[SUPREMECY] A review please.
Stephen E. Persons
I have seen the game Supremecy on the shelves recently and am somewhat
interested in purchasing it. Could someone please post or mail me a
review about the game? Thanks in advance.
Stephen E. Persons
Scott D. Orr
<bq...@freenet.buffalo.edu> writes:
>
>Hello all,
>I have seen the game Supremecy on the shelves recently and am somewhat
>interested in purchasing it. Could someone please post or mail me a
>review about the game? Thanks in advance.
>
I mean that, not only are you competing against several opponents, but
you have to deal with a lot of different variables: investing in your
military or in economics, deciding on whether to build conventional or
strategic (nuclear) forces, deciding whether to prospect for resources
or buy them on the market. And you have to deal with chance --
especially with the vicissitudes of the market.
The expansion sets, for the most part, simply add more choices, such as
new types of forces and varying levels of technology. Other expansion
sets improve the function of certain parts of the game: Warlords and
Pirates (highly recommended) arms the neutral territories, making
resources harder toget, Resource Deck Two (also highly recommended)
makes the locations of resources variable and hence harder to predict,
the Mega Map maps territories harder to capture or destroy with nukes
and hence makes surprise attacks less effective and tactics more
important (but also greatly lengthens the game, I'm told), Colonial
Legions and Merchant Marine makes large-scale conventional warfare
(which burns a lot of resources) more feasible.
Two cautions: first, this is not a pure wargame. The point of the
game is world conquest, but it's not just diplomacy and tactics -- it's
also a game of economic management. Second, it's possible for everyone
to lose, in a nuclear winter. In my experience, this has never
happened, but to keep it from happening, you have to have players who
realize that attacking another player who has the ability to end the
game for both of you is not a particular bright idea. Again, in my own
experience this has never been a problem, but apparently this concept
proves elusive for some players.
If you have any more question, please just ask, here or by email.
Scott Orr
Peter M White
>Hello all,
>I have seen the game Supremecy on the shelves recently and am somewhat
>interested in purchasing it. Could someone please post or mail me a
>review about the game? Thanks in advance.
Because I felt dissatisfied with this game, I feel I should warn you
that there are both many unhappy purchasers as well as satisfied players
of this game. If you shell out ~$50 for the basic game and play as
is, I think it is probable you will dislike it. If you spend an extra
$50-150 (I kid you not) on expansions, you will probably be able to
trim it to a game you really enjoy. Scott Orr is very knowledgeable
about the game and appears to have cooked up a good mix of house/optional
rules. If you decide to get Supremacy, he would be a great person to
correspond with about it. Just be forewarned, there are many experienced
wargamers who have spent $100+ on Supremacy and ended up feeling they
got a poor value.
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
Scott D. Orr
In <4r4bne$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> p-w...@eehpx11.cen.uiuc.edu (Peter
M White) writes:
>
>Because I felt dissatisfied with this game, I feel I should warn you
>that there are both many unhappy purchasers as well as satisfied
>players of this game. If you shell out ~$50 for the basic game and
>play as is, I think it is probable you will dislike it. If you spend
>an extra $50-150 (I kid you not) on expansions, you will probably be
>able to trim it to a game you really enjoy.
The game works fine as-is, but the ease of grabbing neutral territories
tends to reduce player conflict and glut the market. I strongly
recommend buying Warlords & Pirates (the list price is $15, but you can
get it cheaper) to rectify this, but you can get a good feel for the
game without buying it (though you might want to try the game out even
before buying the basic set). When I teach the game to new people,
or don't want a lot of complication, I play with Warlords & Pirates,
Resource Deck Two (to make things a little more random), and Tanks
(because it doesn't really add any new rules, and the little plastic
tanks are cute).
>Scott Orr is very knowledgeable
>about the game and appears to have cooked up a good mix of
>house/optional rules.
I have used house rules on only two occasions: we didn't think the
original rules for the High-tech expansions worked very well, and used
a procedure that later became the official rule; and recently, when
playing with the bonds rule in the Mega Supremacy rulebook, we changed
the rules on cashing them in slightly to prevent players from being
able to turn a profit without tying up their money.
As for "optional rules", we used a few that appeared in the Field
Marshall's Handbook, but these were for the most part just
clarifications and elaborations of the original rules (a good
example is the L-star vs. L-star rules), and they're now in the
official rules.
Of course, _most_ of the rules in the game -- both the expansions
and some of the rules in the Mega Supremeacy rulebook -- are
optional, and I have those I like and those I don't like, but AFAIK
all of them are workable, and any can be used or not used without
rendering the game unplayable.
>If you decide to get Supremacy, he would be a great person to
>correspond with about it. Just be forewarned, there are many
>experienced wargamers who have spent $100+ on Supremacy and ended up
>feeling they got a poor value.
I think that most of these people are those who really didn't
understand some of the nuances of the game -- especially the need
for using alliances and other measures to deal with the market,
the need for incorporating economic with military strategy, and the
need to realize that attacking someone who can nuke your or blow
up the world isn't a good idea. Of course, all of these things mean
it's not a game for everybody, but it is a really good game that I've
had a lot of fun with.
Scott Orr
Donovan Loucks
Stephen E. Persons <bq...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
I have seen the game Supremecy on the shelves recently and am somewhat
interested in purchasing it. Could someone please post or mail me a
review about the game? Thanks in advance.
Brian Bankler keeps the "R.G.B Favorite Games" list and last posted it on
May 15th. Voters give games ratings on a scale of 0 to 10 and once a game
receives at least 7 votes they are averaged and the game is placed on the
list. "Supremacy" is at the _very bottom_ of the list, with 8 votes which
average to a miserable score of 2.00. Scott Orr really needs to get his
list of votes in so he can bump that average up to 2.888...--which will
mean that "Supremacy" will still be at the bottom of the list.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Donovan K. Loucks Phoenix, Arizona dlo...@primenet.com |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lovecraft Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dloucks/hplpage.html |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| alt.horror.cthulhu FAQ: |
| ftp://ftp.primenet.com/users/d/dloucks/alt.horror.cthulhu |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Peter McLachlan
G'day,
I have played this game twice and both times it ended in
armageddon, even though I modified the rules the second time.
It only takes one player who is bored, reckless, or is
losing to nuke the world and end the game. The rulebook
isn't very clearly written either.
Cheers,
Peter
Scott D. Orr
In <4r7t75$6...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Donovan Loucks
<dlo...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>Brian Bankler keeps the "R.G.B Favorite Games" list and last posted it
>on May 15th. Voters give games ratings on a scale of 0 to 10 and once
>a game receives at least 7 votes they are averaged and the game is
>placed on the list. "Supremacy" is at the _very bottom_ of the list,
>with 8 votes which average to a miserable score of 2.00. Scott Orr
>really needs to get his list of votes in so he can bump that average
>up to 2.888...--which will mean that "Supremacy" will still be at the
>bottom of the list.
Given that the original poster probably has, like myself, never heard
of the list in question, you might want to provide some actual reasons
why you think the game is bad. Even if the list is known to the
original poster, he probably wants something more specific than "a lot
of people don't like it", since that doesn't really tell him WHY _he_
might like or not like it ("If everyone jumped off a bridge....").
Scott Orr
K. Malphurs
Since you asked, I'll jump in with my opinion of this much maligned game.
It's a game of global conquest and domination involving conventional
warfare, economic manipulation and planning and (of course) nuclear war.
Apparently it's not for everyone, as some people are too immature, too
caught up in the spirit of Axis and Allies (not a troll -- its a fine game
for what it is: WWII with beer and pretzels), or just not very damn good
at strategic thinking on such a grand scale to enjoy it. I would highly
reccomend it, but bear in mind when you play that your actions have
consequences and that one of those consequences could be global
destruction (and the resulting end of the game). I guess from reading
other posts here that not everyone shares my opinion that Supremacy is one
of the greatest games ever written.
Ken Malphurs
ps Warlords and Pirates is the one expansion I would reccomend you buy at
the same time as the game. . .enjoy! And if you're in Seattle and looking
for a game, drop me a line :)
Scott D. Orr
In <31D8404E...@leadbelly.lanl.gov> Peter McLachlan
<p...@leadbelly.lanl.gov> writes:
>
>G'day,
> I have played this game twice and both times it ended in
>armageddon, even though I modified the rules the second time.
>It only takes one player who is bored, reckless, or is
>losing to nuke the world and end the game.
Well, no, it takes two players: it takes one player who's willing to
end the game, and it takes another player who's willing to push that
player into pushing the button.
I am constantly amazed to hear that games end in nuclear winter: in
my opinion, only an idiot would attack someone capable of making
everyone lose; to me, this is an OBVIOUS point, one that is equally
valid in the real world of nuclear weapons, but some people just
don't seem to grasp the point that it's possible for two people to be
in a position (if only temporarily) where neither can win.
Of course, luck being what it is, sometimes people will push their
luck, and so I have on occasion seen things _almost_ end in nuclear
winter -- but the use of L-star champions (after all, _everyone_ else
has an interesting in saving the world) has always been able to
prevent this.
However, I cannot present a solution to people who want to blow up
the world and ruin everyone esle's fun just because they're bored; my
only suggestion is that you not play with babies. OTOH, it's just as
as easy to ruin ANY game this way (for example, but throwing it to
another player), but it's simply more spectacular in Supremacy; most
groups I've played games with simply don't allow this kind of
behavior.
>The rulebook isn't very clearly written either.
The original (1989) rules were simple to the point of being vague and
often requiring interpretation. However, the current (1991) rules
seem to be a direct reaction to this failing, and are highly
detailed, with directions for alomst every imaginable eventuality.
Scott Orr
Allan Goodall
Stephen E. Persons wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I have seen the game Supremecy on the shelves recently and am somewhat
> interested in purchasing it. Could someone please post or mail me a
> review about the game? Thanks in advance.
I bet you thought this was just a simple request. "Please review the game." SUPREMACY is
one of those polarized games that people either really like or completely loathe. I
happen to enjoy the game. I've played it dozens of times since I bought it (when it
first came out) and I've never had an unenjoyable game. Just remember, what you are
getting are opinions.
It's a game of superpower politics and warfare. You build armies, navies, nukes and
laser satellites in an attempt to dominate the world. There's a stock market of three
commodities: grain, oil and minerals. You need these commodities to build armies, navies
and weapons. You also need them to move and to fight with your armies and navies. You
can sell the commodities at a profit, since you need money to build your armed forces
and strategic weapons as well. You get commodities by grabbing territories that hold
these commodities. This is controlled by a deck of territory cards (called the resource
deck).
The game is fairly simple to play. It's along the same lines as Axis and Allies in
complexity. There are a large number of expansion sets (more than a dozen) that can be
purchased separately. The most important of these is WARLORDS AND PIRATES OF THE NEUTRAL
ZONES. These give the neutral countries on the board armies and navies. You can sell
weapons to the neutrals and their armies and navies stop the game from being a mad rush
to grab neutral territory ala Risk. While simple to play, the original rules were far
too vague. A FIELD MARSHALL'S HANDBOOK cleared a lot of things up but now there is a
MEGASUPREMACY RULEBOOK that compiles almost all of the rules and clears things up a
great deal. MEGASUPREMACY is an expansion of the original SUPREMACY. The MEGASUPREMACY
mat gives you a larger playing surface and introduces cities to the game.
The game is not without its warts. There are two main bones of contention. First, I've
seen a number of novice players give up because the game seemed to revolve entirely
around the stock market. It is very easy to drive the price of the stock market into the
ground during the sell phase, meaning that any players after you can't make any money by
selling commodities. Likewise, you can buy commodities in the buy phase and drive the
price sky-high for anyone that wants to buy after you. The obvious answer to this is to
form trading blocks that trade as much with each other as with the stock market. This
seems to be lost on a number of novice players who are more at home with RISK than
DIPLOMACY.
The second contentious issue is the nuclear winter rule. A disgruntled player can easily
destroy the game for everyone by dropping the "last" nuke. After so many nukes are
dropped (12 in the basic game or 13-18 using an optional rule) the world is plunged into
a nuclear winter and everyone loses. I've only ever had this happen once, and that was
by accident (someone miscounted his nukes). Some players, though, report that every game
seems to end in a nuclear holocaust. I've found that groups that have the most fun
playing the game are out not so much to win but to not lose. These groups often take
treaties, and the breaching of same, very seriously. This might have to do with the fact
that most of the people I've played it with are DIPLOMACY players.
To help with a nuclear winter result, we came up with a Martian Archeologist rule. After
the Earth is turned into a frigid desert, we rate the players as though an alien
archeologist had landed on Earth and was trying to figure out what happened. The player
who dropped the last nuke is the overall loser (after all, it was HIS weapon that
destroyed the world). If he fired his weapon off as a counterattack to an attack by
someone else, that attacker comes in second last. Every other player is then ranked by
the game's Field Marshall ranking. With this rule, it is possible for a player who built
no nukes and was eliminated early in the game to be the overall winner (his nation is
looked upon more favourably by the Martian Archaeologist).
Well, I hope this helps. As you can tell, I like the game. Others detest it. If you have
any follow-up questions, just e-mail me.
--
Allan Goodall, Sales and Marketing Systems, Kodak Canada, Inc.
INTERNET: WORK: all...@kodak.com HOME: agoo...@sympatico.ca
VOICE: (416) 766-8233 ext 35473 FAX: (416) 760-4597
Visit the Kodak Web site at: http://www.kodak.com
Chris S. Giroux
I agree that the game can be enjoyable ... especially if the other players
play to win and not solely to ensure mutual destruction. A coalition of
players can usually prevent a hell-bent
power from causing mass-devastation.
Often the game turns into a satisfying chess-like exchange in far corners
of the globe as
players jockey for strategic positions in a resource rich area.
