Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!ucivax!bonnie.ics.uci.edu!ajauch
From: ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: SpaceWard Ho again
Message-ID: <283D7AD4.14415@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 24 May 91 20:43:00 GMT
References: <3333@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 28
Nntp-Posting-Host: bonnie.ics.uci.edu

In <3333@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> ianf@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Ian Florance) writes:

>Spaceword Ho sounds very similiar to REACH for the STARS.
>In RFTS human players can not really play each other because you know
>(1) Where the previous player on the star map is;

No.  In this way the game is like Strategic Conquest (another Delta Tao),
you have no information about a star unless you go there, and when you
leave, you get no further info.

>(2) Home planets can be deduced by ship movements which occur on screen
>    after the last player

Not a problem.

>How does  Spaceward Ho compare?
>{Is there and IBM version .... I have this friend...}

SWH sounds much superior.  Playing against human opponents is just like
playing against the computer except that you have to wait for them to
finish their turn :-).  Of course, you can set turn limits.  The first time
I played a multi-player game I was a bit confused as to what was happening,
but I quickly got the feel of how turns where updated.  Very well done.

--
Alex Jauch
*ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu       |"If all you have is a hammer, then the whole*
*ajauch@orion.oac.uci.edu        |world looks like a nail" -- Stolen          *