Twilight Struggle | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

siberianhusky — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:27:42 +0000

carl67lp wrote:
htjester wrote:
The original maps have a better timeline - Sputnik, Laika the dog ...

Couldn't agree more. :D

Me too :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Can "Duck and cover" cause Nuclear War?

turbothy — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:31:52 +0000

by turbothy

ezmac wrote:
Is this not a correct reading of the rules??

No. Phasing player loses.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Can "Duck and cover" cause Nuclear War?

ezmac — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:40:22 +0000

by ezmac

It's my understanding that the US would be the ones who caused the Nuclear War in this scenario. The rules state that: "NOTE: When playing a card for operations and it triggers your opponent's event, your opponent implements the event text as if they had played the card themselves." So just as the US chooses which countries to pull influence from when Eastern European Unrest is played by USSR for operations, so would the US be the one causing the Nuclear War.

I just played a game where I was USSR, the DEFCON was on 3 and I staged a coup with Duck and Cover in Zaire (a battleground country). The coup forced the DEFCON to 2, then the US had to play the event "as if he played the card himself" and he had to degrade the DEFCON status to nuclear war. I won.

Is this not a correct reading of the rules??

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

GlennG — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:07:20 +0000

by GlennG

I've played this game a lot (50+ times) and I win a lot.

If you've ignored Europe throughout the game so that your opponent can take control of all European battlegrounds in one round, you've played all wrong. You *cannot* ignore Europe. It's a game breaker. Yes, you need to make sacrifices throughout the game and give up countries in Europe for other regions, but you have to come back and build up those countries again before Late war.

Last night my opponent had -15 against me in Mid War and had me on the brink of loss. He had taken West Germany. I spent most of the Mid War dividing my attention to building the bananas (central/south america) and taking back Europe. By Turn 10 I only lacked West Germany for control of all Europe, which I immediately went after using the China card. My opponent was forced to spend all his Influence to save West Germany (giving me lots of events) and I took the game from him (with VP).

He lost because he went after short term gains. He could have gotten lucky and found the extra 5 points, but those last 5 points are incredibly hard to obtain. You know that I'm going to play every immediate VP gain I have. In his pursuit he gave up the stranglehold he had on Europe and it gave me an amazing come from behind victory.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

carl67lp — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:35:37 +0000

by carl67lp

htjester wrote:
The original maps have a better timeline - Sputnik, Laika the dog ...

Couldn't agree more. :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Wargames Vs We Will Bury You

Shauneroo — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:38:00 +0000

by Shauneroo

decumanusmaximus wrote:
If my wife was that excited about playing (and winning) board games, I'd consider it a win regardless of the outcome of the game. So stop moping about ... :D

You are SO right.

I am lucky indeed.

Now, if I can only get her into ASL, my life will be complete...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

htjester — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:15:43 +0000

by htjester

amacleod wrote:
if you're expecting TS to be an accurate "simulation" in even the remotest sense of the old hex-and-counter-wargame simulation, then you WILL be disappointed.

TS sounds just like all the other CDGs I've played. In a recent game of For the People my sister's husband triggered the Emancipation Proclamation in the Summer of 1861... wildly ahistorical to any student of the Civil War. And the same almost happened again this weekend. I think CDGs are often great games, but I'm not expecting accurate simulation.

Another point of view is that the cards add flavor and aren't meant to represent the exact events portrayed at that specific time. The same point of view can be extended to the Space Race track.

Tim K.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Wargames Vs We Will Bury You

decumanusmaximus — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:07:39 +0000

by decumanusmaximus

If my wife was that excited about playing (and winning) board games, I'd consider it a win regardless of the outcome of the game. So stop moping about ... :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

amacleod — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:03:04 +0000

by amacleod

Statalyzer wrote:
I would not call half that stuff unrealistic, unless by unrealistic you mean "doesn't exactly follow the history book"

In other words "Unrealistic" means something very different from "Non historical" - to me, saying "unrealistic" implies "This couldn't have really happened"

I think DEFCON is a thematic name for global tensions, not a direct reflection of where the US has set their particular level (since DEFCON affects the Soviets as well). And I also think Brush War is internal strife, not a military invasion.

Sorry about that, Statalyzer. I've given you the wrong impression, since (I agree) I should have said "non historical". I consider Twilight Struggle to be VERY realistic (and just a darn good game, too!). All I was attempting to say, though, is that if you're expecting TS to be an accurate "simulation" in even the remotest sense of the old hex-and-counter-wargame simulation, then you WILL be disappointed. And your comments about how DEFCON in TS is a thematic name for global tensions, you're right: it's thematic, but it is definitely not a simulation. And from the sounds of what the OP has said, it sounds (to me, anyways!)like he's looking for a SIMULATION of the Cold War, as opposed to a very well-THEMED game about the Cold War.
I, however, have not at all been disappointed with Twilight Struggle....I've just been disappointed with my string of near run losses as the American player lately:yuk:!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

Statalyzer — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:45:19 +0000

by Statalyzer

I would not call half that stuff unrealistic, unless by unrealistic you mean "doesn't exactly follow the history book"

In other words "Unrealistic" means something very different from "Non historical" - to me, saying "unrealistic" implies "This couldn't have really happened"

I think DEFCON is a thematic name for global tensions, not a direct reflection of where the US has set their particular level (since DEFCON affects the Soviets as well). And I also think Brush War is internal strife, not a military invasion.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Where to download 3rd Edition Rules?

Statalyzer — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:40:08 +0000

by Statalyzer

I find 1960 much easier to teach because one you've explained it, you've explained it. In TS further teaching is required every time the newbie doesn't understand the card (which is often).

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

amacleod — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:13:46 +0000

by amacleod

I see, Tim, you said: "If it better fits real history to gameplay then I think it's a design improvement."
Hmmm: I think you may be profoundly disappointed with Twilight Struggle. Why? Let me give a few examples, other than the fact that a moon landing rarely takes place in a typical game:
-during the real Cold War, the USA was at either Defcon 3 or 2 for a grand total of about one month or so for the entire Cold War. In a typical game of Twilight Struggle, the players are at Defcon 2 for the great majority of the game!
-Pope John Paul II frequently becomes pope....in the early 1960's!
-the Marshall Plan often ends up becoming "the Kissinger Plan", since it can easily be delayed until the 1970's
-in the games I've played, NATO is rarely formed!
-a military invasion of Italy (Brush War) is not uncommon...and yet World War Three is not a result
-frequently, Vietnam is an isolated island of American control for the entire game
-etc, etc, etc.
Twilight Struggle (as someone has already said) is an abstract portrayal of the Cold War: it is NOT AT ALL a realistic simulation. The events of the Cold War are in the game, yes; but it is utterly at the whim of the players as to when and how they will be played, resulting in an "alternate history" that looks radically different from anything that actually happened.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

msherwoo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:14:38 +0000

by msherwoo

I can't express how much the tug-of-war (straight line) VP track means to me. I would not play on this revision purely due to the VP track being a box again. The VP track box is a HUGE step backwards.

Everything else looks great to me.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

sbszine — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:40:41 +0000

by sbszine

I don't mind the new spaces, but it bugs me that they don't match the illustrations. 'Man in Space' is a communications satellite and 'Eagle Has Landed' is a man in space. Weird.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

pobeda — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:17:49 +0000

by pobeda

I find them equally tasty.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

Cantatta — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:51:19 +0000

by Cantatta

I definitely like the latest design myself, and appreciate the newer Space Race Track quite a bit, as it does seem to play out in a more "historical time-line" kind of way with the new picture set. This is more of an esthetic than mechanical change, but flavor is one of this game's strongest points and anything that makes the flavor even richer is a good thing to me!

At the very least, the newest design is better than the design from last week, IMHO. Nice work.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

houjix — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:30:57 +0000

by houjix

htjester wrote:
I would still like to see "Walk in Space" replace "Man in Orbit".:D

If you head over to consimworld I'm sure the GMT guys would be willing to listen to your argument.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Wargames Vs We Will Bury You

sbauer9 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:06:33 +0000

by sbauer9

Best 2 out of 3?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

htjester — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:04:50 +0000

by htjester

houjix wrote:
I suggest a variant where you eliminate the last two boxes. I promise it will barely affect gameplay, and you'll see that the space markers can realistically reach the levels you expect thematically.

In light of the comments from experienced players, the new space race track is more reasonable than my initial reaction suggests. If it better fits real history to gameplay then I think it's a design improvement. I notice landing on the moon still rewards only one player, as I think should be the case.

I can live with it. Anything better would probably require a major design change, and I'm not suggesting that. I would still like to see "Walk in Space" replace "Man in Orbit".:D

Tim K.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Wargames Vs We Will Bury You

Shauneroo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:47:32 +0000

by Shauneroo

Argh.

Thanks for the quick answer.

My wife has just been dancing around the room, and is obviously very pleased.

I, however, am not...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Wargames Vs We Will Bury You

JohnRayJr — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:43:55 +0000

by JohnRayJr

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/97390

See the clarification at the end of the post (cards are in alphabetical order). Looks like your wife was victorious.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Wargames Vs We Will Bury You

Shauneroo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:37:39 +0000

by Shauneroo

Hi all, I have a little rules problem that I need clearing up.

It's to do with the order in which events occur when Wargames ends the game, but We Will Bury You is in effect.

The Wargames card specifies that the game ends immediately, but at the moment the Wargames card was played, it (obvoiusly) wasn't UN Intervention (thus giving 3 VP to the Soviets).

The order of events here is particularly important, because if the We Will Bury You card gives it's VP to the Soviet player before Wargames ends the game, I'll have just lost to my wife by one point.

Thanks in advance for any help in clearing this up.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Europe Control: Viable Strategy ?

reinselc — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:10:06 +0000

by reinselc

This is a very viable strategy late in the game as the USA with a Chernobyl headline.

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Ferdinand — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:52:44 +0000

by Ferdinand

New map for the 2009 Deluxe GMT Edition re-release of Twilight Strugg...

]]>

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

Lobo2 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:11:26 +0000

by Lobo2

I agree with the OP, the space race effectively ended with the moon landing. The general public lost interest after that. The original gameboard did the space race just fine. Why is there a need to change it?

Mechanically it doesn't matter either way. Who really cares from that perspective.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

houjix — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:33:29 +0000

by houjix

htjester wrote:
Admittedly, I am new to TS. Sounds like the space race is poorly designed in an otherwise great game.

Are you talking mechanically or thematically? It sounds like the mechanical complaint is that no one ever makes it to the end of the track. The solution is either to redesign the mechanic or adjust the thematic mnemonic placed around that mechanic. Sliding a few pictures to the left makes perfect sense to me. The space race markers will now tend toward their historical levels and will rarely ever get beyond that. So in that sense the track now makes more thematic sense. But honestly we're just discussing graphical choices - and I think this new map makes a lot of thematic sense when you consider how the game actually plays out.

If it really bothers you I suggest a variant where you eliminate the last two boxes. I promise it will barely affect gameplay, and you'll see that the space markers can realistically reach the levels you expect thematically.