The game is effective in simulating the resource-drain of a prolonged
conflict. However,
my opinion is that the system of company cards which must be prospected to
yield resources
is ridiculous. It is frustrating to randomly discover resources in a far
corner of the globe
and have an opponent stumble upon your find and sieze it.
The market price index is unrealistic -- but it can be 'fun' and allows
major power-shifts
in the game.
This game requires effort to learn, but is unique and offers some new
challenges.
Chris
Donovan Loucks
Scott D. Orr <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Given that the original poster probably has, like myself, never heard
of the list in question, you might want to provide some actual reasons
why you think the game is bad. Even if the list is known to the
original poster, he probably wants something more specific than "a lot
of people don't like it", since that doesn't really tell him WHY _he_
might like or not like it ("If everyone jumped off a bridge....").
I'm surprised you haven't heard of Brian's list, which he posts here about
once a month or so (or, at least, whenever he gets new votes). Search for
a posting with the subject of "R.G.B Game List Voting, July 1st, 1996" and
you should find it. As to my comments regarding "Supremacy", I was just
ribbing you about being one of the few proponents of it here on r.g.b. I
purchased a copy years ago and have to say that it's a very attractive
game with rules that seem to be perfectly well-written and understandable.
But, I've never played it and am always dissuaded from doing so by
numerous people here. One day I'll try it--I promise!
Scott D. Orr
In <4rnnu6$8...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Donovan Loucks
<dlo...@primenet.com> writes:
>
>As to my comments regarding "Supremacy", I was just ribbing you about
>being one of the few proponents of it here on r.g.b.
And you're one of the few opponents (in fact, in this particular round
of posts, you've been the only opponent, versus four or five
proponents). I guess we're even, huh?
Scott Orr
Derek
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>And you're one of the few opponents (in fact, in this particular round
>of posts, you've been the only opponent
No, Scott, the rest of us are just getting too tired to post dissenting
opinions any more. We seem to cover the same ground over and over & it
gets pretty boring after a while...
Derek.
-----
dho...@csir.co.za
No opinions. Just facts.
http://www.cs.wits.ac.za/faq/sf/sfsafaq.html
"One warp core breach can really ruin your day."
Eric Roush
In article <4rqevt$n...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za>, Derek
<dho...@csir.co.za> wrote:
> sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
> >And you're one of the few opponents (in fact, in this particular round
> >of posts, you've been the only opponent
> <snip>
>
> No, Scott, the rest of us are just getting too tired to post dissenting
> opinions any more. We seem to cover the same ground over and over & it
> gets pretty boring after a while...
Agreed. FWIW, my experiences with Supremecy have been singularily
unsatisfying. Everyone made money, no one was ever in a position
to actually do something. Adding the Warlords expansion just provided
a different way to make money (i.e. selling nukes to the Third World
instead of jacking off the commodities market).
--
Eric Roush Phil Niekro for the HOF!
edr...@acpub.duke.edu (Net and Real!)
also coa...@aol.com Send your net ballot to vi...@baseball.org
------------------------------------------------------
Maddux/Glavine in 1996! It's Time for a Change-Up!
Scott D. Orr
In <4rqevt$n...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
writes:
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>>And you're one of the few opponents (in fact, in this particular
>>round of posts, you've been the only opponent
><snip>
>
>No, Scott, the rest of us are just getting too tired to post
>dissenting opinions any more. We seem to cover the same ground over
>and over & it gets pretty boring after a while...
Well, that's two of you. If you want to convince people though (to
warn them of their impending damnation, no doubt), you ought to
present some reasons why you don't like the game -- "Everybody knows it
sucks" is not, in itself, a reason.
Scott Orr
Eric Remy
In article <4rsusq$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>In <4rqevt$n...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
>writes:
>>
>>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>>>And you're one of the few opponents (in fact, in this particular
>>>round of posts, you've been the only opponent
>><snip>
>>
>>No, Scott, the rest of us are just getting too tired to post
>>dissenting opinions any more. We seem to cover the same ground over
>>and over & it gets pretty boring after a while...
>
>Well, that's two of you. If you want to convince people though (to
>warn them of their impending damnation, no doubt), you ought to
>present some reasons why you don't like the game -- "Everybody knows it
>sucks" is not, in itself, a reason.
We have, many times. It does get old, especially when you get told by the
folks who love Supremacy not to intrude on discussions of it when newbies
ask "Why isn't this game fun?"
My biggest complaint is with the publishers. Basically, the game is
unplayable as sold[1]- for $50+, I want a playable game[3]. I'm not
willing to keep throwing money to buy new rulebooks and expansion sets.
If I wanted to throw money around, I'd play Magic. If I wanted an
expandable game, I'd buy ASL- at least the game _works_ when you first buy
it
[1] No good way to stop the turn 3 "I'm badly losing[2] already and don't
want to sit here for eight hours waiting for someone else to win, so I'll
just buy 20+ nukes and blow up the world." [4]
[2] I.e., "I didn't manage to roll well on the initial commodity sales rolls."
[3] It's not like the flaws aren't obvious- I found a lot of them within
ten minutes of setting the game up and playing a few turns solo.
[4] "Don't play with people who spoil the game" isn't a valid answer- the
tactic is explicitly there, so why is it bad to use it? The only half
decent solution is the money pool idea, but even this doesn't work well
since the losing guy isn't going to see the money anyway. I'd rather play
poker.
[5] This footnote left intentionally [6] blank
[6] Almost
>
>Scott Orr
--
Eric R. edr...@chem1.usc.edu
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason", Fisheye, _Snow Crash_
If you think that I speak for USC, see your doctor now.
Allan Goodall
Eric Remy wrote:
>
> [1] No good way to stop the turn 3 "I'm badly losing[2] already and don't
> want to sit here for eight hours waiting for someone else to win, so I'll
> just buy 20+ nukes and blow up the world." [4]
Well, you do have a point. It is difficult, with the original rules to stop someone from
"blowing up the world" if they are losing. You're statement IS a bit of an exaggeration
as a player can't HAVE more than 12 nukes unless they've captured the territory of
another player (in which case they are hardly losing). And since we play with at least
six players each time, cartels are a MUST and no one is ever that bad off by turn 3.
We've never played a game where one player built a nuke without another player building
an L-star. The next turn the player can build up to 12 nukes, the other player builds 6
L-stars. It now becomes difficult for that player to successful drop all 12 nukes in a
turn. If he's that far gone that early in the game, then he probably hasn't enough
money/minerals to build a second set of 12 nukes. The L-Star player just builds his 6
extra L-stars on the following turn anyway, and a new dynamic equilibrium is
established.
The people I've talked to suggest that nuclear winter is the biggest sticking point. In
cases where games often end in nuclear winter the players justifiably feel that the game
sucks. Our group doesn't feel that way since we've adopted a "united front" tactic to
stop all out nuclear winter. We've never had a nuclear winter in any of our games, even
with the original rules (the later rules DO make it much harder).
I agree, though, that the game is MUCH MORE playable with the later expansion sets and
optional rules.
> [2] I.e., "I didn't manage to roll well on the initial commodity sales rolls."
Hmm. That WAS a problem in the original rules, wasn't it? It's been a while since I've
played it with just the original rules (i.e. about 9 years).
> [4] "Don't play with people who spoil the game" isn't a valid answer- the
> tactic is explicitly there, so why is it bad to use it?
Quite true.
> The only half
> decent solution is the money pool idea, but even this doesn't work well
> since the losing guy isn't going to see the money anyway.
Well, I disagree with this. We've never had a nuclear winter and we've always used
tactics to stop it. It came close once, but we avoided it by paying off the guy
threatening nuclear winter and the game continued (he ended up being jumped near the end
of the game and came third, but it saved the game).
You don't like the game. That's cool. There are plenty of other games out there.
Scott D. Orr
In <edremy-0907...@nnrp.usc.edu> edr...@chem1.usc.edu (Eric
Remy) writes:
>
>In article <4rsusq$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>
>>In <4rqevt$n...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
>>writes:
>>>No, Scott, the rest of us are just getting too tired to post
>>>dissenting opinions any more. We seem to cover the same ground over
>>>and over & it gets pretty boring after a while...
>>
>>Well, that's two of you. If you want to convince people though (to
>>warn them of their impending damnation, no doubt), you ought to
>>present some reasons why you don't like the game -- "Everybody knows
>>it sucks" is not, in itself, a reason.
>
>We have, many times. It does get old, especially when you get told by
>the folks who love Supremacy not to intrude on discussions of it when
>newbies ask "Why isn't this game fun?"
No, you haven't. What you've done is to repeat, over and over, you
initial objections: the game always ends in nuclear war, and the
market is broken. What you've never done is to address the responses
to those objections, namely that only an idiot would attack someone
capable of destroying the world, and that (despite the fact that it
was always possible to deal with the market through proper tactics)
the market rules have been changed. In short, you're like a customer
who complains to AT&T about your local phone service, years after the
break-up of AT&T.
When one of you is willing to play with the new rules, and with a
working grasp of Mutually Assured Destruction theory, _then_ you'll be
able to say with some justification that the game sucks. But for now,
you're just lashing out at non-existent phantoms.
>My biggest complaint is with the publishers. Basically, the game is
>unplayable as sold[1]- for $50+, I want a playable game[3].
Though I prefer to play the game with expansions, I have played it
without them, even under the original rules. Supremacy is playable as
sold, particularly (though not necessarily) with the new market rules.
Of course, the game still requires you to act intelligently in your own
interests and not attack people who can blow up the world. You are
smart enough to handle that, aren't you?
>[1] No good way to stop the turn 3 "I'm badly losing [2] already and
>don't want to sit here for eight hours waiting for someone else to
>win...
Don't let someone who's capable of destroying the world think the's
losing badly. Don't attack him; befriend him; bribe him if you have
to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
Mind you, yesterday someone objected because the players just sat
around making money and never attacked each other -- so now we're to
believe, on the one hand, that the game is too violent, and on the
other, that it's not violent enough.
>...so I'll just buy 20+ nukes and blow up the world." [4]
You can't buy 20+ nukes in Supremacy, and you never could. Your
criticisms of the game would be considerably more convincing if you
knew the rules.
>[2] I.e., "I didn't manage to roll well on the initial commodity sales
>rolls."
Again, this was _somewhat_ true under the old rules (but could easily
be changed by using cartels), but it's not at all true of the current
rules. Please, read the rules if you're going to criticize the game.
>[3] It's not like the flaws aren't obvious- I found a lot of them
>within ten minutes of setting the game up and playing a few turns
>solo.
The solutions to these "flaws" (or rather, "problems in the environment
that must be addressed by the players) are equally obvious, but I
suppose some players like to be spoon-fed.
>[4] "Don't play with people who spoil the game" isn't a valid answer-
>the tactic is explicitly there, so why is it bad to use it? The only
>half decent solution is the money pool idea, but even this doesn't
>work well since the losing guy isn't going to see the money anyway.
>I'd rather play poker.
How about, "Don't play with people who don't want to win" and "Don't
provoke someone who can blow up the world" as advice? I do think that
"Don't play with people who spoil the game" is good advice, but it
applies to any game (even two-player games), not just Supremacy.
Again, when you're willing to address some of the responses that have
repeatedly been made to the above points, we can have an actual
discussion; but as long as you just repeat your original points, and
attempt to wish away the responses, that's hard.
Scott Orr
Eric Remy
In article <31E2D0...@kodak.com>, Allan Goodall <all...@kodak.com> wrote:
>Eric Remy wrote:
>>
>> [1] No good way to stop the turn 3 "I'm badly losing[2] already and don't
>> want to sit here for eight hours waiting for someone else to win, so I'll
>> just buy 20+ nukes and blow up the world." [4]
>
>Well, you do have a point. It is difficult, with the original rules to
stop someone from
>"blowing up the world" if they are losing. You're statement IS a bit of
an exaggeration
>as a player can't HAVE more than 12 nukes unless they've captured the
territory of
>another player (in which case they are hardly losing). And since we play
with at least
>six players each time, cartels are a MUST and no one is ever that bad off
by turn 3.
Whoops, forgot the rule on only twelve nukes.
>
>We've never played a game where one player built a nuke without another
player building
>an L-star. The next turn the player can build up to 12 nukes, the other
player builds 6
>L-stars. It now becomes difficult for that player to successful drop all
12 nukes in a
>turn. If he's that far gone that early in the game, then he probably
hasn't enough
>money/minerals to build a second set of 12 nukes. The L-Star player just
builds his 6
>extra L-stars on the following turn anyway, and a new dynamic equilibrium is
>established.
IIRC, the rules say that you have to develop L-stars a turn after nukes,
and you can build only one the first possible turn they're available,
similar to the way nukes are developed. Thus, turn three you have the
loser with twelve nukes and everyone else with only one L-star each.
L-star champion doesn't have good enough luck in general to stop the board
from being nearly killed- the next turn it's finished off with one or two
lucky shots
>
>The people I've talked to suggest that nuclear winter is the biggest
sticking point. In
>cases where games often end in nuclear winter the players justifiably
feel that the game
>sucks. Our group doesn't feel that way since we've adopted a "united
front" tactic to
>stop all out nuclear winter. We've never had a nuclear winter in any of
our games, even
>with the original rules (the later rules DO make it much harder).
I've got the original. We never had a game go to completion, although we
did have some drunken fun with it. (One guy went into max hock to buy
nothing but L-stars since we had a couple nuke happy idiots, then
proceeded to try and rent his L-stars to the highest bidder, usually one
of the nuke idiots. Amazingly, he lived for a turn or two before going
bankrupt.)
>
>I agree, though, that the game is MUCH MORE playable with the later
expansion sets and
>optional rules.
>
>> [2] I.e., "I didn't manage to roll well on the initial commodity sales
rolls."
>
>Hmm. That WAS a problem in the original rules, wasn't it? It's been a
while since I've
>played it with just the original rules (i.e. about 9 years).
We changed the rules quite a bit in this section to get the game even off
teh ground.
