Game: Twilight Struggle

Thread: Re: Specific cards: Wargames

Unitoch — 2008-05-09T03:05:02+00:00

thegr8mirror wrote:
2. Being a dual side event, it can never be played as an event during operations.

I think this is a rules misunderstanding. A split color star means that either side can play it for the event rather than for the ops during operations.

Thread: Re: Specific cards: Wargames

thegr8mirror — 2008-05-09T02:49:20+00:00

This card confuses me a bit.

I have only played two games of TS so far, so I am not really sure if I am reading the card wrong or I am missing a rule.

Defcon is increased before headlines, so Wargames can never be played as a headline event with defcon 2. Being a dual side event, it can never be played as an event during operations.

So...how does it work? Is this a special card that can be played at anytime you want to end the game?

-Steve

Thread: Re: Wargames for the Win!

sbarrera — 2008-05-09T02:17:13+00:00

MartinStever wrote:

On turn 9 I got a great card combo: Cuban Missile Crisis & Wargames. I played Cuban Missile Crisis right after the Headline Phase. That took Defcon to 2. Mike thought I was using it to set up for a run at Europe, trying to force him to reduce his influence in West Germany. He didn't give any ground. My next card was Wargames, which ends the game if at Defcon 2 after giving 6 points to your opponent. My final score was -4, so a close win.

That is a great combo, and it cost me the game I played just last night. Lesson learned - burn the Cuban Missile Crisis if you're the U.S. and you get the chance early in the war!

Thread: Re: When dealing the cards who receives cards first? the USSR or the US?

haroldun — 2008-05-09T12:16:49+00:00

Dan and Kevin, thanks for your recommendations.

Thread: Re: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

EricRJ — 2008-05-09T01:25:03+00:00

And, don't get stuck as the US player with Lone Gunman in your hand after your opponent has played a discard effect on you. Ditto for the USSR and CIA Created.

Thread: Re: Can "Duck and cover" cause Nuclear War?

Nessmk2 — 2008-05-08T08:02:07+00:00

I understand why Duck and Cover drops Defcon... But I really wish they had put something in there about it not being able to drop Defcon to 1, or something. I know GAMEPLAY wise it makes sense, but theme wise... "The US is telling all of their citizens to survive an attack by diving under tables! Now! Now is the time to STIIIIIIKE, Comrade!"

Er... No.

Thread: Re: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

nix342 — 2008-05-08T07:51:16+00:00

Nessmk2 wrote:
I never have liked that rule that the phasing player, not the acting player, loses the game if defcon hits 1.

I don't understand why you think having the "acting player" lose the game makes this situation better? It seems to me that it would make it significantly worse and would make the game come down to who could play the others DEFCON degrading event at DEFCON2 first? Even being at DEFCON3 would be dangerous as a player could use the OPS to make a coup, and then force the other player into nuclear war.

As it is, I think through careful play, players can avoid nuclear war. You do need to be aware of the risks when playing Olympics during the headline phase, or Missle Envy at DEFCON2.

Thread: Re: When dealing the cards who receives cards first? the USSR or the US?

dcorban — 2008-05-08T05:44:38+00:00

I guess I just assumed the USSR was dealt cards first. They set up first, act first, and the example of play in the rulebook lists their new cards first.

Thread: Re: When dealing the cards who receives cards first? the USSR or the US?

pilight — 2008-05-08T05:43:55+00:00

I recommend the tournament rule. USSR first, then alternating cards.

Thread: When dealing the cards who receives cards first? the USSR or the US?

haroldun — 2008-05-08T01:56:09+00:00

This can be a issue for example in turn 3, when there will be only a few cards to deal, before reshuffling, and experienced players will know which are those cards. Who will receive these cards? Or should i use the tournament rules?

Thread: Re: new edition - card quality...

kowalskie — 2008-05-08T09:08:44+00:00

RikDangerous wrote:
I emailed GMT about this too, but received a rather terse response when I asked if I could obtain a new set (all the same size):

"Sir all the card decks are made the same. We have noticed the difference in sizes. Please let me know if there is anything further I may assist with."

