Twilight Struggle | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

dragon of blood — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:24:52 +0000

JasonMatthews wrote:
I think we may have covered this ground on the Geek before, but in any event, it is not a mistake. First of all, the Vietnam War is the subject of 3 separate cards (Vietnam Revolts, Quagmire and South East Asian Scoring), which makes it one of the most represented events in the Cold War (The Arab-Israeli Conflict being the only sequence of events with more cards). Giving Vietnam 3 cards AND making it a battleground seems like overkill.

Then, there is the historical reality (and also the reason why SE Asian scoring is a 1 time event) with the war's aftermath. The domino theory implied that when Vietnam fell, the rest of South East Asia would go and then (poof) we'd lose the Cold War. Well, we did lose the war. Much of SE Asia did fall, and guess what, we didn't lose the Cold War. So, its possible to exaggerate the importance of the Vietnam War geopolitically (though it may have been a more seminal event domestically).

Finally, I think there is very credible evidence that the object of US policy was Thailand to begin with, and so viola, Thailand gets the star.

Jason

Thank you very much good sir. Your explanation clears it up nicely.

And may I just say you make some damn good games. Cheers!

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

dragon of blood — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:20:52 +0000

by dragon of blood

spizio wrote:
Do you know of any stories were Americans have traveled to Canada specifically for medical care?

Lol, that old lame duck argument.

And here I thought the people on this site would be, in general, a more enlightened group than normal. Didn't know so many right wing fear mongering monkeys inhabited the site.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

boing123 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:04:44 +0000

by boing123

JasonMatthews wrote:
Much of SE Asia did fall, and guess what, we didn't lose the Cold War.

Hi Jason

Out of interest (as I'm South-east Asian), which countries are you referring to? The countries in South-east Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) are obvious examples. Okay Indonesia and Burma were also communist to varying degrees for a time. However, it seems that communism, and thus Soviet influence, was successfully suppressed in most major SEA economies, i.e. Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei. As such, I doubt that SEA could be described as having fallen.

In fact, the heterogeneity of SEA would suggest that events in Vietnam were never going to have a significant impact beyond Indochina. So yes, I do think that the decision not to classify Vietnam as a "battleground" is justified.

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

spizio — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:00:04 +0000

by spizio

Do you know of any stories were Americans have traveled to Canada specifically for medical care?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

JasonMatthews — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:10:03 +0000

by JasonMatthews

I think we may have covered this ground on the Geek before, but in any event it is not a mistake. First of all, the Vietnam War is the subject of 3 separate cards (Vietnam Revolts, Quagmire and South East Asian Scoring), which makes it one of the most represented events in the Cold War (The Arab-Israeli Conflict and resolution being the only sequence of events with more cards). Giving Vietnam 3 cards AND making it a battleground seems like overkill.

Then, there is the historical reality (and also the reason why SE Asian scoring is a 1 time event) with the impacts of the world. The domino theory implied that when Vietnam fell, the rest of South East Asia would go and then (poof) we'd lose the Cold War. Well, we did lose the war. Much of SE Asia did fall, and guess what, we didn't lose the Cold War. So, its possible to exaggerate the importance of the Vietnam War internationally (though it may have been a more seminal event domestically).

Finally, I think there is very credible evidence that the object of US policy was Thailand to begin with, and so viola, Thailand gets the star.

Jason

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

cheng — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:08:09 +0000

by cheng

Thailand does sit at the entrance (or exit) to the busiest sea lane in the world.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

Tompy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:05:10 +0000

by Tompy

Don't forget play balance.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

loosegravel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:46:14 +0000

by loosegravel

The paragraph below is from the design notes. However, the last criteria seems to beg the very question you're asking. I suppose the game designer decided Vietnam did not meet criterion 1 and 2, and decided that the war, even though it happened, did not have to happen.

The game designer certainly gave the Vietnam conflict its due in the cards.

Jim

The second decision that warrants a bit more elaboration is what
nations were labeled battleground state. Basically, there were
three ways to attain this status. First, recognized regional powers
got it. The South American battlegrounds reflect this well. Secondly,
if a nation possessed important strategic resources, that also
meant battleground status. Obviously, most battlegrounds in the
Middle East, as well as Angola and Venezuela, would qualify here.
Finally, if a nation was an actual battleground between the superpowers,
like South Korea, it received battleground status. So, for
our English and Australian cousins, please know that we are not
ranking you behind our French allies. Instead, you are anchors of
US influence in Europe and Asia at the start of the game.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

StephenV — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:35:05 +0000

by StephenV

Huh, I never noticed that. If it was a misprint I'd think it would have been caught by now. On the other hand, in the designer's notes at the back, it says there were three ways to be designated a battleground country, and the third is:

Finally, if a nation was an actual battleground between the superpowers, like South Korea, it received battleground status.

So yeah, it really does seem like an oversight.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

amacleod — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:25:13 +0000

by amacleod

"Battleground" in Twilight Struggle doesn't necessarily mean....well, a battleground! It refers to those countries that are of key importance to the two superpowers. I believe it's similar to how I've heard some Americans describe certain States of theirs as "battlegrounds" during their presidential election campaigns: if a presidential candidate wants to win the election, then it's critical for him to control that State! Kinda the same sorta deal in Twilight Struggle.
Having said all that, it has (from Day One) struck me as strange that Vietnam is not a battleground country, given how much both superpowers invested into it. Thailand was of super strategic importance as well, and it makes sense that it's a battleground country. But not Vietnam? (Scratches head in puzzlement)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

Petdoc — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:20:17 +0000

by Petdoc

I don't know about you, but I would KILL for a good green curry and coconut rice.:)

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

dragon of blood — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:56 +0000

by dragon of blood

Jeff wrote:
I'll have you know, you ruined my productivity for today.

In honor of Kevin's achievement, I'd like to propose a new Twilight Struggle Early War card:

Dumb card is dumb. Enjoy being financially raped by insurance companies that leave you to die. :)

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Why is Thailand a Battleground State but Vietnam isn't?

dragon of blood — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:01:57 +0000

by dragon of blood

I've never heard of the Thailand War. Is this a misprint or was it intentional?

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Deluxe Edition shipping out Nov. 20

GreatDecay — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:21:04 +0000

by GreatDecay

Just got an email from GMT stating that they will begin charging for the P500 orders on November 12. They expect to ship out the orders on or within a few days after Nov. 20.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Do the Super Power spaces count as adjacent for placing Influence?

JohnRayJr — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:15:39 +0000

by JohnRayJr

amacleod wrote:
JohnRayJr wrote:
Yes. Mexico, Japan, and Canada as well for the US. Ditto for the Soviets into Afghanistan, Poland, Finland, Romania, and North Korea.

....as well as Cuba, for the Americans.

It's true. I should have just said "yes" rather than rattle them all off from memory. :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Do the Super Power spaces count as adjacent for placing Influence?

amacleod — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:58:31 +0000

by amacleod

JohnRayJr wrote:
Yes. Mexico, Japan, and Canada as well for the US. Ditto for the Soviets into Afghanistan, Poland, Finland, Romania, and North Korea.

....as well as Cuba, for the Americans.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Cuuuurse you!

spelledaren — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:49:26 +0000

by spelledaren

Hey dude! Great gaming time :)

Curse you!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Do the Super Power spaces count as adjacent for placing Influence?

dragon of blood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:04:55 +0000

by dragon of blood

oi_you_nutter wrote:
Yes

6.1.4 Influence markers may always be placed in any country that
is adjacent (connected) to the phasing player’s superpower space.

Crazy, there it is.

Thank you very much.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Do the Super Power spaces count as adjacent for placing Influence?

dragon of blood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:03:22 +0000

by dragon of blood

Excellent. I figured it wouldn't make much sense if America couldn't influence Canada or Mexico, but I could not find a rule that specifically said you could.

Cheers mate.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Do the Super Power spaces count as adjacent for placing Influence?

oi_you_nutter — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:03:20 +0000

by oi_you_nutter

Yes

6.1.4 Influence markers may always be placed in any country that
is adjacent (connected) to the phasing player’s superpower space.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Do the Super Power spaces count as adjacent for placing Influence?

JohnRayJr — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:00:16 +0000

by JohnRayJr

Yes. Mexico, Japan, and Canada as well for the US. Ditto for the Soviets into Afghanistan, Poland, Finland, Romania, and North Korea.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Do the Super Power spaces count as adjacent for placing Influence?

dragon of blood — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:56:42 +0000

by dragon of blood

For example could I place Influence in Mexico by virtue of the United States being adjacent to it?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Cuuuurse you!

sludge — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:45:29 +0000

by sludge

spelledaren wrote:

Second game saw me get thrashed by some guy, He took it to 20 points by turn 5. It was ugly. Then I played him again and it looked like I might get the better of him, but going into the late war I lost several areas to his domination. I drew Wargames and was up by about 10 points. Just needed defcon 2, so I headlined Soviets shoot down the Kal...but he countered with some wicked middle east event and then scored it, bringing the score down to +6 for me. I played the wargames, in my folly thinking that possession of the China card would give me victory. Alas, only after turn 10! It ended a draw in turn 8. Probably good, I was going downwards fast! Really fun!