>
>You don't like the game. That's cool. There are plenty of other games out
there.
Actually, I really wanted to like this game: I love large scale strategy
games. The "It's broken but we'll ship it anyway then charge for the
fixes" bit is what really cheeses me off. If I really wanted that, I'd
buy from Microsoft.
>--
>Allan Goodall, Sales and Marketing Systems, Kodak Canada, Inc.
--
Eric Remy
In article <4runnj$m...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>In <edremy-0907...@nnrp.usc.edu> edr...@chem1.usc.edu (Eric
>Remy) writes:
>>
>>In article <4rsusq$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>>
>>We have, many times. It does get old, especially when you get told by
>>the folks who love Supremacy not to intrude on discussions of it when
>>newbies ask "Why isn't this game fun?"
>
>No, you haven't. What you've done is to repeat, over and over, you
>initial objections: the game always ends in nuclear war, and the
>market is broken.
Actually, I've stated many times that my _real_ objection is to the
Magic-like way that the publishers of Supremacy try to extort money from
you. I object to paying more money to fix problems that should have been
fixed from the start.
What you've never done is to address the responses
>to those objections, namely that only an idiot would attack someone
>capable of destroying the world, and that (despite the fact that it
>was always possible to deal with the market through proper tactics)
>the market rules have been changed. In short, you're like a customer
>who complains to AT&T about your local phone service, years after the
>break-up of AT&T.
Who said anything about attacking someone who could blow up the world?
They always attack first. Why shouldn't they?
As far as complaining, I tend to have a long memory about companies that
ship broken items then expect me to pay them money to fix those problems.
Ask me why I don't own any Microsoft stuff or Sierra-On Line games.
>
>When one of you is willing to play with the new rules, and with a
>working grasp of Mutually Assured Destruction theory, _then_ you'll be
>able to say with some justification that the game sucks. But for now,
>you're just lashing out at non-existent phantoms.
Where do I get a (free) copy of those new rules? Why did the game ship
broken in the first place?
MAD works fine when your life is at stake. When the only thing at stake
is a game, it doesn't. This is the same reason that penny-ante poker is
easier to play than high stakes- there's no reason to bluff, since you
can't stare someone down.
>
>>My biggest complaint is with the publishers. Basically, the game is
>>unplayable as sold[1]- for $50+, I want a playable game[3].
>
>Though I prefer to play the game with expansions, I have played it
>without them, even under the original rules. Supremacy is playable as
>sold, particularly (though not necessarily) with the new market rules.
>Of course, the game still requires you to act intelligently in your own
>interests and not attack people who can blow up the world. You are
>smart enough to handle that, aren't you?
I don't attack them- they attack as soon as they're losing. That's in
their best interests.
>
>>[1] No good way to stop the turn 3 "I'm badly losing [2] already and
>>don't want to sit here for eight hours waiting for someone else to
>>win...
>
>Don't let someone who's capable of destroying the world think the's
>losing badly. Don't attack him; befriend him; bribe him if you have
>to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
>
>Mind you, yesterday someone objected because the players just sat
>around making money and never attacked each other -- so now we're to
>believe, on the one hand, that the game is too violent, and on the
>other, that it's not violent enough.
>
Actually, a minor complaint of mine is that conventional warfare is far
too hard and nuclear far too easy. This is a personal preference however,
I can see where the game designer may have intended this.
>>...so I'll just buy 20+ nukes and blow up the world." [4]
>
>You can't buy 20+ nukes in Supremacy, and you never could. Your
>criticisms of the game would be considerably more convincing if you
>knew the rules.
I've already commented that this was an oversight: I haven't played the
game in several years.
>
>>[2] I.e., "I didn't manage to roll well on the initial commodity sales
>>rolls."
>
>Again, this was _somewhat_ true under the old rules (but could easily
>be changed by using cartels), but it's not at all true of the current
>rules. Please, read the rules if you're going to criticize the game.
>
Cartels can help reduce the luck factor, but not eliminate it. Our quick
fix of this problem was to allow only buy/sell of one commodity, and if
you got to first in one you couldn't go first again that turn. This
helped a lot, but a cartel of three could still get lucky on turn one.
>>[3] It's not like the flaws aren't obvious- I found a lot of them
>>within ten minutes of setting the game up and playing a few turns
>>solo.
>
>The solutions to these "flaws" (or rather, "problems in the environment
>that must be addressed by the players) are equally obvious, but I
>suppose some players like to be spoon-fed.
Why are there "problems in the environment that must be addressed by the
players" at all? Lots of other, more complex games ship with working
rules.
Some of the solutions are kind of obvious, but others aren't.
I'm willing to tinker with a game to fix some problems, but the
universal answer in the Supremacy world is "Buy the new rulebook and the
following five expansions and all will be better". <Cliche> Once bitten,
twice shy. </Cliche>
>
>>[4] "Don't play with people who spoil the game" isn't a valid answer-
>>the tactic is explicitly there, so why is it bad to use it? The only
>>half decent solution is the money pool idea, but even this doesn't
>>work well since the losing guy isn't going to see the money anyway.
>>I'd rather play poker.
>
>How about, "Don't play with people who don't want to win" and "Don't
>provoke someone who can blow up the world" as advice? I do think that
>"Don't play with people who spoil the game" is good advice, but it
>applies to any game (even two-player games), not just Supremacy.
Ah, but they do want to win. Since they don't have a chance early in the
game, it's better to kill everyone and try again in a new game.
>
>Again, when you're willing to address some of the responses that have
>repeatedly been made to the above points, we can have an actual
>discussion; but as long as you just repeat your original points, and
>attempt to wish away the responses, that's hard.
The nuclear war problem seems to be the sticking point. Your group
doesn't have games end in nuclear winter. Mine did- every game until we
stopped bothering and went to play Civ and 18xx games instead. Saying that
we're not playing right doesn't cut it- the tactic is there and we're
willing to use it. I have a strong suspicion that other anti-Supremacy
posters have the same experience.
>
>Scott Orr
Derek
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>
>When one of you is willing to play with the new rules, and with a
>working grasp of Mutually Assured Destruction theory, _then_ you'll be
>able to say with some justification that the game sucks. But for now,
>you're just lashing out at non-existent phantoms.
>
OK, Scott, I'll bite - can I please get a copy of the "new" rules & I
will persuade my new games group that this is the game they have been
looking for all their life (or as close as it gets, anyhow) and we'll
give it a whirl. I will then have a followup with *their* feelings about
the game [I promise not to bias them either way beforehand].
Yours in anticipation,
Derek.
PS I trying not to be too cynical here ;-> I have spent money on the game
(and some of the expansions) because its the kind of game I *would* like
to play (having many fond memories of Risk) and I *want* it to work.
So,....
Raymond Pfaff
In article <4runnj$m...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>In <edremy-0907...@nnrp.usc.edu> edr...@chem1.usc.edu (Eric
>Remy) writes:
>>
>>In article <4rsusq$5...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>>
>>>In <4rqevt$n...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
>>>writes:
>
>>>>No, Scott, the rest of us are just getting too tired to post
>>>>dissenting opinions any more. We seem to cover the same ground over
>>>>and over & it gets pretty boring after a while...
>>>
>No, you haven't. What you've done is to repeat, over and over, you
>initial objections: the game always ends in nuclear war, and the
>market is broken.
not that good either). The market rules are broke, so we made up a rule
that doesn't generate the wild swings in the market (roll a die, take 1/2
(rounded down) and that's how far the market can move).
Maybe because we made this change, we've *never* had a nuclear winter.
No one's ever had the bread to buy 12 nukes in a tur and supply a
reasonable army. Anyone that starts to use nukes gets rapidly attacked by
everyone else so they never have a chance to cause a nuclear winter. In
fact, in most cases 2-3 nukes successfully go off in a game.
The major complaint I have is the time it takes to play and we've "sort of"
fixed this by allowing 5 minutes to make a move at each impulse and by
picking initiative chits at the begining of the turn
Scott D. Orr
>nukes, and you can build only one the first possible turn they're
>available, similar to the way nukes are developed.
Nope, they don't. You can start researching both at the same time:
in the old rules, on turn 2; in the new rules on turn 1. Personally,
I always research L-stars first, if I'm forced to choose.
>Thus, turn three you have the loser with twelve nukes and everyone
>else with only one L-star each. L-star champion doesn't have good
>enough luck in general to stop the board from being nearly killed- the
>next turn it's finished off with one or two lucky shots
You've missed one crucial variable here: the guy with 12 nukes is
not going to use them unless he has a _reason_ to -- i.e., unless he
think he has no chance of winning. Your job is to keep him from
thinking he's got that reason (and it's not a really hard job, to be
honest, but some people don't even bother).
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
In <edremy-0907...@nnrp.usc.edu> edr...@chem1.usc.edu (Eric
Remy) writes:
>
>In article <4runnj$m...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>
>Actually, I've stated many times that my _real_ objection is to the
>Magic-like way that the publishers of Supremacy try to extort money
>from you. I object to paying more money to fix problems that should
>have been fixed from the start.
The original "fixes" -- using proper tactics such as cartels and not
provoking people who can bring on nuclear winter -- were absolutely
free. The new rules are indeed better, but they're just that -- new
rules -- and they're included, for free, in the basic set. Supremacy
is by no means the only game to improve its rules, but thankfully you
don't have to re-buy the whole game to get them (at worst, you can
pay $10 for the new rules booklet), unlike many other games that have
undergone revision.
>>What you've never done is to address the responses
>>to those objections, namely that only an idiot would attack someone
>>capable of destroying the world, and that (despite the fact that it
>>was always possible to deal with the market through proper tactics)
>>the market rules have been changed. In short, you're like a customer
>>who complains to AT&T about your local phone service, years after the
>>break-up of AT&T.
>
>Who said anything about attacking someone who could blow up the world?
>They always attack first. Why shouldn't they?
Because they want to win? I honestly can't conceive of someone blowing
up the world, just for the hell of it, when that person still has a
chance of winning, unless the person doesn't care about the game at
all. And if the person doesn't care at all, he'll be quite capable of
ruining any game (for example, but turning over all his possessions to
one person and thereby throwing hte game to the winner of his
choosing), not just Supremacy. Sorry, but this is a non-point on your
part.
>
>As far as complaining, I tend to have a long memory about companies
>that ship broken items then expect me to pay them money to fix those
>problems.
Me too. And in all probability, clarifications of the rules should
have been released as errata or a FAQ (and probably would have been
today) rather than as part of the Field Marshall's Handbook. But
I never bought the Handbook (it had one key clarification, on space
battles, and some good Q&A, but not too much to remember), and I
was able to play the game. Supremacy isn't exactly like Star Fleet
Battles in this regard.
>>When one of you is willing to play with the new rules, and with a
>>working grasp of Mutually Assured Destruction theory, _then_ you'll
>>be able to say with some justification that the game sucks. But for
>>now, you're just lashing out at non-existent phantoms.
>Where do I get a (free) copy of those new rules?
Well, I summarized the only significant rules changes in a post a few
days ago. And Supremacy Games might be willing to give you a copy of
the new rules -- why don't you ask them?
>Why did the game ship broken in the first place?
It didn't. I like the new rules better, but it worked fine in the
first place.
>MAD works fine when your life is at stake.
No, MAD works when you can demonstrate to your potential opponent
that attacking you will prevent him from achieving any of his goals.
>When the only thing at stake is a game, it doesn't.
Well, no, not unless the other players actually want to win the game.
But if they don't want to win the game, I admit I can't understand why
they'd be playing.
>This is the same reason that penny-ante poker is
>easier to play than high stakes- there's no reason to bluff, since you
>can't stare someone down.
If you still want to win, there's plenty of reason to bluff in penny-
ante poker: a person on the losing end of a bluff loses. He may not
lose as much as with real money, but if he wants to win the game,
losing is a non-fulfillment of his goals.
>>>My biggest complaint is with the publishers. Basically, the game is
>>>unplayable as sold[1]- for $50+, I want a playable game[3].
>>
>>Though I prefer to play the game with expansions, I have played it
>>without them, even under the original rules. Supremacy is playable
>>as sold, particularly (though not necessarily) with the new market
>>rules. Of course, the game still requires you to act intelligently in
>>your own interests and not attack people who can blow up the world.
>>You are smart enough to handle that, aren't you?
>
>I don't attack them- they attack as soon as they're losing. That's in
>their best interests.
No, it's in their best interests to blackmail you into giving them
something for not blowing up the world. It's in your best interests
either to give in to the blackmail or to render them unable to destroy
the world (by building L-stars, for example). If, because of sheer
stupidity or stubbornness, the two of you can't reach some sort of
accomodation, then you're both poor players.
>>>[1] No good way to stop the turn 3 "I'm badly losing [2] already and
>>>don't want to sit here for eight hours waiting for someone else to
>>>win...
>>
>>Don't let someone who's capable of destroying the world think the's
>>losing badly. Don't attack him; befriend him; bribe him if you have
>>to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
>>
>>Mind you, yesterday someone objected because the players just sat
>>around making money and never attacked each other -- so now we're to
>>believe, on the one hand, that the game is too violent, and on the
>>other, that it's not violent enough.
>
>Actually, a minor complaint of mine is that conventional warfare is
>far too hard and nuclear far too easy.
Well, yes, real life is like that. OTOH, conventional warfare is quite
workable, but you have to have strategic superiority over your opponent
in order to make it work. If you prefer to ahve more conventional
warfare, you _can_ use expansions (such as High-tech Edge for
Conventional Forces and Colonial Legions and Merchant Marine) that
encourage it, but conventional warfare happens even without these
expansions, and even with the expansions, strategic forces still
dominate the game (as they should).
>This is a personal preference however,
>I can see where the game designer may have intended this.
Right -- and if it's not your cup of tea, fine.
>>>[2] I.e., "I didn't manage to roll well on the initial commodity
>>>sales rolls."
