1. Introduction

My preference in games is for those games which are classic games heavy on strategy and tactics, whatever style-- abstracts, wargames, euros, etc.-- whether old games acknowledged as classic or new games sufficiently good that they will become classics inevitably. Most of the older games from the 60's, 70's and 80's I've heard of simply because I grew up in a family playing board games. Although this too is an older one, somehow I missed it, but I bought it relatively recently in a GL auction because from what I read about it I strongly got the impression that this was a game at the level of quality as a game of the GameMaster series published by MB, although published by TSR (the company more known for reprinting SF classic books and a smattering of new stuff). From the plays I've gotten in since buying and receiving this, I think if anything my impression that this is a classic game is if anything understated. This is a truly great game, and my intention in this review is to explain precisely way. True, I've not played it a lot yet, but I've played it enough, I think.

First, let me add a remark. When I first looked at this game [read: pulled out and started playing it], I posted excitedly asking for other games with aspects comparable to the most obviously cool things about this game. Naturally, I got the inevitable post in reply damning this game with faint praise decrying it as "Great in its day" but implying that day was over and hence the game was a pathetic relic compared to more recent [read: better] games. To this, my response is that it's complete and utter rot. If you [the reader] want a fun game in which one has to think about how to win, this game is hard to beat. The game being reviewed has enough depth and optional rules to keep the game interesting after years of repeated play while yet striking the balance of not making it so complex that one simply cannot prepare for all the things that could possibly happen in the course of play. This last point is important in order to strike the correct balance of the strategic element of the game in game-play.

So, if you're reading this review, my point is that if you like old-school games of strategy and tactics on a grand scale, this could be the game for you. If like me, you're from the generation to whom the touchstone of really good games was MB's GameMaster series, this almost certainly is the game for you; it's not from MB and so not part of that series, but it has the same level of quality production and game-play. Even better, no matter what generation you come from, this game is unique; Axis & Allies in space this isn't. For me at least, that's the thing sine qua non when buying a new game; it has to be different enough and good enough as a game to warrant a new purchase. This game qualifies hands down.

2. Components

This game is '80's style big box hard-core Ameritrash-- and that's said by someone who considers those words to express high praise. The quality of the plastic components, of the cardboard bits, of the cards and of the board is precisely like the GameMaster series with which this game was clearly made to compete. The game even comes with styrofoam holder trays for the components and small poker-style chips for stacking similar units on the same space. My one complaint in terms of components is a minor one; namely, the four transports to each player come with eight cardboard markers intended to be used in pairs so that units on transports can be played off the board for convenience. These would be more useful if the markers came in pairs numbered 1 to 4 so that they were distinguishable, but this is not really a big deal.

The board bears some description, not only to help clarify the soon to follow rules summary and description of game play but just to exemplify the high quality of the components. The board is a large tri-part board. The game designers even had the good sense to put the two folds at boundaries between regions of the board so that one wouldn't want to put units there generally in the first place. The center-piece of the board is a simplified orrery of the inner planets out to and including nine major asteroids of the asteroid belt. Card-board markers designate the current position of the planets and asteroids and the simple system of double-sided markers makes it easy to not overlook anything when moving the bodies forward in their orbits at the start of each turn. The rest of the board is then divided into five main regions associated with each of the four inner planets and the asteroids, with the region associated with Earth sub-divided into an area associated with the moon and another with Earth itself. Except for the asteroids, each of these five regions has an area of associated space for near orbit and far orbit, the Earth and Moon each having their own near orbit area as well as a join far orbit area. The orrery connects the regions and governs their relative motion simply but effectively.

I've seen a number of comments to the effect that the rules are not clear or complete but this is not my experience. I find the rules clear, concise and detailed. Example turns are even included to clarify anything if need be.

3. Rules (not complete)

This is a reasonably detailed game (although one can easily go through the rules and get to playing pretty quickly) and so I shan't try and give all the rules; these are posted in the game entry here on BGG anyway, but I will summarize the major point of the basic game. An advanced game booklet is included but this mainly involves optional rules and suggested variants. The main one worth mentioning is a variant suggesting each player starts completely controlling a planet instead of the usual set-up with players having regions scattered randomly throughout the solar system. (More on this discussing game-play but for now I'll say this variant is neither better nor worse than the usual set-up based on my experience.)

The game is probably best with six-players; that at least is my own opinion, but I generally prefer games with the maximum number of players unless some reason existed specifically not to do so. Each player then starts with a standard complement of units distributed as the player chooses, subject only to basic (common sense) restrictions like not placing people in space, in each of seven regions. These are different in every game and are determined by sharing out territory cards at the start of the game; these cards are then not used again. Turn order is random with players either rolling to see who goes first and whether turns progress in a clockwise or anti-clockwise direction or (using an "advanced" rule) sharing out cards numbered 1 to 6 at the start of each turn to determine play order. Now, when I first read this in the rules-- before playing-- my own initial reaction was to be turned off by the idea of random turn order, but I tried it anyway. Since all players move units more or less simultaneously and then in the next phase resolve combat more or less simultaneously, the actual effect or turn order is small, albeit this does have some effect. The randomness in practice just forces one to plan ahead without being able to count on "going before player X". Specifically, in turn order, each player move all or any of the units he desires to move. Then, after all players have moved, combat is resolved in an order based on regions of the border. Finally, in turn order but after all combat is resolved, players build units at factories. Certain set options of units can be built in a single turn and certain other standard options take two turns. One nice thing is that factories can be moved by transport and if they are taken by the enemy one can make a last-ditch effort to sabotage the factory and thus deprive the enemy of it.

