Many of the comments made about Galaxy Conflict apply equally well to Conflict. Both are board-based strategy games in which you have to manage all the resources associated with making war. But there the similarity ends. Martech has managed to produce two games on the same principle that feel very different.

In Conflict, instead of having your resources automatically increased by the computer each round, you either have to trade, plunder or mine your cash. Armies can only be raised if you have the funds. This sounds like a morally healthy idea. If the game takes off, it could teach a whole generation in a painless way that war costs too much.

The board is divided into rows and columns (from A to Z and from 1 to 20). More than half of it is sea. The rest is split into two territories. You can either play an 'endgame' where you try to invade the enemy city, or you can opt for more limited warfare and try to occupy the largest amount of territory after an agreed number of moves.

Revenue is raised through share dealing, through forays to capture neutral shipping and through prospecting for oil. The stock market values go up when the shares are bought and down when they are sold - the computer works out the relative changes in value. Oil can be found on a randomly located series of squares in each territory. Ships at sea are blown about according to the weather.

The game has enough variables affecting decision-making to keep the most ardent empire-builder scratching his/her head well into the night.