>>
>>Again, this was _somewhat_ true under the old rules (but could easily
>>be changed by using cartels), but it's not at all true of the current
>>rules. Please, read the rules if you're going to criticize the game.
>
>Cartels can help reduce the luck factor, but not eliminate it.
Well, no. If you eliminated the luck factor, it wouldn't be much of a
game: if you don't want luck, take out the dice in combat, too. But
luck is a part of the game (as it's a part of reality), and dealing
with the market (with its luck) is as important a part of the strategy
as conduction combat (with _its_ luck).
>Our quick fix of this problem was to allow only buy/sell of one
>commodity, and if you got to first in one you couldn't go first again
>that turn. This helped a lot, but a cartel of three could still get
>lucky on turn one.
Of course. That's why the other cartel must develop strategies to deal
with such contingencies; it's not like it's an insurmountable problem.
>>>[3] It's not like the flaws aren't obvious- I found a lot of them
>>>within ten minutes of setting the game up and playing a few turns
>>>solo.
>>
>>The solutions to these "flaws" (or rather, "problems in the
>>environment that must be addressed by the players) are equally
>>obvious, but I suppose some players like to be spoon-fed.
>
>Why are there "problems in the environment that must be addressed by
>the players" at all?
BECAUSE THAT'S THE POINT OF THE GAME!!! This isn't Risk or Axis &
Allies; it's not just a game of conquest. It's a game of comprehensive
strategy, economic and political as well as military. Taking the
economic problems out of Supremacy would be like taking the combat
effects charts out of ASL -- it would be silly.
>Lots of other, more complex games ship with working rules.
As did Supremacy. Unfortunately, the company was unable to ship it
with working players -- you have to provide your own.
>Some of the solutions are kind of obvious, but others aren't.
Well, I'll admit that the idea of cartels was introduced to me by
more experience players the first time I played the game, but I'm
afraid that, nonetheless, I think the solutions are pretty obvious --
indeed, I _still_ have trouble understanding how a group of players
can let someone else cause a nuclear winter, when it's so easy to
prevent this from happening.
>>>[4] "Don't play with people who spoil the game" isn't a valid
>>>answer-the tactic is explicitly there, so why is it bad to use it?
>>>The only half decent solution is the money pool idea, but even this
>>>doesn't work well since the losing guy isn't going to see the money
>>>anyway. I'd rather play poker.
>>
>>How about, "Don't play with people who don't want to win" and "Don't
>>provoke someone who can blow up the world" as advice? I do think
>>that "Don't play with people who spoil the game" is good advice, but
>>it applies to any game (even two-player games), not just Supremacy.
>
>Ah, but they do want to win. Since they don't have a chance early in
>the game, it's better to kill everyone and try again in a new game.
Yes, exactly. That's why you can't allow them to believe they don't
have a chance. This requires "diplomacy".
>>Again, when you're willing to address some of the responses that have
>>repeatedly been made to the above points, we can have an actual
>>discussion; but as long as you just repeat your original points, and
>>attempt to wish away the responses, that's hard.
>
>The nuclear war problem seems to be the sticking point. Your group
>doesn't have games end in nuclear winter. Mine did- every game until
>we stopped bothering and went to play Civ and 18xx games instead.
>Saying that we're not playing right doesn't cut it- the tactic is
>there and we're willing to use it.
The problem is, you're not willing (or whatever) to use the tactics
that are available to prevent nuclear winter from happening. Again, if
you go out and actually try these tactics, then you've got some right
to talk, but otherwise you're just telling the world that you haven't
been using competent tactics.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
NOTE: I do not appreciate responding to the same message twice. If
you cc a copy of a post to me, fine -- but tell me you're doing it; my
mailer doesn't display all of the header information, and so unless you
do tell me, I won't know that you've done so. Thanks, SDO.
In <4s02hm$p...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
writes:
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>OK, Scott, I'll bite - can I please get a copy of the "new" rules & I
>will persuade my new games group that this is the game they have been
>looking for all their life (or as close as it gets, anyhow) and we'll
>give it a whirl. I will then have a followup with *their* feelings
>about the game [I promise not to bias them either way beforehand].
>
You should be able to get the 3.0 rules for $10 or less in a lot of
places; the most important new rule is that you can only buy or sell
one commodity before passing to the next player; another is that you
can no longer conduct an amphibious invasion from a dark blue ocean.
Also, the rules on space battles (L-stars vs. L-stars) have been
clarified (along the lines first seen in the Field Marshall's
Handbook). Anyway, let me know if I can be of help.
>PS I trying not to be too cynical here ;-> I have spent money on the
>game (and some of the expansions) because its the kind of game I
>*would* like to play (having many fond memories of Risk) and I *want*
>it to work. So,....
Well, if you play it like Risk, it's not going to work. You have to
get the idea that there will be times when you _cannot_ attack people.
And you certainly can't allow someone with a lot of nukes to think he
has no chance of winning, unless the other people have the L-stars to
neutralize his nukes (note that this will often require player
cooperation -- in the pursuit of mutual interest). When faced with
such a situation, you have to wait and try to alter the balance of
forces somehow, and THEN take action.
If want a game of straight conquest, like Risk, then you probably still
won't enjoy the game, but perhaps you will.
Good luck,
Scott Orr
Ove Zakrisson
Hello.
Diving into this debate, I wanted to share my (tiny) experience with the
game:
I have played this game twice. Both times there were an arms race for
nukes, the guy who got enough nukes built first, placed 11 of them ASAP,
mostly bombing enemy neutral resources. Thus if anyone wanted to retaliate
with nukes everyone would loose. The first game the money for this was
achieved by taking a loan for the max amount and then defaulting on the
payback. The other time was through gross market manipulation, buying all
resources in such quantities that the prices topped up (even buying more
resources than they could hold), then selling for a huge profit, dropping
the prices to the bottom.
If one player managed to get the jackpot (lots of money and lots of
resources) he was quite unstoppable, and since he probably was the one to
put out 11 nukes in short order, he was quite immune to nukes too.
We gave up on the game after those two gaming sessions.
Ove Zakrisson dat9...@mds.mdh.se
Nicholas Sauer
In article: <Dtrzw...@freenet.buffalo.edu> "Stephen E. Persons" <bq...@freenet.buffalo.edu> writes:
>
>Hello all,
>I have seen the game Supremecy on the shelves recently and am somewhat
>interested in purchasing it. Could someone please post or mail me a
>review about the game? Thanks in advance.
I would strongly recommend against buying it. Here is my review.
Supremacy is one of those games I really wanted to like. It is a game of
global level superpower politics. This is a subject that seems to be of
high interest to all the gamers I speak with as well as myself. When a
game that does a good job simulating this topic comes along I'll let
everyone know because Supremacy is not it.
I will note that my review is based upon the rules found in both the
first and second editions of the basic game alone. There are many
expansions and revised rulebooks that are suppossed to fix some of the
problems I address below. The problem is this errata is not handed out
for free and, as such, I believe in reviewing a game based only upon what
is available to a person who buys just the basic set. With a hefty $55
price tag for the basic Supremacy game, I don't feel this is all that unfair
a restriction.
The first thing you'll notice about the game is that the components are
gorgeous. This is where most of the work seems to have gone into the game.
To this day, I still use the pieces to playtest other game designs I or my
friends come up with. Unfortuantely, you have to look at the rules next
and, this is where the game begins to fall apart.
My overall complaint with the game as a simulation is the level of naivety
of the rules. To cover the economic system first. You are playing a super
power. How do your companies work? You pay them to have them operate. I
can deal with this as, I would assume you are all playing dictatorships (or
governments without a free market economic system). So, your companies now
produce all these goods (they come in three flavors of grain, oil and
minerals). Who do you sell them to? As a superpower you would guess other
superpowers. While that option does exist, you primarily sell to this thing
called the market. What is the market? You got me. One of the friends I
played with jokingly refered to it as selling to the UFOs. I was willing to
buy that you were selling to extradimensional people as well. I guess,
ultimately, you could argue that the market represents all the third world
buyers out there but, it is a poor system to simulate this. The reason I
say this is that the market is so volatile that you can end up not paying
for your companies (these things are like megacorps, too) on some turns just
to be able to buy from the substantially cheaper market. Could you imagine
shutting down a company the size of Exxon for a year because foreign oil
prices are so much cheaper that you would rather buy from outside.
How you get new companies is kind of hopeless as well. You prospect for them
(I swear to god I'm not making this up). On your turn, you can prospect for
resources. This involves you digging through a deck of companies in third
world countries until you find the particular resource you are looking for.
If it is a country that happens to be occupied by another superpower, guess
what? You lose that company to that superpower unless you take the country
away from that player first. I like to think of this as the "Saddam Hussein"
method of global corporate management.
As far as combat goes, things get worse. The problem here is not in the
actual simulation of combat but, in the lack of simulation of political
repercussions for it. Conventional warfare, while substantially cheaper
to perform is very slow compaired to just building a much more expensive
strategic arsenal with a very rapid and overwhelmingly destructive response
time. This is fine as it at least parallels real world military development
and execution. As I stated above, the problem is lack of real world parallels
for retribution against someone using a nuclear barage (given the level of
destruction caused by a nuke, they have to represent entire missle sorties
as oppossed to one bomb). Even the Soviet Union at the height of its power
could not get away with dropping a single nuke (let alone a whole bunch) on
a third world country. In Supremacy, no problem. As long as none of the
other superpowers have a problem with it (or even if only just one does)
you can get away with such a stunt. This may simulate politics somewhere
(like Orwell's 1984) but, not in the world I live in. As a simualtion of
MAD it only barely scratches the surface. I like political games (I tend to
collect and play them) and I would argue that Diplomacy is a better political
simulation than Supremacy.
The other big problem I have with the strategic arsenals ease of construction
and use in the game lie in the victory conditions themselves. If they allowed
for player agreed upon mutual wins there wouldn't be a problem. However, they
don't, so there will always be only one possible winner. The net result, in
a competitive group, is that it is too easy to force a draw by firing off your
nuclear arsenal and causing the nuclear winter rules to engage. In a nuclear
winter all players lose, thus, forcing a draw. At this point I should note
that the Supremacy fans will say all players losing isin't a draw. My
dictionary defines a draw as: "To end or leave (a contest) tied or undecided".
Since the arguement is that all players losing isin't a draw I would assume
they have dictionaries different than mine.
There are some things I'm willing to let slide for purposes of a playable
game like the fact that there is a unified Europe, Africa and South America
before anyone developes atomic weapons but, a lot of the stuff above is just
inexcusable in my book. If you are going to spend a large amount of money
on a game then I am going to expect even more out of it. As Supremacy stands
with the basic game, I would have been upset to pay any amount of money for
it.
I really wanted to like this game. It was frustrating enough to Derek
Hohls and myself that we actually went and created a whole new set of rules
for the game a number of years back. We actually managed to keep within our
design parameters of not forcing any new component purchases for the new
rules as well. Derek was suppossed to have posted it to rec.games.design
but, I don't think he ever did due to a bit of disillusionment on both of
our parts. We gave up at the alpha stage of the rules because all the
Supremacy fans claimed the game wasn't broken in the first place. That
kind of took the wind out of our collective sails.
Nick Sauer
Nicholas Sauer
In article: <4runnj$m...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>
>Don't let someone who's capable of destroying the world think the's
>losing badly. Don't attack him; befriend him; bribe him if you have
>to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
It also doesn't take rocket science for the person who is losing badly
to look at the victory conditions and realize that only an unreasonable
amount of money will buy him victory. How much money are you willing to
give someone to "placate" him into not throwing the game into a nuclear
winter. I know for me (if I were losing) the answer would be something
close to every cent you have. Even then it might not be enough because I
despise being put in the position of kingmaker for any game. Sorry, but
in my gaming groups it is virtually impossible to bribe someone to maintain
a losing position in a game.
Nick Sauer
Scott D. Orr
In <Pine.SOL.3.94.96071...@legolas.mdh.se> Ove
Did any of the rest of you consider L-stars? As you yourself pointed
out, the tactic you related does not require hitting the "jackpot", but
only a willingness to put yourself into debt. Likewise, L-stars can
be built using the same tactic.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
In <4s3kvi$m...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer)
writes:
>
>In article: <4runnj$m...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>>
>>Don't let someone who's capable of destroying the world think the's
>>losing badly. Don't attack him; befriend him; bribe him if you have
>>to. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
>
>It also doesn't take rocket science for the person who is losing badly
>to look at the victory conditions and realize that only an
>unreasonable amount of money will buy him victory. How much money are
>you willing to give someone to "placate" him into not throwing the
>game into a nuclear winter.
As much as he wants. Personally, I'll give him whatever he asks for,
then kill him within the next two turns once I've shiftted the
strategic balance. Of course, he can't demand _too_ much, especially
if his ability to blow you up is uncertain, because otherwise he's
just shifting roles, putting _you_ in the position of being the person
who has no chance of winning and the ability to blow up the world. But
it may very well be the case that, by threatening to blow up the world,
that person may be able to put himself in a postion where he has a good
chance to win -- that's pretty much the idea.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
In <4s3kb4$m...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer)
writes:
>
>In article: <Dtrzw...@freenet.buffalo.edu> "Stephen E. Persons"
<bq...@freenet.buffalo.edu> writes:
>>
>I will note that my review is based upon the rules found in both the
>first and second editions of the basic game alone. There are many
>expansions and revised rulebooks that are suppossed to fix some of the
>problems I address below. The problem is this errata is not handed
>out for free and, as such, I believe in reviewing a game based only
>upon what is available to a person who buys just the basic set.
With the exception of the Field Marshall's Handbook (which is now out-
of-date), there is no errata of any sort included in any of the
Supremacy expansions. (I have found one or two mistakes in the Mega
Supremacy rules, but they're minor.)
