Matt Foster - 01:03pm Apr 12, 2002 PST (#1163 of 1178)
A zoon! A zoon! My kingdom for a zoon!

I know this is a horrible break with tradition, and I hope RHB isn't too
insulted that I have no comment on his review, but here goes...

I actually have Hegemon on the table. I have newly-arrived Prussia’s
Glory on another table, so I’m incredibly conflicted. But between the
two-table tango and ripping out the dining room carpet to make way for a
tile attack this weekend, I’ve managed to spend some time with the game.
Here are some thoughts so far, offered in the hope that somebody else is
actually poking at Hegemon and might feel inspired to comment as well.

First, a quick nod to the obvious: My deluxe sub is a great package for
the price. The physical quality is top-notch. Easily as much ‘stuff’ in
there as in any $40-plus boxed title (pre-pub prices not included…). All
of that and an informative magazine too.

The 20-plus-years-in-the-business editor in me took a look at the mag
cover and went "Yikes!" ­ but then I remembered rack sales aren’t an
issue, so it should be thought of more as a ‘box top’ than a magazine
cover…

I find the game design itself an interesting mix of trade-offs between
details and what I’ll call ‘fudges’ (in order to avoid a debate on
‘Design for Effect’ ad nauseum). The combat subsystem is intensely
detailed. The stacking rules are detailed. Movement and the time scale
are fudged. It’s a pretty clear statement about what the designer thinks
are the salient features of the campaign.

Looking at the detail in lots of other places, do I find the
time/movement ‘fudge’ a problem? I don’t think so. Personally, I would
probably fudge some other places too. But ‘realistic’ movement ratings
would necessitate a much more granular and iron-clad time scale (and
vice-versa) ­ and no doubt bring about a much, much longer game.

I’ll confess that on my first pass through the rules, I found all of the
detail a bit daunting. Truthfully, ditto on all subsequent passes. It
would be less daunting, I’m sure, were I more current (ancient…?) on
Greek geography and language. Russian I can handle, but Greek is, well,
Greek to me.

In that sense, then, the game is truly an education. I’m probably the
first kid on my block to find the Phokians.

The combat results table is a real corker to behold. I can do all of
that with those little plastic cubes with spots on them? Pretty amazing.
But, combat rules more or less under my belt, I see that it is simply
that ­ big, but not particularly complicated. Percentage losses? Groan.
(It is less math-intense than keeping score in a Knizia-designed game,
though).

The structure of the alliances makes me wonder if, maybe, there might be
a way to develop an interesting three-player variant. The
Theban/Athenian player has to have sort of a split personality as it is.
Development of three-player victory conditions would introduce a little
less iron-clad cooperation in the alliance. Haven't thought this one
through (obviously). Stream-of-consciousness writing generates more
discussion anyway. But without the naval end of the campaign, maybe a
third player would just get really bored...

I’ve pushed my way through a couple of few-turn-false-starts before
figuring out that I was messing up some or another critical element. (I
need a zoon to do that, dang it!)

Right now this game strikes me as, at the very least, a Valiant Effort.
It’s not particularly streamlined in the interests of playability. It’s
not particularly clogged with minutiae. Does that make it a game that
achieves some degree of balance or an unfocused mish-mash?

Only a bunch of counter-pushing and some more discussion will answer 
that question.

Cheers.