I am underwhelmed.

yer, that does sound a bit poor... as i say, i emailed them and the new ones arrived within the week.

maybe too many people have complained and they can't afford to replace them all... or maybe you just got them on a bad day.

- anyhow my new cards arn't perfect but they are a LOT better than the first pack i got.

malcolm

Thread: Re: new edition - card quality...

RikDangerous — 2008-05-08T08:32:18+00:00

I emailed GMT about this too, but received a rather terse response when I asked if I could obtain a new set (all the same size):

"Sir all the card decks are made the same. We have noticed the difference in sizes. Please let me know if there is anything further I may assist with."

I am underwhelmed.

Thread: Re: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

dirubin — 2008-05-08T04:33:00+00:00

Nessmk2 wrote:
...So, my father and I never try to win via World War 3 when we play. We kinda treat those as a messy draw, since we never do it on purpose.

And that is how one converts a cross-over game into a Euro. :devil:

Thread: Re: Scoring without a scoring card?

DELTA2468 — 2008-05-08T01:04:49+00:00

ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up

Thread: Re: Ladder Round 1 Avtges v. Ballinger

turtlewax — 2008-05-07T08:46:20+00:00

thanks

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

Nessmk2 — 2008-05-07T05:57:39+00:00

Try playing online! I love playing it that way; cuts down on playing time since the game does all the menial work for you, leaving you open to think while it does the bookkeeping. You can play with people over the web, so you always have foes, and if you work over the computer for some reason (for me, high school and now college work) you can type and play at the same time.

Thread: Re: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

Nessmk2 — 2008-05-07T05:30:30+00:00

I never have liked that rule that the phasing player, not the acting player, loses the game if defcon hits 1. Never made much sense to me that "Well, the US is hosting the olympics, and the soviets boycotted, causing war, so it's the US's fault for holding the olympic games in the first place!" :shake:

I understand gameplay-wise, so you can't force your opponent into a hard place by denying them the ability to say no, and also because that raises the tricky question of "What if I play an opponents event that lowers Defcon?"

So, my father and I never try to win via World War 3 when we play. We kinda treat those as a messy draw, since we never do it on purpose.

Thread: Re: Scoring without a scoring card?

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-07T02:58:16+00:00

Although you can't score a region without a scoring card, several events generate VPs for one side or the other. If you play a card for OPs with an enemy event on it, the event will trigger, scoring them VPs if that is what the event does. In this instance OPEC can score 5+ VPs so it could easily carry them into -23 VPs if they were close to winning before.

Thread: Re: Scoring without a scoring card?

generalpf — 2008-05-07T02:51:59+00:00

OPEC - Gain 1 VP for USSR Control of each of the following: Egypt, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Gulf States, and Venezuela. May not be played after #86 'North Sea Oil'.

You played a Soviet card, so the event happens. He scored several points when you played it (either before or after you spent the ops) and won the game.

Thread: Re: Scoring without a scoring card?

aro246 — 2008-05-07T02:25:07+00:00

Dan is right. You only score when the cards come up and at the end of round 10.
Also, you have some events that trigger VPs.

Thread: Re: Scoring without a scoring card?

stove — 2008-05-07T02:21:19+00:00

I don't think so, unless I missed a section in the rules. You get points when the score cards come up and at the end of the game, those are the two times regions are scored, unless I'm missing something.

Thread: Scoring without a scoring card?

DELTA2468 — 2008-05-07T01:26:08+00:00

So if you gain control of a region do you automatically gain points for it? I was in an online game (my first one) and I used OPEC as an op as the US. Then I see my oppent has gained -23 points winning the game. So was this becuase he took control of South America?

Thread: Re: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-07T12:46:57+00:00

It is dangerous to play Olympics as a headline after the Early War, because your opponent's headline could be Cuban Missile Crisis.

So, would JFK have blown up the world if, in addition to posturing over Cuba, Kruschev had boycotted the Olympics? I know the Olympics weren't actually held in 1961 and nor were they in America at any date nearby, I'm just speculating.