The expansions make the game work differently, in most cases better,
and certainly in a more complexed and nuanced way, but they are not
necesary to play the game.
>My overall complaint with the game as a simulation is the level of
>naivety of the rules. To cover the economic system first. You are
>playing a super power. How do your companies work? You pay them to
>have them operate. I can deal with this as, I would assume you are
>all playing dictatorships (or governments without a free market
>economic system). So, your companies now produce all these goods
>(they come in three flavors of grain, oil and minerals). Who do you
>sell them to? As a superpower you would guess other superpowers.
You sell them to the neutral countries, or to private buyers. In
_real_ life, most goods are bought and sold privately, not by govern-
ments, and are thereafter put to non-military uses, effectively
disappearing from the system. Supremacy reflects that (if abstractly)
in the market mechanism.
>I guess, ultimately, you could argue that the market represents all
>the third world buyers out there but, it is a poor system to simulate
>this. The reason I say this is that the market is so volatile that
>you can end up not paying for your companies (these things are like
>megacorps, too) on some turns just to be able to buy from the
>substantially cheaper market.
In the _real_ world, companies go out of business quite often, and the
average life of a corporation is only a few years -- even "mega corps"
tend to die eventually.
>Could you imagine shutting down a company the size of Exxon for a year
>because foreign oil prices are so much cheaper that you would rather
>buy from outside.
No, but then "Exxon" would be represented in Supremacy as a number of
oil companies in various countries. And I can assure you that Exxon
can and does shut down certain costly oilfields when the market price
drops below the cost of production for those fields.
>How you get new companies is kind of hopeless as well. You prospect
>for them (I swear to god I'm not making this up). On your turn, you
>can prospect for resources. This involves you digging through a deck
>of companies in third world countries until you find the particular
>resource you are looking for.
Well, yes, just as in the real world, if you want new sources of
resources, you have to find them. The other option is to have God
come down and hand you geological maps on stone tablets, which isn't
a very workable plan.
>If it is a country that happens to be occupied by another superpower,
>guess what? You lose that company to that superpower unless you take
>the country away from that player first.
No, that's not how the rules work. If your prospecting turns up a
company in a territory occupied by another player, you simlpy return
the card to the deck, it being rather hard to extract resources on
another player's territory. However, yes, when another player invades
a territory he gets any of your companies there: after all, these are
natural resources, not off-shore bank acconts, and you can't move oil
wells, mines, or grain fields.
I think you misunderstand what a "company" is in Supremacy -- it
refers not to a legal entity but to source of raw materials. It's
just called a "company" (and given a name) for flavor.
>As far as combat goes, things get worse. The problem here is not in
>the actual simulation of combat but, in the lack of simulation of
>political repercussions for it.
Well, if you do it you'll wreck your economy and the other players will
immediately find you threatening. True, there's no "domestic politics"
in the game, but it would be kind of silly to have domestic politics in
a game of world conquest, since real-world populations tend to be more
interested in things like eating than in conquest. It's a simulation
of a realpolitik world, not the real world per se, but it's fun (and
challenging) for what it is.
>Conventional warfare, while substantially cheaper
>to perform is very slow compaired to just building a much more
>expensive strategic arsenal with a very rapid and overwhelmingly
>destructive response time. This is fine as it at least parallels real
>world military development and execution.
Yes, but you can't capture territory solely by using strategic weapons,
and the only real reason to start a war in Supremacy is to capture
territory.
>As I stated above, the problem is lack of real world parallels
>for retribution against someone using a nuclear barage (given the
>level of destruction caused by a nuke, they have to represent entire
>missle sorties as oppossed to one bomb).
Yes, that's true.
>Even the Soviet Union at the height of its power could not get away
>with dropping a single nuke (let alone a whole bunch) on a third world
>country. In Supremacy, no problem. As long as none of the
>other superpowers have a problem with it (or even if only just one
>does) you can get away with such a stunt. This may simulate politics
>somewhere (like Orwell's 1984) but, not in the world I live in.
You're right -- the economic and military aspects are pretty much
simulations of the real world, if abstract ones. However, the game
assumes a realpolitik world (each state is a unitary actor, with no
internal dissent, and hence politics, in the domestic sense, don't
matter). It's not realistic, but OTOH a game of world conquest
wouldn't work otherwise.
>As a simualtion of MAD it only barely scratches the surface.
MAD works great in the game -- you nuke someone else, and he'll nuke
you.
>I like political games (I tend to collect and play them) and I would
>argue that Diplomacy is a better political simulation than Supremacy.
But Diplomacy, like Supremacy, doesn't simulate domestic politics
AT ALL -- you can change alliance willy-nilly with absolutely no
repercussions. Both games are built on exactly the same realpolitik
assumptions, and hence neither is realistic. OTOH, the key advantage
that Supremacy has over Diplomacy is that hte other aspects of the
game (the economic and military) _are_ fairly realistic, and include
the very realistic factor of chance, which Diplomacy glaringly lacks.
>
>The other big problem I have with the strategic arsenals ease of
>construction and use in the game lie in the victory conditions
>themselves. If they allowed for player agreed upon mutual wins there
>wouldn't be a problem. However, they don't, so there will always be
>only one possible winner.
So play with a house rule that you can have a joint win -- we always
used to do this when game ran on too long and he had to stop. Whatever
floats your boat.
>The net result, in a competitive group, is that it is too easy to
>force a draw by firing off your nuclear arsenal and causing the
>nuclear winter rules to engage. In a nuclear winter all players lose,
>thus, forcing a draw.
Well, the solution to this, once you're down to those last few players,
is not to jump on one another until you can shift the balance so that
your victim can't blow up the world.
Scott Orr
Ove Zakrisson
Yes, we did. However, as far as I recall, L-stars are harder to research
and much more expensive to construct than nukes. The player(s) who wanted
to place 11 nukes just built lots and placed the nukes until 11 was
*succesfully* placed, some of them were shot down by L-stars, but he had
more than enough nukes.
Retaliation were confusing, too. We may have played it wrong by the rules
but: South Africa nuked West Europe, as a retaliation WE nuked... USA. How
logical.
Ove Zakrisson dat9...@mds.mdh.se
Scott D. Orr
In <Pine.SOL.3.94.960712...@legolas.mdh.se> Ove
Zakrisson <dat9...@mds.mdh.se> writes:
>
>On 11 Jul 1996, Scott D. Orr wrote:
>
>> Did any of the rest of you consider L-stars? As you yourself
>> pointed out, the tactic you related does not require hitting the
>> "jackpot", but only a willingness to put yourself into debt.
>> Likewise, L-stars can be built using the same tactic.
>>
>research and much more expensive to construct than nukes.
Sort of. They're twice as costly, and research costs on average
slight more than 50% more (because there are only 2 L-stars cards in
the basic deck, as opposed to 3 nukes). However, L-stars, unlike
nukes, are reusable, and that's where you get your real cost savings.
Also, there's the D6 rocket failure roll (which used to be optional,
but is now standard), which means that about 1/6 of nukes won't even
get off the ground.
>The player(s) who wanted to place 11 nukes just built lots and placed
>the nukes until 11 was *succesfully* placed, some of them were shot
>down by L-stars, but he had more than enough nukes.
Honestly I can't see how that would happen, if you have even two
players building L-stars to stop him; with two players, you can
build as many L-stars as he can build nukes, and your L-stars are
reusable, while his nukes have to be rebuilt.
What's really critical is that is he can only build as many nukes (12)
as you can build L-stars, and if two players build L-stars, that's
24 to use against him (though half or even all of them will only get
the 1-4 Champion roll, depending on the target, that's more than enough
to stop him -- especially given that any nuke that "leaks" past one
L-star can be engaged by as many others as it takes to shoot it down).
And of course, while he's rebuilding his nukes (and you've still got
your L-stars), you build your own nukes or conventional forces and then
take him out before he can complete his little scheme.
I'm really at a loss for why you were having so much trouble, or were
you misinterpreting the rules somehow?
>Retaliation were confusing, too. We may have played it wrong by the
>rules but: South Africa nuked West Europe, as a retaliation WE
>nuked... USA. How logical.
You're right, this is allowable under the original rules, but it's not
completely silly, since you could be attacking your attacker's ally,
who had helped him indirectly. However, because this rule could be
easily abused, by launching a token attack against your _own_ ally,
thus bringing him into the fight, this has been changed, and you can
now attack only the player who attacked you.
Scott Orr
Shadow
Derek <dho...@csir.co.za> writes:
>OK, Scott, I'll bite - can I please get a copy of the "new" rules & I
>will persuade my new games group that this is the game they have been
>looking for all their life (or as close as it gets, anyhow) and we'll
>give it a whirl. I will then have a followup with *their* feelings about
>the game [I promise not to bias them either way beforehand].
The rules, (I believe they are version 3.0) are available seperate from the game
at your local game store. (I think it costs $7-8) and have a few modifications
on the basic game.(sell stage, and a few of the field marshall's handbook
options are now rules)
A different set called Megasupremacy is a much bigger book (the basic rules are
more of a pamphet than a book). It has rules for all the expansions (no pieces
or decks) and how they all interact together. If you have some imagination, you
can easily come up with substitutes for most of the pieces (Axis and Allies has
armor units for the Tanks expansion, and subs for the Boomers expansion. A deck
of cards can be used for the high tech edge expansions.(actually, we use 2 decks
for each high-tech and make it a progressive system (8 ones, 6 twos, 4 threes,
2 fours, and 1 five. (so it costs more to get the better tech) and also have
powers apply the tech as soon as they get it (no holding on to the card)))
We usually use most of the Mega-rules, the following are really the only ones
you really need to buy:
Resource Deck 2: matching card backs to the original deck so you don't always
know what resources are out there
Fortuna: card decks with special outcomes
Unconventional Forces: could possible be made from some decks of cards
MegaMap: BIG mapboad (I think twice as large) Some territories are divided into
two territories.(powers and neutrals) Territories now have cities, capitals,
and religious centers. No more Dark blue oceans touch land, light blue seas
have been added wherever this occurred. Note: With this expansion, you must
nuke ALL cities in a territory to nuke the territory. (meaning it takes 3-4
times as many nukes to cause nuclear winter (for those groups that really are
nuke happy, this probably won't make much difference, but it does make nuke-
winter harder to happen))
Merchant Marine: (don't have this one yet, it didn't look too interesting)
Middle Powers/Warlords and Pirates: If you have a risk game or some other source
of lots of pieces, you can probably get by without these, they do contain lots
of pieces (middle powers contains resource center cards as well)
Thats all I can think of right now.
Shadow
Donovan Loucks
Scott D. Orr <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
And you're one of the few opponents (in fact, in this particular round
of posts, you've been the only opponent, versus four or five
proponents). I guess we're even, huh?
I dunno. Several dissenters have since come out of the woodwork...
scotb
Derek <dho...@csir.co.za> wrote:
>I think my point was missed a little. What I (and I think others are
>saying is) is that we paid 50 bucks for a game - we just want to be able
>to play it. If, in our enthusiasm we bought a early edition of the game
>that didn't quite work, we think the company has *some* obligation to
>make those rules changes freely available. Thereafter, we might think
>about buying other bits and pieces (FTR, I do have some of those on the
>"shopping list" - excluding the infamous handbook).
>
>Derek.
I'll second this. After I read the seriously deficient "rulebook", I
noted that they wanted to extort another $15 for the *other* rulebook,
with Q&A to commonly asked questions. Or something like that...it's been
a long time since the one and only time I looked at it. Since I already
felt I had been grossly overcharged for the unremarkable components,
rules, etc., I decided to stop being a sucker.
Scot Billman
Scott D. Orr
In <4sdn9t$g...@bessel.nando.net> sc...@bessel.nando.net (scotb) writes:
>I'll second this. After I read the seriously deficient "rulebook"...
That book no longer comes with the game. The new version of the
rulebook is clear and covers all sorts of weird contingencies.
The idea behind the original rulebook was to make the rules simple, so
that anyone could learn them -- like any simple rules system, they
required a lot of interpretation. Personally, I and the people I
played with never had any problems with this -- it was always clear
what was and was not in the spirit of the rules. But the present
rules edition -- which is now included in the basic game -- should
suit those who like things spelled out in detail.
>Since I already felt I had been grossly overcharged for the
>unremarkable components, rules, etc., I decided to stop being a
>sucker.
A minor note on word usage here: given that "unremakable" means,
literally, something that one would not be tempted to make a remark
about, I find this an inappropriate description of Supremacy's
components. Aside from all of hte components being quite attractive
(something, admittedly, which really doesn't impress me in a game)
and sturdy (something which impresses me somewhat more), the little
plastic mushroom clouds are unique enough to draw remarks from even
the game's harshest critics. :)
Scott Orr
Shadow
n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer) writes:
>I would strongly recommend against buying it. Here is my review.
I would also recommend purchasing for different reasons. My only objection is
the cost. If you buy the basic set, megasupremacy, megamap, resource deck 2,
and maybe one or two others (middle powers for 8 players, fortuna,
unconventional forces) you have spent around $200us for a really good game.
Unfortunately, spending less than that is like playing chess without all the
pieces. Its still is interesting, but is better when played with everything.
I compare the current marketing scheme to taking a game apart and putting it in
seperate boxes and selling them individually.
But overall, my review is the game is great, just too expensive.
If you have $120-140, buy the basic set, resource deck 2, megasupremacy, and
megamap. After that, look at the other rules in megasupremacy, and buy what
seems cool.
>for free and, as such, I believe in reviewing a game based only upon what
>is available to a person who buys just the basic set. With a hefty $55
>price tag for the basic Supremacy game, I don't feel this is all that unfair
>a restriction.
