Game: Mid-East Peace

Image

Guantanamo — 2008-04-27T17:10:19+00:00

Scan of other half of countersheet

Image

Guantanamo — 2008-04-27T17:08:34+00:00

Scan of half of counters

Thread: Re: Does it work for two persons?

Flatlander Fox — 2008-01-07T02:13:12+00:00

Not really. It would be akin to playing Diplomacy with two people, which can be fun from a tactical standpoint, but not much fun in the end.

Stick with T.S. for your two player needs.

Thread: Re: Does it work for two persons?

saminurmela — 2007-12-05T15:17:07+00:00

Hi Matias, I don't think it works very well with two. It's been a long time since I last played the game, but I recall that most of the fun in it came from the diplomacy aspect and alliance shifting. With two it will probably be a more drier experience, centering on conflict.

Thread: Does it work for two persons?

mattius — 2007-12-05T14:34:17+00:00

hei,
there's someone here?

does this game work well for only two persons?

Is it a satiric-political game as Kremlin?

Me and Lluís like Twilight Struggle. Is it a good complement?

Image

saminurmela — 2007-12-02T11:25:29+00:00

Box back

Thread: Re: Playing time?

Herr Niemand — 2007-07-28T17:18:43+00:00

Hi Kent:

Played this a bunch long ago. IIRC playing time was highly variable with 2 hours a very rough average.

Playing time depends on:

- How many players there are,
- How much they get into diplomacy,
- Whether the game ends in war or peace (war = longer game).

My quickest game of this was a blow out victory (about 45 minutes). My longest game was also the last I ever played -- well over 4 hours (ugh!).

I'd suggest limiting diplomacy time as a way to keep playing time down without warping play.

Hope this helps.

Thread: Playing time?

kentreuber — 2007-07-28T15:48:26+00:00

I'm thinking about running Mid-East Peace at a convention, but I need to know a reasonable playing time. The BGG entry lists 120 minutes for playing time. That seems a little short for a diplomatic game. I would have guessed closer to 4 hours. What has been your experience? Fudge on the high side as I'll have to teach rules in the time period as well. I plan to limit the negotiation phase.

Thread: Mid-East Peace Review

Smougman — 2006-02-11T20:19:54+00:00

(This review is being conducted based on the Author's copy, purchased in 2000. Author has tried to describe and assess the product without violation of copyright and in as honest a manner as possible.)

Mid-East Peace is a wargame produced by Columbia Games Inc. The premise behind the game is a fictional conflict between the major powers of the middle east in the late eighties and early nineties. It's obvious by the cover art on the box that the game tries not to take itself too seriously. The game can support up to six players, ideally play should not be conducted with any less than four players.

The contents of the game were less than stellar at the time of purchase, but they all function as they are intended to by the producer of the game. Included is a small rulebook, a playing map and a few counter sheets. I'll go over these individually. The rulebook itself is pretty clear about what you need to know to play the game. However, the material quality of the rulebook I recieved was sub-par. The print quality was very poor, so much so that in some spots a few words were unreadable. The rulebook itself came disassembled as pile of pages that I had to stack correctly and fold over, then staple. The playing map is a sturdy card stock and is actually pretty well made. It's very colorful and very clearly printed. My one complaint here is that the map is entirely too small. In what is clearly meant to be a six player game, the entire map becomes crowded with counters, and makes playing with the optional "Chrome" rules more of a hassle than a pleasure.

The counters aren't too bad. Every counter in the game is a singular rectangle shape. Six sets of armies are available. An army being represented by a nation's flag with a white arrow superimposed over it and a number (army strength) printed on the flag. Each nation gets eleven army counters of varying strengths. One army counter is left blank to act as a replacement for missing pieces. The rest of the counters serve as game components. Oil Markers, Bloc Markers, UN markers, etc. My only complaint here is the Oil Markers. The value of the oil markers should be more clearly printed on the counter, as of right now it's a rather small number, and considering all Oil Markers look the same, it's sometimes difficult to tell them apart.

The gameplay is fairly straitforward but surprisingly deep. Players begin by choosing a home nation (out of the eleven available) and place their starting armies. Each nation is marked with a numerical value. This value tells how much oil the nation produces every turn, as well as how many armies and oil markers that it's owning player starts with. This makes certain nations into suicidal choices as a starting point. Players picking Libya, Kuwait, Jordan and Lebanon take note especially.

Oil Markers are the currency of the game. Players can collect these every turn if they so choose, and must use them to attack, defend, cut deals and purchase new armies. Oil Markers are stored in a 'bank' that all players use for spending or buying. The level of Oil Markers in the 'bank' constantly increases and decreases during a game, and there are dire consequences if it gets depleted.

Gameplay is seperated into three Phases, and players may only use two of the three phases in a turn, and only in a certain order. Each phase has a different advantage, and players need to be very careful when planning their turn to ensure that they are able to accomplish their goals with the phases they have chosen. Each player gets one turn made up of two phases of their choice before the end of a round.