Thread: Re: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

Soledade — 2008-05-07T09:27:34+00:00

It's very dangerous to play Olympics when Defcon is at 3! And I also learnt that in the hardest way. :)

Thread: Re: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

jomni — 2008-05-07T05:35:06+00:00

Yeah that tactic is explicitly stated in the manual as an example. :devil:

Thread: Olympics trigger Nuclear War

DELTA2468 — 2008-05-07T04:28:32+00:00

Well my first game of TS against my brother and with DEFCON at 3 I headline oylimpics. He headlines duck and cover which is ops 3 then boycotts the olympics which cuases me, USSR, to trigger nuclear war and lose the game on turn 3. Well the first of my hard learned lesseons for TS WATCH THE DEFCON LEVEL!

Thread: Re: How to play solitaire on Vassal

jomni — 2008-05-07T01:06:01+00:00

Click on the "Retire" button. This will allow you to join the other side.

I'll try this but this will mean that I need to retire every turn??

I think you can put both sets of cards in the same hand.

Yeah you can even put everything on the board as an alternative.

jeibel wrote:
Find an opponent on Wargameroom, it's a lot better ! :)

Haha. Best answer.

Thread: Re: How to play solitaire on Vassal

jeibel — 2008-05-06T11:32:26+00:00

Find an opponent on Wargameroom, it's a lot better ! :)

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

unixrevolution — 2008-05-06T09:39:24+00:00

alsandor wrote:
unixrevolution wrote:
EDIT: If anyone near DC has Twilight Struggle, likes it, and wants to spend 3 hours showing me the error of my ways, send me a Geekmail.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

Leonard Cohen, Anthem

:cool:

I figured trying it one more time won't hurt.

I probably still won't like it though, as everyone seems to agree that the things I don't like exist...they just like them more than I do.

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

alsandor — 2008-05-06T09:16:07+00:00

unixrevolution wrote:
EDIT: If anyone near DC has Twilight Struggle, likes it, and wants to spend 3 hours showing me the error of my ways, send me a Geekmail.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

Leonard Cohen, Anthem

:cool:

Image

MattDP — 2008-05-06T09:01:07+00:00

Twilight Struggle straight out of shrinkwrap

Thread: Re: NATO

jackalope — 2008-05-06T07:51:06+00:00

The closest equivalent that I can think of is Arab-Israeli War after Camp David Accords has been played. It is a no-effect card just like NATO is before its prerequisites have been played.

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

unixrevolution — 2008-05-06T07:48:42+00:00

alsandor wrote:
unixrevolution wrote:
i ditched it because it wasn't fun to me, or any of my usual opponents.

You could have looked for unusual (to you) opponents. Perhaps you would have enjoyed it more if the people you were playing with already enjoyed the game.

I have games (non-wargames) my usual opponents don't like, so if I want to play then, I contact people who ARE interested in playing them. Hell, I started a local discussion group (over 60 subscribers) and club (almost 20 members) for that very reason.

I'm pretty sure I still wouldn't have liked it. There's a certain amount of work i'm willing to put into a game that's got really good buzz to try to get myself to like it; TS is already past that point. If I don't enjoy it, why should I play it?

EDIT: If anyone near DC has Twilight Struggle, likes it, and wants to spend 3 hours showing me the error of my ways, send me a Geekmail.

Image

MattDP — 2008-05-06T07:33:46+00:00

Twilight Struggle counter sheet - back

Image

MattDP — 2008-05-06T07:31:54+00:00

Twilight Struggle counter sheet - front

Thread: Re: Specific cards: Iran-Iraq War

AudioSolvay — 2008-05-06T06:39:21+00:00

Could you please post that word doc? I think a lot of people would really appreciate it! :surprise:

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

alsandor — 2008-05-06T06:12:01+00:00

unixrevolution wrote:
i ditched it because it wasn't fun to me, or any of my usual opponents.

You could have looked for unusual (to you) opponents. Perhaps you would have enjoyed it more if the people you were playing with already enjoyed the game.

I have games (non-wargames) my usual opponents don't like, so if I want to play then, I contact people who ARE interested in playing them. Hell, I started a local discussion group (over 60 subscribers) and club (almost 20 members) for that very reason.