Hmmm, with your review criteria, I would have to give Warhammer and AD&D both
thumbs down. The AD&D players handbook is pretty much the basic set, but is
not really good by itself. The same for Warhammer, without army lists and all
those neat things in White Dwarf, its an ok game, but not really better than
anyting else out there. The strength of these two games is the people buying
them. AD&D players like buying a new book every 3 months or so to keep the
game fresh and interesting. Tabletop gamers meanwhile, just love figs. Figs
and paint. Figs, paint, and army lists. Rules are sometimes optional
(I know some people that buy the figs, paint and army lists, create whole armies
, and never play with them (they will sometimes create photo-wars (set figs up
and take pictures as the "battle" progresses)))
Now that I've disagreed with you, I will state again, Supremacy is too
expensive, so don't buy it.
------complaints about simulation and market--------
Well, the whole game is abstract and the map shows it. (lots of nice straight
lines and perfect curves) It is an interesting way of simulating the rest of
the world in relation to your own power. (yet making it somewhat easier to
manage)
The market could use some work. There are some fixes with the new version
(each power sells only one resource type and then the next power goes) There
is also the ability to sell to other powers, so the market represents the rest
of the world (mexico, japan, unplayed superpowers, etc) A method that works
well is to only move the market one space for every two units sold. (so selling
1 unit doesn't change the price) This makes each power have less effect on
the price, but also makes for less fluxuation. Each power should be able to
affect the market somewhat, as this is part of the real world. (OPEC for example
) A smart player can make these "loopholes" work for them.
--------complaints about combat and ease of nuking----------
I agree it is too easy to nuke in the game, mainly because there is no penalty
for losing in Supremacy. In the real world, if you "lose" you die. That is
what makes MAD work. Some user posted that everyone should donate $10 (or some
other amount) to a charity if the game ends in nuclear winter. This would give
players a reason not to call a bluff.(ie. " If you attack me, I'll cause nuclear
winter" (and the attacking player has to decide whether attacking this person
is worth donating $10))
>The other big problem I have with the strategic arsenals ease of construction
>and use in the game lie in the victory conditions themselves. If they allowed
>for player agreed upon mutual wins there wouldn't be a problem. However, they
>don't, so there will always be only one possible winner. The net result, in
>a competitive group, is that it is too easy to force a draw by firing off your
Mutual win? That usually isn't possible in most games. You never hear of
mutual winners of the Super Bowl. I don't think most sports fans would go for
a situation like that. The game has to have some object, or its not really a
game, it becomes a true simulation. Granted I love plaing Simcity 2000 on my
computer, but I usually do that when nobody else is around. If Supremacy was
a simulation, you'd have 6 players all managing their own powers with little
interaction, since there is no point to try to win.
If two powers(or more) decide they want to stop the game, that's fine. The
other players don't really have much say in the matter (already being eliminated
) so they can decide they want to tie and call it a draw. (of course, seeing
such an obvious alliance would make it more likely those two would be early
targets in the next game (unless the whole game group thinks that way))
>nuclear arsenal and causing the nuclear winter rules to engage. In a nuclear
>winter all players lose, thus, forcing a draw. At this point I should note
>that the Supremacy fans will say all players losing isin't a draw. My
>dictionary defines a draw as: "To end or leave (a contest) tied or undecided".
>Since the arguement is that all players losing isin't a draw I would assume
>they have dictionaries different than mine.
Since the object of the game is to dominate the world, having two players
"declare peace" would also be a draw. Or how about just declare peace at the
outset and play a different game.(maybe old maid would be better for that kind
of group, since they don't like too much competition. (or better yet each person
play solitare))
If you care to post your "alpha" rules, please do. Many players love to see
new variants, and this could add spice to the game
A gamer that still has wind in his sails.....
Shadow
Scott D. Orr
In <4scn6i$8...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
writes:
>
>I think my point was missed a little.
I think my points were completely ignored, because I've already
addressed everything brought up below. You may not _agree_ with my
points, and may argue against them, but please do not try to pretend
I didn't make them.
>What I (and I think others are saying is) is that we paid 50 bucks for
>a game - we just want to be able to play it.
And you can.
>If, in our enthusiasm we bought a early edition of the game
>that didn't quite work...
Not at all true. The original edition works quite nicely.
The new rules work better, but then new rules usually do.
>...we think the company has *some* obligation to make those rules
>changes freely available.
Well, for all I know, they DO make them freely available. Have you
bothered asking the company, rather than complaining to ME about it?
At any rate, _I_ (me, myself, personally, out of the goodness of my
heart) already ran down all of the significant rules change for you,
and in particular those that addressed problem you brought up earlier,
and therefore you now can no longer say you can't play the game because
you don't have the updated rules.
Scott Orr
Derek
pme...@cse.unl.edu (Shadow) wrote:
>Derek <dho...@csir.co.za> writes:
>
>>OK, Scott, I'll bite - can I please get a copy of the "new" rules & I
>>will persuade my new games group that this is the game they have been
>>looking for all their life (or as close as it gets, anyhow) and we'll
>>give it a whirl. I will then have a followup with *their* feelings about
>>the game [I promise not to bias them either way beforehand].
>
>The rules, (I believe they are version 3.0) are available seperate from the game
>at your local game store. (I think it costs $7-8) and have a few modifications
>on the basic game.(sell stage, and a few of the field marshall's handbook
>options are now rules)
<snip - lots of things I don't *really* want to buy...>
>Thats all I can think of right now.
<!!?>
>
>
>Shadow
>
I think my point was missed a little. What I (and I think others are
saying is) is that we paid 50 bucks for a game - we just want to be able
to play it. If, in our enthusiasm we bought a early edition of the game
that didn't quite work, we think the company has *some* obligation to
make those rules changes freely available. Thereafter, we might think
about buying other bits and pieces (FTR, I do have some of those on the
"shopping list" - excluding the infamous handbook).
Derek.
------
Scott D. Orr
In <4sefa1$a...@crcnis3.unl.edu> pme...@cse.unl.edu (Shadow) writes:
>
>n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer) writes:
>
>
>>I would strongly recommend against buying it. Here is my review.
>
>I would also recommend purchasing for different reasons. My only
>objection is the cost. If you buy the basic set, megasupremacy,
>megamap, resource deck 2, and maybe one or two others (middle powers
>for 8 players, fortuna, unconventional forces) you have spent around
>$200us for a really good game.
>
>Unfortunately, spending less than that is like playing chess without
>all the pieces. Its still is interesting, but is better when played
>with everything.
I don't think so. I own the Mega Map but I've never played with it --
it makes games considerably longer, and you need the High-tech rules.
Likewise, you don't need Mega Supremacy -- I have it for convenience,
but most of it just repeats rules you've already got. In chess, if you
play without all the pieces, the game falls apart. In Supremacy, I
wouldn't _want_ to play with all the piece -- each piece is just an
added bit of complexity and nuance, and some of them don't add much to
the game, from my perspective. For newbies (that is, for most of the
games I play, since I don't realy have a regular gaming group of any
sort) I play with Resources Deck 2 and Warlords and Pirates, and that's
all. There are other things I like to add, but these are pure chrome,
and can be added slowly over time _after_ you've got a group together
and have decided you like the game.
The game IS hideously expensive, but OTOH it does have nice components,
and I think it's worth the price. In addition, the price hasn't gone
up much since it was released, whereas other board games have gone way
up, making it much more competitive nowadays.
Scott Orr
Jonathan Chen
>Scott D. Orr <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> And you're one of the few opponents (in fact, in this particular round
> of posts, you've been the only opponent, versus four or five
> proponents). I guess we're even, huh?
>
>I dunno. Several dissenters have since come out of the woodwork...
Well, Scott's doing a great job on the rebuttals; especially on those
that complain about the nuclear-winter scenario! The trouble with many
new players is that they don't use L-Stars and market-manipulation to
"safeguard" the world (so that they can win, of course).
Experienced players that I play with play to win. Even if someone decides
to take the world down in flames, there are enough L-Stars around by then
that it's (almost) impossible to take them out with nukes, and everyone
will champion to stop that last nuke from falling.
--
Jonathan Chen <jo...@pinnacle.co.nz>
Ove Zakrisson
On 12 Jul 1996, Scott D. Orr wrote:
> In <Pine.SOL.3.94.960712...@legolas.mdh.se> Ove
> Zakrisson <dat9...@mds.mdh.se> writes:
> >
> >On 11 Jul 1996, Scott D. Orr wrote:
> >
> >> Did any of the rest of you consider L-stars? As you yourself
> >> pointed out, the tactic you related does not require hitting the
> >> "jackpot", but only a willingness to put yourself into debt.
> >> Likewise, L-stars can be built using the same tactic.
> >>
> >Yes, we did. However, as far as I recall, L-stars are harder to
> >research and much more expensive to construct than nukes.
>
> Sort of. They're twice as costly, and research costs on average
> slight more than 50% more (because there are only 2 L-stars cards in
> the basic deck, as opposed to 3 nukes). However, L-stars, unlike
> nukes, are reusable, and that's where you get your real cost savings.
> Also, there's the D6 rocket failure roll (which used to be optional,
> but is now standard), which means that about 1/6 of nukes won't even
> get off the ground.
I am not sure if we used this one.
> >The player(s) who wanted to place 11 nukes just built lots and placed
> >the nukes until 11 was *succesfully* placed, some of them were shot
> >down by L-stars, but he had more than enough nukes.
>
> Honestly I can't see how that would happen, if you have even two
> players building L-stars to stop him; with two players, you can
> build as many L-stars as he can build nukes, and your L-stars are
> reusable, while his nukes have to be rebuilt.
>
> What's really critical is that is he can only build as many nukes (12)
> as you can build L-stars, and if two players build L-stars, that's
> 24 to use against him (though half or even all of them will only get
> the 1-4 Champion roll, depending on the target, that's more than enough
> to stop him -- especially given that any nuke that "leaks" past one
> L-star can be engaged by as many others as it takes to shoot it down).
>
> And of course, while he's rebuilding his nukes (and you've still got
> your L-stars), you build your own nukes or conventional forces and then
> take him out before he can complete his little scheme.
>
> I'm really at a loss for why you were having so much trouble, or were
> you misinterpreting the rules somehow?
Yes, it's quite possible that we misinterpreted some rules (could have
been about 8 years ago that we played). I seem to remember that he was not
the only player that thought this was a good idea (safety by near nuclear
winter) and maybe that he was the only one that defaulted on his loans.
>
> >Retaliation were confusing, too. We may have played it wrong by the
> >rules but: South Africa nuked West Europe, as a retaliation WE
> >nuked... USA. How logical.
>
> You're right, this is allowable under the original rules, but it's not
> completely silly, since you could be attacking your attacker's ally,
> who had helped him indirectly. However, because this rule could be
> easily abused, by launching a token attack against your _own_ ally,
> thus bringing him into the fight, this has been changed, and you can
> now attack only the player who attacked you.
Could be that the retaliating player lost and he wanted to take as many
players with him as possible.
>
> Scott Orr
>
>
Enough talk about our beginners game?
Anyway, the concept that a player can default on a loan that big and
suffer no negative consequences (other than not being able to take
another loan) is somewhat absurd. He is not borrowing the money from
other players, the most probable source is from private interests in his
OWN country. That would lead to great economic and maybe political
disruptions in that country. But since the game doesn't cover internal
economical and political events, how should this be represented.
Ove Zakrisson dat9...@mds.mdh.se
Allan Goodall
Ove Zakrisson wrote:
> Anyway, the concept that a player can default on a loan that big and
> suffer no negative consequences (other than not being able to take
> another loan) is somewhat absurd. He is not borrowing the money from
> other players, the most probable source is from private interests in his
> OWN country. That would lead to great economic and maybe political
> disruptions in that country. But since the game doesn't cover internal
> economical and political events, how should this be represented.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that if you failed to make your interest payments
on a loan you were prevented from using the stock market and the loan principal didn't
go away. I may be wrong in this, but it means that the only way you could do ANYTHING in
the game is if you were self-sufficient. Even then, you'd eventually run into a cash
flow crunch as you could not sell on the market. You could still build and attack, but
you'd still be susceptible to a blockade.
--
Allan Goodall, Sales and Marketing Systems, Kodak Canada, Inc.
INTERNET: WORK: all...@kodak.com HOME: agoo...@sympatico.ca
VOICE: (416) 766-8233 ext 35473 FAX: (416) 760-4597
Visit the Kodak Web site at: http://www.kodak.com
Scott D. Orr
In <31ebc382...@news.vnet.net> yea...@vnet.net (W. Michael
Yearick) writes:
>
>OK. I am still confused about what I need to get started.
>
>I have already purchased the basic game (3.0), the MegaRules and the
>MegaMap. These are sunk costs to me and although I would have liked
>to spend less those funds are not part of my problem at this point.
>
>What I would like to know is what else do I need?? I obviously do not
>want to waste any money (and want to avoid duplicate/obsolete
>components) but am not violently opposed to spending a bit more to get
>the most out of this game. I am just not sure what else I need.
>
Well, you're ready to play with just the basic game, though I do think
that Warlords & Pirates adds a lot, and I'd highly recommend buying it
(it keeps you from grabbing the neutrals without cost -- invading one
becomes a serious proposition, and hence resources are harder to
secure). My other other favorite is Resource Deck Two -- if you use
it to make up a random resource deck, no one can ever be sure where
resources will come up, and so squatting on Saudi Arabia, for example,
may not be a terribly effective tactic (this also balances things some
between new and experience players). But of course, you've already got
all the rules for most of the expansions in the Mega Supremacy
rulebook.
As for the Mega Map, I'd recommand against using it until you and your
group are familiar with the game -- it does make things a little more
involved; also, you really don't want to use it without _both_ sets of
High-tech rules (conventional and strategic).
Scott Orr
Derek
>
>Not at all true. The original edition works quite nicely.
>The new rules work better, but then new rules usually do.
Then we're back to square one. A. The game does not work. B. Yes it
does. A. No it doesn't. B. Yes, it works for me. A. Well it does not
work for me. (repeat ad nauseam)
>
>>...we think the company has *some* obligation to make those rules
>>changes freely available.
