Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001 - ? - Tue 24/03/15 19:40 UTC
My newest fix - Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001 - ?
This is a two-player game, though it's got an excellent solitaire mode.
The theme (and thus the game play) is of course controversial. One player represents the US, the other represents the Jihadists. Obviously we're starting at a high level of abstraction right there, since in reality the global Islamist movement is not a single coherent group acting in concert. The US-centric role may also rub some people the wrong way.
That said, it's an attempt to combine a realistic implementation of the theme with deep, balanced game play, and nitpicking its verisimilitude is kind of like criticizing Panzerblitz for not being a completely realistic simulation of tank warfare on the Eastern Front.
This is an asymetrical game - each side has a completely different set of options available each turn. It is almost as if they are playing two separate games, but games in which their actions interfere with each other, so the interaction remains high.
The US player's objective is to "stabilize" the Middle East by improving the governance of as many Muslim countries as possible and preventing or removing Islamist ones. This is done primarily by conducting "War of Ideas" operations, enhanced by aid packages. The US can also conduct "Disrupt" operations (expose or kill Jihadist cells) and to some degree move troops around. Then there is the "Regime Change" operation, Neocon-speak for "invade a country."
The Jihadists, meanwhile, want the opposite - as many Muslim countries in a state of instability or Islamist rule as possible. The Jihadist player can move cells around, conduct Jihads to degrade government stability in Muslim countries, and attempt "Plots" (i.e., terrorist attacks) in either Muslim or non-Muslim countries, which increases funding, can potentially lower US prestige, and push Muslim countries towards instability.
The basic scenario represents the immediate aftermath of 9/11 - Afghanistan is under an Islamist regime, and the US has a limited number of troops deployed in the Middle East.
The obvious first move for the US player is the historical one - "Regime Change" Afghanistan. But there are in fact a number of in-game reasons not to do this. One of the things that makes Labyrinth such a deep game is that there is almost never one obvious "best" move. At any given moment, each player has a variety of options, and the best one is a combination of your overall strategy, the cards in your hand, and luck. Every operation has pros and cons, risks and payoffs.
There is fair amount of luck involved - each side plays cards for additional events, and the right card at the right (or wrong) time can seriously swing fortunes. But Labyrinth is a game of risk management and odds calculation more than a game of hoping for the right card combos - better strategy will usually win... unless you have spectacularly bad dice rolls.
I really like this game. Has anyone else played it? Is anyone interested in learning?
