Cybernaut is a Joe Miranda design about conflict on a future global computer network which appears in Competitive Edge (nee GameFix) #11. I was an early playtester of this design (before Kirk Schlesinger was apparently booted into oblivion) and there's nothing more pleasing when playtesting to see it work so well in the end which is what occured with this game. The game is based on a struggle between rebels known as Cybernauts and security agents for control of this global net. Cybernauts attempt to destroy or take control of as many Net files as possible while avoiding elimination themselves. The game consists of an 11x17 inch map half of which contains a stylized global projection and record tracks for individual Cybernauts and the other half a stylized matrix representing the Net. 240 counters on harder cardboard must be cut and mounted but are very colorful and descriptive. They represent individual Cybernauts, security forces, imaginative computer programs and equipment used in movement and combat on the Net, and various game markers. Game also need two opaque containers and 1 d10. It is not playable solitaire. The game consists of ten turns, during which the Cybernaut player interacts and moves on the world map, enters the Net if desired where he/she alternates movement and combat in ten impulses with his opponent. The security player then can attack Cybernauts on the world map and move his units. Interactions are resolved by rolling on a table which dictates encounters with the enemy, the acquisition of new programs (known in game terms as Cyberchits and drawn from one of the opaque containers) or the identification of a Cybernaut by an enemy. Entering the Net (known as a Netrun) represents a Cybernaut's presence (known as a Ghost) actually moving and fighting in cyberspace. Cyberspace combat consists of cross-referencing symbols on competing Cyberchits and applying results listed under Unit Definitions. Victory is determined by the Cybernaut player secretly choosing from among a set of victory conditions prior to play and at game end, checking the number of files of certain types destroyed and controlled for that particular set which include Looting, Espionage, Sabotage and Insurgency. Five pages of security player strategy are also included in the magazine. Interestingly, he notes the Cybernaut player role is largely reactionary, determined by the security player's setup and play, but the latter has the more challenging and ultimately satisfying task. This game could be seen as the techie and global cousin to Miranda's earlier GameFix design, Crisis 2000. Mag also includes a nice four page article by Miranda (which unaccountabley reminded me of the Unabomber's manifesto) and nine pages of industry news, editorial and more Ancients scenarios (a map for which is included on the reverse of the Cybernaut map). While this subject isn't a personal preference, the game is solidly designed, imaginatively developed and well crafted. It's definitely a new way of looking at a wargame. Doug Murphy >>> Greg Nichols 04/17/96 02:19pm >>> 1) How many players does the game allow? Two. The Cybernaut player (controlling ten individual Cybernauts; each of whom is in play one at a time). The NSA (Net Security Agency) player (controlling the units and tools of the STATQUO security forces. 2) How long does a typical game (given a certain number of players) take? Our games took about 20 minutes to set up (only because we kept all 240 counters in a single ziploc bag) and almost three hours to play (with plenty of pauses (a la chess) to examine the map and one's options. 3) How does it compare to HACKER or can it be compared at all? Can't guess. Haven't played HACKER. Methinks that was more of a RPG, wasn't it? Doug Murphy On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Doug Murphy wrote: > 3) How does it compare to HACKER or can it be compared at all? > > Can't guess. Haven't played HACKER. Methinks that was more of a > RPG, wasn't it? > Hacker is not a RPG at all. It is compared to Illuminati, although the comparison is weak at best. You have cards that you build into the "net", and then you try to move around from machine to machine. In the process you can wreak havoc on your opponents. It is very much oriented to the computer undergound culture and pretty much ignores the authorities except has remote entities that occasionally intrude on this little world. My guess (from Doug's description) is that it can't be compared to Cybernaut. Terry Rooker