That guy was me!

New Image for Twilight Struggle

pepperhead — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:24:10 +0000

by pepperhead

]]>

Twilight struggle hanging on the wall in a top loader

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:03:07 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:59:46 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:59:26 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:58:01 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:53:09 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:52:04 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:50:32 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Alliterato — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:50:27 +0000

by Alliterato

]]>

Self made hungarian version

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

jonocop — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:14:07 +0000

by jonocop

elfrododumbo wrote:

Having pre-ordered and paid, I am wondering if TS has officially been released yet.

Well,I am from the UK so I sincerely hope I will get my copy from Atlanta before Christmas.:)

I believe the latest GMT is expecting to start shipping is December 10th. But with over 1000 pre-orders it will take a while to get through those. I know that some online stores are only now starting to fulfill their C&C #4 and #5 orders (a full two weeks after I got my P500 copies in the mail.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

Cathan — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:49:02 +0000

by Cathan

Since you pre-ordered it through a store and not GMT directly, I suspect that you won't get it before the holiday. GMT is pretty good about fulfilling P500 first. At least I've always gotten mine before before my local shop has.

You can catch the latest on shipping news directly from GMT. Just subscribe to their newsletter.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

elfrododumbo — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:07:35 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Having pre-ordered and paid, I am wondering if TS has officially been released yet.

Well,I am from the UK so I sincerely hope I will get my copy from Atlanta before Christmas.:)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

schuwa — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:23:13 +0000

by schuwa

JasonMatthews wrote:
MerricB wrote:
I believe the China Civil War is now standard - at least it's printed on the map - and that goes a long way towards stopping early USSR victories.

Good point, Merric. I should have mentioned that. The Chinese Civil War varient is included, and for convenience sake, also printed on the map. However, it is still not mandatory to game play. At this stage, I would not recommend combining it with all the optional cards. That would probably be too heavy a US tilt. Some gamers are reporting pretty good results just using the CCW by itself. So, it is properly considered another option.

The optional cards were tested as a package, so we think they should generally be played as a unit though.

Jason

Jason,

Once again, thanks for your promptness & concise answer. I am very much looking forward to this newest edition coming out and you can expect to have my $$$ for this great upgrade. Thanks!

Josh

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

jonocop — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:22:20 +0000

by jonocop

schuwa wrote:
Alright, nobody seems to want to broach the subject directly (at least not in a separate thread), for what I am guessing is the fear of having rotten tomatoes and eggs thrown at them, so I will be happy to don the flame retardant suit and ask it to Jason, should his lidless eye, wreathed in flame, being watching :sauron: :

Thanks!

Damn, I feel like flaming just so your suit doesn't go to waste. :laugh:

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

Noonespecial — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:18:08 +0000

by Noonespecial

Felkor wrote:
Will there be an upgrade pack for those who have the original game and would like the new rules, cards, and board?

Like this?

EDIT: Drat - Joel beat me to it... :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

JoelCFC25 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:13:54 +0000

by JoelCFC25

Felkor wrote:
Will there be an upgrade pack for those who have the original game and would like the new rules, cards, and board?

Yes, it was announced by GMT and put on the P500 list several months ago: Twilight Struggle Deluxe Edition Upgrade Kit

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

sloan66 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:01:22 +0000

by sloan66

Felkor wrote:
Will there be an upgrade pack for those who have the original game and would like the new rules, cards, and board?

Heck. I'd just be happy with the new rules and cards.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

Felkor — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:54:08 +0000

by Felkor

Will there be an upgrade pack for those who have the original game and would like the new rules, cards, and board?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

JasonMatthews — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:43:06 +0000

by JasonMatthews

MerricB wrote:
I believe the China Civil War is now standard - at least it's printed on the map - and that goes a long way towards stopping early USSR victories.

Good point, Merric. I should have mentioned that. The Chinese Civil War varient is included, and for convenience sake, also printed on the map. However, it is still not mandatory to game play. At this stage, I would not recommend combining it with all the optional cards. That would probably be too heavy a US tilt. Some gamers are reporting pretty good results just using the CCW by itself. So, it is properly considered another option.

The optional cards were tested as a package, so we think they should generally be played as a unit though.

Jason

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

JasonMatthews — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:36:35 +0000

by JasonMatthews

Hey Josh, the only MANDATORY change will be a bit of additional influence for the US in Canada. However, we will be including 7 brand new optional cards, and 1 rewrite. We think that these cards address several balance and game play concerns expressed by the game's fans.

As I mention, the cards are optional, and folks should not feel like we are foisting a new game or a new style of game play upon them. But if you were looking for some tweaks, or just a way to freshen patterns of play, I think these cards will do it.

GMT should be running previews of the new cards very soon.

Hope that helps,

Jason

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 3rd edition change US influence?

MerricB — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:34:50 +0000

by MerricB

I believe the China Civil War is now standard - at least it's printed on the map - and that goes a long way towards stopping early USSR victories.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: 3rd edition change US influence?

schuwa — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:20:02 +0000

by schuwa

Alright, nobody seems to want to broach the subject directly (at least not in a separate thread), for what I am guessing is the fear of having rotten tomatoes and eggs thrown at them, so I will be happy to don the flame retardant suit and ask it to Jason, should his lidless eye, wreathed in flame, being watching :

Will 3rd edition Twilight Struggle address the concern that many people have regarding the USSR having an unbalanced chance of winning? Will the US receive the thus-far pseudo-accepted 3 extra influence that many tournament bids seem to garner?

While this isn't meant to generate the pee-ing contest of people writing threads saying that the US is or is not even / the underdog, I'm sure that some people just cannot resist the urge to micurate. I kindly urge them to keep their posts to one of the already generate threads addressing this, so we get a timely answer BGG users don't need to surf a mole of pages to assess.

Thanks!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

Nordican — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:43:38 +0000

by Nordican

I had thought the intent was to release in in time for "wall fall" day (the 9th), but I guess that isn't likely.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

Man or Astroman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:23:49 +0000

by Man or Astroman

They have held true to the P500 date they set for the one game I ordered. They said August and it arrived in late August.

Now if it hasn't hit 500, it could be a long wait!

"A most dangerous time" is MMP and they got it to me on time and it is a beautiful game.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

pilight — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:46:05 +0000

by pilight

MattDP wrote:
Scoring Cards

As a general rule, I headline every scoring card I get during the early war. Usually I don't want to burn my * events so early, I want to get in as many ops as possible during the turn, and since the USSR can outplay me in nearly any region in makes sense to take the pain now as it's only going to get worse later.

However I seem to always hit horrible headline combinations that burn me badly. Europe Scoring vs Socialist Governments is a particular bane. It came up in my last game, which also saw me pairing ME scoring with Nasser and Asia Scoring with a successful India/Pakistan War, a treble which lost me the game very quickly. Have I just been fantastically unlucky here, or do I need to change my approach to these cards?

I hate headlining scoring cards. You're just begging for trouble, especially in the Early War when there are only three scoring regions. A good opponent will know what scoring cards are still out there and will plan his headlines accordingly just in case you try to slide one through, especially if he knows you have a habit of headlining them. The concept of maximizing your influence is generally good, but with scoring cards you're better off knowing what the scoring will be before you play them.

Influence Targets

So, what do I do with the early war influence I get to use? In no particular order ...

In Europe I usually try and make sure I secure the 2-stability countries just to deny them to the Soviet player. I'll try and get Austria too, if I can.

Don't worry about the non-battlegrounds in the Early War. Concentrate on fortifying Italy and keeping him on his side of Germany. Don't be afraid to go to France early. If you have three influence there he'll have to headline DeGaulle to take it from you.

In the Middle East I try and pick up Lebanon and Jordan, and if I can get a point into Egypt before Nasser gets played, so much the better.

I concur with Lebanon and Jordan, with Jordan being more important. Going to Egypt is a waste of time. Even if Nasser doesn't get you, you're giving the USSR an easy coup space for his MilOps the next turn. You're better off going to Saudi Arabia and/or filling Israel even though they are more expensive.

In Asia, the situation varies depending on whether or not I get to keep hold of Iran. Either way, Asia usually demands the bulk of my early war influence. I like to try and get Taiwan because of the related event and Korean War. That done, there may be South Korea itself to go for. If I have the chance then Afghanistan is usually a must. Malaysia is another obvious choice so I can get into Thailand. It can also be useful to secure Indonesia and the Philippines in case of Decolonisation

.

DeCol is a nuisance, to be sure. I find that South Korea is usually my #1 priority here. Most of the Soviets I play against don't wait around for the Korean War, they play a 4 OPs card and take it as soon as the couping is over unless I put at least one influence in it.

I also tend to spend influence outside these three zones in the early war. This may be a mistake - I'm not sure. I like to have a point or two in Costa Rica in anticipation of Panama Canal and to make sure I'm not driven totally out of Central America by a coup in Panama. Indeed I'll sometimes drop a point or two into Panama itself. I also like to spend a bit of influence in Morocco - so I can get to Algeria - and South Africa (to defend against the wealth of USSR events that drop influence all around that area).