Thread: Re: How to play solitaire on Vassal

Scoobysnacks — 2008-05-06T02:42:36+00:00

I think you can put both sets of cards in the same hand.

Thread: Re: Ladder Round 1 Avtges v. Ballinger

nix342 — 2008-05-06T02:25:18+00:00

turtlewax wrote:
how do u join the ladder?
thanks

Check out this thread:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/298293

Thread: Re: How to play solitaire on Vassal

JoelCFC25 — 2008-05-06T02:18:21+00:00

Click on the "Retire" button. This will allow you to join the other side.

Thread: Re: Ladder Round 1 Avtges v. Ballinger

turtlewax — 2008-05-06T02:06:18+00:00

how do u join the ladder?
thanks

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

unixrevolution — 2008-05-06T01:59:32+00:00

alsandor wrote:
unixrevolution wrote:
It's not as much that it is 3 hours long, it's that the fun factor to be had from it is not worth the time invested, and I rarely have an opportunity to play a 2-player only game that takes 3 hours.

And yet, you had one in your hands and you ditched it. Here are a few of my favourite 3+ hours 2-player games:

[gameid=1822]

[gameid=2748]

[gameid=24070]

[gameid=23761]

In fact just about any SCS game. And that is just a few from a long list.

i ditched it because it wasn't fun to me, or any of my usual opponents.

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

alsandor — 2008-05-06T01:45:43+00:00

unixrevolution wrote:
It's not as much that it is 3 hours long, it's that the fun factor to be had from it is not worth the time invested, and I rarely have an opportunity to play a 2-player only game that takes 3 hours.

And yet, you had one in your hands and you ditched it. Here are a few of my favourite 3+ hours 2-player games:

[gameid=1822]

[gameid=2748]

[gameid=24070]

[gameid=23761]

In fact just about any SCS game. And that is just a few from a long list.

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

unixrevolution — 2008-05-06T01:20:33+00:00

alsandor wrote:
RLarsen wrote:
And of course, noone cares that a "3-hour" games takes 3h10min, but it DOES matter if the first 10 plays of a "3-hour" game takes far longer than that.

But as gaming with others is a human entreprise, it stands to reason that unless one proceeds with regimented accuracy and fails to use the opportunity to socialize, one may be able to play a so-called 180 minute game in exactly three hours. Of course, but is that fun?

Time-keeping Smurf: Schnell, ve haff many more games to play in ze next tventy minutes!

When I hear such things, I am reminded of the psychologist on CNN talking about wargames during the first Gulf War (they had laid out [gameid=2061]). When asked if it was a healthy pursuit she said emphatically no, and that in fact, people shouldn't spend more than 15 minutes a day playing these sorts of games. So 3 hours, eh? Think of the damage to your psyche ;)

I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I like long games. I like Civilization. I like Battletech. It's not as much that it is 3 hours long, it's that the fun factor to be had from it is not worth the time invested, and I rarely have an opportunity to play a 2-player only game that takes 3 hours.

Thread: Re: Too Much Struggle.

alsandor — 2008-05-06T01:02:07+00:00

RLarsen wrote:
And of course, noone cares that a "3-hour" games takes 3h10min, but it DOES matter if the first 10 plays of a "3-hour" game takes far longer than that.

But as gaming with others is a human entreprise, it stands to reason that unless one proceeds with regimented accuracy and fails to use the opportunity to socialize, one may be able to play a so-called 180 minute game in exactly three hours. Of course, but is that fun?

Time-keeping Smurf: Schnell, ve haff many more games to play in ze next tventy minutes!

When I hear such things, I am reminded of the psychologist on CNN talking about wargames during the first Gulf War (they had laid out [gameid=2061]). When asked if it was a healthy pursuit she said emphatically no, and that in fact, people shouldn't spend more than 15 minutes a day playing these sorts of games. So 3 hours, eh? Think of the damage to your psyche ;)

Thread: Re: Ladder Round 1 Avtges v. Ballinger

RLarsen — 2008-05-06T08:27:40+00:00

Great session report Nick. Thanks!
Any comments, maybe from Ballinger, what went wrong on the US side?