It is only during certain phases that a player can collect oil markers, attack other countries or buy new armies. In the Economic Phase a player can collect oil markers. In the Military phase a player can remove armies, move them into friendly territories or attack other players. The Diplomatic phase allows players to set up an arms auction, in which players bid for the right to buy armies. The highest bidder being the only player allowed to purchase armies at their bid price. Additionally during the Diplomatic phase, players may ally themselves with a superpower or call for a U.N. resolution. These resolutions can be anything, from calling on U.N. peacekeepers to occpy a region to sanctioning another player, to ending the game. Each player gets a certain number of votes based on the number of territories they control and casts these votes either in support or opposition of a U.N. resolution.

The real strength of the game and one of it's best features is the hugely open diplomacy aspect. Players are free to negotiate at the end of every round. This negotiation system functions very much like the one in the Avalon Hill game, Diplomacy. Players can create alliances, pay each other for favors or make virtually any other kind of arrangement.

One other aspect that I like is bluffing during combat. A player can announce an attack or defense with any number of armies, but secretly decides on how many actually attack or defend by selecting a number of oil markers equal to or less than the number of armies they want to activate. Players attacking and defending reveal their committed oil markers at the same time and if the attacking player has committed more than the defender (and only more than..) then the attack succeeds, if not then it fails. It's an elegant system that allows players to bluff each other into spending oil unnecessarily. Players need to be especially careful with their spending as to avoid losing territory because they are out of Oil Markers to defend with.

As mentioned, U.N. peacekeepers can be deployed to territories if a player can get the other players to accept the vote. a U.N. peacekeeping counter essentially prevents anyone from moving into or attacking the territory it is stationed in. This is a very powerful token in the game, and the player or players who control the U.N. will find this to be a valueable asset.

Superpower alliances are an interesting feature, but I and those that have played the game with me believe that the superpowers can slow the game down or lead to a less enjoyable experience. Players can ally with a superpower (either "Red" or "Blue" respectively representing The Soviet Union and The United States.) in the diplomatic phase. There are some restrictions that this brings to the game. Nations allied to the same superpower cannot attack each other. Additionally players who are allied with a superpower gain the benefit of being able to request a free unit for their starting territory. The effect of this is that the superpower force effectively doubles the value of every defending army. This can and has led to huge stalemates and irritating slows down the game in my experience. These negatives can be avoided, but with the tendency for players to go for the win rather than the fun, it's easily abused.

Victory can be achieved in two primary ways. Through 'War' or 'Peace'. Depending on how the game ends, scoring is tallied differently for each player. More aggressive players will be punished after a Peace victory, but would be rewarded under a War victory. There are four possible ways to end the game this way. One of them is a U.N. vote that ends the game, another is if one player defeats all of the other players, and if any player reduces to oil marker 'bank' to zero.

The game has some noticable flaws, most notably in the quality of the components (which can be easily addressed), but also in rule clarity and gameplay testing. I dont regret purchasing this game as it makes for a quicker experience than games like Axis & Allies or ASL. However, the game hasn't really won me over in the way that other games have. If it were reworked a little I imagine that I'd review and rate the game a little higher.

Thread: War Victory

Smougman — 2006-02-11T13:50:44+00:00

We agreed to play with the basic rules and no superpower alliances. Players were Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I was playing Iran. Gameplay was pretty quick early on. All players were taking Economic and Diplomatic phases. Nobody was really willing to spend big oil in the arms auction. I finally took the plunge after getting some spare armies and attacked Iraq. Which immediately made me everyone's enemy. Iraq is the most powerful country in the game @7 production and the loud sounds of disapproval made be second guess my decision. Luckily I had enough forces in Iran to hold my homeland if Turkey got aggressive.

This triggered a land grab by everyone. Israel stole Sinai and Egypt, but a carefully planned UN vote moved the peacekeeping forces to Libya to prevent further expansion. Saudi Arabia grabbed Kuwait and Jordan, Turkey Grabbed Syria and later on, Lebanon. So the lines had been drawn and it became a build-up game.

Israel and Me (Iran) had big advantages in oil production. Eventually both of us garnered a sizable stockpile and reduced the oil reserve to a dangerously low level. Luckily Saudi Arabia decided to invade and capture Iraq. Rather than fight, I ran (get it?) and kept my forces piled up in Iran for a counter attack. I secretly cut a deal with Israel to attack Jordan on it's turn and then I would attack Iraq again once Saudi Arabia had used up it's dwindling oil on the defense of Jordan. This worked out excellently and I retook Iraq, and was able to reinforce it on the same turn to the point where Saudi Arabia wasn't a threat.

Things started going bad for Saudi Arabia at this point, in agreement for Lebanon and Syria being left unharmed, Turkey agreed not to intervene. Israel and myself carved into Saudi Arabia. There were some land grabs on both sides, but eventually I ended up with Kuwait and Israel with Jordan and Saudi Arabia (A much better deal) and after bribing me with nearly half it's stockpile, I agreed to let Israel put the UN peacekeepers in Saudi Arabia (big mistake). In the end Israel gained a huge oil advantage and created a single front.