>
>Well, for all I know, they DO make them freely available.
Well, all the postings here suggest they cost around $10...
>At any rate, _I_ (me, myself, personally, out of the goodness of my
>heart) already ran down all of the significant rules change for you,
>and in particular those that addressed problem you brought up earlier,
>and therefore you now can no longer say you can't play the game because
>you don't have the updated rules.
OTOH, every other post seems to contain new (minor?) changes that address
some or other problem that is raised. I'm sorry to keep this going for
one more posting (I think its probably gone past the point of usefulness)
but, for me anyway, its easier to have a full set of rules. Otherwise I
might end up playing the game and *still* getting it wrong ;-)
If anyone else wants to continue this thread, they are welcome to it...
Derek--
Scott D. Orr
In <4sfbdl$e...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
writes:
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>>In <4scn6i$8...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
>>writes:
>>>
>>
>>>If, in our enthusiasm we bought a early edition of the game
>>>that didn't quite work...
>>
>>Not at all true. The original edition works quite nicely.
>>The new rules work better, but then new rules usually do.
>
>Then we're back to square one. A. The game does not work. B. Yes it
>does. A. No it doesn't. B. Yes, it works for me. A. Well it does
>not work for me. (repeat ad nauseam)
Yes, we're at square one, because you have never bothered to address
these points:
If players form cartels, the vicissitudes of the market tend to even
out.
If the players actively try to prevent a nuclear winter, and try to
keep any player capable of causing one from thinking he has no chance
of winning, then the chances of a nuclear winter actually occuring are
very, very small.
So you're right: until you bother at least _address_ these points
(let alone provide convincing arguments on them) I have no intention of
letting you repeat your erroneous statements about "a[n] early edition
of the game that didn't quite work".
>>>...we think the company has *some* obligation to make those rules
>>>changes freely available.
>>
>>Well, for all I know, they DO make them freely available.
>
>Well, all the postings here suggest they cost around $10...
>
Yes, they do, but AFAIK no one posting here has contacted the company
about the possiblity of getting an errata sheet or whatever to update
an old copy of the basic set. YOU COULD BE A PIONEER!! Think of the
possibilities of glory.
>>At any rate, _I_ (me, myself, personally, out of the goodness of my
>>heart) already ran down all of the significant rules change for you,
>>and in particular those that addressed problem you brought up
>>earlier, and therefore you now can no longer say you can't play the
>>game because you don't have the updated rules.
>
>OTOH, every other post seems to contain new (minor?) changes that
>address some or other problem that is raised.
Not at all. I've said from the start that there are only two or three
"major changes". There are several minor additions to the
rules -- mostly new things you can do in combat or what have you --
that don't appreciably alter the balance of the game one way or the
other. I've brought them up in places where they're relevant, but
the game will flow in about the same way with or without them.
>I'm sorry to keep this going for one more posting (I think its
>probably gone past the point of usefulness) but, for me anyway, its
>easier to have a full set of rules. Otherwise I might end up playing
>the game and *still* getting it wrong ;-)
No, I can assure you that I've told you about any changes that in any
way alter the play balance. You've got the rules you need.
>If anyone else wants to continue this thread, they are welcome to
>it...
Your comments will be more convincing after you've played the game
again like you told us you would. :) After all, I spent a considerable
amount of time discussing it with you in private e-mail, and it would
be a shame for all that effort to go to waste.
Scott Orr
Shadow
Ove Zakrisson <dat9...@mds.mdh.se> writes:
>Anyway, the concept that a player can default on a loan that big and
>suffer no negative consequences (other than not being able to take
>another loan) is somewhat absurd. He is not borrowing the money from
>other players, the most probable source is from private interests in his
>OWN country. That would lead to great economic and maybe political
>disruptions in that country. But since the game doesn't cover internal
>economical and political events, how should this be represented.
Another consequence is the player cannot interact with the market. (buy or sell) That limits the power's income and eventually they run out of money. If the
other powers all buy LStars (2-3 each depending on how many are playing) the
nuke-happy player can only get 2-3 nukes through and can't "nuclear winter" the
game. This does require some cooperation, but then the real world does also.
By the second or third turn after the nuker defaults, he'll be reduced to a
third world power.(other than having a stockpile of 12 nukes) The only way the
person will be able to keep companies open is to sell to other players, but if
all players are cooperating already, they could boycott and the "nuker" is
totally screwed.
Shadow
PS. Just to state again, don't buy Supremacy unless you have lots of $$$ to get
all the expansions you'll need to make it a game you'll enjoy. (although, I was
happy with only the basic set, many other people need some of the expansions to
feel the game can be played)
Nicholas Sauer
In article: <4sjr0m$m...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>In <4sfbdl$e...@peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za> Derek <dho...@csir.co.za>
>writes:
>>
>>Then we're back to square one. A. The game does not work. B. Yes it
>>does. A. No it doesn't. B. Yes, it works for me. A. Well it does
>>not work for me. (repeat ad nauseam)
>
>Yes, we're at square one, because you have never bothered to address
>these points:
>
>If players form cartels, the vicissitudes of the market tend to even
>out.
The problem is this requires players to trust one another within the
game environment. I would trust any of the regular players in my group
with my life without much concern. The problem is a game environment is
not real life and we all know this, thus, within a game situation none
of us trust each other. So, I need a solution to the market's problems
that don't require me to trust other players. I need more than cartels.
>If the players actively try to prevent a nuclear winter, and try to
>keep any player capable of causing one from thinking he has no chance
>of winning, then the chances of a nuclear winter actually occuring are
>very, very small.
Not in my experience. Look, it's simple math here. By turn four I have
twelve nukes and you have at most seven L-stars. I bomb the hell out of
a bunch of neutrals (thus, reducing the effectiveness of your L-stars
ability to stop them). L-stars just take too long to build. I don't
think any of the 20 games of Supremacy I played lasted past turn five.
>So you're right: until you bother at least _address_ these points
>(let alone provide convincing arguments on them) I have no intention of
>letting you repeat your erroneous statements about "a[n] early edition
>of the game that didn't quite work".
Until you bother to at least _address_ these points (let alone provide
convincing arguments on them) I have no intention of letting you repeat
your erroneous statements about a game that does work.
It looks like we have the situation of two types of information on Supremacy:
Scott Orr's facts and everyone else's opinions.
Finally, in a vein attempt to end this thread, did I mention that the latest
Indiana Jones novel does not feature Nazis as the primary villian?
Nick Sauer
Scott D. Orr
In <31ec6531...@ralph.vnet.net> yea...@vnet.net (Mike Yearick)
writes:
>
>So if I understand you correctly, you are recommending that I purchase
>
>the Warlords & Pirates expansion (because it is not included in the
>MegaRules??)
>
No, it's in the Mega Supremacy Rulebook (as I've said on a number of
occasions). You'd be buying it for the playing pieces, not the rules.
>the Resource Deck 2
>
>and my game will be complete??
>
No, your game is already complete and playable. But I think the above
two expansions make it more fun and more challenging.
>Should I go ahead and get both the Hi-Tech rules now (because they are
>not included in the MegaRules??) in anticipation of eventually using
>the MegaMap??
Well, if you want to use the Mega Map, sure; otherwise, who cares?
Personally, though I own both High-tech expansions, I've played
with the Conventional one twice, and I've never played with the
Strategic one. Obviously, you can get along quite nicely without
them -- I just wouldn't want to try it on the Mega Map.
Of course, you've already got the Map -- but still, I'd play around
with the game some and see how you like before blowing any more
money on it (this of course generally good advice when dealing with
_any_ game :).
Scott Orr
Mark Kuhn
yea...@vnet.net (Mike Yearick) wrote:
>So if I understand you correctly, you are recommending that I purchase
>the Warlords & Pirates expansion (because it is not included in the
>MegaRules??)
>the Resource Deck 2
>and my game will be complete??
>Should I go ahead and get both the Hi-Tech rules now (because they are
>not included in the MegaRules??) in anticipation of eventually using
>the MegaMap??
Listen to Scott because he knows whats whats about the game, but don't
listen to Scott about what you need. The only things you need are The
basic rules 3.0 and the Basic board game and pieces, initial and only
cost is about $30. Try to make sure the the game has the 3.0 rules
with it. Try finding a used game, with the way everybody complains
about it here that shouldn't be to hard.
If you can't find the Basic 3.0 rulebook e-mail me and I will set you
up.
That is all you need to have a great game. In time after you have
learned the basics, buy one expansion and intergrate it your group. I
would recomend resource deck 2 as you first expansion, it is very easy
to use and play with,Only but one expansion at a time, and make sure
you very comfortable and knowledged about expansion one before you
buy another to try.
One more FYI, the Mega-Supremacy rulebook has all the rules for for
all expansions in one streamlined product. You do not have to have all
the expansions to use this rulebook ( I can't count the number of
times that that is stated in the rulebook ). But I recomend ignoring
this book until your comfortable with the basic game.
Once again if you cannot find the basic rulebook 3.0 in stores near
you, than e-mail me and I will set you up.
"I have something say, It's better to burn out than to fade away"
Hilander
aka Mark Kuhn
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) wrote:
>>In <31ebc382...@news.vnet.net> yea...@vnet.net (W. Michael
>>Yearick) writes:
>>>
>>>OK. I am still confused about what I need to get started.
>>Well, you're ready to play with just the basic game, though I do think
Scott D. Orr
In <4sln0n$n...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer)
writes:
>>Yes, we're at square one, because you have never bothered to address
>>these points:
>>
>>If players form cartels, the vicissitudes of the market tend to even
>>out.
>
>The problem is this requires players to trust one another within the
>game environment. I would trust any of the regular players in my
>group with my life without much concern. The problem is a game
>environment is not real life and we all know this, thus, within a game
>situation none of us trust each other.
Yes, absolutely. This is a feature common to many multi-player games,
including Diplomacy and Civilization, and I consider it a "feature",
not a "problem". Of course, you don't have to trust people for the
_whole_ game -- you just have to be relatively sure they'll do what
you want long enough to gain you some benefit.
>So, I need a solution to the market's problems that don't require me
>to trust other players. I need more than cartels.
Oh, that's easy. Don't play Supremacy. Even if you "fix" the market,
you've got to trust other people for everything else in the game.
>
>>If the players actively try to prevent a nuclear winter, and try to
>>keep any player capable of causing one from thinking he has no chance
>>of winning, then the chances of a nuclear winter actually occuring
>>are >very, very small.
>
>Not in my experience. Look, it's simple math here. By turn four I
>have twelve nukes and you have at most seven L-stars.
If there are _two_ players with L-stars, we have 14, meaning you'll
land on average 2.67 nukes against neutral territories, or 0.67 if
using the d6 rocket failure rule. On your next turn, you'll be
limited to whatever nukes you can build on that turn, while we'll
still have 14 L-stars, plus whatever we can build that turn (or we
can build nukes instead and turn your lights out).
Would you like to try again?
Scott Orr
Matthew R Blackwell
>
>>>Not in my experience. Look, it's simple math here. By turn four I
>>>have twelve nukes and you have at most seven L-stars.
>>
>>If there are _two_ players with L-stars, we have 14, meaning you'll
>>land on average 2.67 nukes against neutral territories, or 0.67 if
>>using the d6 rocket failure rule. On your next turn, you'll be
>>limited to whatever nukes you can build on that turn, while we'll
>>still have 14 L-stars, plus whatever we can build that turn (or we
>>can build nukes instead and turn your lights out).
>
>So, let me get this straight, you build seven L-stars by turn four?
For
>those unfamiliar with the game, you get 7 billion dollars to start and
can
>pull a 12 billion dollar loan at any time. To build seven L-stars
requires
>14 billion for the L-stars alone.
L-Stars are a billion per unit. So, they could pull this off with as
small as a $2 billion loan. (Or nothing if you're playing with cartels
as Scott seems to be.) By the same token, the person with the twelve
nukes has spent $6 billion on nukes, plus the cost of R+D, army
maintainence, and the cost to generate 12 minerals. He won't have any
money either.
Matthew R Blackwell
In <4sln0n$n...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer)
writes:
>
>
>In article: <4sjr0m$m...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>>If the players actively try to prevent a nuclear winter, and try to
>>keep any player capable of causing one from thinking he has no chance
>>of winning, then the chances of a nuclear winter actually occuring
are
>>very, very small.
>
>Not in my experience. Look, it's simple math here. By turn four I
have
>twelve nukes and you have at most seven L-stars. I bomb the hell out
of
>a bunch of neutrals (thus, reducing the effectiveness of your L-stars
>ability to stop them). L-stars just take too long to build. I don't
>think any of the 20 games of Supremacy I played lasted past turn five.
>
So one of the players was convinced by turn five that they couldn't
possibly win the game? Actually, by turn four because that's when you
had the nukes. Were your players going into the game convinced that
they were going to lose? In my experience, building nukes in Supremacy
was silly. They could be used for three things: ending the game,
sinking a fleet, and nuking all but one area of a nation, so that you
could then invade the last area and get their resource center. Yes, my
friends would try to nuke the world out out existance on occasion, but
that was the player's problem; he simply refused to let anyone else
win. BTW: The quickest way to end the possibility of nuclear winter is
to introduce the nuclear roulette rule from the old Warlord's guide. On
the 13th nuke, the world ends only on a roll of '6', with 14 nukes with
a roll of '5 or 6' and so on. If nuclear winter isn't reliable, then
people are much less likely to try it.
Scott D. Orr
In <4so3uq$1...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer)
writes:
>
>
>In article: <4smapj$c...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>>In <4sln0n$n...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer)
>>writes:
>>>game environment. I would trust any of the regular players in my
>>>group with my life without much concern. The problem is a game
>>>environment is not real life and we all know this, thus, within a
>>>game situation none of us trust each other.