These are all low priority issues in the Early War. If the CIA is still in the deck, it protects Panama from a coup better than extra influence in the Early War. The US can't be easily shut out of Central America. Remember that you're adjacent to Mexico!

France & Italy

I can't seem to hold on to France, no matter what I do. I'm unwilling - for obvious reasons - to commit influence to it until I've seen off at least one of Suez Crisis or DeGaulle but this usually gives the Soviet player plenty of time to sneak some influence in. The usual route is to put a point in W Germany or Italy but there are other ways. Should I be reacting to these threats by seizing control of France and damn the vast influence loss that I'm likely to accumulate as a result?

Italy is more stable. I nearly always commit 3 influence to it at game start but this doesn't seem to discourage coup attempts. Even failed coups often reduce the influence to the point where I need to replace it, leaving the Soviet player free to coup Iran. Socialist Governments as a headline is also a particular bane here.

Take France ASAP. It's much easier to replace a few lost influence than it is to take the country back once the Commies have it. If the Soviet is playing the event as the event, you'll be able to refill before he can move in. If you're playing it, you can do both at the same time. It also gives you access to Algeria, which saves you the effort of mucking about in Morocco.

As for Italy, three is the minimum I place there unless I plan to headline Marshall Plan. The Soviet is going to coup Iran anyway. You're better off if he does it at DEFCON 4 so you can get the last coup on Turn 1 and potentially take it back.

The Middle East

This causes headaches for most US players but I have a dismal track record of loosing Israel to the Soviets. The usual culprit is not Arab-Israeli wars (I tend to get Jordan and Lebanon fairly early) but Suez Crisis. If it's not that, then an unwillingness to commit influence to Israel early on in case of Arab-Israeli wars has seen me loose Israel just because the USSR player slams influence into it.

I don't see too many Soviets pounding influence into Israel in the Early War. Once you have Lebanon and Jordan, you can take Israel whenever you have a moment.

Asia

South Korea can be a pain if the Soviet player decides to take it before Korean War comes up but there's very little to be done about that. The problem is that as soon as I get control of Taiwan or Japan the Soviet player sees the danger and puts in the necessary influence to get South Korea and damn the war card on his next turn.

If I get Decolonisation then I sit on it like mad wherever possible to stop it going back into the draw deck because it's so monstrously powerful early on. If I get Vietnam Revolts and the Defcon allows then I'll play that and coup the country.

If the USSR gets either of those cards though, I'm usually in trouble. I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done to salvage Asia if the USSR gets either event relatively early.

If you put one influence into South Korea, then the USSR has to use the China Card to get it in one fell swoop. That will usually hold them long enough for you to get Japan/Taiwan under control.

If you can get DeCol and DeStal out of the way in turn 3 or later they'll be gone until the Turn 7 reshuffle, at which point they'll be far less dangerous.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever... the Revolution Continues

Mallet — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:29:54 +0000

by Mallet

Not bad for a game that for some people is supposedly "not a wargame" ...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever... the Revolution Continues

SW_Cygnus — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:20:28 +0000

by SW_Cygnus

Charles Vasey wrote:
TS is back!!!!

This is... madness?

High drama on BGG.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever... er... um... waitasec

Charles Vasey — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:57:39 +0000

by Charles Vasey

TS is back!!!!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever... er... um... waitasec

SW_Cygnus — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:08:58 +0000

by SW_Cygnus

They killed TS but they made PoG the top wargame.

The card-driven games still win. :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

My name is Watt — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:21:10 +0000

by My name is Watt

I can't wait I have this on order and also this [thing=27969][/thing].

I expect the first to be delivered in January or February and the latter on December which is next month :D. Now I have to convince a few friends to be willing to try them out when I got them.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

SW_Cygnus — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:07:19 +0000

by SW_Cygnus

Received an email from them a few days ago. They are billing everyone starting mid-November and shipping TS out as early as Nov. 20th. They did mention that it might be out as late as December though.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

Tpek — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:05:08 +0000

by Tpek

And here I was hoping to get this before December.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 2nd and 3rd edition

McGlu — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:53:41 +0000

by McGlu

I already have the 3rd printing and have pre-ordered the deluxe upgrade. What makes the new counters better? Are they the same size and just thicker?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever!!!

leroy43 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:00:43 +0000

by leroy43

Salo sila wrote:
Could you direct me to the threads where there is a discussion about whether Agricola is a Euro or not?

I don't need a definition of a Euro, I know one when I see one. :p

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever!!!

JohnRayJr — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:07:03 +0000

by JohnRayJr

grouchysmurf wrote:
Just a bit of a jest in this, what I expect to be, long and painful thread.

Jest?? Oh no you don't! FLAMEWAR!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever!!!

grouchysmurf — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:05:07 +0000

by grouchysmurf

Salo sila wrote:
Could you direct me to the threads where there is a discussion about whether Agricola is a Euro or not?

In case of Agricola, the valuation is the pivotal issue not the classification itself.

Just a bit of a jest in this, what I expect to be, long and painful thread.

Cheers!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever!!!

Salo sila — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:51:16 +0000

by Salo sila

grouchysmurf wrote:
Well, if Agricola can be the best euro, I can't see why TS couldn't make a best wargame.

Just my two cents.

Could you direct me to the threads where there is a discussion about whether Agricola is a Euro or not?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever!!!

grouchysmurf — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:49:47 +0000

by grouchysmurf

Well, if Agricola can be the best euro, I can't see why TS couldn't make a best wargame.

Just my two cents.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Twilight Struggle Deemed the Best Wargame Ever!!!

JohnRayJr — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:44:28 +0000

by JohnRayJr

New BGG Wargame Rankings

Ha! And you thought that old debate was on its last legs!

Apologies to Jason Matthews. I'm so, so sorry.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: What Card Sleeves for New Edition ?

mudhoney — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:50:12 +0000

by mudhoney

You will not require card sleeves if the new cards are similar standard to recent GMT cards. The laminate on newer GMT cards is particularly thick and durable.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

Sobriquet — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:17:41 +0000

by Sobriquet

In the past I always dealt with GMT as a retailer, not as a P500 purchaser, so take this for what it's worth: In my experience, when GMT have set a date for us, they've followed through.

They've repeatedly said "Nov 2009". I expect a late November arrival. The last I read, "Twilight Struggle files are at the printer and we are on track for November shipment". So there ya go.

Having said that, since it's a birthday gift, I wouldn't bank on it. I'd get her something nice that she'll appreciate. Then, a few weeks later when TS arrives, set up a completely unexpected (to her) Appreciation Day and give her the game. She'll love you even more :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

rievler — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:53:10 +0000

by rievler

Well I'm not a veteran with P500 releases, but having been married for 15 years, I can say that if you plan on giving Twilight Struggle as a gift to your wife then you:
1) Are married to the one in 10,000 women that wouldn't make you sleep on the couch for a week for giving a wargame as a present.
2) Are delusional, since you think 1 is possible
3) Plan to include a certificate for an hour massage
4) Plan to do something else extraordinary to make up for it.
5) OK, folks fill in your own possibilities....

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

dtolman — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:42:30 +0000

by dtolman

Gotcha...I better start thinking up what actual present I will give then...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

Felkor — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:49:13 +0000

by Felkor

Skadar wrote:
From my little experience with GMT, November 2009 really means 3rd quarter 2010.

My experience as well... actually, probably a bit optimistic compared to how things went with [thing=23685][/thing].

But I would think with Twilight Struggle they have a much better chance of being on time or at least close.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

Skadar — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:42:32 +0000

by Skadar

From my little experience with GMT, November 2009 really means 3rd quarter 2010.

But considering this isn't a brand new game, November might actually mean November this time.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

TGov — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:04:34 +0000

by TGov

It might be out in time since it is Twilight Struggle, but if it is like other games from P500, don't be surprised if it slips to the first part of Dec...at least in my brief experience with it.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: GMT vets - does November mean November... or December?

dtolman — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:50:43 +0000

by dtolman

Just curious as I was considering getting this for my wife's late November birthday... this is my first time directly dealing with the P500 from GMT.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Cuuuurse you!

stove — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:13:33 +0000

by stove

SW_Cygnus wrote:
Once (or if) they get Triumph of Chaos up ... I will lose my job.

I wonder if they have support groups for people addicted to ToC.

"I was doing fine for a few weeks, but last night I began to debate the pros and cons of the Kolchek coup. I just had to set up a sample game to run through a few turns, but when I came from my game-induced stupor it was light out and I'd managed to take Moscow."

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Cuuuurse you!

SW_Cygnus — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:22:03 +0000

by SW_Cygnus

Once (or if) they get Triumph of Chaos up ... I will lose my job.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Indo-Pakistani Card #24 Question

conky — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:52:10 +0000

by conky

I was hoping we got that card wrong because I took a beating in that game!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Indo-Pakistani Card #24 Question

goodweiser — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:09:40 +0000

by goodweiser

Thanks JohnRayJr!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Cuuuurse you!

sbauer9 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:45:57 +0000

by sbauer9

When you get some free time you can also play:

1960
1989
Hear I Stand
C&C: Ancients
Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
Paths of Glory
Europe Engulfed
Wilderness War
We the People
For the People
Sword of Rome
Barbarossa to Berlin
Empire of the Sun
Wellington
FAB: The Bulge
Up Front

and it looks like Unhappy King Charles is in beta.

