STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://flyingmoose.ca) VOLUME 59 April 9, 2002 CONTENTS Feature Article – The Mega-alliance – A discussion Questions – Starweb Variants SEDG Web Page URL The Swap Corner - The Flying Moose Technologies' - Great White North (Canadian) Starweb Tournament April 26-28, 2002 Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE The Mega-alliance – A discussion By Elliot Hudes, Lee Knirko, Paul Balsamo and John Muije A little while ago Lee Knirko and I had a discussion regarding how the size of alliances in Starweb had made the game less enjoyable. With the aid of John Muije and Paul Balsamo I have put some of our thoughts here for the SEDG readers. I would love to get some feedback on this for upcoming SEDGs. Lee Knirko writes: Elliot - Thought you might be the leader in SW playing, and the one to discuss this old subject. In another game, where neither you nor Mike are playing, there are 10 players. We find that to our four player Alliance, the other 6 players have formed their alliance. One of our allies says he is fed up with the mega alliances, and is considering just leaving the game, and possibly not entering any new games (except perhaps Anonymous games). This would negatively affect FBI income stream. Would you support an FBI rule that only a certain number of allies be permitted in a game? Of course, I suppose the "outsiders" could still play as allies being careful about controlling the ambushes, etc. What do you think? Any thoughts on how my ally can live with outnumbered enemies? Frankly, I'm considering dropping in a mega alliance situation too. Something I have never done. ----------------------------- Elliot: 1) First - I am not the author of the 'Mega-alliance' although you seem to suggest this in many games. 2) I have been in small alliances that have won the game, the fight and often both. I site one game I was in as a standby where we had 6 players to the enemy 8 and we supplied the winning player and I think gave more lumps than we received (but we received many). I have been in a 7 player multi where we had control of 6 HWs and the enemy comprised the other 8. We destroyed or captured all the enemy HWs and won the game by points. In another multi (2 character) my alliance of 2 players - 4 HWs fought a losing ground battle with the other alliance of 8 HWs - outgunned 2 to 1. Guess who won the game despite that? My point? You don't necessarily lose the game because you are outgunned. A strong offense and careful planning for the win is necessary - NO, you can't get everyone on your team into a high rated score. But that's not the name of the game. You must survive and win it - only 1 player truly wins. 3) We are better off without the players who get fed up and threaten to quit. I don't play games with losers who will quit if they aren't doing well. Compare it to a chess match. If you lose a few good pieces do you throw the chess set on the floor and leave in a huff? If I did this I would not be able to play any more puzzles or word games with my wife who regularly wipes me out. But when I win - it's very sweet. Those quitters are poor sports. 4) Your idea of limiting the number of allies you can declare with the 'A=' order would make for an interesting variant. The very good players would still be able to ally and make sure they are not ambushed or captured by their unallied allies. 5) The only games that are very unfair are those where you are outgunned 2:1. If the enemy is competent you shouldn't have a chance. I don't have a problem with webs that coalesce into 2 fairly equal camps, which is often the case (even if some are independents or loners). In most regular games I try not to have alliances over 5 players. Ideally I like 4-5 but I've allowed 6 when someone just has to have a buddy join. This allows for up to 3 alliances to form, gives the other players a chance to make a bigger alliance than me too (not that I'm thrilled to get ganged up on :-). 6) Final thought on the first round. If it's not against the rules then why moan and groan? The answer to fighting off mega alliances is to be in an alliance that precludes you from being trounced. Note - I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD MAKE A BIG ALLIANCE. The longer after T4 you wait the harder it is to get an ally that is totally loyal to you. People start making agreements. If you wait until T7 you will invariably be in an alliance of 2 and get trounced by the one of 4 or higher. I make early offers. Sometimes this is very bad and I've had some very poor allies but then again - I usually get allies that agree that it's 'all for one and one for all'. If you grab 4 players on T4 into a group you should be able to handle any size alliance that comes along. Why? Well if you do hear about 6 guys banding together you can still grab a loner/small alliance and at least make a military deal (not a full alliance to share scoring potential) to defend yourself. I've done this many times - talk to the independent and say "Hey, those 6 guys will probably come after you either before or after they take me on - might as well work together for our defense." ----------------------------- Lee: Elliot - Yep I would very much like to debate the subject, as well as the "all for one and one for all" play method. I think it would be helpful to many of us, and perhaps open new avenues of diplomacy. When I mention you in connection with mega alliances, it's because you are undoubtedly the most popular, most known and probably