Isn't Twilight Struggle awfully abstract and "what-if"ish to get into nitpicky historical qualms about two small pictures on the map?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

htjester — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:37:22 +0000

by htjester

Admittedly, I am new to TS. Sounds like the space race is poorly designed in an otherwise great game. Even still, the changes don't solve everything; strictly speaking, the entire space race should happen on turns 3, 4, and 5.

I would still suggest the new track feature "Man in Space", then "Space Walk", not "Man in Orbit". Since Gagarin's flight was orbital, it made Al Shepherd's suborbital flight look anticlimactic.

Tim K.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

amacleod — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:27:18 +0000

by amacleod

I agree with everything you said, Tim, 400%!!!! My feelings exactly.
The problem with the current TS Space Race Track is that players generally never end up getting a man on the moon, or do not do so until well into the 1980's. Even more typically, the game might end with the greatest space accomplishment being a Space Walk (or less!); and that bugs people.
However, we've got to remember that the Space Race was not some sort of inevitable, historical, technological progression that HAD to happen. It ONLY happened because there was the Cold War going on. And the accomplishments that were achieved happened ONLY because the respective governments of the two superpowers saw those objectives as being valuable in their struggle against the "enemy". In other words: "Go to the moon? Yes! IF it makes the capitalist pigs/commie reds look bad and increases our prestige and our technology!" The rather slow pace of space technology in a typical Twilight Struggle game realistically portrays "alternate history" governments that would have seen more value in couping Thailand, or whatever, than in sending monkeys into space. If there had been no Cold War, I suspect that there might have been a successful manned landing on the moon.....but not until the 1990's! Furthermore, without the Cold War, I suspect we'd probably have another couple of decades to wait before we'd be communicating with each other over this thing called the internet.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: problem with new map

jackalope — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:19:56 +0000

by jackalope

The problem with the space race is that it is a very rare occasion that anyone ever gets to the moon in a game, much less by 1969.

I think that there were true aspirations of space stations and lunar or even Mars colonies, but funding got cut in the early 70's for any serious further steps into space. This seems to be what happens in TS. Most games get to about 1/2 way or so on the space race, and then funding gets cut (players can't invest further card or time resources). So, the rework makes sense to me.

Remember, this game doesn't just cover the cold war up to 1970, but into the 80's where space programs could still be interwoven with national pride, such as the US fleet of space shuttles, or with propaganda of space defense systems, "Star Wars".

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: problem with new map

htjester — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:05:37 +0000

by htjester

They posted a sneak peak of the new map at GMT, which you can see here:

http://www.gmtgames.com/nnts/TSMap11.jpg

The problem with the new map is the re-formatted space race. I am a long-time space buff (I even worked for NASA at Johnson Space Center in college between 1982 and 1984 and have friends who still work there).

In the context of Twilight Struggle, the space race is ultimately about getting to the moon, not building a space shuttle and space station. The original maps have a better timeline - Sputnik, Laika the dog, Gargarin in space, Leonov's space walk, Apollo 8's slingshot around the moon, and Apollo 11 are universally regarded as major space race milestones. Apollo 8 was a major public relations coup, and was specifically undertaken because Grumman did not have the Lunar Module ready. The Gemini program had multiple goals, including a space walk, earth orbit rendezvous, and earth orbit docking (Neil Armstrong showed very impressive decision-making under pressure on Gemini 8 after an extremely dangerous malfunction in the Agena docking module). Arguably earth orbit rendezvous and docking are more important milestones than a space shuttle and space station because they demonstrated techniques and skills that would be used on Apollo.

With regard to a space station, technically the first space station was Salyut 1 in 1971, launched while the Apollo program was still ongoing. NASA did launch Skylab in 1973, but if it was so important in the space race, why didn't Congress authorize funding for more than just three Skylab missions? Why did we let Skylab crash to earth in 1979, well before the end of TS's timeline?

The Space Race was effectively over when Neil and Buzz sent audio and video from the moon. There may be other worthwhile changes to the new map, but GMT would be well-advised to reconsider the changes to the Space Race track and restore the original.

Tim K.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Five Year Plan

pilight — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:59:33 +0000

by pilight

Sobriquet wrote:
nicktaruffi wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
As Soviets you can do a nice trick with this card by playing it as your last action so that you only have one card in your hand, namely a scoring card for a region you don't want to score, and that gets discarded.

Whoa!! Didn't think of this trick!
Thumbs up!

Does this then supersede the rule that events cannot prevent the forced play of a scoring card? In my most recent game, I (As the US) wanted to play Quagmire on myself to cause a similar thing to happen (force the play of an Ops 2 card in lieu of a scoring card) but couldn't due to that rule. This is different, but similar enough that it makes me wonder.

You're only forced to play a scoring card if the card is in your hand. If you can discard it somehow, then you're not obligated to play it.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Nikku — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:37:59 +0000

by Nikku

I'm in the "meh"-camp here as well. I liked the old boards style and cohesiveness. I like the new map's colors although it has some flaws which have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

I thought I saw a raised fist icon per continent in one of the drafts which I rather liked. Was it ditched, or am I mistaken? Same goes for explosion icons in battlegrounds?

Dislike the icons ... the black/white photo's of the previous map provide the great atmosphere. This seems ... bland.

Some rehasing
* benelux flag
* 3d US flag
* US and USSR font
* tracks are dull

Oh well, it's ... nice ... but I'll stick to my old board. ;)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

spizio — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:23:24 +0000

by spizio

Revised new board

Plus a link for those that prefer to link out to it.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Five Year Plan

Sobriquet — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:26:33 +0000

by Sobriquet

nicktaruffi wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
As Soviets you can do a nice trick with this card by playing it as your last action so that you only have one card in your hand, namely a scoring card for a region you don't want to score, and that gets discarded.

Whoa!! Didn't think of this trick!
Thumbs up!

Does this then supersede the rule that events cannot prevent the forced play of a scoring card? In my most recent game, I (As the US) wanted to play Quagmire on myself to cause a similar thing to happen (force the play of an Ops 2 card in lieu of a scoring card) but couldn't due to that rule. This is different, but similar enough that it makes me wonder.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

cermailu — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:59:43 +0000

by cermailu

Pyjam wrote:
This new map isn't a success. I hope it's just a draft. The original Guillaume Ries's map is much better.
The score tract goes in the wrong direction. And why is it labelled CCCP and not URSS ?

URSS would be great! :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

Jambo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:19:53 +0000

by Jambo

Are there any new cards planned for the 2009 version?

best,

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

topherbear — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:06:17 +0000

by topherbear

masdero wrote:

I noticed that in the new map the DEFCON track legend is missing a reference to Realignment rolls as in the old maps.

Rule 8.1.5 states that Defcon status affects the possibility of performin a Realignment roll too.

Is it an error or am I missing something else.

The current version of the map doesn't say anything about realignment rolls either. I don't expect this will change, although it is listed as a variant.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Upgrade kit from 3rd to 4th printing?

potts_games — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:47:54 +0000

by potts_games

Here is what Gene from GMT said on CSW on June 27th.

We'll have all that info when we add the TS reprint and an update kit to the website - probably at least a month away. I just don't have details yet, but I know there will be an update kit available.

This was a response to the following question:

Never saw an answer to the Twilight Struggle Question. What else is new besides the map? If this is the only change, will it be sold separately?

Mike

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

Billtje — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:47:30 +0000

by Billtje

JohnRayJr wrote:
Whew! For a moment I thought there might be a bunch of players out there who preferred the utterly confusing counters of the 1st Ed.!

Of course, we are the originals :p
In any case, I use wooden cubes to denote control of a country which I think is much clearer visually than nrs on a different background.

Maybe they could add cubes in the "Deluxe" version.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Upgrade kit from 3rd to 4th printing?

Jambo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:39:33 +0000

by Jambo

It's a good question and one that I'd also like to know the answer to. The designer of TS, Jason Matthews, is often on BGG so perhaps he can provide some insight on the query...

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Upgrade kit from 3rd to 4th printing?

masdero — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:28:46 +0000

by masdero

Owning the current version, what should I (be able to) buy/upgrade to be updated with the forthcoming new printing?

- map

then?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

masdero — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:22:37 +0000

by masdero

JackFlash wrote:
Will the new mounted board be available separately for sale? :)

I noticed that the colours on the map changes, so it won't match the colours of the scoring cards (and I have to create a new version of my template cards :( http://www.massimilianodellarovere.eu/giochi/twilight_strugg... )

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: The New Map: Why Zaire and not Congo?

JasonMatthews — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:29:56 +0000

by JasonMatthews

Tali, "Congo" became a place of notable Cold War interest under Mobutu. Since he renamed the country to Zaire, it seems like the right fit. We are not taking the long historical view here, its the Cold War perspective we are aiming to capture.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: The New Map: Why Zaire and not Congo?

Tali Urulu III — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:29:16 +0000

by Tali Urulu III

According to Wikipedia, the area identified on the map as "Zaire" (and the previous ones as well) has had the following "official" names since 1877:

1877-1908 Congo Free State
1908-1960 Belgian Congo
1960-1971 Republic of Congo
1971-1997 Zaire
1997-now Democratic Republic of Congo.

In this span of 122 years, the "score" is Congo 96, Zaire 26. Just focusing on the years covered by TS, it is still Congo 26, Zaire 18.

Wikipedia also informs us of the following:

--Much of the area identified as "Zaire" on the new map was at one time or another part of the Kingdom of Kongo which existed from 1395-1914

--The country's name was changed from "Congo" to "Zaire" by its President (and self-proclaimed "Father of the Nation") Mobutu in line with his party's doctrine of "authentic Zairian nationalism". This is ironic, because as pointed out by Wikipedia, the word "Congo" is "fundamentally 'authentic' to pre-colonial African roots" while "Zaire is in fact a Portuguese corruption of another African word".

--The country's name was changed back to "Congo" after Mobutu was forced to flee Zaire in 1997. "Thereafter, the nation chose to reclaim its name of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, since the name Zaire carried such strong connections to the rule of Mobutu."

Although I am fully aware that Wikipedia should not be relied upon to be considered authoritative (unless I agree with it), I think this all suggests that the author should consider changing "Zaire" to "Congo".

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

JackFlash — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:26:51 +0000

by JackFlash

Will the new mounted board be available separately for sale? :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Twilight Struggle: How does the US win?

Philip Thomas — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:52:47 +0000

by Philip Thomas

tbr4ws wrote:
US gets a big advantage in central and south america

Its not that big an advantage:
Cards that add USA influence in Central and/or South America: OAS Founded (2), Panama Canal Returned (3) and, erm, that is it. There is also that 3 OPs card that gives the USA 1 VP per American Battleground in the Americas, but this card rewards a USA advantage, it doesn't create it...

Cards that add USSR influence in Central and/or South America: Fidel (3), Liberation Theology (3), Allende (2), Iron Lady* (1), Latin American Debt Crisis (varies, often 0).
Mixed events that add influence in Central and/or South America: Junta.