Great site!

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Cuuuurse you!

spelledaren — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:30:48 +0000

by spelledaren

So someone here mentioned the fact that this game is available for play at wargameroom.com. So I went to have a look. And it's so easy to use! And it takes no time to get started! And, and, and! I just had to try it out, and before I know I have played three games. And a fourth! They even take about half the time to play!

I really don't have time for this. I have an insane amount of work to do right now, and tomorrow is my last day to do it on. But gah! It's calling to me, crying out for more, more! Aaarrr! Curse you all!

So in my first game I didn't know what was happening and accidently chose headline and such, but had a great game that was decided by me being forced to play the China card as the last card in turn 10, losing the game by 2 points (playing it gave me 5 points, so still up, but aaargh so close)... It was epic.

Second game saw me get thrashed by some guy, He took it to 20 points by turn 5. It was ugly. Then I played him again and it looked like I might get the better of him, but going into the late war I lost several areas to his domination. I drew Wargames and was up by about 10 points. Just needed defcon 2, so I headlined Soviets shoot down the Kal...but he countered with some wicked middle east event and then scored it, bringing the score down to +6 for me. I played the wargames, in my folly thinking that possession of the China card would give me victory. Alas, only after turn 10! It ended a draw in turn 8. Probably good, I was going downwards fast! Really fun!

And then another game where I had a good run, but got hammered in Europe after Tear down this wall realigned my influence in EG off the map, leaving me struggling to avoid his control. Had +1 point going into final scoring, but he dominated 5 areas. Ouch. Good fun!

Cuuuurse yooou!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Indo-Pakistani Card #24 Question

JohnRayJr — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:45:27 +0000

by JohnRayJr

Yes, the "winner" would receive 2 VPs for a successful roll.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Indo-Pakistani Card #24 Question

goodweiser — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:30:46 +0000

by goodweiser

Can card #24 be played even if there is no influence by either the US or USSR in either India or Pakistan? Tonight, we played the such that the US player rolled the die and got a 3. He took only 2 MO points since a 4-6 was needed for Victory.

Let's say the US player had a victorious roll, but same scenario, neither superpower had influence. Would the US player, in addition to the 2 MO points, receive 2 VP for a successful Victory (even though there was no USSR influence to defeat?)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Cathan — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:55:42 +0000

by Cathan

Alexfrog wrote:

You can consider 'won' in this context to mean 'be ahead significantly'. Of course anything could potentially happen due to DEFCON later on.

Gotcha. I get calling it a night when it's late, but don't consider the game over. Like Andrew, I've won my fair share of games when I was behind by a wide margin without it being a defon victory. A few card combos and there can be a massive swing.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Any word on mounted map?

Cantatta — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:41:40 +0000

by Cantatta

Just checked GMT's website and last info was November for the Deluxe Edition and the Upgrade Kit. That means likely we won't see the actual products for another month, possibly two if past experience with GMT has taught me anything.

I would assume that mounted maps will be made available at the same time as the two main products, since it makes sense they would get a number of mounted maps made all at once to cover the demand, even if only based on current orders.

You did pre-order, right? ;)

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Any word on mounted map?

ed95005 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:23 +0000

by ed95005

Release date?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Alexfrog — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:20:16 +0000

by Alexfrog

No we just called the game because it was late on a weeknight. I understand that this isnt truly finishing the game, but sometimes its necessary. :)
You can consider 'won' in this context to mean 'be ahead significantly'. Of course anything could potentially happen due to DEFCON later on.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

amacleod — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:09:16 +0000

by amacleod

Cathan wrote:
Alexfrog wrote:
(Technically, we stopped halfway through after I got a lead with strong board position).

Did you auto victory? Assuming you didn't, you should always play out the game. There are card combos in the later deck that can swing things in a very rapid fashion. It just take a bad draw or quagmire/lone gunman/Aldrich Ames at the right time and your lead can go poof! This is a game where things aren't over until the last card has been played.

EXTREMELY important point, Michael! I have literally seen games where one player has been up around 18 or 19 VP......and the game ends in a victory of 2 or 3 VP!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Cathan — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:58:33 +0000

by Cathan

Alexfrog wrote:
(Technically, we stopped halfway through after I got a lead with strong board position).

Did you auto victory? Assuming you didn't, you should always play out the game. There are card combos in the later deck that can swing things in a very rapid fashion. It just take a bad draw or quagmire/lone gunman/Aldrich Ames at the right time and your lead can go poof! This is a game where things aren't over until the last card has been played.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Alexfrog — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:18:54 +0000

by Alexfrog

Played again last night and won as the US, however my card draws were extremely good, with many 4s early. I couldnt go to Egypt early because the USSR headlined Suez Crisis. I played Nasser and couped Egypt but only rolled a 3. I then played Vietnam revolts and couped it and took the country. :) Turn 2 I couped Egypt with a 4 and took it. (Russia wasnt great about using up the coups on turns 1-2, getting military ops from wars instead, but after that I never got to coup another battleground). I ended up being slightly ahead in Asia after getting Indin/Pakistan and most of southeast asia. Middle east and europe became split evenly, and I got complete control in south america on turn 4, while USSR focused on africa, getting all but 1 battleground there and dominating. Asia/Southeast Asia scoring and South America won it for me. (Technically, we stopped halfway through after I got a lead with strong board position).

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

amacleod — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:35:41 +0000

by amacleod

Concerning the Middle East (I apologize if any one has said this already), it's also good for the Americans to take the Gulf States. I believe this is the only Middle Eastern country that isn't mentioned on any nasty Soviet event cards.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Variants:: Re: Blancing Twilight Struggle

JAKitt — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:46:32 +0000

by JAKitt

Alexfrog wrote:
jackalope wrote:

Theme wise, I don't know if stability 3 is all that out of place for Iran since 3 stability there is not in the same as 3 stability elsewhere. I say this because there are two cards ("Muslim Revolution" and "Iran Hostage Crisis") that exist to make it a very non-stable 3.

I agree, Iran at stability 3 but with the cards to destabilize it seems both realistic and good for the game. Otherwise the early game is all about coups in Iran, which isnt historic.

Hopefully this will change with the deluxe edition optional cards. In addition to the CCW there will be I think 7 additional cards, and a while back on Consimworld a preview of the countersheet was posted with some very interesting spoilers:

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@998.hVHPatAHoW2.25@.1dcf...

[o]The countersheets in the linked post and the next include three new persistent US event counters with the following text:

Special Relationship - 1 US VP if no USSR influence in UK
Our Man in Tehran - Iran's Stability is 4 for coup attempts
AWACS Sale to Saudis - Muslim Revolution no longer playable

Jason has mentioned on this site that the new cards will be revealed soon, but they haven't yet been I am itching to find out exactly what these three do! They look like they will help the US position in the Middle East significantly. My personal guess is that Our Man in Tehran will be an Iranian Hostage Crisis analogue with the additional persistent effect while under US control.[/o]

I've not played any games with the CCW yet, but I suspect it doesn't do quite enough for the US to make the game 50-50. Hopefully the extra cards in addition will give us the holy grail of a completely balanced Twilight Struggle!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

JAKitt — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:35:51 +0000

by JAKitt

Alexfrog wrote:
In my game as US I tried to hold Iran, Iraq, and Israel (along with Jordan, Lebanon, (and eventually the gulf states after USSR took Saudi Arabia). The middle east was pretty even for a while until I get destroyed by Muslim Revolution and lost 4 each from Iran and Iraq. I'll go for a Egypt/Lybia/Israel/Jordan/Lebanon hold in the future, as well as trying to hold Iran for a while and spread east from it. It was pretty tough trying to stay even in the Middle East after conceding egypt and libya. One nice thing about having Egypt will be that when combined with lebanon and jordan, israel is immune to the arab israeli war.

Don't forget Saudi Arabia! You'll probably need it, especially if Nasser cuts you off before you have a chance to move into Egypt. Also, with control of Israel you only need two of the three surrounding countries for immunity to the war, so you can still be safe even if Egypt is compromised.

Alexfrog wrote:
I guess one good thing about 2 into Egypt is that if they play Nasser you immediately put more into egypt. If they fight you for it then they get a big pile of influence there, and you destroy them with Sadat.

Exactly. Alternatively you can just let them pay the op to take control and then kick them out in due course anyway. Either way it's good for you.

Alexfrog wrote:
What are the best coup targets for the US on turn 1? Are there any at the start, or do you have to wait for the USSR to create one?

You're right, there aren't really. Probably the best options are Iran or Panama after a semi-successful USSR coup. Iraq is probably the best for a flyer coup if you really want to lower Defcon and don't mind failing. You might get lucky, after all - even a 1-op can remove that starting IP on a six.