one of the most competent SW players. It's normal for players in a game where you participate to want to ally with you for support and learning. I respect these qualities in you, and am looking forward to the debate resulting in a joint article for your newsletter. ----------------------------- Elliot: Awww, I'm blushing . Let's call it a discussion rather than debate - that would imply I truly believe in the Mega alliance. When you have time - write a response to some of my points in the previous email and I will take it from there. ----------------------------- Paul Balsamo: Lee/Elliot, The point here is not really the mega-alliances, they've been around a long time. The problem that's got me irked lately is that FBI keeps starting games with 10-11 players and then 6 of them ally. Although the game we are in has 11 players, 1 of them is hardly playing at all, so in essence there are 10 legitimate players. When there is a 6 on 4 on a 10 player game, there are no loners to make side deals or try to get on your side. Unless you count on some incompetent players on the larger side, ship production from 6 players should beat 4 players virtually every time. While I'm up for this sort of challenge once in a while, this has happened to me in consecutive games and it's rather silly to play out. If you've ever played a board game called Axis and Allies, you know what I mean. In that game, you set up the situation of WWII (which takes a while), but the whole game can be decided in the first 2 turns and then only because of the progress or lack thereof of the German invasion of Russia. After 2 turns, you can often see that there is no point continuing. Now, I am not a quitter and I won't leave my allies empty-handed in the current game, but I'm getting kinda tired of coming back to FBI and paying for more frustration. I'm not dumping the chessboard on the floor and going home, but I may not come back to the park to play a new game tomorrow. I also blame the players actions. In this game, I asked on turn 4 not to let his alliance go over 4 or 5 players, but they didn't listen and expanded to 6 of 10. I fail to see why experienced players continue to NEED 60% of the players to do well or have fun playing this game. I agree that FBI cannot prevent large alliances within the rules. As you point out, players can still work together even if they couldn't declare each other ally. I think the real problem is the low player count in the startups. I realize FBI is just trying to keep the games going, but I think this is making the mega-alliance problem worse. And, yes, to the point where I, a 17+ year SW veteran, may not come back for more. ----------------------------- John Muije said: Paul: With all due respect, this game became a 5 to 4 to 2 independents game, not a 7 to 4 game. Indeed, my alliance was originally 4, reluctantly expanded to 5. I think the main problem with non-anonymous Starweb in recent times is the speed of email communications, coupled with starting games involving less that 15 players. Signs also are partially to blame. There is too much to gain by early alliance, and too much to lose by early war. So that the record is clear, I met only PROTOSS, Utopia, and Intrepid on my turn 4 printout. In the old days, it would have been turn 5 before we even "talked", and absent email, we probably would not have been introduced to other players until turn 6! In this case, I made "deals" with all three of my immediate neighbors, and was put in touch with a merchant. The second merchant I think tried to play a neutral strategy, but ultimately felt the benefits of throwing in his lot with us outweighed the benefits and dangers of staying neutral. Intrepid managed to offend several players in both alliances with his style, and Corgor missed three turns early. Neither is in our alliance! As noted by Lee, Mega alliances are a problem for Starweb. Prior to this game, however, I had only ever met or talked to one of my current allies, and that was almost 20 years ago. A solution may be to play a quasi-anonymous game. Either all players agree to communicate only by snail mail; alternatively, all DM's would go thru FBI on the printouts, with no real world communication info allowed. In other words, you could have an innocuous sign on your ship, and send one in game MSG per turn to players you had met. I for one would be very interested in that variant. In case any one cares, in addition to this game, I am currently in one slow game, and 3 anonymous games. The Starweb analyzer speeds and eases play, but the speed of email diplomacy normally means I spend even more time on a live game turn now than I used to. Variants and private games exist. In this particular game, I felt 4 on 4 or even 5 on 4 would be fair and fun, particularly given the known and demonstrated expertise of you and your allies. Indeed, I warned my early allies as to your considerable experience and skills, and cautioned them that if the game did break into two camps, then we would be in for a long hard fight. By copy of this missive to Elliott and the FBI, I am advising them of our mutual concerns. I hope, perhaps, that my input has somewhat assuaged your bad feelings about this game. Incidentally, our deal at W109 still stands, of course! Best wishes and good luck, ----------------------------- Elliot: Yes, I've addressed the FBI ongoing problems with recruitment, marketing etc. I think the veteran players ought to realize that if they are in a game with fewer players that they should limit