The USA does start with a couple of advantages in Central America, namely 1 influence in Panama and the proximity of the USA, but the truth is it is a pretty even game in the New World. Especially if the USSR throws some De-stalinisation influence America's way.
Conversely, a well-timed Voice of America can be very effective.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Twilight Struggle: How does the US win?

tbr4ws — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:39:07 +0000

by tbr4ws

US gets a big advantage in central and south america

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

nix342 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:14:09 +0000

by nix342

B wins!!! Hooray!!

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@853.8Utkf5Olfba.173@.1dc...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

nix342 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:38:59 +0000

by nix342

spizio wrote:
Link to the poll their please?

Here's Mark's original post: http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@853.8Utkf5Olfba.12@.1dcf...

CSW is, of course, an antiquated site, so doesn't having cool polling features like here. But don't get me started.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

pilight — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:12:52 +0000

by pilight

Sassmatic wrote:
masdero wrote:
jackalope wrote:
JohnRayJr wrote:
Chinese Civil War:

The China Card starts out of play. To obtain it, the Soviets must spend three influence points. Until they do so, they are subject to the following penalties:

They may not use Red Scare / Purge as an event.
The US receives a +1 modifier during the Korean War event.
Ussuri River Skirmish (as well as the other relevant midwar events) trigger as though the US player is currently in possession of the China card.

Also Formosan Resolution cannot be played as an event

So both players can use that cards only for the OPs or to dump it onto the space race?
So it became a (text-)blank card?

The same is true of NATO until the Marshall Plan or The Warsaw Pact is created.

Or Solidarity if the John Paul II Elected Pope event hasn't happened.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

JohnRayJr — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:13:49 +0000

by JohnRayJr

All of these effects disappear as soon as the Soviets spend 3IP to obtain China. After that, Formosan is playable as an event etc.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

masdero — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:22:24 +0000

by masdero

I understood that the Formosan Resolution can't be played as an event for the whole match. So this card changes to a textless one, and that's a bit strange :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

spizio — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:55:02 +0000

by spizio

Link to the poll their please?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

jackalope — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:19:39 +0000

by jackalope

I prefer the 1st edition counters. You essentially get twice as many counters without taking up the extra space.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

Iceberg1 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:07:34 +0000

by Iceberg1

Option B!!!!!!

please

--James

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

nix342 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:21:56 +0000

by nix342

JohnRayJr wrote:
Whew! For a moment I thought there might be a bunch of players out there who preferred the utterly confusing counters of the 1st Ed.!

There appears to be a few grognards on CSW that do prefer them, hence my post here.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: [Poll] Deluxe version counter style

cadavaca — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:12:32 +0000

by cadavaca

JohnRayJr wrote:
Whew! For a moment I thought there might be a bunch of players out there who preferred the utterly confusing counters of the 1st Ed.!

If there are any such who don't have them already, I'll trade you the counters from my copy!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

JohnRayJr — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:04:12 +0000

by JohnRayJr

Or Arab-Israeli War after the Camp David Accords. Or OPEC after North Sea Oil. "Unplayable for the Event" is not all that unusual.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Deluxe version counter style

JohnRayJr — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:03:14 +0000

by JohnRayJr

Whew! For a moment I thought there might be a bunch of players out there who preferred the utterly confusing counters of the 1st Ed.!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

Sassmatic — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:45:47 +0000

by Sassmatic

masdero wrote:
jackalope wrote:
JohnRayJr wrote:
Chinese Civil War:

The China Card starts out of play. To obtain it, the Soviets must spend three influence points. Until they do so, they are subject to the following penalties:

They may not use Red Scare / Purge as an event.
The US receives a +1 modifier during the Korean War event.
Ussuri River Skirmish (as well as the other relevant midwar events) trigger as though the US player is currently in possession of the China card.

Also Formosan Resolution cannot be played as an event

So both players can use that cards only for the OPs or to dump it onto the space race?
So it became a (text-)blank card?

The same is true of NATO until the Marshall Plan or The Warsaw Pact is created.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Deluxe version counter style

nix342 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:41:39 +0000

by nix342

Mark Simonitch over on CSW wrote:

Twilight Struggle Deluxe

I'm working on the TS Deluxe counters now. Which type of counters do players prefer?

A. The flip side of the control marker is a value +1 higher than the front side (as it was in the initial version of the game).

B. The flip side is the number on a white background to denote control of the country.

Feedback appreciated!

I suggest you head on over and voice your opinion. Personally, I strongly prefer option B. Just makes it easier to see what is going on in the game.

In the meantime, here's a poll!
[poll=29082]

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Pyjam — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:28:45 +0000

by Pyjam

This new map isn't a success. I hope it's just a draft. The original Guillaume Ries's map is much better.
The score tract goes in the wrong direction. And why is it labelled CCCP and not URSS ?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

masdero — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:32:32 +0000

by masdero

jackalope wrote:
JohnRayJr wrote:
Chinese Civil War:

The China Card starts out of play. To obtain it, the Soviets must spend three influence points. Until they do so, they are subject to the following penalties:

They may not use Red Scare / Purge as an event.
The US receives a +1 modifier during the Korean War event.
Ussuri River Skirmish (as well as the other relevant midwar events) trigger as though the US player is currently in possession of the China card.

Also Formosan Resolution cannot be played as an event

So both players can use that cards only for the OPs or to dump it onto the space race?
So it became a (text-)blank card?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

Ricomaurer — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:58:32 +0000

by Ricomaurer

Another story of why this game is so awesome. Congrats on your epic win!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

jackalope — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:26:56 +0000

by jackalope

JohnRayJr wrote:
Chinese Civil War:

The China Card starts out of play. To obtain it, the Soviets must spend three influence points. Until they do so, they are subject to the following penalties:

They may not use Red Scare / Purge as an event.
The US receives a +1 modifier during the Korean War event.
Ussuri River Skirmish (as well as the other relevant midwar events) trigger as though the US player is currently in possession of the China card.

Also Formosan Resolution cannot be played as an event

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

brainst0rm — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:44:17 +0000

by brainst0rm

Terrible news to my wallet :shake:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

masdero — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:43:39 +0000

by masdero

JasonMatthews wrote:
Tanakor wrote:

I didn't see any confirmation yet, that the board will be mounted. Did I miss something?
If so, I will propably upgrade.

The board will be mounted.

There will be other remarkable changes?
Different layout of the cards, etc?

Will the current version of the game compatible with the new mounted map?
(I think not because of the changed colours of the continents, i.e. scoring of south america)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

JasonMatthews — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:25:03 +0000

by JasonMatthews

Tanakor wrote:

I didn't see any confirmation yet, that the board will be mounted. Did I miss something?
If so, I will propably upgrade.

The board will be mounted.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

masdero — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:29:55 +0000

by masdero

thank you

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Malvictis — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:57:28 +0000

by Malvictis

2009 Deluxe Edition Map

]]>

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

JohnRayJr — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:21:30 +0000

by JohnRayJr

Chinese Civil War:

The China Card starts out of play. To obtain it, the Soviets must spend three influence points. Until they do so, they are subject to the following penalties:

They may not use Red Scare / Purge as an event.
The US receives a +1 modifier during the Korean War event.
Ussuri River Skirmish (as well as the other relevant midwar events) trigger as though the US player is currently in possession of the China card.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

masdero — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:18:29 +0000

by masdero

I read it somewhere, but I do not remember where.

For now ignore the "mounted" word, just to be safe.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

Tanakor — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:05:36 +0000

by Tanakor

masdero wrote:
I noticed GMT is going to print and mount an new map for the forthcoming brand new edition/print of TS.

I didn't see any confirmation yet, that the board will be mounted. Did I miss something?
If so, I will propably upgrade.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: TS maps and (rules) 8.1.5

masdero — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:03:57 +0000

by masdero

I noticed GMT is going to print and mount an new map for the forthcoming brand new edition/print of TS.

I noticed that in the new map the DEFCON track legend is missing a reference to Realignment rolls as in the old maps.

Rule 8.1.5 states that Defcon status affects the possibility of performin a Realignment roll too.

Is it an error or am I missing something else.

PS: What is the Chinese civil war optional rule? once the soviet player piles 3 influence points and plays the china card, are they reset to 0?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

taulus — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:42:08 +0000

by taulus

Petdoc wrote:
Every time I read one of your TS AARs, I want to play this game! They are just fantastic. Unfortunately I have only played this game solitaire (I know, I know... but its still a ton of fun). I've downloaded the online program and surfed around the web site and checked out the 'waiting room', I just haven't had the nerve to challenge anyone to a game of it. I'm so far behind the curve on this game, it's very intimidating when you see the skill level of many of the players. Keep up the great AARs, at least I can live vicariously through those :D

Don't be intimidated. The are plenty of newer players around the wargameroom site (and I assume also on VASSAL, and the ladders, although I don't use either of those venues myself). If you happen to play some of the more experienced players, and let them know that you're new to the game, many of them will be sure to give you the USSR (I used to do that for fresh players, and sometimes even offer them a couple of VP to boot, but the wgr program doesn't let you do that anymore). You may take some lumps your first few games out (it took me a while to get competitive, especially playing the USA), but TS is such fun, I doubt you'll regret it.

P.S. Fun AAR, Roger.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

wifwendell — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:29:06 +0000

by wifwendell

pilight wrote:
gh0ul wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
I wonder if that's deliberate or simply my eyes misreading the contrast.

It's slightly lighter than Europe's color. not by much though

I would guess that it means Canada isn't part of Western Europe. Never made sense to me for Marshall Plan and the like to affect Canada.

Well Canada's part of NATO. Having it part of W Europe for game play makes total sense in a Cold War game. In fact Canada used to be lumped in with the countries of Europe in the State Department bureau that covered that part of the world (i.e., "European and Canadian Affairs") until the mid-90s.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: I took Canada!

MartinStever — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:11:02 +0000

by MartinStever

]]>

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: I took Canada!

spizio — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:29:15 +0000

by spizio

In my last game I created a Socialist Paradise for my new friends the Can-coms. Saddly I lost on the last turn due to Wargames.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Pulinski — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:28:38 +0000

by Pulinski

Tossy wrote:
In my last game I'll have you know I very solidly converted Canada into the Soviet sphere of influence.

Never seen influence placed in Canada in any of my games.

I think if the UK bordered the US, then you might see more action in that part of the board.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

spizio — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:42:47 +0000

by spizio

gh0ul wrote:
spizio wrote:

I just got an email from GMT confirming that the new board will be mounted. Wooo Hooo!!!! :D

Woohoo! Was any specific release date mentioned? ;)

Sorry they didn't. I'm hoping soon.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

gh0ul — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:07:26 +0000

by gh0ul

spizio wrote:

I just got an email from GMT confirming that the new board will be mounted. Wooo Hooo!!!! :D

Woohoo! Was any specific release date mentioned? ;)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

spizio — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:20:00 +0000

by spizio

Trunks wrote:
CapAp wrote:
You can still use the old board.

Heck, you can mount the old board onto the new one!

I just got an email from GMT confirming that the new board will be mounted. Wooo Hooo!!!! :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

spizio — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:19:04 +0000

by spizio

Tossy wrote:
Belz wrote:
Pulinski wrote:
Just get rid of Canada altogether....make UK the adjacent country.