Personally I'm happy to play into Egypt early. Assuming they coup Iran or Italy AR 1 then if they coup Egypt then Defcon is lowered to 3 (probably good for you), and they effectively nullify one of their own events.

Don't just focus on Europe - most early region BGs are worth it, and if you get lucky and have IP in Iran after AR1 Afghanistan should be very high on your list.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Are we going to get a sneak peak at the new cards?

Braveheart — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:27:25 +0000

by Braveheart

Just following up. Any news?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Variants:: Re: Blancing Twilight Struggle

Alexfrog — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:12:19 +0000

by Alexfrog

JohnRayJr wrote:
revgiblet wrote:
Does anyone know if the soon-to-appear reprint tweaks the balance any?

That is the purpose of the Chinese Civil War variant, which is included in the deluxe edition.

Cool, thanks!
Where cna I find the variant, to begin playing it now? :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Variants:: Re: Blancing Twilight Struggle

JohnRayJr — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:24:01 +0000

by JohnRayJr

revgiblet wrote:
Does anyone know if the soon-to-appear reprint tweaks the balance any?

That is the purpose of the Chinese Civil War variant, which is included in the deluxe edition.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Variants:: Re: Blancing Twilight Struggle

revgiblet — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:35:34 +0000

by revgiblet

Does anyone know if the soon-to-appear reprint tweaks the balance any?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Variants:: Re: Blancing Twilight Struggle

Alexfrog — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:04:56 +0000

by Alexfrog

jackalope wrote:

Theme wise, I don't know if stability 3 is all that out of place for Iran since 3 stability there is not in the same as 3 stability elsewhere. I say this because there are two cards ("Muslim Revolution" and "Iran Hostage Crisis") that exist to make it a very non-stable 3.

I agree, Iran at stability 3 but with the cards to destabilize it seems both realistic and good for the game. Otherwise the early game is all about coups in Iran, which isnt historic.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Cathan — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:04:30 +0000

by Cathan

Alexfrog wrote:
JAKitt wrote:
MattDP wrote:
In the Middle East I try and pick up Lebanon and Jordan, and if I can get a point into Egypt before Nasser gets played, so much the better.

Again, I quite like these countries as they are relatively cheap, help vs. Arab-Israeli War and Jordan gives access to Saudi Arabia. I agree with Riku that Egypt should generally be the focus, though.

Arent you just throwing points away by doing this though, becuase Nasser removes half rounded up of your egypt influence? If you put 1 in, Nasser completely nullifies it, and if you put 2 in, it ends up 2-1 in their favor.

Jordan/Lebanon definitely seems worthwhile, to keep the middle east competitive (and require more USSR influence there to dominate), and it protects Israel from the war.

Keep in mind that you can decide whether the event or spending the ops go first when playing your opponent event cards. So depending on the circumstance you can nullify your opponents advantage depending on the order you chose to play things.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Variants:: Re: Blancing Twilight Struggle

y-bot — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:22:34 +0000

by y-bot

we play with Iran being a stability 3 country

that is the only change, and it comes out to about 55/45 wins in favor of russa.

I personaly greatly injoy this variant and cringe in horror at the idea of America getting 3 extra influece to spend across the world

"but how can USSR possibly win europe?" I ask myself

the 7 points in europe as opposed to 10, 9, or even 8 make a gigantic difference, as US can't put into austria to cancel 1st turn realignment and be protected by socialist governments. europe is usualy a toss up

the fact that it's very hard for russa to coup Iran without giving the US control of the country at the begining. this makes the fighting quite even throughout all three of the scoring areas

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Alexfrog — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:15:11 +0000

by Alexfrog

Another point:

As the US, there are regions that you want to play into, but are risky to play to until the DEFCON level goes down, such as spreading east from Iran, playing into Egypt, north from Australia, etc.

But the US doesnt have very good targets for coups on turn 1, to lower the defcon, it seems. What are the best coup targets for the US on turn 1? Are there any at the start, or do you have to wait for the USSR to create one? Any 3+ stability region is a bad target.

Once the DEFCON hits 3 you want to go hard into Asia it seems, hopefully from Iran as well as Australia.

Until the DEFCON falls, should the US just fortify europe? Should they make the egypt play while DEFCON is still above 2?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Alexfrog — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:10:51 +0000

by Alexfrog

Thanks, I'll try putting 2 in Egypt as the US (and then hitting 2 in Libya!)

In my game as US I tried to hold Iran, Iraq, and Israel (along with Jordan, Lebanon, (and eventually the gulf states after USSR took Saudi Arabia). The middle east was pretty even for a while until I get destroyed by Muslim Revolution and lost 4 each from Iran and Iraq. I'll go for a Egypt/Lybia/Israel/Jordan/Lebanon hold in the future, as well as trying to hold Iran for a while and spread east from it. It was pretty tough trying to stay even in the Middle East after conceding egypt and libya. One nice thing about having Egypt will be that when combined with lebanon and jordan, israel is immune to the arab israeli war.

I guess one good thing about 2 into Egypt is that if they play Nasser you immediately put more into egypt. If they fight you for it then they get a big pile of influence there, and you destroy them with Sadat.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

JAKitt — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:44:51 +0000

by JAKitt

Alexfrog wrote:
Arent you just throwing points away by doing this though, becuase Nasser removes half rounded up of your egypt influence? If you put 1 in, Nasser completely nullifies it, and if you put 2 in, it ends up 2-1 in their favor.

Jordan/Lebanon definitely seems worthwhile, to keep the middle east competitive (and require more USSR influence there to dominate), and it protects Israel from the war.

Yes, but there are several good reasons not to sweat this.

1) There's no other easy way to Libya, which is often key to ME parity for the US because Iraq, Iran and Egypt are usually Soviet (in the Early War at least).
2) Mid East scoring could well arrive before Nasser does, in which case Egypt is helping your BF count.
3) Once Nasser is played the USSR doesn't have control. They still need to play ops to control it and you can sometimes grab it back before they get around to it.
4) Having one influence in Egypt sets you up nicely for Sadat in the Mid War, a powerful US 1-op that can't (usually) be discarded by the USSR player. Without 1 influence in Egypt you have to rely on Camp David, which can be spaced.

I should note that any amount of IP other than 2 is not worth it, though. As you say, 1IP is completely nullified, whereas the op loss from more than 2 is far more than the US can afford.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Alexfrog — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:16:53 +0000

by Alexfrog

I have played only two games now (once as Russia once as US), but we have seen Russia dominate pretty heavily both times. We are playing with 2 extra US influence during setup (probably going to push this up to 3, but even then it doesnt seem all that helpful, what you really need is the ability to expand into key areas).

It seems that the US gets down by 10+ points by the end of the early war while also being in a poor board position, with the threat of more losing scoring phases to come.

Some thoughts from my experiences:

In both of my games, the US has fought hard in the middle east and still lost, for several reasons:
USSR usually gets to coup the middle east and the US doesnt, so they have an advantage in taking the 2 stability battlegrounds.
If US goes into egypt early, they get hit with Nasser. If they dont, USSR can cheaply take Egypt and Libya, and its hard for the US to stop them from dominating.

Asia is key, and the countries mostly form a line in terms of adjacency (with a couple bunch ups). The US has a great block on one end of the line, in Japan, and has an entry in the middle from Australia. If they keep Iran then they have an entry from the other side into Pakistan as well. The USSR has an entry from Afganistan, as well as from decolonization and Vietnam revolts events.

Once Asia becomes locked it is quite stable, so you need to lock it in a position where you have more than half of it. It makes a lot of sense for the US to spread north from Australia and east from Iran as soon as DEFCON hits 3 (so that you cant get couped out of the position. With DEFCON 4+ moving north from Australia just get's you couped in malasia which doesnt help much. If you can take the India/Pakistan/Afganistan triangle that is very solid.

I think that its not worth the operations to work on South Korea or Taiwan, they are costly and taking them doesnt block USSR at all. Japan blocks the USSR. Its better to work on southeast asia.

Europe is difficult, but you need to hold West Germany and Italy. Dont get nailed by the Blockade event that removes all West Germany influence if you dont discard a 3+ card. Always hold a 3+ card until end of turn, and especially hold a soviet 3+ card to discard to this!
I got hit with blockade last game and it pretty much cost me europe.

Dont go into France before Suez/DeGaulle. Try to play those and then go in there. If USSR gets into France, then try to equal them in # of countries so that they dont dominate. Take the 2 cost countries to do this (Spain, Greece, Turkey). The 3+ cost countries that arent battlegrounds are too expensive. If your opponent is going for these, then focus heavily on keeping 3 battlegrounds, and winning elsewhere on the board, like Asia.

Africa/CentralAm./SouthAm: I dont think the US player has much spare ops to play to these regions in the early war, or at least not much of it. Asia, Europe and Middle east can score twice before these score and are worth more points, so focus on them instead, though couping your opponent in 1 stability regions seems like a strong play if they spend some time there.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Alexfrog — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:43:53 +0000

by Alexfrog

JAKitt wrote:
MattDP wrote:
In the Middle East I try and pick up Lebanon and Jordan, and if I can get a point into Egypt before Nasser gets played, so much the better.