their alliance size. After all, it's not the greenhorns who organize a band of 6 players together. I guess the best way to avoid alliances is the anonymous game. Still, I miss the camaraderie that comes with email AND having some allies to plan with is a very important part of the game. I'm at a loss. I don't see an easy solution. I liked Lee's idea to limit the number of 'A=' orders to 3. Yes I know it's easy to get around but perhaps it will give players pause to consider 'Maybe we don't need more than 4 in an alliance'. >>Paul said: I think the real problem is the low player count in the startups. I realize FBI is just trying to keep the games going, but I think this is making the mega-alliance problem worse. And, yes, to the point where I, a 17+ year SW veteran, may not come back for more. << I find that I'm looking for new vistas. I've got a drawer full of victory pins already - so winning, although nice, is not the only thing for me. So what am I doing? I find that I do not pick positions that need a huge alliance to win. For me that means no more Apostles or Art Collectors unless I'm only playing for the sake of warfare anyway. Even a Berserker in an alliance that wants to win a war and sponsor the berserker win needs a lot of ships (pronounce that allies) to do both. So over the past few years I've been in more anonymous games, more games where I play the rabid pirate, more private games where combat tends to be more prevalent. ----------------------------- Paul: Elliot, I agree that FBI will probably not change much at this stage. I think it's up to the veterans left (and let's face it, there are few newbies anymore) to keep the games fun and competitive. Feel free to publish our discussion or a summation of it in the next newsletter. ----------------------------- Lee: Elliot/Paul - I think we are in agreement that all players should use discretion on the size of alliances that they invite or join. It's the "grass roots" method. And Elliot's "pulpit" is an effective way to publicize it. Hope we get a lot of responses and further discussion. ----------------------------- From here on it becomes a dialogue between Lee and myself. Lee: Players who join the "one for all and all for one" goal of mega alliances should realize they may be in effect abdicating their right to win the game or score higher than they would if they played the game independently. Large alliances usually have as their goal the elimination from the game of independent or weak players, and turn the win over to one of their numbers. Further, to be most effective, one player termed as a "General" usually dictates the orders to be submitted by others in the alliance. While there may be vicarious pleasure in seeing other players succeed (i.e, Pirate captures, HW captures, etc.), players are generally instructed on orders to be issued. The amount of feedback, democracy, etc. varies from group to group. Elliot: Lee, I agree that to join a large alliance 'might' abdicate some of your freedoms. I stress the word 'might'. Anytime small groups band together for common cause to create a society larger than themselves they will have to give up some freedoms for the greater good. But nobody says you have to just join blindly. I have made it clear what I want out of an alliance (and that may vary from game to game) and I don't begrudge others to do the same. If the conditions can't be met then obviously that alliance isn't for you. Some of the conditions that I've made (when in a scoring or winning mood) have been as follows: 1) I want to win (even if we have to dismantle some of the armies and give ground). 2) I wish to be considered for the win amongst any of the others in the alliance with a shot at it. 3) I wish to be allowed to compete for the win amongst those in the alliance with a shot - but we won't let that condition allow a nonallied player to win. 4) I want a high rank - 2nd or third place and a ranking of at least 950. Others have put in similar strings - such as - I want to kick some butt - supply me ships. When I offer a 'All for one and one for all' alliance I usually explain that this means we help each other as much as possible on the scoring and military fronts and aid any member attacked. We don't give away our resources outside the alliance before making sure our allies have first crack or don't need them. As to your comments about a 'General', no, no, no, I couldn't disagree more. You are confusing economics with politics. Democracy means you get a vote. Dictatorships means only the General gets a vote :-). Who scores the most by trading and making deals is a type of free enterprise. While sharing everything out in the alliance evenly is a type of socialism. And since I'm always harping on how unequal the scoring positions are for the various character types - trying to get all the players to the same score at the end is as doomed as communism is/was. I think you have been in too many dictatorships and this too has colored your attitude towards alliances. I will never willingly join an alliance where there is a General and the others are only allowed to execute orders. Why should I pay $5 per turn to let another have multiple positions? I would only be subsidizing his multi game! I prefer alliances that work by consensus. If there truly is a failure to come to a decision then a vote can be taken. Everybody has the chance to be that 'General' and make the proposal for the winning strategy. Heck, I can think of nothing more frustrating for a newby player than