Thread: How to play solitaire on Vassal

jomni — 2008-05-06T02:38:27+00:00

I'm trying out the Vassal version.
How do you play Solitaire?
I can only access one hand.

Thread: Re: NATO

taulus — 2008-05-05T09:53:26+00:00

Most games the benefits are certainly marginal; however, NATO not only prevents USSR coups and realignment rolls against US controlled countries in Europe, but it also prevents the use of Brush War against them as well. Often the USSR will use Brush War elsewhere, but if France and West Germany have both remained blue through the Early War, a Brush War in Italy can sometimes (depending on DRMs) be a tempting play for a USSR player seeking to turn Europe around in the mid-war. In rare cases where the USA has had the misfortune to lose both West Germany and France, but hold on to Italy, the protection that NATO provides is crucial.

Thread: Re: NATO

sbauer9 — 2008-05-05T07:54:53+00:00

US can play Brezhnev Doctrine for no effect as thier last card of the turn and the event is removed from play. Vietnam is similar, does give 1 point in Vietnam but nothing else if played as the last card of the turn. Also NATO is a useless event as you can almost never coup in Europe so the event not happening is not really unfair to the US player as the event happening doesn't help him. The event being useless may be.

Thread: Re: NATO

Gamedeity — 2008-05-05T06:19:07+00:00

Calder wrote:
Besides NATO is a pretty pathetic event for the US anyways. It has hardly any effect at all.

That's for sure, since the defcon level will usually prohibit coups in europe anyway.

Thread: Re: NATO

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-05T06:17:45+00:00

There are no 4 OPs Early War Soviet cards. So, no, nothing in strict terms.

In the Late War, the USA can achieve 4 Ops for free off a Soviet event by playing Aldrich Ames as his last card of the turn. Aldrich Ames gets removed from play of course, so not quite the same thing.

Thread: Re: NATO

Calder — 2008-05-05T06:00:22+00:00

Besides NATO is a pretty pathetic event for the US anyways. It has hardly any effect at all.

Thread: Ladder Round 1 Avtges v. Ballinger

nix342 — 2008-05-05T05:59:58+00:00

[GAMEID=12333] has become one of my favorite games. When I discovered that there was going to be a BGG [GAMEID=12333] ladder, I knew I had to join. I had missed out on the online tournament and there was no way I would miss getting in on the ladder. This game works very well by email using [url=http://acts.warhorsesim.com/index.asp]ACTS[/url] and this helped me keep track of the game as we went along and record my thoughts in this session report. Enjoy!

Setup
Soviet Hand: Warsaw Pact Formed, Truman Doctrine, Korean War, Olympic Games, DeGaulle Leads France, Indo-Pakistani War, Romanian Abdication, Decolonization, The China Card

This is a decent hand. There aren't really any problems to deal with and some decent events for me. My general strategy is going to be to try to maintain balance across the board and use my events for Ops, unless I need them to save me from trouble or if they are multi-use events.

USSR setup: +3 Poland (0/3*), +3 Yugoslavia (0/3*)
US setup: +4 West Germany (4*/0), +2 Italy (2*/0), +1 Turkey (1/0)
US balance adjustment: +1 Iran (2*/0), +2 South Korea (3*/0)

A risky opening, and probably not such a good one for me. I do like to have some influence near Italy, so I can try to contest it, but dumping everything into Yugoslavia is just asking for Independent Reds to come along. US opening is pretty standard, including his bonus 3 influence. Furthermore, I can see in hindsight that I could have made Truman's Doctrine completely painless by putting the 3 influence into Finland instead of Yugoslavia. Of course that would have restricted me in other ways down the road. The Soviet opening is something I'm still trying to figure out. As I said, I want to have some influence next to Italy, but there are lots of reasons why that isn't such a good idea.