>>
>>Yes, absolutely. This is a feature common to many multi-player
>>games, including Diplomacy and Civilization, and I consider it a
>>"feature", not a "problem".
>
>weekly if not daily. However, in Civ or ACiv the effects of not
>trusting someone don't completely hose the economic system of the
>game. The economic engine of the game works just fine whether you
>trust other players or not.
But you can't win the game without trusting the other players on
occasion. Whether this effect occurs within the economic system or
somewhere else isn't really relevant to game play or game balance.
>>>So, I need a solution to the market's problems that don't require me
>>>to trust other players. I need more than cartels.
>>
>>Oh, that's easy. Don't play Supremacy. Even if you "fix" the
>>market, you've got to trust other people for everything else in the
>>game.
>
>YES!!! Finally. Thank you! We don't play Supremacy (shock horror!)
>and this is one of the reasons.
I think you've misunderstood: don't play Supremacy, but when you
choose not to do so, admit to other people that's it's because you
dislike playing games where you have to trust the other players in
order to get things done; don't go around telling people that the game
is "broken", where in reality the fact is that it just isn't your cup
of tea.
This is what I've said, consistently, from the start.
>So, when someone asks for opinions on the game I think maybe, just
>maybe, their group's play style might be similar to all the groups I
>have tried Supremacy with. Therefore, I give them my opinion that we
>were not able to play the game in any of the groups I tried to play it
>with.
But you don't given any reasons _why_ it didn't work for your groups,
and in fact you don't given any _inkling_ that the reason may have been
that it's not your type of game. Rather, you just say "it's broken",
which really is about the most misleading and non-informataive answer
you could give. And what's more, when I insist that it DOES work with
a group of players who play intelligently, you try to scream me down
and tell me I'm wrong, or that the players I play with just don't want
to win or are otherwise perverse, etc.
If you're going to review a game, please give you honest opinions. But
if you want to say it's "broken", please tell us what you would prefer
to see in a game (so we'll know WHY it didn't meet your expectations),
and don't get upset when other people point out to you how you could
have kept it from "breaking".
>>>Not in my experience. Look, it's simple math here. By turn four I
>>>have twelve nukes and you have at most seven L-stars.
>>
>>If there are _two_ players with L-stars, we have 14, meaning you'll
>>land on average 2.67 nukes against neutral territories, or 0.67 if
>>using the d6 rocket failure rule. On your next turn, you'll be
>>limited to whatever nukes you can build on that turn, while we'll
>>still have 14 L-stars, plus whatever we can build that turn (or we
>>can build nukes instead and turn your lights out).
>
>So, let me get this straight, you build seven L-stars by turn four?
If someone else is building a lot of nukes, yes. Personally, I build
them as fast as I can get my hands on them, unless the other players
are looking extremely non-threatening.
But it was YOU who assumed that the other players would build 7 L-
stars by turn 4, not me. Please don't back off your own positions and
blame them on me.
>For those unfamiliar with the game, you get 7 billion dollars to start
>and can pull a 12 billion dollar loan at any time. To build seven
>L-stars requires 14 billion for the L-stars alone.
Yes, that's maybe two turns income if you're lucky -- and the loans
make it a lot easier, since it's a one-time expense, unlike nukes,
which are expendable.
>Asssuming you can make enough money off the markets to keep everything
>else in your empire going...
That's pretty easy to do -- at least, it's no harder than getting
enough money to buy 12 nukes, which costs $12 billion.
>...you are still in hock up to your eye-balls and the loan repayment
>on the 12 billion is three billion next turn. I call this a "losing
>position" in the game.
Well, you're just flat wrong, sorry. I've done it, and won doing it,
consistently. You ought to try it sometime, rather than theorizing
on rec.games.board.
>Furthermore, you manage to connive some other grand prize sucker to
>join you in this endeaver.
Well, yes, you have to find another player who wants to win.
>I'm not impressed.
>
That's a reflection on you, not on the game.
Scott Orr
Kevin J. Maroney
n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer) wrote:
>Finally, in a vein attempt to end this thread, did I mention that the latest
>Indiana Jones novel does not feature Nazis as the primary villian?
Godwin's Law, even in its weakest forms, doesn't work if you invoke it
deliberately, Nick.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Nicholas Sauer
In article: <4smapj$c...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>In <4sln0n$n...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> n...@spin.att.com (Nicholas Sauer)
>writes:
>>The problem is this requires players to trust one another within the
>>game environment. I would trust any of the regular players in my
>>group with my life without much concern. The problem is a game
>>environment is not real life and we all know this, thus, within a game
>>situation none of us trust each other.
>
>Yes, absolutely. This is a feature common to many multi-player games,
>including Diplomacy and Civilization, and I consider it a "feature",
>not a "problem".
Diplomacy I won't touch because my opinions on the game seem to change
weekly if not daily. However, in Civ or ACiv the effects of not trusting
someone don't completely hose the economic system of the game. The economic
engine of the game works just fine whether you trust other players or not.
Aciv is actually my regular groups "most likely to play" long game when we
get a whole day available to game. It's one of our favorites and we would
play it a lot more often if it weren't for the length.
>>So, I need a solution to the market's problems that don't require me
>>to trust other players. I need more than cartels.
>
>Oh, that's easy. Don't play Supremacy. Even if you "fix" the market,
>you've got to trust other people for everything else in the game.
YES!!! Finally. Thank you! We don't play Supremacy (shock horror!) and
this is one of the reasons. So, when someone asks for opinions on the
game I think maybe, just maybe, their group's play style might be similar
to all the groups I have tried Supremacy with. Therefore, I give them my
opinion that we were not able to play the game in any of the groups I tried
to play it with. You are able to play the game, so you give your opinion
that you are able to play the game and find it enjoyable. Other players
from other groups contribute their opinions as well. Different people are
going to have different opinions on the game. This variety is what makes
life interesting. To pick on one of my favorites, some players I have spoken
with don't like Cosmic Encounter as a game and, thus, don't play it. Does
that make them "poor gamers" in my mind? No, the game just doesn't work for
them and that's fine (and, to a large extent, I can even understand why they
probably don't like the game). If someone asked for blanket opinions on CE,
I would expect some member of that group to post that they didn't like the
game and why (assuming they are on the net). There are lots of gamers with
lots of different opinions on games. It's just how the world seems to work.
>>Not in my experience. Look, it's simple math here. By turn four I
>>have twelve nukes and you have at most seven L-stars.
>
>If there are _two_ players with L-stars, we have 14, meaning you'll
>land on average 2.67 nukes against neutral territories, or 0.67 if
>using the d6 rocket failure rule. On your next turn, you'll be
>limited to whatever nukes you can build on that turn, while we'll
>still have 14 L-stars, plus whatever we can build that turn (or we
>can build nukes instead and turn your lights out).
So, let me get this straight, you build seven L-stars by turn four? For
those unfamiliar with the game, you get 7 billion dollars to start and can
pull a 12 billion dollar loan at any time. To build seven L-stars requires
14 billion for the L-stars alone. Asssuming you can make enough money off
the markets to keep everything else in your empire going, you are still in
hock up to your eye-balls and the loan repayment on the 12 billion is three
billion next turn. I call this a "losing position" in the game. So, my
options are throw myself into a losing position or let someone else build
an arsenal that can force an "everyone loses" option. I can lose alone or
lose with everyone else. What a great set of strategy options I have.
Furthermore, you manage to connive some other grand prize sucker to join you
in this endeaver. All, I can say is that you must be a master diplomat. No
one in my regular group would agree to this. Actually, that's not true, I
take it back. They would agree to this, watch you build your L-star arsenal,
then smile at you while they built a large enough conventional army to over
run your country as you no longer have the economic resources to hold off a
large conventional attack.
I'm not impressed.
Nick Sauer
Scott D. Orr
In <4sp33k$m...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D.
>>For those unfamiliar with the game, you get 7 billion dollars to
>>start and can pull a 12 billion dollar loan at any time. To build
>>seven L-stars requires 14 billion for the L-stars alone.
>
>Yes, that's maybe two turns income if you're lucky -- and the loans
>make it a lot easier, since it's a one-time expense, unlike nukes,
>which are expendable.
>
Oops -- as Matthew Blackwell pointed out, 7 L-stars cost only $7
billion...
>>Asssuming you can make enough money off the markets to keep
>>everything else in your empire going...
>
>That's pretty easy to do -- at least, it's no harder than getting
>enough money to buy 12 nukes, which costs $12 billion.
>
...and 12 nukes cost only $6 billion.
Scott Orr
msch...@isd.net
BTW: The quickest way to end the possibility of nuclear winter is
to introduce the nuclear roulette rule from the old Warlord's guide. On
the 13th nuke, the world ends only on a roll of '6', with 14 nukes with
a roll of '5 or 6' and so on. If nuclear winter isn't reliable, then
people are much less likely to try it.
--------
I like that house rule, all the more so because as a climatologist I
know that the "nuclear winter theory" is bullcrap. (But let's not wrap the
bombs in cobalt, please.)
--
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
msch...@isd.net
> >>>The problem is this requires players to trust one another within the
> >>>game environment. I would trust any of the regular players in my
> >>>group with my life without much concern. The problem is a game
> >>>environment is not real life and we all know this, thus, within a
> >>>game situation none of us trust each other.
> >>
> >>Yes, absolutely. This is a feature common to many multi-player
> >>games, including Diplomacy and Civilization, and I consider it a
> >>"feature", not a "problem".
> >
> >Diplomacy I won't touch because my opinions on the game seem to change
> >weekly if not daily. However, in Civ or ACiv the effects of not
> >trusting someone don't completely hose the economic system of the
> >game. The economic engine of the game works just fine whether you
> >trust other players or not.
>
> But you can't win the game without trusting the other players on
> occasion. Whether this effect occurs within the economic system or
> somewhere else isn't really relevant to game play or game balance.
A/Civ is better than Diplomacy for the simple reason that you don't
have to get out of your chair in order to lie to and backstab your
buddies.
But seriously, is the "trust" element of these games any different than
the give-and-take table talk that goes on at any game, such as Titan
("Leave my little stack over there alone and I won't munch your Unicorns &
Warbears with this gnarly pile of Gorgons & Behemoths if I roll higher
than a 2. Trust me.")?
CruiserXV7
I have a rules problem and I am unable to get the version 3 rules. When
you put 4 armies to sail from a port will the cost to ship those armies
add 1 oil point cost to the navy transporting them across the various
seas? Example: moving just one ship costs 1 oil point, but if you put the
armies on the ship will it then cost 2 oil points to move the ship for
each sea crossed-3seas x 2 oil pts. = 6.
Also does a person in a conventional forces battle receive an extra
die due to having L-Stars even though they have no effect on the
battlefield? (What conditions warrant an extra die durring the attack
phase for the defender and/or the attacker?)
Thank you in advance for any input on these subject areas. :-D P.S.
This is the best $4.00 game I've ever played. Very cheap because it is the
second edition! :-)
CruiserXV7
If you get around to going through with your recent ideas on Supremacy
please post or email your ideas as they may be just what the game needs to
add more fun into the game. :-) Also many other people who read your
posts may like your ideas. Be positive and turn 'em loose! ;-)
Scott D. Orr
[Guys, there are very few things you can do more annoying than cc'ing
a Usenet post without telling the recipient that's what you're doing.
I do NOT like to answer the same message twice -- it's a complete waste
of my time that can be prevented with a simple notice of what you're
doing.]
In <4tbofo$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> cruis...@aol.com (CruiserXV7)
writes:
>I have a rules problem and I am unable to get the version 3 rules.
>When you put 4 armies to sail from a port will the cost to ship those
>armies add 1 oil point cost to the navy transporting them across the
>various seas? Example: moving just one ship costs 1 oil point, but if
>you put the armies on the ship will it then cost 2 oil points to move
>the ship for each sea crossed-3seas x 2 oil pts. = 6.
No -- the cost for the armies is ONLY to load them, and after that the
navy moves normally; in fact, you can even pay 1 oil to load a bunch of
armies and then drop them in another territory adjacent to the same
sea, never actually moving the navy, and this costs only the 1 oil for
loading.
> Also does a person in a conventional forces battle receive an
>extra die due to having L-Stars even though they have no effect on the
>battlefield? (What conditions warrant an extra die durring the attack
>phase for the defender and/or the attacker?)
The person with the most L-stars ALWAYS gets an extra die (and under
the most recent rules, an extra point for each extra L-star he has) in
conventional combat -- this is just a bonus to having L-stars.
> Thank you in advance for any input on these subject areas. :-D
>P.S. This is the best $4.00 game I've ever played. Very cheap because
>it is the second edition! :-)
Hey, you can't go wrong for $4!
Scott Orr
Rick Pikul
In article <4tbofo$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
cruis...@aol.com (CruiserXV7) wrote:
>I have a rules problem and I am unable to get the version 3 rules. When
>you put 4 armies to sail from a port will the cost to ship those armies
>add 1 oil point cost to the navy transporting them across the various
>seas? Example: moving just one ship costs 1 oil point, but if you put the
>armies on the ship will it then cost 2 oil points to move the ship for
>each sea crossed-3seas x 2 oil pts. = 6.
No, it costs you 1 oil to load up to four armies which then move with
the ship. They can get off for free from any light blue sea.
> Also does a person in a conventional forces battle receive an extra
>die due to having L-Stars even though they have no effect on the
>battlefield? (What conditions warrant an extra die durring the attack
>phase for the defender and/or the attacker?)
Whoever has more L-Stars recieves an extra die in any conventional
fight (read Silver Tower for a good example why).
Phoenix, FALH
CruiserXV7
Due to the amount of lost email and mis directed messages it is
unfortunate that two messages were sent. Also it is necessary to receive
as many different opinions to a question as posible. Out of respect for
Scott Orr a message will be posted only to the news group. Sorry for the
inconvience.