This is what happens when you think in the short term. Both myself and Israel agreed to declare war on Turkey. Up until this point he had been stockpiling oil and spending loads of it on armies. He had all of his available troops on the board and with Israel's help I managed to sweep him off the board in a matter of a few turns.

Unfortunately this left me and Israel face to face for the win. Israel had me beat unless I could take more of his lands than he could drain oil from. He opted for an offensive retreat, and even taking a land almost every turn he was still able to out-drill me and depelete the oil supply for a war victory and a gigantic oil stockpile.

Image

Herr Niemand — 2005-11-26T14:10:31+00:00

Image

Caversham — 2003-07-19T16:23:56+00:00

Mid-East Peace board

Image

Caversham — 2003-07-19T16:23:55+00:00

Mid-East Peace box cover

Thread: Session Report

Morgan — 2003-04-08T12:25:18+00:00

Mid-East Peace Session, April 5, 2003.

With the state of current affairs that way it is, and a gaming group who loves to discuss global politics, this seemed like the perfect vehicle for us to vent our bellicose tendencies. We decided to give it a go at the end of a long night of gaming since the rules allow for an early
end by majority vote for a U.N. "Cease Fire" resolution. Also, most of us were curious to see if the game would mimic real history in any sense. The addition of certain "chrome" rules like OPEC meetings, Negotiations, United Nations voting, Oil Drilling, and Superpower Alliances also provided a distinct flavor.

The five of us, in order, played the following nations: Turkey, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Things got off with a bang on the first round with an invasion and annexation of Syria by Turkey. Israel also followed suit with an invasion and annexation of its neighbor Jordan. Iraq, sensing weakness in the Turkish Armed Forces, and with a strong supply of oil and men,
successfully invaded and conquered the Turkish Homeland. Turkey was now just a refugee army in Jordan. Saudi Arabia then took advantage of the situation to annex Kuwait. In addition, the Saudis won an oil drilling bid to drill for more oil in its homeland, increasing its oil supply
significantly. Lasty, Egypt moved its forces into the Sinai, and made motions to invade Libya.

On the next round, an OPEC meeting concluded that no oil would be moved to the oil supply from the oil reserve, thus potentially speeding up the game. Turkey, during its turn, proposed a UN resolution to oust Iraq from its homeland, but could not muster enough votes from the members to do so. Israel won its bid to purchase more armed forces during the Arms Auction phase. Iraq, sensing a threat from Saudi Arabia, decided to align itself with a superpower, which was none other than the U.S.! This meant that Iraq could ask for US intervention should its country be invaded. The Saudis, during their turn, were content to just produce more oil. Egypt moved several forces into the Red Sea, securing its own oil supply export route against the Saudis or Israel.

The Third Round saw several ridiculous UN resolutions being proposed, with all of them being voted down. (I wont go into them here, its just not worth the time. Suffice to say they were pretty silly.) The only successfull resolution was an Israeli proposal to move th U.N. Peacekeeping force to Libya. This was no doubt done to limit Egyptian expansion. Egypt then responded by aligning itself with the Soviet Union. In addition, this round saw each nation
preparing itself for the big battle by purchasing more and more armed forces. It seemed almost a foregone conclusion that the Saudis would invade Iraq, and that Egypt and Israel would soon come to blows.

So what happens? PEACE breaks out! A U.N. resolution for a "Cease Fire" is passed and the game ends with Peace. (no doubt because it was getting late) Since the game ended on Peace, the nation with the most oil and the fewest armies scores the highest. In this case, Saudi Arabia had the most oil (22) and 6 armies for a total score of 16. Turkey, a nation without a homeland, scored second with 1 point. All the other countries, because of their rush to build armies, suffered the lowest scores. Total game time: 1 hour.

The final scores were:

Saudi Arabia 16
Turkey 1
Israel -2
Egypt -2
Iraq -4

Thread: Session Report

Jim_P — 2003-03-09T05:16:34+00:00

It's probably been two years since we played this game last... and with the current tension in the middle east it seemed only fitting that we play.

After explaining the rules for some of the latecomers we started. Players took the following countries to start the game: Jim - Egypt, Jason - Israel, Mark - Saudi Arabia, Sean - Iraq, RJ - Turkey, Trent - Iran. The only "chrome" rule we played was 'Oil Drilling'.

The game started slowly with everyone just taking economic and diplomatic actions. Jason managed to get the UN Peacekeeping Force into Israel and allied himself with the Blue Bloc after expanding into Lebanon. I expanded into Libya, the Sinai and the Red Sea... Mark took Kuwait... Sean took Jordan... Trent moved into the Persian Gulf and set his sights on Turkey.

Trent allied with the Blue Bloc, took Syria, and then forced RJ from the game... he was definitely playing for a "War" to end the game.

Such was not to be however. The remaining four players started to hoard oil and I called for a UN Cease Fire which passed by one vote... ending the game with "Peace" (with only 14 oil points left in reserve, Trent could have ended the game on his turn to win).

Final scores:

Jim 32
Jason 26
Sean 15
Mark 10
RJ 0 (eliminated)
Trent -3

Image

Jim_P — 2003-03-06T13:45:09+00:00