Turn 1, DEFCON 5, 0 VP
[ImageID=329663]
USSR Headline: Decolonization: +1 Thailand (0/1), +1 Burma (0/1), +1 Indonesia (0/1*), +1 Philippines (1/1)
US Headline: CIA Created: Coup Thailand, dr=6, DEFCON 4, Thailand (2*/0)

USSR 1: (Warsaw Pact Formed): +2 Iraq (0/3*), +1 Burma (0/2*)
US 1: Fidel: Cuba (0/3)*, +2 Pakistan (2*/0)
USSR 2: The China Card: +3 India (0/3*), +2 Afhanistan (0/2*)
US 2: Asia Scoring: +1 VP (+1)
USSR 3: Truman Doctrine: Finland (0/0), +1 Syria (0/2*)
US 3: UN Intervention (De-Stalinization): +3 Israel (4*/0)
USSR 4: Indo-Pakistan War: dr = 3
US 4: (East European Unrest): +2 Egypt (2*/0), +1 Lebanon (1*/0)
USSR 5: (DeGaulle Leads France): Coup Iran, dr = 4, DEFCON 3, Iran (0/1)
US 5: Mideast Scoring: +3 VP (+4)
USSR 6: (Romanian Abdication): +1 Iran (0/2*)
US 6: (Defectors): Coup Iran, dr=2, DEFCON 2
All milops fulfilled, no change

Decolonization is a great event and I had hoped to be able to gain control of Thailand on my first impulse, but the CIA puts a stop to that with a nice roll. As it is, I'm still happy to have a decent foothold in Southeast Asia. Not a bad turn for me as I was fortunate enough to play in those areas where my opponent had scoring cards. Using The China Card so early is uncharacteristic for me, but seeing Fidel drop to gain control of Pakistan set some warning bells off in my head and I decided to secure that area as best I could as fast as I could. Turns out I was right. But holding two scoring cards isn't usually very good, so my opponent did well to come away with 4 points.

Turn 2, DEFCON 3, +4 VP
[ImageID=329665]
Soviet Hand: Korean War, Olympic Games, Socialist Governments, Red Scare/Purge, US/Japan Mutual Defense Pact, Captured Nazi Scientist, COMECON, Europe Scoring

Another good hand for me, including the Europe Scoring card. Socialist Govements as a headline will give me a shot at a big score from Europe.

US Headline: Duck and Cover: DEFCON 2, +3 VP (+7)
USSR Headline: Socialist Governments: -1 UK (4/0), -1 W. Germany (3/0), -1 Italy (1/0)

USSR 1: Europe Scoring: -9 VP (-2)
US 1: (Containment): +1 W. Germany (4*/0), +1 Italy (2*/0), +1 Turkey (2*/0)
USSR 2: Korean War: dr = 5, S. Korea (0/3*), -2 VP (-4)
US 2: Arab-Israeli War: dr n/a, +1 Laos (1*/0), +1 Vietnam (1*/0)
USSR 3: US/Japan Mutual Defense Pact: Japan (4*/0), +2 Malaysia (0/2*), +2 Phillipines (1/3*)
US 3: The China Card: +3 Taiwain (3*/0), +1 S. Korea (1/3)
USSR 4: (COMECON): +1 S. Korea (1/4*), +2 Jordan (0/2*)
US 4: Suez Crisis: -2 UK (2/0), -2 Israel (2/0), +2 Israel (4*/0), +1 Spain (1/0)
USSR 5: Captured Nazi Scientist: -2 VP (-6)
US 5: Marshall Plan: +1 Spain (2*/0), +1 France (1/0), +1 UK (3/0), +1 Finland (1/0), +1 Greece (1/0), +1 Benelux (1/0), +1 Denmark (1/0)
USSR 6: (Red Scare/Purge): +3 Italy (2/3)
US 6: (Five-Year Plan): +3 Italy (5*/3)
US failed milops, -2 VP (-8)

My Socialist Govements/Europe Scoring combo works! This is one of the big advantages for the USSR, I think. The ability to essentially play two cards in a row is extremely valuable and can lead to some great scoring opportunities like this. As the US, I usually try to play headline events that will give me ops during the headline phase, or create a pressing problem that the Soviets will have to deal with on their first action. Not always an easy task. The rest of the turn goes very well as I am able to maintain the balance in the early scoring regions while also piling up some additional points and seeing The China Card return to me.