Umm hey!

Well... gameplay wise, I've never ever seen (well, I've only played maybe 10 games total..) anyone put any influence in Canada. It just doesn't get touched. It may as well not be there. (Same with Norway!)

BUT, geographically and thematically, it should, so... :whistle:

In my last game I'll have you know I very solidly converted Canada into the Soviet sphere of influence.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Styfen — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:40:54 +0000

by Styfen

nix342 wrote:
GuiX wrote:
Anyway, Guillaume RIES and our community has done a much better work.

Which is funny because Guillaume Ries is the artist who created this map.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@853.aU1lfolaeFC.118@.1dc...

Ha Ha! Score one for irony!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

msherwoo — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:21:02 +0000

by msherwoo

- Africa and Central America are too close in color.
- Changing colors of regions mean that our old decks won't match (nit).
- I really like how Guillaume Ries' BGG map had appx years with the turn track.
- 3-D stuff looks incongruent.
- The coffee stain being the only 'aging' looks silly.
- VP track across the top really would make much more sense.
- The colors are fantastic! I literally magic-markered my Guillaume Ries BGG map just to make it playable. This one is perfect.
- I love the VP track with the USA victory on the left.
- The color gradient of the VP track appears to have blue entering the red side, but no red entering the blue side.
- Oh, and I think Chili is mis-spelled. :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Cathan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:01:00 +0000

by Cathan

It's an improvement, but the new board doesn't really get me excited.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Where to download 3rd Edition Rules?

Cathan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:59:52 +0000

by Cathan

I'd say it's "harder to master." Learning the rules is not all to difficult. Mastering the card play is the longer process.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Where to download 3rd Edition Rules?

leroy43 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:44:01 +0000

by leroy43

There is no 3rd edition. (there was a third *printing*, but it was a reprint of the 2nd edition).

TS is easier to teach but harder to learn.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Trunks — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:26:59 +0000

by Trunks

CapAp wrote:
You can still use the old board.

Heck, you can mount the old board onto the new one!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Where to download 3rd Edition Rules?

TGov — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:40:01 +0000

by TGov

I personally think Twilight Struggle is easier to teach than 1960.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

mheagerty — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:34:32 +0000

by mheagerty

Strope wrote:
Look up Aldrich Ames, then complain about Chernobyl.

Heh, played last night and in turn 10 the USSR played Aldrich Ames as their headline card and I played Chernobyl. Such a great game.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

CapAp — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:25:40 +0000

by CapAp

You can still use the old board.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Where to download 3rd Edition Rules?

Felkor — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:02:10 +0000

by Felkor

The third edition rules are the same as the second edition rules.

I can't comment on 1960, but I found Twilight Struggle -very- easy to learn and to teach, and I have very little wargame experience, especially of this genre.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Where to download 3rd Edition Rules?

JYoder — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:51:40 +0000

by JYoder

The GMT site only had 2nd edition for download. Is the 3rd available somewhere?

Also, while I see 1960 has a shorter play time, is 1960 also easy to learn via the rulebook and to teach others? Thanks.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

frankts1 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:33:51 +0000

by frankts1

I rather like the scoring track actually, it's a more efficent use of the space, and I like the literal "tug of war" visual that it imparts. That's about the only thing I really like about it though, and otherwise I find the thing rather drab and ugly. The 50s/60s styles for the defcon, mil ops and space race tracks are cool, but I find the overall color scheme depressingly monotone.

:yuk:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

AstroLad — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:27:41 +0000

by AstroLad

harro wrote:
Whereas I don't like how the American flag is done. The 3D look is at odds with the 2D stylistic choice used everywhere else on the board.

Agreed. It looks really out of place.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Darthlord — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:19:52 +0000

by Darthlord

I'm curious as to why the letters for "U.S.A." are in a distressed font, but not for "C.C.C.P." I work with text and fonts a fair bit, and it was one of the first things that struck me.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Southeast Asia

ColtsFan76 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:05:50 +0000

by ColtsFan76

Yes. SE Asia is a subset of Asia and counts for everything that counts in Asia. The reverse is not true.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Southeast Asia

dr_divot — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:01:34 +0000

by dr_divot

Do these battlegrounds and non-BGs count as part of Asia scoring?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

pilight — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:22:02 +0000

by pilight

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/228626

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

nix342 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:03:33 +0000

by nix342

GuiX wrote:
Anyway, Guillaume RIES and our community has done a much better work.

Which is funny because Guillaume Ries is the artist who created this map.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@853.aU1lfolaeFC.118@.1dc...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

ctalbot — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:32:35 +0000

by ctalbot

Tossy wrote:
Well... gameplay wise, I've never ever seen (well, I've only played maybe 10 games total..) anyone put any influence in Canada. It just doesn't get touched. It may as well not be there. (Same with Norway!)

I've seen and done both. I'm not saying they were good moves, just that ... well ... that I've seen and done both. ;)

Chris

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

GuiX — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:04:02 +0000

by GuiX

Well, to me the map isn't worth a penny!
Note Benelux still has the Belgium flag :'(
Awkward for Canada... that is Eastern Europe? Maybe due to those French Canadian...

Anyway, Guillaume RIES and our community has done a much better work.
(there's a still a need for the Chinese Civil War variant, thus)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Uhtoff — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:51:38 +0000

by Uhtoff

All looks pretty nice, I imagine the Canada colour is just a mistake.

My only gripe is the scoring track, it just looks the wrong way round to me, it's the opposite way from the original map (as although it's a box in the Indian Ocean, USSR points are to the left and USA points are to the right) and it's the opposite way round compared to the convention on ACTS of USSR VPs being negative. I like the way it feels on Guillame Reis's map that you are pushing your VP counter into the opponent's territory when you score.

Just noticed that the scoring track says CCCP victory while the superpower is marked USSR - maybe that could be fixed when they put the scoring track the right way round!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Is luck really that important?

Tossy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:28:16 +0000

by Tossy

aschvey wrote:
Luck is only determinative if you lose. If you win, it's all about skill. Or at least that's my view...

:laugh: Isn't that the truth :laugh:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Tossy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:19:35 +0000

by Tossy

Belz wrote:
Pulinski wrote:
Just get rid of Canada altogether....make UK the adjacent country.

Umm hey!

Well... gameplay wise, I've never ever seen (well, I've only played maybe 10 games total..) anyone put any influence in Canada. It just doesn't get touched. It may as well not be there. (Same with Norway!)

BUT, geographically and thematically, it should, so... :whistle:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Belz — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:54:49 +0000

by Belz

Pulinski wrote:
Just get rid of Canada altogether....make UK the adjacent country.

Umm hey!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Pulinski — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:40:01 +0000

by Pulinski

Just get rid of Canada altogether....make UK the adjacent country.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Sassmatic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:55:20 +0000

by Sassmatic

leroy43 wrote:
gh0ul wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
I wonder if that's deliberate or simply my eyes misreading the contrast.

It's slightly lighter than Europe's color. not by much though

It's possible Canada is no longer automatically counted as part of "Europe" - maybe there's some kind of Canada card in the works.

Perhaps a card that depicts Nixon calling Trudeau "that son of a B****!"

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

harro — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:17:33 +0000

by harro

Whereas I don't like how the American flag is done. The 3D look is at odds with the 2D stylistic choice used everywhere else on the board.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

falsedan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:58:51 +0000

by falsedan

The Middle East looks very similar in colour to the oceans, and why does USA get its full name expanded out but not the CCCP? Not enough room I guess!

USA/USSR flags look great!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Thomas-Of-Ultramar — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:32:29 +0000

by Thomas-Of-Ultramar

I kinda like the new Space Race icons. They have that quasi-Soviet propaganda poster look to them. I am as confused as everyone else about Canada.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

ibn_ul_khattab — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:32:49 +0000

by ibn_ul_khattab

It looks like part of eastern europe to me, who knows. Map is awesome.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

pilight — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:20:49 +0000

by pilight

gh0ul wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
I wonder if that's deliberate or simply my eyes misreading the contrast.

It's slightly lighter than Europe's color. not by much though

I would guess that it means Canada isn't part of Western Europe. Never made sense to me for Marshall Plan and the like to affect Canada.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Skadar — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:12:51 +0000

by Skadar

Braveheart, you made me examine the Space Race track closely and I must say I agree with you. I understand they are going for artistic continuity, but the iconographic choices are odd.

The first 3 choices are good, after that, here's what I would have done:

1-3: good
4 Man in Space: Mercury Capsule (since the russians get Laika for 3)
5 Man in Earth Orbit: Space walker from box 7
6 Lunar Orbit: good
7 Eagle/Bear Landed: Generic lander on lunar surface
8 Space Shuttle: good
9 Space Station: Generic space station

Remove the right-hand moon(?) image altogether.

And get rid of the period(.) after "Space Station"! :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Braveheart — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:44:32 +0000

by Braveheart

I like the new steps of the space race track, especially with the new additions of the Space shuttle and space station added. Some of the pics don't make sense though. Like, Bear/Eagle has landed, they have a man attached to a line walking in space. The "Man in Space" one looks strage too, shouldn't it look more like a capsule? Also, didn't the Soviets have the first workable space station? Does that mean they one the space race? I'd prefer a something that said "lunar base" or something of that sort, that's what the pic looks like.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

leroy43 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:40:06 +0000

by leroy43

gh0ul wrote:
leroy43 wrote:
I wonder if that's deliberate or simply my eyes misreading the contrast.

It's slightly lighter than Europe's color. not by much though

It's possible Canada is no longer automatically counted as part of "Europe" - maybe there's some kind of Canada card in the works.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

leroy43 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:38:54 +0000

by leroy43

dcorban wrote:
Are they going to standardize the optional rule allowing realignments in all areas regardless of defcon level? I notice that the board still just says "no coup attempts" with no mention of realignment.

I certainly hope not. :yuk:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Skadar — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:33:35 +0000

by Skadar

wilk wrote:
What annoys me is that they ditched historical photos from the Space Race track...

I agree that the Space Race track has lost it's charm, but I also like the clarity and continuity of the new track.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

wilk — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:11:00 +0000

by wilk

Skadar wrote:

But I like the idea of combining the Military Operations track. I assume there will be two counters running on that one track.

Yeah, I like it too, it's like the only advantage of the new board in my book. What annoys me is that they ditched historical photos from the Space Race track and I feel that the authentic leaders' portraits on the turn track were much better, too. What irks me the most, however, is the contrasting China with its shiny stars - it's one of the first things one sees and it gives an impression that it's a game about China, which it isn't (at least not in the first place).

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

dcorban — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:10:43 +0000

by dcorban

Are they going to standardize the optional rule allowing realignments in all areas regardless of defcon level? I notice that the board still just says "no coup attempts" with no mention of realignment.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

Skadar — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:00:30 +0000

by Skadar

The DEFCON track doesn't look nearly as threatening!

But I like the idea of combining the Military Operations track. I assume there will be two counters running on that one track.

