From The General 19/4 THE FRINGES OF CIVILIZATION By Mick Uhl It certainly appears that the "Back to Basics" movement has arrived to stay. After a ten year trend of "bigger is better", the classic style of game prevalent in the fifties and sixties is returning to the adult gaming fleld. I, for one, am not displeased with this turn of events. Those big monster games are impressive to look at and beautiful to own, but just the thought of getting one started - much less playing it to conclusion - gives me chills. My friends and I much prefer to sit down to a few good games of ACQUIRE than spend the afternoon admiring the latest in wargaming sophistication. That's why I am so pleased that CIVILIZATION is receiving such good reviews in the hobby press. It uses a well-conceived, straight-forward game system unhindered by loads of detail to make some very elegant statements about mankind's journey from Stone Age to Iron Age. It can run long, but it is fun to play; and in the end, isn't that what's important? I don't intend this preface to be a self-serving testimonial for CIVILIZATION. I like the game and believe it deserves the best presentation possible. Yet I also recognize certain disquieting aspects which I think can be improved. CIVILIZATION suffers from a common multiplayer game flaw I like to call the "Hearts Syndrome" (players of Hearts should recognize this ploy right away) - as soon as one player looks like he is about to win, all the other players coordinate their efforts and drive him back into the common pack. What makes it so noticeable in CIVILIZATION is the inability of the leader to defend himself against this collective activity. The consequences are two-fold - a sudden tag in the tempo of play and great increases of frustration. The need for a variant of some kind to address this problem becomes apparent. Such was the motivation for this brief column. I did not stop here though. I still have a few other ideas that I want to try out. Be warned; none of these changes have had extensive testing so don't consider this an official addendum to the game. That's not to say that sometime in the future some or all of these rules might not make their way to official status. Try out whichever of these new rules appeal to You. You might have to handmake some new components, but that shouldn't be too tough for people as inventive as wargamers. If we get strong, supportive feedback on these proposals, consideration will begiven to printing an expansion kit. If you like the changes or have any ideas of your own, please write. DRAMA & POETRY MODIFICATION Change the DRAMA AND POETRY Civilization card to provide a special credit of "20" towards LITERACY and "20" towards DEMOCRACY. (The original British version of this game only provided a special credit of "20" towards LITERACY. There was no credit whatsoever given towards DEMOCRACY.) CIVIL WAR NOMINEE The recipient of the Civil War calamity no longer selects the nominee. Instead, the nominee must be the player with the most tokens in stock. If there is a tie, the recipient of the calamity may then choose the nominee from among those tied. (I hesitate to make any, change to the game system as it is. I reluctantly alter this part of the Civil War procedure only to eliminate a ploy the consequences of which are so devastating that it is totally unfair. Experience has taught players that they can turn their civil war into a powerful offensive tool. Simply stated, a player who gets the Civil War picks as his nominee another player who currently has a small stock. In replacing the tokens of the dissident faction, the nominee finds he must use up his stock. Next turn, the boom falls. He has no tokens to pay taxes and every city he has in play is lost to revolt. This small rule change prevents this from occurring.) CITY/RURAL CO-HABITATION Tokens may permanently occupy the same area as a city. In effect, the city does not count toward the population limit of any area. For example, an area with, say, a population limit of five and with a city can support up to five tokens of any nationality just as if there were no city there at all. The status ofthe tokens inhabiting the same area as the city now becomes a factor. A token of the city's nationality may be designated a defender of the city by stacking it with the city during the Movement Phase. These tokens do not count against population level and must be removed from the board in the Remove Surplus Population Phase. Tokens not designated as ciiy defenders (this must include all foreign tokens) are kept in the area away from the city. They cannot participate in the defense of a city but can he used to support the city (see 14.0). When using this rule, an invader often has a choice of attacking a city and its defenders (if any) or tokens in the area. Who he attacks first is his choice. The conflict must continue, though, until the population limit is no longer exceeded. (I could not find any historic reasons for a city preventing the occupation of the surrounding countryside by the rural populations.) NB submitted by John Kula (kula@telus.net) on behalf of the Strategy Gaming Society (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/~sgs), originally collected by Andrew Webber (gbm@wwwebbers.com)