Turn 3, DEFCON 3, -8 VP
[ImageID=329667]
Soviet Hand: Olympic Games, NATO, UN Intervention, Containment, Nasser, Decolonization, DeGaulle Leads France, Vietnam Revolts, The China Card

An OK hand this turn. Somewhat low in ops, but the US events are ones I can easily deal with. NATO is an easy one to play now as the DEFCON level will typically provide the same effect. I can hold Containment until my last play, giving him only a single bonus ops point for what otherwise could be a pretty good event. No scoring cards, so I'm going to try to follow the US lead and keep even in all the scoring areas while beginning to establish my presence in the secondary regions.

US Headline: Independent Reds: Yugoslavia (3/3)
USSR Headline: Olympic Games: USSR dr = 5, US dr = 6, -2 VP (-10)

USSR 1: NATO, Coup Panama, dr = 2, DEFCON 2, Panama (0/1)
US 1: Blockade [Socialist Governments], +1 Libya (1/0)
USSR 2: Decolonization, +1 Thailand (2/1), +1 Laos/Cambodia (1/1), +1 Nigeria (0/1*), +1 Angola (0/1*)
US 2: (East European Unrest), +1 Thailand (3*/1), +1 Laos/Cambodia (2*/1), Libya (2*/0)
USSR 2: (DeGaulle Leads France), +3 Saudi Arabia (0/3*)
US 3: Mideast Scoring, no change
USSR 4: (Nasser) +1 Panama (0/2*)
US 4: (Nuclear Test Ban), +2 Algeria (2*/0), +2 South Africe (3*/0)
USSR 5: (Vietnam Revolts), +1 France (1/1), +1 Zaire (0/1*)
US 5: Romanian Abdication, Romania (0/3*), +1 France (2/1)
USSR 6: Containment, +3 France (2/4)
US 6: Formosan Resolution, +2 Iran (2/2)
US failed milops, -2 VP (-12)

Things go fairly well. I win the Olympics in a close roll. My opponent goes after Libya, so I take control of Saudi Arabia to preserve the balance, which pays off. He begins establishing himself in Africa, and I keep up and put some pressure on in France. I usually don't like getting into an influence war like this, but when neither player has control, and knowing DeGaulle will sooner or later come back, I don't mind sinking a lot of influence into France.

Turn 4, DEFCON 3, -12 VP
[ImageID=329669]
Soviet Hand: We Will Bury You, Europe Scoring, Bear Trap, One Small Step, ABM Treaty, Grain Sales to Soviets, De-Stalinization, Cultural Revolution, UN Intervention, The China Card.

A pretty good hand. Once again I'm fortunate enough to get a manageable number of US events. The ops total is pretty high, and with the Europe Scoring card, I have a chance to win this turn. ABM Treaty is one of my favorite cards. When played as a headline event, it gets you ops, which can be very useful for both sides. When played during action rounds it can let you get in a sneaky coup when your opponent isn't suspecting it. My plan is to use it as a headline event. The ops will get me domination of Europe, which I can score immediately in my first action round. If things go well, I can play We Will Bury you and get the points for that and win with -20 VP!

USSR Headline: ABM Treaty, DEFCON 4, +1 France (2/5*), +3 Hungary (0/3*)
US Headline: Cuban Missle Crisis, DEFCON 2

Argh! I get domination in Europe, but Cuban Missle Crisis means I can't get the VP for We Will Bury You.