I sorta wish they had put the scoring track across the top of the map though. I prefer to play with both players on the same right-side-up side of the map, so we will be constantly reaching over the scoring track and laying cards on it.

Nit-picks aside, I think it looks fresh and clear.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

gh0ul — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:53:38 +0000

by gh0ul

leroy43 wrote:
I wonder if that's deliberate or simply my eyes misreading the contrast.

It's slightly lighter than Europe's color. not by much though

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

leroy43 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:40:24 +0000

by leroy43

It's gorgeous, I really like it. I note that Canada is shaded in Eastern European colours... I wonder if that's deliberate or simply my eyes misreading the contrast.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

gh0ul — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:36:34 +0000

by gh0ul

At least we know it's going to be released in 2009...im so excited for this

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

wilk — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:35:04 +0000

by wilk

Meh, I very much prefer the old one, this one just doesn't click with me, I guess. ~~Is it the map for an upcoming new edition or something?~~ (Edit: Question answered above.) What's the deal with the Chinese civil war - is it the only optional rule that will be added?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

jpat — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:33:09 +0000

by jpat

otha62 wrote:
Looks nice, but I'm wondering...are they still planning on making a mounted mapboard for TS available? Seems like I read somewhere that they were, but I can't remember where...

I thought a mounted map was going to be a feature of the next reprint, presumably also to be sold separately.

Edit: This is described as a map for the 2009 "deluxe edition."

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: New map posted at GMT website.

otha62 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:23:31 +0000

by otha62

Looks nice, but I'm wondering...are they still planning on making a mounted mapboard for TS available? Seems like I read somewhere that they were, but I can't remember where...

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: News:: New map posted at GMT website.

SgtShellback — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:17:08 +0000

by SgtShellback

Looks pretty good:

http://www.gmtgames.com/nnts/NewTSMap7.jpg

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Twilight Struggle: How does the US win?

amacleod — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:49:29 +0000

by amacleod

amacleod wrote:
I must go against the majority here: as the American player, I would say MOST OF THE TIME forget about Italy...don't put a point of influence in initially. The Soviets move first, and the temptation to coup an American Italy is so very strong, since Italy is so unstable. Most of the time (with myself playing either Soviets or Americans), I've seen the Soviets go for Italy (usually successful), and Defcon drop to 4: no opportunity for America to re-coup Italy! As well, even if the coup attempt fails, there's the evil Socialist government card lurking in the deck. But if the Soviets initially place commie influence in Yugoslavia or/and Austria, and there's no Yankee influence in Italy, the Soviets will sorely be tempted to simply place a few points of influence in Italy as their first round move; whereupon the Americans promptly coup Italy!
In spite of the three dreadful cards that can be played against France (De Gaulle, Socialist Governments, Suez Crisis), I think between the two, I would choose to place American influence in France. After all, the Soviets can only play one card at a time, and France IS adjacent to both Britain and West Germany: it's relatively easy for America to respond to losses in France, while most of the time, if the Soviets make moves in Italy early on, it's difficult for the Americans to respond. Of course, it's an entirely different story if the American player is holding the Marshall Plan and/or the Truman Doctrine....

Boy-o-boy, what a STOOPID idea!!! How wrong could I be? While it might occasionally be a good idea to place influence in Italy rather than France, it seems to ONLY make sense IF the American is holding De Gaulle, Destalinization AND Duck-and-Cover! Otherwise, the USA is running the risk of losing not just France, but Italy as well!
De Gaulle is almost always deadly to American hopes in France regardless of what else you do. But leaving Italy empty is inviting a Communist takeover in one of two ways. If the Soviets headline with Destalinization, they can move two points of influence (Finland and Syria?) into Italy for control, and on their immediately following Action Round, they coup in some battleground to make an American coup of Italy an impossibility. Alternatively, the Soviets can sacrifice a single VP to the Americans by headlining with Duck-and-Cover, thus lowering Defcon. Subsequently on the first Action Round, (assuming the Soviets have influence in Austria and/or Yugoslavia) the Communists move into un-coupable Italy for control.
Why I didn't realize all this when I originally posted here is UTTERLY beyond me.......:shake:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

Petdoc — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:20:10 +0000

by Petdoc

Every time I read one of your TS AARs, I want to play this game! They are just fantastic. Unfortunately I have only played this game solitaire (I know, I know... but its still a ton of fun). I've downloaded the online program and surfed around the web site and checked out the 'waiting room', I just haven't had the nerve to challenge anyone to a game of it. I'm so far behind the curve on this game, it's very intimidating when you see the skill level of many of the players. Keep up the great AARs, at least I can live vicariously through those :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Europe

monsjmse — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:46:43 +0000

by monsjmse

Control of Europe rarely occurs, but I think that US Europe domination is something to be aware of when playing as the USSR....

A lot of the time the USSR player will set-up with control of Pol and E.Ger and not particularly care about taking other east European countries in the first turns, partly for fear of Independent Reds - a bunch of US influence in the heart of East Europe that's very difficult to shift. Hun, Rom, Yug and Bul all requiring 3IP for control are all fairly expensive early in the game.

Meanwhile the US can set-up with control of W.Ger & Italy, plus they already have UK control and access to the 2 stability non BGs Spain/Por and Greece. A load more IPs can be placed with Marshall Plan. Basically the US is much more likely to control more non-BG countries in Europe than the USSR. If events go their way and the US then takes France, the USSR can find themselves several non-BG countries short of saving Europe from European domination before the scoring card awards the US the 5VP difference.

I'm still fairly new to the game, but this has happened to me and I've seen it happen to a couple of my opponents too. More experienced players would probably notice that this was going to happen and take action to avoid it. New USSR players be wary!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Any news on the mounted board!

ramis — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:36:50 +0000

by ramis

Strope wrote:
FakeDutch wrote:
count me in . Always avoided because of the bad componentes :)

Actually the components for this are pretty good, especially for a wargame. I was vaguely disappointed with the components at first, but now i realize that they're actually pretty good. The chits are of a good quality and the map can be bent into shape easily enough. Our copy has lasted through close to 20 plays without a single problem.

I do agree.
For a Eurogame player, the material looks cheap. I add the same disappointment feeling when I first open up the TS box. But after a couple of plays you see the there is no need for thicker chits and the cards, even if they don't have that linen texture that quality cards have (like for the one in Race for the Galaxy), they are of good quality and very effective in delivering the information.My only problem is the board. Even if it can be bent into shape, it still looks cheap and doesn't match the quality of the rest of the component of the game. For a wargame, the map isn't cheaper than the other games and it's understable du to the relatively low wargame market. But TS as been on the top 10 for a number of years now and it's owned by many, more than other wargame that already have a hard board; I'm talking about conflict of Heroes and Hannibal RvsC. You could also include, even if it's not a wargame, 1960 Making of the President of the same author.
So I do think that the mounted hard board will be a necessary and logical step up for that game; and believe me, there will be a lot of buyer for that board, myself included. There will also be a lot of players that will buy the game for the first time just because it now comes with a hard mounted board.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Any news on the mounted board!

Strope — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:49:34 +0000

by Strope

FakeDutch wrote:
count me in . Always avoided because of the bad componentes :)

Actually the components for this are pretty good, especially for a wargame. I was vaguely disappointed with the components at first, but now i realize that they're actually pretty good. The chits are of a good quality and the map can be bent into shape easily enough. Our copy has lasted through close to 20 plays without a single problem.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Any news on the mounted board!

FakeDutch — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:28:09 +0000

by FakeDutch

count me in . Always avoided because of the bad componentes :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Africa

bmtc — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:04:49 +0000

by bmtc

The easiest way for the US to get into Africa is to wait for the USSR to expand there and then instigate a coup.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Wargameroom: TS with Chinese Civil War variant now available

taulus — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:43:04 +0000

by taulus

If you're running Vista, it could be a java issue. Try going back to java 6 update 7, and see if that makes a difference.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Wargameroom: TS with Chinese Civil War variant now available

the_dude — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:14:55 +0000

by the_dude

I don't get a mapview?
wether client or server, I just get black and white block/stripes with multicoloured specks on in the frame where the map should be?
Any ideas?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

nachof — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:24:21 +0000

by nachof

leroy43 wrote:
nachof wrote:
Wait, I don't get it... turn 7 started with a score of USSR-18 -- you headlined Camp David from what I understand, so it goes to USSR-17... and given that he discarded it later that turn, he had Europe Scoring in his hand... I can understand why he didn't headline it (maybe Defectors was out?), what I can't understand is why he didn't play it in the first round... from the map, it looks like Soviet domination in Europe, so even without controlling Poland it should be enough to win. What am I missing?

Jonathan was confident of victory and wanted to go for the "control of Europe" auto win.

He shouldn't have headlined it because I may have had Defectors, but he certainly could have played it in his first round.

Oh, I get it now :) So the moral of the story is: if you have the victory at hand, go and take it, don't try to go for a fancy win.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Prototypes at Origins

JackFlash — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:22:06 +0000

by JackFlash

Is Founding Fathers going to have the same format as TS?:D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

leroy43 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:17:17 +0000

by leroy43

nachof wrote:
Wait, I don't get it... turn 7 started with a score of USSR-18 -- you headlined Camp David from what I understand, so it goes to USSR-17... and given that he discarded it later that turn, he had Europe Scoring in his hand... I can understand why he didn't headline it (maybe Defectors was out?), what I can't understand is why he didn't play it in the first round... from the map, it looks like Soviet domination in Europe, so even without controlling Poland it should be enough to win. What am I missing?

Jonathan was confident of victory and wanted to go for the "control of Europe" auto win.

He shouldn't have headlined it because I may have had Defectors, but he certainly could have played it in his first round.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Indo-Pakistani War

DoomDahDoomDoom — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:53:35 +0000

by DoomDahDoomDoom

Yes

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Indo-Pakistani War

Greggers — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:26:39 +0000

by Greggers

Yes, in this situation I would follow the text on the card. In other words the die roll should be modified by -1 because the US player controls India, which is adjacent to Pakistan.

Even though the US controls India, the card is meant to represent one of the superpowers (the USSR in this case) stirring up trouble in the region and causing or encouraging an invasion. However, the US control of India is reflected by modifying the die roll.

I hope this helps.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Indo-Pakistani War

brainst0rm — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:24:56 +0000

by brainst0rm

Sure.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

nachof — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:23:45 +0000

by nachof

Wait, I don't get it... turn 7 started with a score of USSR-18 -- you headlined Camp David from what I understand, so it goes to USSR-17... and given that he discarded it later that turn, he had Europe Scoring in his hand... I can understand why he didn't headline it (maybe Defectors was out?), what I can't understand is why he didn't play it in the first round... from the map, it looks like Soviet domination in Europe, so even without controlling Poland it should be enough to win. What am I missing?

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Indo-Pakistani War

bilosta — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:49:34 +0000

by bilosta

Question, Us player controll Pakistan and India, then USSR player play Indo-Pakistani War adh say that India invade Pakistan, did hi get -1 for US controlled India?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

leroy43 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:50:45 +0000

by leroy43

capadotia wrote:
Awesome session report. TS can be an amazing ride!