to join an alliance and have some veteran boss him around. New players may not be experienced in the subtleties of Starweb but they can make suggestions about who to attack, whether to flank, pull back or proceed. The good alliance listens and tries to take the best ideas and implement them. Nothing is better than having your allies endorse your plans and make recommendation to improve it (and sometimes find the holes in them :-(. I admit that consensus alliances often result in reams of emails but the banter back and forth only improve the quality of the game. Occasionally, I have seen players who would look more carefully at orchestrating the art, the points or the defense/offense of a particular encounter. Sometimes one player will orchestrate his arm of the master plan. Lee: Why not avoid the large alliances, and instead either work independently or band with other like players with an agreement to come to the aid of any player the mega alliance attacks? Elliot: Banding together with a bunch of players capable of withstanding a mega alliance is a smart move but don't fool yourself. Just because you have split off the scoring position from the military one doesn't mean you haven't formed a large group yourself. And if it's only a mutual defense society - you have effectively stripped out all the advantages of alliance. You don't have a mutual scoring pact - so you must dicker for every world, art and key AND you will have to find the one or two players who will participate in your offensive campaign - and you might not find consensus from this band of rag tag loners. Lee: Also, how to define a mega alliance? Suggest a group of more than 4 players in a 15 player game, or more than 1/3 to 1/2 of smaller populated games. Elliot: Well Lee - don't think I'm always going to disagree with you (but for the purpose of this discussion I have tried ). I may have found another reason we don't see eye to eye. I define a mega alliance as an entity that is so big it makes it impossible for others to do well in the game even if you ally all the remaining players. With that in mind I would say that it is more than half the players (that would be 8 in a game of 15). It's not even a guaranteed loss - as I've prevailed in an alliance of 6 vs 8. I would say that a large alliance is one that is 1/3-1/2 of the game (5-7 players) but there is still a lot of potential for an even larger entity to form and kick your can to the curb. A workable fair alliance in a game of 15 players is 4 or 5 players. With the correct mix you can accommodate almost any character combination and you are not an overwhelming force. Alliances of 2 or 3 are so weak that they most likely won't ever grab the pin and very likely should worry about their right to exist! And loners - they are my favorite meal (URP - pardon me). Actually loners are neat because negotiating with such isolationistic or paranoid player types is a challenge. They can wind up being helpful or another pain in your side. Whaddya think? Lee: Elliot - Excellent points you raise. I guess the weakest link, if there were one, is that not all would be "Generals" would necessarily adopt your fair-minded rules and procedures. Some players, and I may be one of them, feel strongly about certain elements and have difficulty bowing to a vote by a majority. I understand that, and certainly try to accommodate. But, it's difficult to deal with others who INSIST it's their way or no way. Good discussion. I'm anxious to hear from Paul. Elliot: Regarding the Generals - just because you have agreed to ally doesn't mean you have agreed to do whatever some megalomaniac 'General' decides to do. It doesn't mean you have given up free will. And I agree some procedures in Starweb are tried and true and it would be difficult to bow to a majority who are just plain wrong BUT then again there is more than one way to skin a cat and you should be very careful about how unyielding you are. After all, if you are unable to try new things that is a sign of age. I agree that trying to accommodate or looking for compromise is the way to be. When all else fails and you find your allies impossible to work with then perhaps it's time to resign from the alliance. I don't believe that an alliance agreement is an unbreakable contract if the personalities inside it find they cannot work together. And before you disagree - what would you do if your general were about to do a major backstab on a player that was so reprehensible as to soil your reputation. Stick it out because you promised to ally? I would love some more input from Paul too. At this point our discussion fizzled out – but I would welcome feedback from the SEDG readers, which I will publish in the upcoming correspondence sections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? New Question: Again, it's not a B&W Starweb question. Last issue in the SEDG Craig Steel spoke about possible new Variants that FBI could offer (his all Apostle game has me interested ). Any ideas of Variants that could be tried (please, nothing that requires reprogramming the SW game)? Editor: Well, this issue explored the possibility of a limited Alliance Variant ('A=' only 3 players). Since we can't rewrite the SW program it would have to be played by the honor system. I was thinking that an all berserker/Apostle game might also be interesting. With the potential for cooperative kills you might see Apostles that can compete for score with berserkers. And with no other players requiring ownership of worlds the Apostle might bring in considerable empires that could bring in a lot of points or martyrs. Similarly, the berserker's ability to run away with the game due to an infusion of ships from allies may be blunted if the game has many berserkers (7) that are competing for the victory pin. I would like to play in this type of game too. I am hoping that Rick Loomis will take some of these Variants we dream up and offer them in his monthly newsletter as one time Variants to be tried. As of the last FBI email note – the All Apostle Variant is available and I'm on the list! Anyone else have an idea for a Variant? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MAPPER'S DELIGHT – MAPPER'S NIGHTMARE This puzzle hasn't been cracked yet! This is the final month I will let this map stand. Next month if it's not cracked I will publish the answer to these questions and post a jpg of the map on the SEDG web site (I can attach it to this issue for those that receive the SEDG via email). For those of you who love to crack a good Starweb map, I've constructed an interesting one. The data is a barebones turnsheet that the Starweb Analyzer can handle or use pen and paper. The worlds and their connections can be found in the SEDG Volume 57 and if you don't have it you can look it up on the web page. Questions 1) What is the base unit composing the superstructure? (Part marks if you can describe it but don't recognize what it actually is). 2) What is the Superstructure? El David Benepe took a crack at this map. Let's see how it went ! David said: Superstructure is made up of 14 Clusters of the form 1-4-6-4-1. The base consists of three clusters which connect the HW's 88, 74 and 199 in a small loop. The remaining 11 Clusters may be arranged in a ring with connecting the remaining 11 HW's. I haven't tried to unravel the 1-4-6-4-1 clusters yet. It helped to notice that it was the 6-apart HWs that formed the pattern, not the 5-aparts. Elliot: Not true. Each HW has three connections. Two of them are directly to a cluster while one is always thru a biconnector then to a cluster. If you ignore the biconnector you might recognize a common SW map pattern with a twist. It wasn't a spacecraft. The pattern is determined by the 5 and 6 apart HWs. I had to put those biconnectors in or make a map that was 242 worlds only. David: My 1-4-6-4-1 clustic turns out to be a 4 x 4 square that wraps on both axes, but not at the corners, so in 3D it would form a torus, not a sphere. In the example, HW221 is connected to HW158 by the 4x4 and each are biconnected to HW:199 via 139. Elliot: Not a torus - I didn't do what FBI likes to do (wrap top to bottom and the sides). It's all in how you draw this figure. You got the idea of a square, now here is your hint. Imagine that if you could draw this figure properly that all the angles are 90 degrees and the distance from one world to another (the connection) are of equal length. Of course you can't truly represent such a structure on a 2 dimensional piece of paper. Whaddya think now? David: On my 3D map, I first made it a 4x2x2 cube with the ends connecting on the 4 side. Then I disconnect the 2x2 dimension and flattened it into a 2D square for the email. << Elliot: I drew it on paper as a cube within a cube. The structure is a Tesseract - a 4-D dimensional cube. If you ignore the biconnectors of the HWs I've arrayed these tesseracts into a hex pattern that is a torus. David: Its funny, but I almost used that term...tesseract, but I didn't know if you would recognize the reference. Its from a famous children's book. One of my favorite books as a boy. Madeline L'Engle's: A wrinkle in time Thanks -- was fun! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP - is now available on the web. Look for our new MAPPER'S SECTION on the SEDG Web Page. http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/sedg.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE SWAP CORNER V1.5 Beta No further upgrades to report. The V1.5b dated Jan. 28th on our web site is the most up to date. Mike has added a halo of red to surround a world where combat is occurring. V1.4 and V1.5b are compatible with Windows XP. If you are a registered customer then your V1.5b will install that way. Others will have it open as an Evaluation version. The key that we send you when you purchase the program works on both versions so you don't have to download them again after purchase. We don't anticipate an upgrade fee for V1.5 so if you're thinking of buying the Starweb Analyzer – go ahead, V1.5 will be a freebee. Of course no SWAP Corner is complete without a plug for our upcoming convention. At present we have 10 confirmed players. This is the last time I will post this ad for the convention. It looks to be a great game so come on up! FLYING MOOSE TECHNOLOGIES STARWEB CONVENTION. Yes, it's official. Here is the information about the Con. The web site http://flyingmoose.ca will have more details including a map to the resort and links to the Resort's homepage. If you have received one of our paper fliers I apologize for the error in the web page URL – the demise of the @Home network has forced us to relocate it. The Flying Moose Technologies' - Great White North (Canadian) Starweb Tournament It's official! Flying Moose Technologies will host the first Canadian Starweb Tournament and we shall be bringing Flying Buffalo's head Honcho -- Rick Loomis up to moderate the game. Come and enjoy 3 days of gaming, playing the award winning Starweb face to face with your allies and opponents. There will be a beautiful plaque presented to the winner of the tournament and the satisfaction of crushing your enemies. When: Friday April 26th 9 a.m. - Sunday April 28th 6 p.m. Due to the location of the Tournament it is recommended that you arrive no later than Thursday evening. Registration: Please send your registration fee to Flying Moose Technologies 2912 Remea Crt. Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5L 2H5 Cost: $120.00 US (or $175.00 Canadian). Where: Birch Haven Resort, Baysville Ontario. This Resort/Conference Center is found in Muskoka - a region composed of thousands of lakes and hills nestled in northern Ontario. It is a robust ecologic niche entrenched in the geologic formation known as the Canadian Shield, an area virtually stripped of topsoil by the most recent glacier's advance leaving outcroppings of three billion year old Precambrian rock and thousands of lakes in its wake. Call (705) 767-3354 to make your Resort reservation - 1 night payment by credit card will be required to hold the room. Birch Haven will charge $30/person/day Canadian (without meals) based on a double occupancy. It will be $45/day for single occupancy - the rooms come with kitchenettes. Due to this being the offseason the Restaurant will be closed but there are several restaurants in nearby Baysville (2 minute drive) as well as General Stores to help you stock your fridge while you game. Directions: It's a 2-hour drive from Toronto. For those landing at Toronto International Airport - take Highway 401 east to Highway #400. Go north on Highway #400 past Barrie and then get onto Highway #11 north. You will pass the following towns - Orillia, Gravenhurst and Bracebridge. Exit Highway #117 and go east 16 kilometers (10 miles) until you reach Basyville. After you pass over the bridge in Baysville look for the Birch Haven Resort and Conference Center on your left (within 2 kilometers). (Out of town guests - it is recommended that you rent a car. There may be some opportunity to grab a ride with a local Torontonian on Thursday evening - check with me if you wish to explore this). Refund Policy: This convention is basically being put on by the Canadian fans and to limit our risk of large losses (to bring FBI to Canada, reserve the Resort etc.) we are making the registration fee nonrefundable after Dec. 25th, 2001. If the Convention must be cancelled from our end your Registration fee will be refunded. Starweb Analyzer: If you bring a laptop you will be able to get your turns on diskette to input into your Starweb Analyzer. If you have a laptop but not the Starweb Analyzer I encourage you to check out our web site. http://flyingmoose.cjb.net. If you prefer paper and pen - I will ensure that I have an inkjet printer available for paper turns. If we get a large response there might be a chance of running other FBI games. Please let me know if this is of interest to you. For more info on FBI games - http://www.flyingbuffalo.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE Elliot Hudes: In case anyone is wondering, Walter has been unable to supply us with his witty and entertaining Captain's Logs due to poor health. I wish him a speedy and full recovery! Good gaming Walt! Jack Fulmer said: I've only played a collector as part of anonymous multi-SW games. One certain way to demonstrate that you are a Collector is go to a border world owned by the player to whom you want to communicate. If you arrive with two small keys and at least one artifact on a key you could sit over the world for a couple of turns and swap the artifact back and forth from key to key. I've never tried this but it should work under the rules. Now, whether or not the other player will notice what you're doing is not at all certain. Or if he does notice will he make you an ally or a victim? Regards... Jack Elliot: I've thought of that gambit also. I find that in the early game I frequently can't spare too many keys for such a luxury as having 2 sit and play catch the art, as I need to get hauling! Richard Broman said: Second, I want to drop an idea onto your desk to see how it sits with you. I'm reading your SEDG and your forum (geez, sorry to be so caustic in my latest posting!) and I've been wondering. What would you say to publishing articles about a game that's CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS? It'd be "outside the envelope" so to speak, breaking all rules of propriety. I could easily mollify that by using a pseudonum ("Fionn McCool" probably) and of course the actual game number would never be mentioned. I wouldn't even use actual player names, but instead use character-name pseudonyms, and say so in the article! But it'd be a great chance for you to challenge all standards by publishing an on- going situation. Kinda like a reporter from the front. In fact, that would be an excellent name for the article! "Our Reporter From The Front".... Editor's note: Although I like your idea immensely it is possibly over the edge. Meaning that FBI might consider it against their rules… <> Rick Loomis replied: If you aren't going to mention the game number, or people's names, I can't see a problem. Rick Editor: So Richard I look forward from getting an article and follow- ups from our intrepid reporter from the front. Try not to let all your opponents know what you are planning :-). Well, that's it for Volume 59. Don't be afraid to submit articles or suggestions. They don't have to be long. Address your correspondence to Elliot Hudes at somnos@compuserve.com