USSR 1: Europe Scoring, -5 VP (-17)
US 1: Panama Canal Returned, +1 Panama (1/2), +1 Costa Rica (1/0), +1 Venezuela (1/0)
USSR 2: UN Intervention (Bear Trap), Realignment,
   Panama: USSR dr = 2+1, US dr = 5, Panama (1/0)
   Panama: USSR dr = 5, US dr = 2+1, Panama (0/0)
   Costa Rica: USSR dr = 6, US dr = 6+1, Costa Rica (1/0)
US 2: Warsaw Pact Formed, -3 Yugoslavia (0/3*), -1 Finland (0/0), +2 Iran (4*/2), +1 Venezuela (2*/0)
USSR 3: De-Stalinization, -3 Italy (5*/0), -1 Laos/Cambodia (2*/0), +2 Mexico (0/2*), +2 Brazil (0/2*)
US 3: (Shuttle Diplomacy), +1 Nicaragua (1*/0), +2 Panama (2*/0)
USSR 4: (One Small Step...), +2 Cuba (0/5*)
US 4: (Kitchen Debates), Realignment,
   Cuba: US dr = 6 +2, USSR dr = 6 +1, Cuba(0/4*)
USSR 5: The China Card, +4 Thailand (3/5*)
US 5: Ussuri River Skirmish, +2 Thailand (5/5), +2 Indonesia (2*/1)
USSR 6: (Cultural Revolution), +2 Thailand (5/7*), +1 Cuba (0/5)
US 6: U2 Incident: +2 Thailand (7/7), -1 VP (-18)
USSR 7: (Grain Sales to Soviets), Space Race, dr = 3, USSR advance to Animal in Space
US 7: Southeast Asia Scoring, no change
Both sides fail milops, no change

I get some big points from Europe again, but then I make a mistake of overconfidence. Things are going so well that I only consider what will happen if I succeed in realignment of Panama, not what will happen if I fail. In hind sight, I most likely should have just used the ops in Turn 2 to regain control of Panama. I do recover a bit with De-Stalinization, one of my favorite USSR cards simply because it allows you to put Russian influence anywhere. After that, I try to put some influence in Cuba so that I can later possibly cancel Cuban Missle Crisis, but give up on that after the US succeeds in their realignment. My strategy now focuses on holding We Will Bury You for the turn 5 headline phase in order to get an auto-victory then. To do this, I need to play The China Card because of my earlier play of UN Intervention. This starts up an influence battle in Thailand because my opponent holds the Southeast Asia scoring card. Overall a decent turn, but I feel like I could have played it better. In any case, I'm poised to win early in turn 5.

Turn 5, DEFCON 3, -18 VP
[ImageID=329671]
Soviet Hand: We Will Bury You, Duck and Cover, Red Scare/Purge, Lone Gunman, SALT Negotiations, Willy Brandt, Flower Power, Five-Year Plan, Defectors

A solid hand which I am glad to see contains Defectors. This means I can play We Will Bury You as my headline event, which will force my opponent to scramble for some points to avoid a Soviet auto-victory. There are no other 4 ops events that degrade DEFCON, so I don't need to worry about him playing one of them and stumbling into nuclear war. So, it's time to go for the win!

USSR Headline: We Will Bury You, DEFCON 2
US Headline: Junta, +2 Mexico (2/2), Realignment,
   Cuba: US dr = 2 +2, USSR dr = 5 +1, Cuba (0/5*)
   Cuba: US dr = 1 +2, USSR dr = 1 +1, Cuba (0/4*)

USSR 1: (Flower Power), +2 Mexico (2/4*), +1 Haiti (0/1*), +2 Cameroon (0/1*)
US 1: Nixon Plays the China Card, +2 VP (-16), -3 VP from We Will Bury You for failure to play UN Intervention (-19)
USSR 2: Willy Brandt, +1 West Germany (4/1), -1 VP (-20)

Soviet Auto-Victory!!!
[ImageID=329672]

Final Thoughts
A solid victory for the USSR. My cards were certainly favorable and I never had more US events than I could easily deal with. I always try to focus on keeping my own events in the deck while getting rid of my opponents, and I think I succeeded in doing that here. The two most important things leading to the victory were taking advantage of good headline event/scoring card combos when I had them, giving me two big scores in Europe, and managing DEFCON status and influence in non-battleground nations to make it difficult for my opponent to come up with the milops he needed. There are a few things I would do differently, not the least of which is my bumbled realignment of Panama. But, ultimately, these were minors stumbles and fortunately did not come back to hurt me.

Good game!