Last night I played Alexander the Great by Phalanx at the local game store with three other people. Like other Phalanx products, the components were stunning and a joy to play with. The game has some light strategy, and although it took us about 2 and a half hours to complete, I'm certain if we were all familiar with the rules we would've finished a game in half that time.

The game is about Alexander's Camapaigns through the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. You play each campaign in order and then score it. Points are scored for having the most armies and building cities and temples in a campaign area. At the end of the game, all the regions are scored again for most cities and/or temples in a region.

This is a classic example of a hybrid game. It neatly straddles the line between being a wargame and being a euro. Given the component quality and no actual fighting going on, I would say it leans more towards being a euro. The strategy is light, but not too light as to be unimportant. There are no dice, so no luck element in the game (which may turn some people off).

Overall, it was an enjoyable game. I already own a number of games that I think I'd prefer to play instead, so I don't see myself buying it. However, for a group looking for a quick-playing game with nice components and light strategy, this would be a good pick.

I find it insulting not only that this review was approved, but also that it got 2.4545 gg.

When my scanner was working, I submitted images, some games, and a few reviews in order to earn an avatar and a geekbadge. I will not begrudge others on how they earn their geekgold, especially given that it is Board Game Geek that sets the guidelines. I do not keep tabs on the amount of geekgold others have; there are better ways in which to spend my time.

Although I only know Pete through the internet--for all I know, he could be a computer disguised as a human being--, I have found Peso Pete to be a super guy. I believe that he is earning a degree in counseling, and I know that he is already helping others through his expertise and his compassion. Pete has made a couple or three trades with me that allowed me to get some great games.

If you wrote your comment about the "2.4545 gg" tongue-in-cheek, then, once again, I put my pitch in for an icon/symbol which reflects that the writer is speaking in such a manner. If, on the other hand, you really begrudge Peso Pete of his 2.4545 gold pieces, then please reread my second paragraph.

Keep up the good work, on and off the Geek, Peso Pete.

GeekGold is to give people incentive to contribute. This review tells me nothing. If I was looking to play/buy the game, I could learn more reading the description on the game page. Even if the GeekMod system allowed awarding 0 gg, I would have rejected it.

The fact that you care more about how you perceive someone earns geekgold than you care about the person speaks volumes, does it not? And I guess you never did read or reread "paragraph two."

Actually, I have this game in my cart at Thoughthammer. When the review popped up, it was nice to see a quick take on the game that I'm considering purchasing. I've read many of the larger reviews, but it's refreshing to read someone elses take. I don't mind these types of reviews at all.

The review was concise and to the point. It passed along more information than I had before I read the review, and tickled my interest in the game.

Thanks Pete

Irrelevant. I don't care if he is a nice guy, or my best friend, or my closest relative. I'm never going to approve a review like this. It hurts BGG to allow it. It fills the site with noise. And it belittles those of us who TRY when we post content. 15 sentences is barely enough text to review Tic-Tac-Toe. I'm not trying to insult Peter. My statement is impersonal. I've criticized other reviews for the same thing. If Peter writes a review that is exceptional, I will compliment him, and perhaps even give a tip.

Because reviews like this get approved and get GG, it sends the message that you can get a badge by spending 10 minutes total writing 10 worthless "reviews" for a total of 30 gg. I think the main reason reviews like this are passing is that people have all silently agreed to pass all of them so they can collect the approval bonus. Since the default is 3 gg, most don't bother to change it.

Jeeze Ekted, GG is a fictional currency! If I want to read the rules of game I'll download the rules and read them, long reviews I read, well - I read the intro paragraph and the summation at the end.

This review suits me fine - and as a contributing memeber of BGG I find it insulting that another contributing member would be inclined to suggest that people like myself, who like to read short reviews, should not have reviews of the type they like approved and here on BGG.

If you choose to get worked up over a pathetic 2-and-a-piss-all pieces of a fictional currency that is your own affair. I for one approve of and enjoy these sort of reviews.

I hope you're not offended Ekted, but really - who cares. You have managed to collect over 200 GG, Peso Pete has manged over 150, it really makes little difference. I have long been of the opinion that people here need to get more (yes more) GG for all submissions, and should also give away more as a matter of course in their interactions with people here on BGG.

Good on you Peter - keep writing and I for one will keep reading.

BTW - I also enjoy your reviews Ekted - but I usually only read your intro's and comments - both of which are often insightful. The rest of the detail is interesting - but as I usually read the rules as well I prefer a much shorter - 'I liked this game because...This game is XXX because' and so on.

I am not against short reviews. I am just against awarding significant GG for them. That is why I asked that there be a 0 selection. People commented that if a review is worth 0, they would simply reject it. But I guess my view is pointless. GeekMods seem perfectly willing to award 2.5 GG for 1 minute of effort. So why should anyone try?

