From: Daniel Raspler Subject: Reflecting politics in wargames A few years ago, I was given a copy of A Line in The Sand by TSR. At first I assumed it was yet another Gulf Crisis/Desert Storm clone game, and the TSR logo didn't inspire me to give it anything more than a cursory glance. Big surprise. A very political multi-player game that actually has some interesting (if basic) strategy to it. Since my impression of this list is that most o' you guys would not exactly RUSH to the store to spend $50.00 on a TSR game, I figure I'll describe it here. The six factions are Iraq/Yemen, US/NATO, the Volatile Arabs (Libya/Jordan/Syria/Lebanon), the Moderate Arabs (Turkey/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Egypt), Israel, and Iran. The victory conditions are variable (each player picks a victory chit, and keeps it secret). There are two political tracks numbered 1-10: The War Fever Gauge and The Jihad Gauge. War Fever starts at 0, and the US can't even move until it's at two. They can't perform combat until it hits 10 at least once. The Jihad Gauge starts at 5, and if it hits 10, "revolutions" become possible, and some of the Moderate Arab nations (like Egypt) may switch to the Volatile faction. If it hits 0, the Volatiles may switch to Moderate. Each turn, a player may move his units and either perform combat or a political function. These political functions usually take the form of various "speeches" made to the UN, and each faction has a different selection of speeches. For example the US has "Inflamatory Speech", "Conciliatory Speech", and (my personal favorite) "Sabre Rattling". Iraq has "Mobilize", "Conciliatory Speech", and "Denounce Israel". You get the idea. Depending on the luck of the die (which determines how well the speech was received on CNN, or something), the War Fever Gauge or the Jihad Gauge may rise or fall. The gauges are also effected by combat results. If enough US units are destroyed, for example, the War Fever drops to 0, and the boys are called back home. I've never played this baby with the full compliment of 6, and the political rules are not applicable unless you have a full house. Still, it SEEMS like a cool game. Has anyone out there played it? Does anyone even OWN it besides me? Dan Raspler osli@aol.com From: Osli@AOL.COM Subject: Re: TSR's A Line in the Sand Curious: has anyone on the list besides Fred ever played A LINE IN THE SAND? I really like the mechanics (fast and fun and violent), but I've only played the larger Diplomatic game scenario solitaire to check out the system. We're thinking of having this be our Big Saturday game, and I have a few questions. Everyone please feel free to chime in if you have any comments. ITEM #1: It seems that the anti-aircraft die-rolls are overly powerful. With every ground unit, airfield and city in the space getting a 1 in 10 shot at damaging all aircraft but the Stealth Fighters, it seems that few planes survive to reach dogfights. While the balance/historiocity may be accurate, this just bugs me since I would prefer the damage to be caused by players and not automatic die-rolling. Do you recall this situation, Fred? Anyone else? ITEM #2: Aren't the Iranians totally under-strength? Every other faction has some hitting power but them. Sure, their units are good, but they only have a handful. Plus, two of their three hidden War Aims involve war with Iraq, and I can't imagine the Iranians ever surving that encounter without significant U.S. intervention. Do you have any ideas on this? ITEM #3: Also, did you play with the Diplomatic Pouches and the espionage rules? They seem cool in theory, but awkward in practice. For those of you unfamiliar with this, the players can never talk in secret. It's either in public (where everyone can hear), or with private written messages, placed in that country's private Pouch (provided by TSR). At the end of the turn, all messages get stuffed into the official Diplomatic Pouch. When a player's turn comes, he can move his units and either have Combat or Diplomacy. If he goes with Diplomacy he can either make a speech (to activate the US, for example) or engage in Espionage (which involves making a roll to read a random number of messages in the Diplomatic Pouch). This could get pretty screwy. How does everyone else handle this? Let me know your takes on all of this. The game seems like it has so much potential, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the game is unbalanced. Then again, the real world is unbalanced, so what am I complaining about? It's more realistic that way, right? Dan Raspler osli@aol.com From: jclark@unlv.edu (John Clark) Description: Re: A LINE IN THE SAND - ok, actually I played this game last summer and have a question to pose: The rules stipulated that any player of an Arab faction must control more than half of their original countries to win (and meet their factions' objective). As I was playing Iraq, aligned with , I think, Yemen and informed of this rule mid-way through the game ( I lost Yemen after USA had two turns!) I tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that rule didn't apply to Iraq. (Other Arab factions have 4 or more countries, so playing Iraq requires one to control ALL of his countries). I recall the rule was worded poorly, does anyone have a copy of this rule (I don't own the game.) Maybe I was just splitting hairs, any comment? Anyway the game was really fun, everyone got a kick out of the secret messages, battle resolution was fair. Jace Clark From: osli@aol.com (Osli) Description: Re: A LINE IN THE SAND - ok, actually In article <1994Jun6.223916.29864@unlv.edu>, jclark@unlv.edu (John Clark) writes: > The rules stipulated that any player of an Arab faction must control > more than half of their original countries to win (and meet their > factions' objective). As I was playing Iraq, aligned with , I think, > Yemen and informed of this rule mid-way through the game ( I lost > Yemen after USA had two turns!) I tried, unsuccessfully, to argue > that rule didn't apply to Iraq. (Other Arab factions have 4 or more > countries, so playing Iraq requires one to control ALL of his > countries). I recall the rule was worded poorly, does anyone have a > copy of this rule (I don't own the game.) Maybe I was just splitting > hairs, any comment? I agree. I think this rule is a good example of the "rush the game to the printers before the boys get home" syndrome. Clearly, for Iraq to lose the game because the combined might of the US Diego Garcia force pounded on little Yemen (despite the conquest of Kuwait or Iran) is foolish. I would either rescind the rule completely, or propose a "can't lose three cities" rule or something. Also, I have a few questions of my own: 1) Am I nuts or is Iran completely wimpy beyond belief? Iraq could pound the hell out of it in about a minute, no? Doesn't explain how they could have a war raging for seven years, you know? 2) Shouldn't the Moderate Arabs send the Jihad Gauge UP if they attack Volatile Arabs? In the rules, this attack sends the Jihad Gauge down, which is a double bonus for the Moderate Arab faction. Dan Raspler osli@aol.com From: kosakd@reis36.alleg.edu (Dave "Finish Him!" Kosak) Description: Re: A LINE IN THE SAND - ok, actually In article <2t160n$hj4@search01.news.aol.com> osli@aol.com (Osli) writes: > > Also, I have a few questions of my own: > 1) Am I nuts or is Iran completely wimpy beyond belief? Iraq could > pound the hell out of it in about a minute, no? Doesn't explain how > they could have a war raging for seven years, you know? Iran doesn't have a lot of options, but if he's nice to his allies he can pound Iraq pretty good, so long as they haven't wasted their forces by piling them paranoidially on the northern border. Becomming buddies with the U.S. is a great way to help join in on the Iraq bashing, if the U.S. is smart enough to realize how important a distraction up North can be. Iran is in a really tough position if Iraq is ready for them and the U.S. doesn't care, but even then it's still fun to send threatening messages to everyone and commit terrorist acts. 2) Shouldn't the Moderate Arabs send the Jihad Gauge UP if they > attack Volatile Arabs? In the rules, this attack sends the Jihad > Gauge down, which is a double bonus for the Moderate Arab faction. That was always an odd rule that people kept taking advantage of - it probably should be patched up. -- ______David Ulysseus Kosak_______________kosakd@alleg.edu_________