Again, I quite like these countries as they are relatively cheap, help vs. Arab-Israeli War and Jordan gives access to Saudi Arabia. I agree with Riku that Egypt should generally be the focus, though.

Arent you just throwing points away by doing this though, becuase Nasser removes half rounded up of your egypt influence? If you put 1 in, Nasser completely nullifies it, and if you put 2 in, it ends up 2-1 in their favor.

Jordan/Lebanon definitely seems worthwhile, to keep the middle east competitive (and require more USSR influence there to dominate), and it protects Israel from the war.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Is using a Scoring Card as a zero OPs card legal?

JasonMatthews — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:10:57 +0000

by JasonMatthews

No. It is not legal. The reason we use the phraseology "is considered to have" is to distinguish Scoring cards from actually having an Ops value of zero.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Is using a Scoring Card as a zero OPs card legal?

leroy43 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:22:18 +0000

by leroy43

An interesting idea, but although the rules appear to leave a loophole open, scoring cards can only be played as an event

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Is using a Scoring Card as a zero OPs card legal?

richciz — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:16:28 +0000

by richciz

The rules state that (2.2.1) "EACH card contains an Operations Point value... and an Event...", and (2.2.3) "Cards may be played in one of two ways, as events or operations." Additionally, it is implied that the OPs value of Scoring Cards is zero: (4.5 C) the "Event... Operations value... is its Headline Value... [and] Scoring Cards... are considered to have a headline value of zero..." If this is the case, it follows that a Scoring Card should be able to be used for zero OPs in a coup attempt since the "cost [for a coup] is one card" (Twilight Struggle Player Aid Card). Is this reasoning legal?

New Image for Twilight Struggle

da pyrate — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:07:23 +0000

by da pyrate

]]>

Box end - the Brandenberg Gate

New Image for Twilight Struggle

da pyrate — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:58:38 +0000

by da pyrate

]]>

Twilight Struggle box end

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: 3rd edition rules changes JUNE 2008

Tali Urulu III — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:01:56 +0000

by Tali Urulu III

This is (I hope) from the 2d edition on the Living Rules:

"11.1.3 To ensure play balance during tournament play, randomly
choose a starting player. That player will bid victory points to play
the superpower of his choice. His opponent may then counter offer
with a higher bid of victory points. Once both players pass on further
bidding, immediately adjust the victory point track to reflect
the winning bid. Only the winning bid is deducted from victory
points, no earlier bid is counted."

I understand the new rules do not include this language.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: 3rd edition rules changes JUNE 2008

MartinStever — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:33:27 +0000

by MartinStever

ruggedscooter wrote:
kowalskie wrote:
"Whichever player reveals the lower number [bid] plays the soviet union. his opponent, playing the US then places extra influence markers on the map in the amount of the low bid. [...] this extra influence is placed after all the other setup is complete, and may only be placed in countries where the US player already has at least one influence"

Are you sure? So I bid [0] and he/she bids [2] then I play USSR and he/she places zero extra influence? Why would I not bid zero(If I thought USSR has advantage)?

Of course if one player bids zero, because the USSR does have an advantage, the other player may bid 22.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Anyone else having this issue with ACTS?

dirubin — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:29:22 +0000

by dirubin

rievler wrote:
I may have to check into a substance abuse clinic to manage the withdrawl-5 games of Here I Stand and 3 Twilight Struggle interrupted.
It's been more that 24 hours now, does anyone know:
1) How long might this last?
2) What actually happened? Hackers?
3) When might it return?
4) Will the game info be lost?

Might anyone with experience in past outages or knowledge of the situation shed light?

1) In the past, such outages have lasted a few days.
2) Past hacker strikes have been anything but anonymous, but who knows?
3) See #1,
4) Whatever game stuff happened *after* the last available backup is at risk. Backups are daily, IIRC.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Anyone else having this issue with ACTS?

rievler — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:24:45 +0000

by rievler

I may have to check into a substance abuse clinic to manage the withdrawl-5 games of Here I Stand and 3 Twilight Struggle interrupted.
It's been more that 24 hours now, does anyone know:
1) How long might this last?
2) What actually happened? Hackers?
3) When might it return?
4) Will the game info be lost?

Might anyone with experience in past outages or knowledge of the situation shed light?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Anyone else having this issue with ACTS?

Nottingham — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:16:45 +0000

by Nottingham

I am having the same problem and now I am suffering withdrawal symptoms.

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

SW_Cygnus — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:41:26 +0000

by SW_Cygnus

Alexfrog wrote:
Its already come up twice in my first game, that seems pretty often. I didnt know the rule but it seemed very broken, so I played that I couldnt discard the scoring card each time that wouldve been about +5 for my opponent.

I wouldn't consider it broken, just smart play. Whenever I get hit by Quagmire/Bear Trap or Blockade as the US I always discard a powerful enemy card. To me it's just like Space race.

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

Cathan — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:40:32 +0000

by Cathan

Perhaps play the game a few more time before calling anything "broken."

This is but one tactics amongst thousands. And it only helps in the short term. Assuming the game goes to the end, any ignored region would score and if you really ignored it, could lose you the game.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Anyone else having this issue with ACTS?

dirubin — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:28:51 +0000

by dirubin

dgeverett wrote:
My For the People game is on hold as well until this is fixed. :cry:

Well, I've got *two* games of the For the People in abeyance, as well as three games of Here I Stand, one game of Kutuzov, and a play test of Washington's War. Major life style change for me! :p

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Anyone else having this issue with ACTS?

dgeverett — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:16:22 +0000

by dgeverett

The site is down. Not sure how frequent this problem is, but no one is able to continue their ongoing PBEM games until server problem is fixed. Just keep trying every few hours until you are able to log in. My For the People game is on hold as well until this is fixed. :cry:

-Donald

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Anyone else having this issue with ACTS?

rievler — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:40:05 +0000

by rievler

Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a0009'

Subscript out of range: 'm'

/LM/W3SVC/3109/ROOT/global.asa, line 105

I'm not a computer whiz. What does this mean, other than I can't play TS?

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

Alexfrog — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:00:32 +0000

by Alexfrog

cheng wrote:

I wouldn't call it broken as it doesn't come up that often. I've seen my opponent discard scoring cards before (via this card and others, I don't recall exactly which ones) that would have helped me, and that's just the way things go sometimes. If you put all of your eggs in one basket, you run the risk of dumping it.

Its already come up twice in my first game, that seems pretty often. I didnt know the rule but it seemed very broken, so I played that I couldnt discard the scoring card each time that wouldve been about +5 for my opponent.

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

cheng — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:20:23 +0000

by cheng

Alexfrog 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.

It seems like you would almost always want to do this if you have a scoring card that is bad for you, and it seems pretty broken that you are actually allowed to discard a scoring card with it, and have it not happen.

Does it really work this way? So you can just ignore an entire area of the board and then make it not score?

I wouldn't call it broken as it doesn't come up that often. I've seen my opponent discard scoring cards before (via this card and others, I don't recall exactly which ones) that would have helped me, and that's just the way things go sometimes. If you put all of your eggs in one basket, you run the risk of dumping it.

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

Alexfrog — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:34:37 +0000

by Alexfrog

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.

It seems like you would almost always want to do this if you have a scoring card that is bad for you, and it seems pretty broken that you are actually allowed to discard a scoring card with it, and have it not happen.

Does it really work this way? So you can just ignore an entire area of the board and then make it not score?

New Image for Twilight Struggle

Darkmot — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:43:15 +0000

by Darkmot

]]>

During setup, it's best to test your dice

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

SkunkyBeer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:05:32 +0000

by SkunkyBeer

FWIW: 3IP Variant.

Ron Jacobsen is developing decent stats on that variant in his PBEM ladder. At this point, most games should be considered to match opponents pretty evenly. The Soviet side have a very barely significant edge in victories. That's about as close to "fair" as any reasonably complex boardgame can hope to achieve.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

Destruct1 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:09:47 +0000

by Destruct1

I think the CCW variant is a terrible thing, because

a) Its complicated rules
b) Not really flavorful or tricky to play
c) Kinda insignificant
d) unfun (The china card is part of the agme and the various event are fun)

The disadvantages for the soviets are few. He cant use the china card (dough) so he loses on the "interest" he gets from playing it one turn earlier then the us. And he cant play RS/P which I do 35% of the time only. I think Red Scare is a weak event if compared to the 4ops you get and considering the risk of defector. All in all I think the CCW variant gives the US an influence advantage of maybe 2 markers.

The 3ip rule on the other hand is well tested, makes the US opening more variable and keeps the interesting china card mechanic in play.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

My name is Watt — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:51:28 +0000

by My name is Watt

I've pre-ordered the game from a local store along with A Most Dangerous Time: Japan in Chaos, 1570-1584.