The more you write in defense of your criticism, the more you add to my phrase "speaks volumes." Jim, we both have better things to do with our time. In your case, there must be more constructive things to do with your time than haggle over 2.4545 geek gold. As for me, I entered this discussion--discussion?--because the game title caught my attention, as did Peso Pete's name. I also have better things to do with my time. I could go and read every review you have written and add a phrase along the lines of "He received geek gold for this dribble?!" but what constructive purpose would that serve? I have final exams that call for my attention.

P.S., Jim. Human relationships are always relevant, on or off the internet.

Yes they are. But they are not related at all to the quality of writing. I'm not going to pretend I like something just because "a nice guy" wrote it. That is not how business works.

Funny how the complaints about a brief review "fill the site with noise" more than the brief review itself.

ekted, I've tipped you 3 GG so you won't feel that Peso Pete isn't the only person awarded for doing nothing.

Jim, the review was meant as an "out-of-the-box" observation based on one playing of the game. It is not an in-depth review because (as I stated in the beginning of the review) I have only played it once and certainly am not well-versed enough in the game to write such an in-depth review. That's not deflecting your point, that is just being honest. If you wish, consider this less of a review and more of a "beginning player observation".

I'm sincerely sorry that you were insulted that I took the time and effort to type this brief review and you are welcome to the 2.4545 geekgold that I got for it. Believe it or not, I didn't do this for the geekgold. I did it because I thought some people would enjoy reading it. I'm sorry if are one of those who didn't enjoy reading it.

Just as an aside, I read Jim's review of Ra and enjoyed it very much. Jim, I found your review well-written and insightful.

Daren Jackson you da man!

Jim, were you one of those kids in school that always wanted to be the hall monitor and was generally hated by all the other kids? You're being a jerk. The guy said it was brief and all you can do is act like a whiney little kid who spends half his time running to his daddy to tattle on his siblings. There are 7 or 8 reviews for this game. Read one of those if you need more information and stop being a hall monitor.

I'm all for brief reviews, and there is so little unique in AtG that brevity serves it well. Beyond classifying it as a low-luck influence game, I think a couple of sentences about the core mechanisms (resource allocation & blind bidding) would have been a good addition.

I'm not trying to be whiny. I'm just stating my opinion. Comments that short could perhaps be put into your game comments. That way it's useful to those who want a 1 minute summary, and will not be confused with a review. I just don't think it is reasonable to submit anything as a review unless you are willing to spend 30 minutes on it.

I don't have GeekGold envy, and I am not trying to be a GeekBadge elitist. But when I see a Badge or an UberBadge, I expect it to reflect CONTENT and EFFORT. They represent a certain seriousness in gaming. Geek Badges used to be useful in that those who had them had submitted more real content and had more gaming experience, etc. With GeekMod the way it is, everyone can have an UberBadge in a day, making them worthless.

If Aldie gifted everyone 100 GG, who cares? It's fake money. So I ask again, what is GG for if not for incentive?

I returned dcjackso's gift.

I see, understand, and to an extent agree with your POV Jim, there does need to be a balance so that the quality of material here on BGG is maintained, but regulating a system like the one here is extremely difficult (as well you know). I believe that there is a certainly a place for lengthy & deep observations, which suit gamers like ourselves, but there should also be a place for quicker, 'dirtier', and more succinct POV pieces for those of us who enjoy reading them and especially for the more casual gamers who may stray here from time to time.

What is difficult, if not damn near impossible, is regulating the submission and reward system to ensure that reviews from one group or the other are passed, with appropriate reward, and that pieces that are less worthwhile are either not passed or not rewarded.

The problem comes from trying to differentiate between shades of gray (so to speak), what is worthwhile? What should be worth what? Should all things submitted as reviews end up in the reviews folder? Should there be two types of reviews: quick reviews and deep reviews? and so on. All these solutions however, will bring further problems. I think Aldie would welcome constructive commentary on how these problems could be overcome, the initial comments here, I think, were not constructive.

What I, and many others (I assume) have taken umbridge at, is the way in which you voiced your critisicm. I don't mean to offend, and understand your point, but the way in which you raised yor point was, in my opinion, confrontational and needlessly derisive.

Giles.

I too understand your point, Giles. GeekMod is clearly better than having the admins handle the overload of content. It is not an easy thing to handle/sort/rate all the data. My original post was partly my opinion, and partly a straw man to evoke discussion. Perhaps I defended it a little to fiercely. I do not have a solution either. I have seen much feedback for and against my thoughts (here and privately). I suppose there is going to be nothing better than letting the public decide. Along similar lines, Puerto Rico is the #1 game here, but not my #1 game by a long shot. I would not dream of trying to "bring it down" even if I could. The public has spoken. Ratings and awards are what they are. As long as those who use GeekMod are giving the values they intend, then I guess that has to be good enough.

What?? You just said exactly the opposite, about this very review. "It hurts BGG to allow it. It fills the site with noise."