The game can be won in any of four ways. My favorite is the option of convincing all the other players that their positions are untenable, a victory condition I think every rules book should have. The game can be won more precisely by taking a total of 15 land areas on the board; space areas cannot be controlled. This is the first option. Failing this, a player wins if he controls the last leader token on the board; these are characters, one to each player, from the classic Buck Rogers books and serials-- some of whom did not appear in the TV series. Then finally, whoever controls the most territory on the board at the end of the turn when Earth has made a full year cycle so that it returns to its original position wins. A tie is possible at least in principle if multiple players take a fifteenth region in the same turn, but this is easily resolved by insisting that if one player has more (say, 16 regions instead of 15 by taking two regions on the same turn) that player wins. Barring that, the possible winners then can try and create such a difference in the number of regions or can just accept a tie. I'll note though that a tie is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely.

Each unit has its advantages and disadvantages in combat, which is resolved with a d10 and a simple CRT. This is a wargame after all. Troopers are less powerful than gennies in combat, but gennies cannot be transported from one planet to another like troopers can. Fghters are thoroughly outclasses in fire-power by battlers, but fighters can be used in planetary regions whereas battlers can only make one attempt at bombing. Transports are weak in and of themselves, but must be the last unit hit in any combat and of course these carry the troopers who take regions of planets. Finally, killer satellites get a single free shot at all attacking ships, but this is for defense only because one must control the entire planet to build one (which also takes two turns) and satellites cannot be moved.

Two final key points are that units cannot retreat from combat. Land units or fighters in a land region must fight till victory or death; leaders modify die rolls but do not count as units for combat themselves. In space regions, combat is always optional, but this means combat is at the discretion of any player with a ship in the region. If a player refuses to let a ship pass through the region of space without combat, the would-be passing ships must stay and fight until either only one side in the combat remains or no player in the space region wishes to continue fighting. In both land and space regions, multiplayer battles are not only possible but definitely do happen.

4. Game-play

If you are theme-obsessed, this is not a game that evokes Buck Rogers strongly. Nobody in this game is a hero or a villain. The player controlling the Buck Rogers characters as a leader will kill the Wilma Derring character no less quickly than any other character. Even using the optional advantages of each leader does not change the fact that this game is every player for himself. Yet, if one wants a well-themed game about fighting ruthlessly to control the solar system, this game certainly is that.

One of the best points of this game is that it so well strikes the balance between land combat and space combat that one cannot ignore either. With the standard set-up, the first phase of the game is generally a free-for-all battle to seize complete control of each of the planets. Not counting asteroids which are not subdivided apart from being nine separate land regions, the most one can expect to take without space combat is possibly two planets. The board-designers were savvy enough that this will never be quite enough to win. This leads naturally to the second phase in which space combat and landing of units from space dominates. Trying to pick off transports to destroy whatever units these carry is the principal goal here, but one has to destroy any and all escorting ship first. Even a grounded transport is destroyed last of all the units in the area. A good defensive tactic here is to park ships in the far orbit region of a planet one completely controls and to not let anything pass without a fight to the finish. Then one send out other ships to try and take other regions. Asteroids will often (albeit not always) be relatively easy targets, but these are also harder to reach.

A very cool and unique aspect of game-play is that the relatively separation of regions of the board changes every turn as the planets and asteroids progress in their orbits. Since movement of ships often takes more than one turn, one must plan ahead to take this into account. Although obvious, this is an aspect of a space-oriented wargame all too often overlooked. This game's designers didn't just remember to include planetary motion in the game, but they made it a strength fo the game. One could not re-theme this to a game about islands in the sea and yet keep it the same game is actual play as one could most space-based wargames.

Finally, a note to clarify an earlier remark, namely that this is not "just Axis & Allies in space". By this I mean that one should not be blinded by the similarities to the GameMaster series of games in the sense that the basic tactical and strategic problems underlying the nature of the game are not merely copied from MB games. One cannot play this as A&A or Conquest of the Empire or Samurai Swords or any other such game. All the comments I have seen decrying this as a broken or second-rate game try to do exactly that. Yet, if this were just a knock-off of another game-- no matter how good the game or the knock-off-- I for one would not be interested in playing it. If I want to experience playing A&A, I'll pull out my copy of A&A to do so. This game has to be played for itself on its own merits. If one does that, this is a great game.