I don't know who I am going to play with :cry:
Board gaming has made me realized the importance of having a girlfriend and or family :laugh:.
Reeel friends are hard to come by! I've plenty real fiends though :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: TS New Edition : will we have French and German editions ?

bonzillou — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:37:00 +0000

by bonzillou

bonne nouvelle pour l'édition UGG, mais ces trucs là prennent toujours du retard!
Des joueurs viennent de toute la France pour l'Open, si tu es tenté je peux te mettre en contact avec certains pour du covoiturage...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Junta vs. Red Scare/Purge

Anwar — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:26:44 +0000

by Anwar

Gave you a quick thumbs up yesterday but didn't have time to reply, so:

Thanks for the quick answer.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: TS New Edition : will we have French and German editions ?

snico — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:23:50 +0000

by snico

Intéressé, oui, mais Bordeaux n'est pas à côté de chez moi ! J'ai envoyé un mail à UGG : ils m'ont confirmé travailler sur une version française et sur une allemande de l'édition Deluxe qui devraient sortir vers février 2010.

Merci pour ton invitation, surtout qu'il y a plus désagréable que Bordeaux pour passer quelques jours !

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: TS New Edition : will we have French and German editions ?

bonzillou — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:56:13 +0000

by bonzillou

s'il n'a pas bougé, c'est que les précommandes n'ont pas évolué non?
As-tu vu que nous organisons un tournoi TS à Bordeaux en janvier 2010? Il sera européen puisque des jouerus viendront d'espagne de suisse et de belgique. intéressé?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: TS New Edition : will we have French and German editions ?

snico — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:27:33 +0000

by snico

bonzillou wrote:
Simon
Udo Grebe game designs prpose un set de cartes en français en P150.
Allez sur http://www.ugg.de/ et cliquer en haut sur "P500"

Effectivement, mais le chiffre des pré-commandes n'a pas bougé depuis plusieurs mois (pour ce jeu comme pour les autres) : un défaut de mise à jour ? ou bien peut-on confirmer qu'UGG distribuera un set de cartes en français ?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Junta vs. Red Scare/Purge

JohnRayJr — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:39:51 +0000

by JohnRayJr

Red Scare/Purge reduces all cards that say "use this cards operations value," including Junta.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Junta vs. Red Scare/Purge

Anwar — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:18:11 +0000

by Anwar

Hi,

I've bumped into another question in tonight's game:

If a player who is under Red Scare/Purge plays Junta, does he receive one or two points to conduct operations?

In the FAQ it states that "A card with a reduced ops number is considered reduced for ALL purposes. The only exception is that operational points from events are not affected."

So this would lead you to think that Junta op-points are not affected. However, Junta says "Use this card's Operations Value" - so the Ops are from the card, not the event. Still, they are triggered by the event so we come full circle.

I like the game but the cards should really have gone through a better proofreading by an experienced rule writer.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: TS New Edition : will we have French and German editions ?

bonzillou — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:46:16 +0000

by bonzillou

Simon
Udo Grebe game designs prpose un set de cartes en français en P150.
Allez sur http://www.ugg.de/ et cliquer en haut sur "P500"

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: News:: TS New Edition : will we have French and German editions ?

snico — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:33:14 +0000

by snico

Hi,

I am very exciting by this new edition of TS, which seem to be a very good game ! That's why I would like to know if we can hope an European distribution with French and German cards ?

Thank you very much.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Open de France Twilight Struggle 2010 (January 30 - 31 Bordeaux [France])

bonzillou — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:38:07 +0000

by bonzillou

and guess what? as the tournament takes place in Bordeaux, we gonna have a wine testing session on saturday night....

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Open de France Twilight Struggle 2010 (January 30 - 31 Bordeaux [France])

Ricomaurer — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:33:19 +0000

by Ricomaurer

Sigh if only I had a plane ticket and no school going on then; I would so be there. Best of luck to the people attending.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Re: Open de France Twilight Struggle 2010 (January 30 - 31 Bordeaux [France])

bulldozers — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:25:33 +0000

by bulldozers

Its not fair that when the mothership arrives some lost souls are on other continents!!

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: News:: Open de France Twilight Struggle 2010 (January 30 - 31 Bordeaux [France])

bonzillou — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:21:50 +0000

by bonzillou

We're pleased to announce that the
Open de France Twilight Struggle 2010
will be held on
January 30th - 31st in Bordeaux (France)

Website : http://opendefrancetwilightstruggle2010.fr.gd

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

Tali Urulu III — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:06:29 +0000

by Tali Urulu III

I was confused; now I'm not. Thank you.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

threep — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:22:36 +0000

by threep

Thank you very much. Hurts a bit to see that shipping rate but still, think it might be worth it. Just hope there won't be toll to pay as well.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

uniquefer — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:54:07 +0000

by uniquefer

threep wrote:
Anyone that knows how much it'll cost to have it shipped to Sweden and how long it'll take? I tried to figure it out but had a hard time getting their shipping charts http://www.gmtgames.com/GMTShippingTable.htm I talked with my local store and they told me it'd take atleast 4 weeks before I could get it after it was shipped from the US if I bought it from them. Would really have it sooner but the shipping rates seems to be a bit frightening...

I'm also interested in this and I've asked one of the online customer service about the shipping cost of TS.

The game weights roughly 3 pounds so you can take a look at the third row of that shipping table.

To ship to Sweden, I guess is
Non-Asia Overseas SLOW OPTION - 4-8 Wks $ 16.00
Non-Asia Overseas Air - UPS $ 38.00
Non-Asia Overseas Air - US Postal Service $ 24.00

Hope this helps

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

threep — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:42:35 +0000

by threep

Anyone that knows how much it'll cost to have it shipped to Sweden and how long it'll take? I tried to figure it out but had a hard time getting their shipping charts http://www.gmtgames.com/GMTShippingTable.htm I talked with my local store and they told me it'd take atleast 4 weeks before I could get it after it was shipped from the US if I bought it from them. Would really have it sooner but the shipping rates seems to be a bit frightening...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:40:02 +0000

by leroy43

Tali Urulu III wrote:
19. The Americans used War Games to win on turn 8, as the board was going increasingly red. No China Card.

I am confused. How did the Americans win by playing War Games?

The DEFCON was 2, he gave the Soviets 6VP and ended the game. Since the US had more VP than the Soviets, the US won.

New Image for Twilight Struggle

snog — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:11:08 +0000

by snog

]]>

TS Wallpaper for your Netbook PC

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Let me see if I have this right..

elfrododumbo — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:34:57 +0000

by elfrododumbo

jonocop wrote:
elfrododumbo wrote:

Well, I suppose it was worth while to pre-order the game from Atlanta USA for $86.70 if the new edition sounds that good :cool:

Will have to wait until November to find out !

Regards.:)

Wow! $86.70 sounds kind of pricey, no? Even if it includes shipping to the UK. GMT quotes $12-$28 (depending on method) for non-Asia overseas shipping on a similar game. So even at the high end your total cost would be about $66 US if you P500'd direct from the source.

Very true !

When I pre-ordered this game I thought that it was direct from the manufacturers but it turned out that it was from Atlanta's Board Game Warehouse (CLS Games).

Anyway, when I was asked to pay, I paid immediately and was then told that it is going to be send in November.
Hey Ho ! I will consider this as a Christmas present ,not that it is likely to be opened on Christmas Day. I will open it the same day it arrives :D

I heard so much about TS that I simply had to get the new edition and I am really looking forward to it even though it cost me much more than I now realize it is going to sell for.

Regards.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Let me see if I have this right..

Tompy — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:49:15 +0000

by Tompy

So the TS map isn't going to be paper thin anymore? So sad.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Let me see if I have this right..

jonocop — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:48:01 +0000

by jonocop

elfrododumbo wrote:

Well, I suppose it was worth while to pre-order the game from Atlanta USA for $86.70 if the new edition sounds that good :cool:

Will have to wait until November to find out !

Regards.:)

Wow! $86.70 sounds kind of pricey, no? Even if it includes shipping to the UK. GMT quotes $12-$28 (depending on method) for non-Asia overseas shipping on a similar game. So even at the high end your total cost would be about $66 US if you P500'd direct from the source.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: What Card Sleeves for New Edition ?

Strider_X — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:47:42 +0000

by Strider_X

Another thing that I did is get a hard plastic screw-down for my China Card. This way you don't have to search for it in the deck, or worry about it being accidentally placed in the discard pile as it is in a oversized case.

Should only be a dollar or two at your FLGS.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

Tali Urulu III — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:46:47 +0000

by Tali Urulu III

19. The Americans used War Games to win on turn 8, as the board was going increasingly red. No China Card.

I am confused. How did the Americans win by playing War Games?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Let me see if I have this right..

elfrododumbo — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:32:01 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Well, I suppose it was worth while to pre-order the game from Atlanta USA for $86.70 if the new edition sounds that good :cool:

Will have to wait until November to find out !

Regards.:)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Let me see if I have this right..

chomama — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:40:20 +0000

by chomama

Me too, considerin you get thicker chits with the new game that don't come in the update kit, $10.00 was a no brainer. I would have sold my own mother into slavery for a mounted TS map board, but if they want to throw in chits and new cards for thirty somethin dollars then I guess that's a good deal too.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Let me see if I have this right..

leroy43 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:36:48 +0000

by leroy43

Yup. So for $11 you're getting a new box to hold your new counters. :D

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Let me see if I have this right..