Do you play the Chinese Civil war variant every time? My regular opponent and I think that it really fixes the American imbalance once and for all - and we don't play without it now.

We made the switch as soon as it was available on Wargameroom. In one of life's little ironies, we never play TS face to face because it's so quick and convenient to play it online, so when we get together we play other games (and sometimes we have our wives along for gaming night so TS wouldn't work anyways).

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

JackFlash — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:32:50 +0000

by JackFlash

AstroLad wrote:
One of the big elements of most card-draw games, TS included, is the ability (with luck and planning) to execute an absolutely devastating combination.

As has been stated in above posts, this requires more than 2 playings! :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

capadotia — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:27:46 +0000

by capadotia
Awesome session report. TS can be an amazing ride!

Do you play the Chinese Civil war variant every time? My regular opponent and I think that it really fixes the American imbalance once and for all - and we don't play without it now.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Asia

pilight — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:51:02 +0000

by pilight

sbauer9 wrote:
I have never seen Japan go to USSR. To invest in it with the US/Japan Pact still in the deck seems foolish for USSR. I have seen North Korea go to the US many times. It is not common but it does happen. I like contesting North Korea on the last action makes USSR decide between protecting it or couping on there first action of the next round. If they coup I get Korea as my first action.

If the US plays the US/Japan Pact or the USSR can space it (or play it with UN Intervention) on turn three, Japan will remain in Soviet hands until at least turn seven and has a better than 50/50 chance of staying there the whole game.

I won a game on wargameroom yesterday controlling Japan as the USSR. I had the US/Japan Pact in my hand on turn two, so I saved it to turn three then spaced it.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Prototypes at Origins

armin101 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:35:06 +0000

by armin101
This why I love origins- I'm looking forward to seeing this.

Session: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Pardon me while I self-destruct (Chinese Civil War variant)

leroy43 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:14:40 +0000

by leroy43
We have all been there. All of us. We have a commanding lead. We're confident of victory. Except... we're playing Twlight Struggle.

Jonathan and I played this game a few weeks ago. This is a cautionary tale. As Jonathan said afterward, "it's not often that I can honestly say that I beat himself, but this is one of those times."

One of the joys of Twilight Struggle is that no matter what the board position is, you should never count yourself out. And so it was that I found myself playing the USA against Jonathan's USSR.

Jonathan opened with 4 in Austria and 1 each in East Germany and Bulgaria. I countered with 4 in West Germany and 3 in Italy.

]]>

Naturally, he opened with a coup in Italy and rolled well enough to reduce my inluence to 0. We were off to a roaring start.

I decided that I would focus on Europe later and moved on. Rather than bolster Iran or move into Asia, I would instead try something new (for me) and take Iraq with a 4 ops card.

]]>

Jonathan naturally took Italy, and I countered by taking France. I knew that it would be probably that DeGaulle would pop up at some point, but at least it would give me some access back to mainland Europe. We traded European countries. Poland. Spain. Europe Scoring for 1 Soviet VP. I played Blockade to get rid of it (discarding De-Stalinization) and moved into Afghanistan. A failed coup in Iran, a failed attempt to send Fidel into orbit, Nasser, and a Decolonization used to give me control of Afghanistan and Iran ended the turn. I was short of MilOps, and so we stood at USSR-3 after one turn.

Naturally, things went from ok to bad for the USA in Europe to start turn 2. Socialist Governments took France to 1 and West Germany to 3, even while my Nazi Scientists got me into orbit. On the opening salvo of turn 2, Jonathan plunked 4 into West Germany to make it 3,4. I didn't have a lot of strong ops cards in my hand and knew I would lose an influence duel, so didn't panic and retook France and moved into Lebanon with Warsaw Pact. Europe was so red already, I didn't really worry about it.

]]>

We continued developing our positions in the Middle East and Asia, with my taking Pakistan and Jono retaking Thailand with influence after a poor coup roll only made it 1,0 for the US. I used Suez Crisis to get it out of the game, reusing the influence to bolster France back to 3,0 and controlling the Phillipines. Mutual presence scoring in Asia and the Middle East resolved nothing, but then the nasty blow came - DeGaulle! I only had Korean War left in my hand and saw the Soviets take a 0,1 position in Korea and France was only 3,1. Not enough for control.

I ducked and covered for my headline, while he De-Stalinized. France was now 3,3 and then with the first Soviet play of the turn, France went red (at the expense of US/Japan giving US control of Japan). Then Poland was topped up to 0,3 and Europe was under Soviet control!

]]>

The rest of turn 3 was an continuous sea of red sweeping across the board. Asia scoring with Soviet dominance. The other scoring cards stayed out though.

At the end of the early war, the map looked like this:

]]>

The mid-war started inauspiciously for the US. Despite an ABM cancelled by Defectors, I was immediately hit with Muslim Revolution. I played We Will Bury You to degrade the DEFCON and retake Iran. Then I was hit with Quagmire. Junta and Liberation Theology gave Central America a red tinge (Mexico and Panama under USSR control). However, I worked hard to counter and when Central America scoring appeared, it was a tie. Meanwhile, fortress Europe was bolstered.

Turn 5 got really ugly. Soviets dominated Africa and scored accordingly. USSR-15. I'd managed to claw my way back into the Middle East just in time for Middle East Scoring. USSR-16. Fidel took Cuba. However, a Brush War erupted in Thailand for a resounding US victory (9,0), USSR-15. Western Europe battlegrounds became more red. Southeast Asia saw nobody get anything. I tried to get back into Europe as best I could with Denmark. If I could get enough control in Europe I could reduce him to presence. A long shot, but possible. USSR space race advanced to Lunar Probe, USSR-17.

I was desperate. What could I do? Europe was under Soviet control, and the European Scoring card hadn't come out yet. Turn 5 was rapidly coming to an end... I had two cards left. Bear Trap. And John Paul II Elected Pope.

I played the Bear Trap. In the headline, Lone Gunman revealed my hand, but John Paul made Poland 1,1.

]]>

Voice of America was discarded to end the Bear Trap, but I took control of Poland. A glimmer of hope for the USA perhaps?

Jonathan wanted European control back, and the rest of turn 6 saw us seesaw back and forth. I had to use U2 Incident at one point to maintain control and made the score USSR-18. Puppet governments saw me move into Chile, Czechoslovakia, and Saudi Arabia. The end of turn 6 saw me holding on to Poland at 9,5.

Where the heck was Europe Scoring?

At the start of turn 7, the map looked like this:

]]>

Camp David Accords saw me make the score USSR-17 to open, and improved my position in the Middle East. USSR opened the turn with Marshall Plan to make Poland 9,7. I scattered influence throughout the Europe that wasn't red already, and took Poland back. Jonathan added more influence to Poland but not enough to break control.

The score is still USSR-17, but the DEFCON was 3 so I risked Missile Envy. Yes! OPEC! I spend the 3 ops points with glee. Jonathan curses me and puts the 2 Missile Envy ops into Poland (now 12,9). I play my next desperation card - Five Year Plan.

It's turn 7. The score is USSR-17. Soviets Dominate Europe.

I just played Five Year Plan.

The USSR discards a random card.

! ! ! EUROPE SCORING ! ! !

I couldn't believe my eyes. Neither could Jonathan. I could hear him cursing from across town.

The tide had turned. South America scoring - USSR-14. Nixon Goes to China. USSR-12. Soviets short MilOps at the end of turn 7. USSR-11.

Asia Scoring headlines turn 8. USSR-4. Turn 8 becomes another massive influence battle over Poland. The Reformer was headlined and made it 12,11.

An Evil Empire makes the score USSR-3, but Poland 12,14.

Flower Power 16,14.
Ortega 16,16.
Solidarity strikes. 19,16
One Small Step 19,17
NATO 23,17.

And then the tension deflates like a balloon with a slow leak. Jonathan threw Chernobyl into the space race to get to Man in Orbit (USSR-6), but the American fever had broken and the cards set the dominoes in motion. Voice of America made the Americas go blue. Africa Scoring made it USSR-10, but then Kitchen Debates made it USSR-8.

Turn 9 opened with Duck and Cover for the Americans (USSR-6), and Aldrich Ames set my hand for me, but my hand wasn't that harmful to me. Jonathan had to play Colonial Rearguards which got me into Africa. I realigned the Soviets out of Cuba. Jonathan played Ask Not... and I was able to throw away some cards, breaking the nice Ames order and giving me freedom again. Indo-Pakistani War gave me India. Middle East scoring moved the board back into Soviet favour, USSR-9. Iran-Iraq War saw a successful takeover of Iraq for the USA.

At the end of turn 9, things were definitely looking up for the US. The score was still USSR-7, but I was feeling confident.

Turn 10 headlines saw KAL-007 get shot down (USSR-5) adding American influence in several areas of the board, while the Soviets were given a boost by the Brezhnev Doctrine. A successful Brush War saw Thailand return to Soviet hands (0,9). ABM Treaty let me successfully coup Egypt. South America became US controlled. Central American Scoring made it USSR-4.

At the end of turn 10, the map was strongly blue. US domination in Central America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Control in South America.

It was over.

Final score - USA-19.

]]>

Chinese Civil War Commentary: Once again, the China Card did not come into play.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Asia

reinselc — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:47:58 +0000

by reinselc
Tradeoffs and hard choices like this are what make TS such a wonderful game.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Warsaw Pact formed

amacleod — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:49:15 +0000

by amacleod
So what should the Americans do if it's early in the game, and they have the Warsaw Pact in hand, but Marshall Plan has not yet appeared? Play the Warsaw Pact regardless? Or space race it, or UN it, or fend off blockade with it?
The reason I'm asking what, at first glance, might seem to be a stupid question is because if the Warsaw Pact is formed early (say, two or three turns [or more!] before Marshall Plan is played), then the Soviets have time to build on the five influence they've placed in Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact, in effect, becomes a Soviet "Marshall plan" (the Malenkov Plan???) that, while weaker than the effects of the Marshall Plan, nevertheless strengthens the overall Communist position in Eastern Europe considerably, thereby weakening the later effects of the Marshall plan for the Americans. In my naive opinion, it seems to me that whoever gets their respective "Plan" played first is almost guaranteed to be the dominant player in Europe. Thus, my possibly erroneous opinion that it would be best for the Americans to want to see the Warsaw Pact played as a voluntary or involuntary response to the Marshall plan. Don't get me wrong: I fully recognize how horrible it is for the Americans to see the Warsaw Pact suddenly rearing its ugly head in the Late War; but it's easy enough to avoid being toast in Eastern Europe if the American simply refrains from playing some of those snazzy Late War events until the ugly head appears.
Opinions, please?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Wargames

amacleod — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:42:46 +0000

by amacleod

Uhtoff wrote:
Nice thought, but unfortunately not (emphasis mine) -

If Defcon is 2 you may give your opponent 6 VPs and end the game. No final scoring occurs.

