at least two hours on your later turns to get the best plan together. You must be able to plan ahead and plan well in this game to succeed. If you play efficiently and skillfully, no matter which of several strategies you try, you're bound to come up a winner. This, more than anything, attracts me to the game. A little bit about the game mechanics: You start with five army commands and get an extra one every fifth turn until you have ten. Each command may search other states for their capitols (the key hex which establishes control of a state), recruit & train a new army, or lay garrisons about in order to find structures (like Arsenals or Think Tanks, which improve your army's ability). You can also build factories to produce war material at a steep cost (but it is automatic and only costs you in maintenance fee, which is a nice feature about them once they are built). You can take over other states by spending money to increase your Public Relations (PR) with the populace of that state, or you can use your army to make them come over to your side the hard way. The ability to create spy teams adds another dimension to the skullduggery as they can steal money and do espionage work. Of course, the Feds are present, mostly on the East Coast, and have nearly unbeatable armies and large garrisons scattered about. The garrisons guard valuable structures like nuclear missile silos (which you must perform scientific research at a Think Tank in order to have a chance of using correctly), mints, or the space center (from which you may launch satellites to fight or gather info). A nice feature of the game is that you can choose to start anywhere on the map and face a different challenge in each of the three regions. On the East coast, you must deal with a meddling Federal government, and you are often placed in close quarters with your neighbors since the states are so small. The East is a vicious place through much of the game. In the West, you must deal with large states which make it difficult to locate anyone's capitol with any kind of speed. There are also mountainous regions on each coast which add an extra dimension to the strategy. As expected, the Midwest is the middle road and often a very popular choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's about all the game-by-game analysis that any of us can stomach. These are all rough outlines of the games in question, and I am certainly not the only person qualified to discuss them. I welcome alternative views. I'm sure that I haven't done a completely fair job on any of the games, but my main hope was to give you a general overview of what these games are like, not to go into the descriptions in gory detail, which would take too much time. As I said earlier, if anyone wants further info on this, feel free to contact me. I look forward to reading similar articles by others on other companies. I think it would be a good trend in this newsgroup. I hope this has been mildly enjoyable and very helpful. By the way, if anyone out there is in SoW #65, contact me NOW!! :) Doug Ingram tiresias@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu dougi@astro.as.utexas.edu #include std.disclaimer.h #include funny.sig.file.h Up