Although your opponent, may choose to give you a marginal victory with the card, they don't have to! (as Philip mentioned in the OP)

Whoops! So Philip did! My mistake. I really read ALL of the OP....honest!!!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: de stalin

GS in KS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:23:19 +0000

by GS in KS
It is lessened because it is 'relocating' rather than just 'adding'. The IP have to come from somewhere.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Brezhnev doctrine

Uhtoff — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:43:39 +0000

by Uhtoff
Very, very marginally stronger, nothing worth worrying about.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Brezhnev doctrine

bilosta — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:40:43 +0000

by bilosta
Yes but when USSR play Containment in ther last turn US player last card is +1, and when US play Brezhnev in last turn hothing happend, becose USSR don play any more. So Containment is stronger card then Brezhnev and that is not idea.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Wargames

Uhtoff — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:44:38 +0000

by Uhtoff
I can't check the CSW post as I'm currently at work, but the 'Collected Rulings' thread definitely says that both the ending of the game and the 6 VPs are part of the 'may' clause. If it was the other interpretation then I'd imagine it would have been written "If DEFCON Status is 2 give your opponent 6 VPs, then you may immediately end the game without Final Scoring".

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Wargames

pilight — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:11:11 +0000

by pilight

Uhtoff wrote:
Nice thought, but unfortunately not (emphasis mine) -

If Defcon is 2 you may give your opponent 6 VPs and end the game. No final scoring occurs.

Although your opponent, may choose to give you a marginal victory with the card, they don't have to! (as Philip mentioned in the OP)

Actually, it says "If DEFCON Status 2, you may immediately end the game (without Final Scoring Phase) after giving opponent 6 VPs." That suggests to me that ending the game is optional but the six VPs are not. If you're forced to play it as an event, as with Missile Envy, you're out the six points whether you decide to end the game or not.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Wargames

Uhtoff — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:57:25 +0000

by Uhtoff
Nice thought, but unfortunately not (emphasis mine) -

If Defcon is 2 you may give your opponent 6 VPs and end the game. No final scoring occurs.

Although your opponent, may choose to give you a marginal victory with the card, they don't have to! (as Philip mentioned in the OP)

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Prototypes at Origins

JasonMatthews — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:27:16 +0000

by JasonMatthews

For those of you who might be attending and interested, Christian Leonhard and I will be demoing Founding Fathers (coming out 2010 from Jolly Roger) and Campaign Manager 2008 (coming out late 2009) at Origins. We will be in the boardgame/wargame area primarily, and arriving on Thursday.

Thanks,

Jason

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Brezhnev doctrine

JohnRayJr — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:25:12 +0000

by JohnRayJr
Which is why you'll often see the Soviets play Containment as their last card and the Americans play Brezhnev as their last card. Or Americans play Vietnam Revolts as their last card, etc. etc.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Specific cards: Wargames

amacleod — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:09:06 +0000

by amacleod
Wargames can be a delight of a card for you to hold if it's Defcon 2, and you are trailing by 5VP's or less, AND your opponent is trigger happy with Missile Envy. With an ops value of 4, you hand Wargames over to Mr. T. Happy, he is forced to play it, and you win the game with a marginal victory.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: de stalin

bilosta — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:44:35 +0000

by bilosta
That is heavy

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: de stalin

brainst0rm — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:38:04 +0000

by brainst0rm
You can put them anywhere as long the countries are not controlled by the USA.

Edit: You can check the Faq. Many (all?!?!) answers to your initial questions are there ;)

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: de stalin

bilosta — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:33:19 +0000

by bilosta
ok question, i can olnly relocate to contry beside/or catry where i have influence?

I cant put anywhere on board?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Brezhnev doctrine

Uhtoff — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:07:56 +0000

by Uhtoff
As long as the event can actually happen, it doesn't matter if it doesn't have any effect (cf. Truman with no uncontrolled European countries or Independent Reds with no USSR influence in the right countries) it is still removed from the game.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Brezhnev doctrine

bilosta — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:02:08 +0000

by bilosta
I have one question, if US player play Brezhnev as his last card, then Brezhneh dont have efect. Did then that card go premanent from play, or go in discard pile?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: UN As Response to We Will Bury You

amacleod — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:09:39 +0000

by amacleod
Uber clear (and then some)! Thanks so much, Russ!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: UN As Response to We Will Bury You

Uhtoff — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:30:24 +0000

by Uhtoff
All cards have to played as written - this has been confirmed by Jason Matthews on CSW ( http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@424.bns4cl4YaP5.2@.1dcfd...) -

WWBY says -

Unless UN Intervention is played as an Event on the US player's next round, USSR gains 3 VP.
Degrade DEFCON status one level.

UN intervention says -

Play this card simultaneously with another card that has your opponent's associated event. The event is canceled, but you may use its Operations value normally.
The canceled event card returns to the discard pile.

So in order to play UN as an event you must play it with an opponent's event, thus to use it to cancel the VPs of a USSR play of WWBY you must also have another USSR event to play. If you are lucky enough you get two events cancelled (minus the DEFCON drop) for the price of one meddling by the UN.

In actual fact all cards are played exactly as written, I think the confusion lies because people read 'UN Intervention is played as an event' as something that changes the way the US plays UN, rather than just as a statement saying that if you happen to use it next US round you get prevent the VP loss. Much the same wording is on U2 and it doesn't seem to cause the same confusion.

So in short (too late) -

USSR plays WWBY for the event (DEFCON drops immediately, so probably not able to save it until late in the turn due to this)
US on their next action round can play UN intervention as an event to cancel another USSR event they are holding and then they get to cancel the VP loss and the USSR event they themselves have played. The VPs are not awarded until the US do not play UN as an event, but are awarded before any other event the US plays resolves (important if the USSR are near an auto-win).

If the US has WWBY, UN and another USSR event they can play WWBY on one action round and then play UN and the other USSR event on the next for a real two-for-one from their UN (apart from DEFCON drop of course). Something I have both done and had done to me!

There is a very handy thread called Collected Rulings (just realised we don't have sticky threads in the forums here...hmmmmm...) here - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/97390 and the FAQ is in the file section (although that helpfully suggests you can UN Missile Envy which of course you can't as it isn't an opponents associated event!) here - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/35268 .

Hope that helps.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Africa

sbauer9 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:25:51 +0000

by sbauer9
Not my day.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: UN As Response to We Will Bury You

amacleod — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:24:43 +0000

by amacleod
Thank you, both Gordon and Roger. But I'm still not entirely clear as to what's going on (maybe I haven't been clear enough!!!).
I fully recognize what you're saying, Roger, and I agree with it entirely. BUT: normally, when one is playing UN Intervention at any other time, you're playing it to defang another event card of your opponent's, which YOU want to play just for its ops. So my question is:
When you play UN Intervention in YOUR turn FOLLOWING the Soviets' play of WWBY, do you play UN Intervention ONLY? Or do you play UN Intervention, as well as simultaneously playing a Soviet event? If the latter is the case, then it would seem that the best thing for the Soviet player to do is to wait until the second last round of a turn to play WWBY, since the American is least likely (at that point) to be still holding the requisite Soviet event.
Boy-o-boy, I hope the intent of my question is more clear now! Sorry that I've been (obviously) obtuse.

EDIT: Yet another attempt at clarity!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: UN As Response to We Will Bury You

leroy43 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:16:38 +0000

by leroy43
Actually, the text of We Will Bury You says that unless the US plays UN Intervention on their next turn, the USSR gets 3VP.

So if WWBY gets played and you have UN, you can play it, as an event, to prevent the 3VP.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: UN As Response to We Will Bury You

capt yid — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:25:32 +0000

by capt yid
No, it must be played during your turn to
negate an event YOU play; nice try....

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: UN As Response to We Will Bury You

amacleod — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:07:32 +0000

by amacleod
Let's say the commie dog has played We Will Bury You against me, and I DO just so happen to have UN Intervention in my hand.....BUT: I do not have any Soviet events to play it with on my next turn. Am I allowed, in such a situation, to play UN Intervention as a useless event (with NO commie card), just to fend off the granting of 3VP's to the Bolshevik hordes?
Come to think of it, could I just play UN Intervention without a Soviet event to fend off We Will Bury You, regardless of whether or not I had any Soviet events? Thanks for your collective wisdom!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

AstroLad — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:58:43 +0000

by AstroLad
One of the big elements of most card-draw games, TS included, is the ability (with luck and planning) to execute an absolutely devastating combination. This is what makes card-draw games fun vs., say, pure tactical games--regardless of your current position, there is always the chance, if you have been playing well, that things can turn around in one fell swoop. Further in regard to devastating cards, it almost always takes two to tango--i.e., the victim is usually at least somewhat culpable for poor planning and putting himself into a position where a single card or combo can not only wipe out his lead but end the game, though "luck" more often than not gets all of the blame.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

Badger on the move — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:45:55 +0000

by Badger on the move
Thanks everyone for the feedback and insights.

I will likely play again. I recall my first game finished around round 8 and have no recollection of Chernobyl appearing then. I enjoy too many games to want to learn a single game to the extent that many of you have.

JohnRayJr wrote:
Just sounds like you didn't see Chernobyl coming.

Is a bit if an understatement.

Still, I enjoyed the journey. The result is not important to me. But I want to finish a game feeling good about it and that certainly didn't happen this time round.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Africa

amacleod — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:53:26 +0000

by amacleod

sbauer9 wrote:
An early Decolonization or ~~Desalinization~~ De-Stalinization into Angola can give access to France but does make CIA more dangerous.

:blush:

I think you also meant to say: "De-Stalinization into Algeria", not Angola.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Africa

Pulinski — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:18:20 +0000

by Pulinski

sbauer9 wrote:
...Decolonization or Desalinization into Angola...

Is that why there was a SALT treaty?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Africa

sbauer9 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:13:05 +0000

by sbauer9
An early Decolonization or ~~Desalinization~~ De-Stalinization into Angola can give access to France but does make CIA more dangerous.

:blush:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Asia

sbauer9 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:07:12 +0000

by sbauer9
I have never seen Japan go to USSR. To invest in it with the US/Japan Pact still in the deck seems foolish for USSR. I have seen North Korea go to the US many times. It is not common but it does happen. I like contesting North Korea on the last action makes USSR decide between protecting it or couping on there first action of the next round. If they coup I get Korea as my first action.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: South America

JackFlash — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:56:06 +0000

by JackFlash
It's Colombia, not Columbia!:p

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Central America

JackFlash — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:54:22 +0000

by JackFlash
Roger, Thanks for writing these articles! They are good for people like me who are still learning the game! Good work! :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

JohnRayJr — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:46:36 +0000

by JohnRayJr
I don't think you're missing much. Just sounds like you didn't see Chernobyl coming.

Based on my own experience, I would adjust your expectations as follows (which may or may not affect your rating of the game): If the US is alive on turn 9, the Soviets should assume nothing. The game is built to give the USSR momentum early and the US momentum late. The US often has to be way, way down at the start of the late war for the USSR to hang on.

Also, I've never seen the situation that you describe, and with 37 plays I've seen Chernobyl come out a lot. Were you already down in Europe? Which battlegrounds did you control? By how much? Every battleground that the USSR has should be hardened by at least one at the start of the Late War. It should take the US seven OPS to take East Germany, for example. Often you can interfere with Chernobyl via events, which are not subject to the restriction.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

sbauer9 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:45:00 +0000

by sbauer9
A couple of additional comments, suggestions.

Russia is the stronger side because a lot of there best cards are early and the get the opening play each round. If Russia has not won by the late war there odds of winning go way down.

There are several cards that give USSR extra influence in Eastern Europe. Using these cards to pile extra influence in east germany and Poland is a very good idea. To take these two countries alone is 14 influence, an extra influence in each make it 18 which is more than most hands. If you had a third battle ground then even less likely.

It does not happen often that someone can take Europe but the fact that is possible is a reason to over invest and get that third battleground even though other regions might net out to more vp.

You do not automatically lose if your opponent takes Europe only when a scoring cards is played or at the end of the game so you can try to battle back in the last round. If your opponent is holding Euro scoring then he is far less likely to muster the needed ops to take control if you were holding it play it early it is not going to get better.

I can understand the frustration and there are several other cards to watch out for if these types of huge swings, Ames has already been mentioned, and unlucky bear trap/quagmire can be even worse than Chernobyl. CIA/Lonegunman can also be very painful. These cards make the game what it is. They create the nail biting tension. You can continue to struggle for a few more vp in Africa but maybe you should have added extra influence to Poland as you know Chernobyl is out there.

If you decide it is not for you I can understand, nothing wrong with a 6. You have played a lot of games and you clearly don't need to keep playing a game that does not excite you. It is one of my favorites because it offers such a great roller-coaster ride.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Nasty, brutish and short (Chinese Civil War variant)

leroy43 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:49:43 +0000

by leroy43
Thanks!

All the events you mention, including UN, were played.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

brainst0rm — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:30:08 +0000

by brainst0rm
Sure Chernobyl is a great card for the US player, and it can be a killer at some times, but...

As Jeremy pointed having Europe control is not enough, a Europe scoring must be played to the game be over.

Also, the Chernobyl doesn't allow you to put influence on Europe, but you can still play events that does so. Check this post . There are a lot of USSR events that allow you to put influence, or take some for your opponent.

Give it another try. You won't be disappointed ;)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

Uhtoff — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:25:38 +0000

by Uhtoff
I'll echo the above comments and just to say if you are worried about the USSR bias then you can either use the Chinese Civil War varient (which has been getting some good press) or more simply give the US 3 extra influence at the start which can only be placed where the US already has influence and can't be used to over control a country. The latter is used on the TS ladder I play on and so far the balance is 100 USSR wins and 95 USA wins, so looks pretty good from a balance pespective.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

jackalope — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:18:38 +0000

by jackalope
Not sayingthat it isn't a letdown when something like that happens. However, I think that you should give the game a few more chances.

There are cards that let you put influence in regions even if Chernobyl is in effect (Glasnost, The Reformer, Comecon, Warsaw Pact and others for Europe). Also, as was stated elsewhere, even if you are locked out of a region, you can place influence in other areas. If your opponent was spending all of his energy locking up Europe, you could be spending yours taking over Asia (worth the same number of points except for the auto win for total control) and the Middle East.

Usually, even with Chernobyl, it is difficult to swing a even Europe situation to total control. It takes a lot of influence to break the individual hold on the various battlegrounds to take everything, and then you still need the scoring card to finish it off. It can happen, but it is rare.

I have had some bad games of TS, but the number of great ones has greatly outweighed them.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: DEFCON 1: How to blow up the world for fun and profit.

jackalope — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:03:48 +0000

by jackalope
One more not to play at Defcon 2 is Olympic Games. Your opponent will just boycott and send the world into thermonuclear war.

leroy43 wrote:

- How I Learned To Stop Worrying (set the DEFCON as you please from 2 to 5)

Actually, as the card is written, you can set the Defcon to any level This would include 1 (just like in the movie). Nasty surprise when the USSR plays a grain sale event and the US grabs "How I Stopped Worrying".

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

TableStar_Thompson — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:45:52 +0000

by TableStar_Thompson
Jonathon;

I suspect you will get some replies from fans of this game that suggest or insinuate that you are playing incorrectly or inexpertly or "don't get it." I myself am a big fan of this game and understand your comments completely.

TS is very, very lumpy. If you sorted all the cards into US piles and USSR piles and compared them card-for-card, they'd look pretty balanced; certainly, "devastating" cards such as Chernobyl and Quagmire have their counters if not their twins. But it can occur that when those cards come up they cannot be effectively dealt with, even by expert players. The best expert players can do is count cards and guesstimate when cards may arise and lay foundations to mitigate or exploit their effects, and also make good tactical pressures with their ops points. I don't mean that dismissively. It's just that, to me, the opportunities and disasters come in lumps and knowing that there is a corrective lump lurking in the deck doesn't do much good.

I like TS very much but I am not into winning or losing the game as a whole (mostly because of my perceived pro-USSR bias); I'm into doing the best I can with whatever opportunities I can create with whatever resources are available. I like the edge-of-the seat tension as little victories are hard-won and fragile. I think the game could have been better titled "Building Sandcastles in a Typhoon."

It doesn't sound like you're missing something. Your 6 is someone else's 8.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Chernobyl

Strope — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:27:47 +0000

by Strope
Look up Aldrich Ames, then complain about Chernobyl. Chernobyl cvan be a rough card, but not necessarily a game killer. Your opponent has to have Europe scoring for him to win, and while he's pumping influence into Europe you can be taking control of the other regions. Give this game a few more chances, it really is a fun and worthwhile game. It just takes some time to learn how to use cards to your best advantage.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Chernobyl

Badger on the move — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:02:04 +0000

by Badger on the move
Maybe I am missing something.

Only my second game. My opponent was reasonably well versed in TS. I drew USSR, which I am informed is the stronger side.

Before turn 9 USSR has been consistently 6 to 17 points ahead for some while. Looking good for victory.

Europe is fairly well balanced.

USA plays Chernobyl in the turn 9 headline phase and declares USSR can't play any influence into Europe in that turn. USA plays influence into Europe each action round. USSR can't stop this. USA gets control of Europe and wins with a round to spare.

What is the point? OK. I enjoyed the first 3 hours. But if Europe is fairly even, a player drawing Chernobyl would appear to have a good chance of finishing and winning the game simply because they drew the card.

This felt completely unsatisfactory and over powerful. I don't mind losing games, but to do so simply because my player draws a killer card doesn't make me want to play again.

OK, I could take the card out. But surely this should have sorted/modified at the testing stage.

Rating reduced from 8 to 6.

Tell me if I am missing something!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: Nasty, brutish and short (Chinese Civil War variant)

Uhtoff — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:41:58 +0000

by Uhtoff

What are the odds that all three scoring cards would be in our respective hands on turn 3 after the reshuffle? Pretty slim I would think.

I'm pretty sure that was rhetorical, but I'm always getting in trouble for answering rhetorical questions!

Of course I can't answer the question definitively, as I don't know how many starred events were played in turns 1 and 2, but you said you played Destalinization and from the map Vietnam must have been played, Marshall looks likely as does Indie Reds (going into Bulgaria). You either had ridiculous amounts of ops or both COMECON and Warsaw Pact went for their events and I'd imagine the Korean War happened and failed.

Obviously the China Card was never played, but I don't know if UN, Blockade or 5YP were played which would increase the number of cards cycled through and hence the chance of 3 scoring cards in round three!

Anyway - assuming the 7 starred events above and none of UN/Blockade/5YP played the chance of all 3 scoring cards on turn 3 is 12.4%, if 5YP and Blockade were played on turn 1 (thus a 16 card turn 2 deal) and UN was used for the event on turn 2 (thus a 15 card turn 3 deal) the chance rises to almost 50% (accounting for the extra starred event play in Blockade).

So it's more likely than you might think.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Asia

Cwebb — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:25:04 +0000

by Cwebb

JoshBot wrote:
Because Japan is essentially always under US control, and North Korea is always under USSR control, there are really four Asian battlegrounds in play. q]

In the situation below, US can easily take control of N.Korea. If US has China card and VOA, he can use China card to play 4 influence in N.Korea at 7th action round. Then he played VOA for next turn's headline, remove 2 USSR influence in N.Korea. We can find US control N.Korea now.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: The Middle East

Severian596 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:43:49 +0000

by Severian596
Primary tip that I see regularly is to place influence into Jordan and Lebanon to provide roads back into Israel in case the USSR ousts you with the Suez Crisis, and to help avoid the Arab-Israeli War.

Session: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Nasty, brutish and short (Chinese Civil War variant)

leroy43 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:57:21 +0000

by leroy43
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
-- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Jonathan and I played our 50th game of 2009 last night, which also happened to be our 6th using the Chinese Civil War variant (CCW). We switched the the CCW as soon as it became available on wargameroom and have continued alternating sides. I've posted some stats at the end of this session report.

After the Americans successfully mounted an amazing comeback in our last game - and to be fair, Jonathan observed quite correctly that he had beaten himself - it was my turn to be the USSR.

This game started with the Soviets placing 2 into Bulgaria and Austria, and 1 each into Finland and East Germany. The USA countered with 4 in West Germany, 2 in Italy, and 1 in France.

]]>

I De-Stalinized into France and Spain, remembering how much it caught me by surprised the time it was done to me by a different opponent, and it seemed to have surprised Jonathan too. However, he quickly took control of France.

]]>

Toward the end of turn 1, I used a 1 op card to launch a coup into Iran, where I had taken control (1,3) after Jonathan had expanded into Afghanistan. I successfully brought it to (0,3) with a fortuitous roll.

]]>

Defectors cancelled Asia scoring in the turn 2 headline, and I then successfully launched a coup in Afghanistan in round 1.

]]>

Europe scoring favored Jonathan and brought the score to US-1, the space race brought it to US-2, and then near the end of the turn I played Mideast scoring to bring it to USSR-6.

Turn 3 was quick and bloody. I had Asia and Middle East scoring again in my hand, and headlined Middle East scoring. No defectors were there, so the score was USSR-14. I then used round 1 to take control of India giving me domination in the region. Jonathan added influence in Europe to re-establish dominance, and I played Asia scoring to end it on round 2.

]]>

Final score, USSR-20.

Jonathan told me that he had Europe Scoring and was about to play it too. What are the odds that all three scoring cards would be in our respective hands on turn 3 after the reshuffle? Pretty slim I would think.

A brief comment about stats: In our 44 pre-CCW games, the USSR was 29-14-1. In our six games since using the CCW, the USSR is 2-4 and the China Card has yet to make an appearance.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: DEFCON 1: How to blow up the world for fun and profit.

JoshBot — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:51:34 +0000

by JoshBot
According to online TS play in the Wargameroom League, Defcon losses occur about 16% of the time.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: Regions: Africa

pilight — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:51:07 +0000

by pilight

Riku Riekkinen wrote:
I think USA has easier access to Africa, as it can spread from both South Africa and West Europe

US access is a little easier. Decolonization can get the USSR there early, but it can be risky if CIA Created is still in the deck.

The Soviets can also reach Algeria after DeGaulle comes out.