Skadar — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:27:43 +0000

by Skadar

Yeah, I just went with a new copy.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Let me see if I have this right..

Robrob — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:21:52 +0000

by Robrob

I can pay the P500 Price of $27.00 for the update kit (without counter sheet) or I can pay $38 for an entire brand new deluxe game (with counter sheet)?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:50:11 +0000

by leroy43

frankts1 wrote:
Probably a question with an obvious answer, but I don't play on wargameroom or otherwise competitively (except with my wife). Did US start with 2 in Canada as per the new rules? Also, did you have any other variants from the starting position in play?

The new edition isn't out yet, so no use of any of the next edition's rules.

Also no other variations from the basic rules.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

frankts1 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:51:33 +0000

by frankts1

Probably a question with an obvious answer, but I don't play on wargameroom or otherwise competitively (except with my wife). Did US start with 2 in Canada as per the new rules? Also, did you have any other variants from the starting position in play?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: What Card Sleeves for New Edition ?

elfrododumbo — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:48:35 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Thanks, Sean. That is great. I will have the card sleeves ready before the game :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: What Card Sleeves for New Edition ?

greyareabeyond — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:12:02 +0000

by greyareabeyond

Mayday Games has a list of games with their sleeve sizes here:

http://www.maydaygames.com/sleeves.pdf

They list Twilight Struggle as requiring 2 packs of this style:

http://maydaygames.com/index.php/card-game-sleeves-pack-of-1...

These sleeves are 63.5mm x 88mm which is the same size they list for Magic the Gathering.

Thanks for the reminder, I should get some sleeves for Twilight Struggle so I can sleeve it up while it still has that new game smell.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: What Card Sleeves for New Edition ?

elfrododumbo — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:50:58 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Thank you Nacho.

This will be my first copy of the game so I am not sure what the Magic card size is ! Sorry :blush:

Regards.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: Deluxe edition on general release?

Containerguy — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:44:59 +0000

by Containerguy

I have just pre-ordered the Deluxe version. Can´t wait to get it onto my gaming table...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: What Card Sleeves for New Edition ?

nachof — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:39:04 +0000

by nachof

I understand the new cards are the same as the old one in size. If not, then disregard this message.

I use Magic cards sleeves. They fit a little more tight than Magic cards (they are perhaps 1mm wider), but in my opinion that's even better. It's a little more tedious sleeving them as you have to actually push down instead of just sliding them in like with Magic cards, but after that, no problems.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: General:: What Card Sleeves for New Edition ?

elfrododumbo — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:55:12 +0000

by elfrododumbo

I paid and waiting for TS new edition (released in November) and I would like to have card sleeves ready.

What size card sleeves and how many will I need ?

Thanks in advance.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

jaysachs — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:33:14 +0000

by jaysachs

jackalope wrote:
The other option would be for the USSR to get their spent influence back, Maybe they could take 1 influence off of the CCW space every time they use the China Card and use it for a normal influence placement.

Maybe instead: get one influence back every time the US uses the China Card.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

jackalope — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:20:22 +0000

by jackalope

amacleod wrote:
Hey Roger:

I very much appreciate the stats and analysis you have provided.
As for your suggestion about an "automatic" Sovet acquisition of the China Card to keep the variant from being too lopsided, howzabout this:
-keep the CCW rules in effect for Turns One and Two and onward until the China Card comes into play, BUT, in the meanwhile:
-at the beginning of Turn Three, the Soviets roll a die. If a one is rolled, the Soviets acquire the China Card. If the China Card has still not been activated at the start of Turn Four, then the Soviets roll again, needing a one or two to acquire it, and so on as follows:
-Turn Five: roll of 1-3.
-Turn Six: roll of 1-4.
-Turn Seven: roll of 1-5.
-Turn Eight: Soviets begin the turn WITH the China Card if it has not been activated so far in the course of the game through placement of influence or the roll of the die.
Just a thought!

I like the die roll idea. However, I would prefer it being a 1-2 without adjustment for tun, but a +1 to the roll for each influence placed on the CCW space.

The other option would be for the USSR to get their spent influence back, Maybe they could take 1 influence off of the CCW space every time they use the China Card and use it for a normal influence placement.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

amacleod — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:47:49 +0000

by amacleod

leroy43 wrote:
Thanks Andrew.

Yes, your idea is along the same idea I was thinking of. Perhaps with a -1 DRM for every influence already placed on the China space.

Oh yeah: that makes perfect sense. I was kinda thinking, "What a waste of influence that would be": but yeah, the DRM would solve that problem easily.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:32:04 +0000

by leroy43

Thanks Andrew.

Yes, your idea is along the same idea I was thinking of. Perhaps with a -1 DRM for every influence already placed on the China space.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: 2nd and 3rd edition

craniac — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:16:48 +0000

by craniac

I just traded for the third printing of the 2nd edition. I owned this game before, but traded it away because I didn't have anyone to play it with, but I'm going to actually make new friends if I have to, or wait for my 12-year-old to grow up so I can play this.

The upgrade kit mentioned above is $27. The deluxe edition counters are on sale for $7.00. The mounted map by itself is $14.

http://www.gmtgames.com/csearchs.aspx?Search=twilight+strugg...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

amacleod — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:11:42 +0000

by amacleod

Hey Roger:

I very much appreciate the stats and analysis you have provided.
As for your suggestion about an "automatic" Sovet acquisition of the China Card to keep the variant from being too lopsided, howzabout this:
-keep the CCW rules in effect for Turns One and Two and onward until the China Card comes into play, BUT, in the meanwhile:
-at the beginning of Turn Three, the Soviets roll a die. If a one is rolled, the Soviets acquire the China Card. If the China Card has still not been activated at the start of Turn Four, then the Soviets roll again, needing a one or two to acquire it, and so on as follows:
-Turn Five: roll of 1-3.
-Turn Six: roll of 1-4.
-Turn Seven: roll of 1-5.
-Turn Eight: Soviets begin the turn WITH the China Card if it has not been activated so far in the course of the game through placement of influence or the roll of the die.
Just a thought!

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:57:03 +0000

by leroy43

SkunkyBeer wrote:
I understand you are both accomplished players. Even so, over a 25 game stretch, you can't avoid playing your opponent just as much as you play the game. That tends to stiffle innovation - granted most "innovations" are for the worse, but occasionally you find a nugget.

Of course. Of the 84 games I've played this year, 70 were against the same opponent (Jonathan), so perforce there's a skew.

However, nobody else has seemed to be interested in actually playing the CCW variant. Lots of people have opinions about it, but I've seen nobody else post session reports about it.

Tangentially, one plays the games and opponents that are available. We both love TS, so we play often. We also play lots of other games. I have another regular wargame opponent, but he doesn't care for TS so we play other games. I'd love to play TS against lots of different people, but I have a limited audience.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Bear Trap/Quagmire as response to Missile Envy

rievler — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:34:50 +0000

by rievler

Thanks for the discussion guys. Resolution of the play worked. I found the silver lining on a bad situation. Burned Bear Trap from game, rolled a 1 on first attempt as expected. I can roll 1s better than anyone. Sucks for coups, works great for BT/Quagmire and Space Race.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

SkunkyBeer — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:39:56 +0000

by SkunkyBeer

I understand you got the best data with your resources at hand, but it would be interesting to see how/if there is a significant change with a broader mix of players.

I understand you are both accomplished players. Even so, over a 25 game stretch, you can't avoid playing your opponent just as much as you play the game. That tends to stiffle innovation - granted most "innovations" are for the worse, but occasionally you find a nugget.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Bear Trap/Quagmire as response to Missile Envy

SpaceGhost — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:21:25 +0000

by SpaceGhost

Cool...thanks.

After so many games, I would have thought that I would encounter that situation.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Bear Trap/Quagmire as response to Missile Envy

sbauer9 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:12:44 +0000

by sbauer9

Make me look it up in the FAQ why don't you? :)
From the FAQ in the files section:

Q. How does one deal with a Missile Envy placed in one’s hand when under the effect of a Bear Trap or Quagmire?

A. A player under Bear trap/Quagmire who has had Missile Envy played against him MUST use it as the next discard if its value has not been degraded by Red Scare/Purge.

Doesn't answer what does happen if it has been degraded but I assume you would have to play it as soon as you could and it would never become part of your normal hand which you could then play as an event.

This question from the faq answers it indirectly setting a precedent that if something else prevents you from playing it on your next round you play it as soon as possible:

Q. There are a number of cards, Missile Envy and Aldrich Ames among others, that require a player to play or discard particular cards. If this happens near the end of the turn, and that player has scoring cards in his hand, you could reach the situation that by obeying the event text, you would have to hold the scoring card, which would violate the text on the scoring cards (and the rules). How should this be handled?

A. The rules state that scoring cards must be played. This rule has precedence over other text. So, for instance, if a player has two cards left and one of them is a scoring card, when his opponent plays Missile Envy and takes the other card, then the player would still have to play the scoring card and hold Missile Envy. In this case he would be required to play Missile Envy for Operations points in the first Action round of the next turn.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Bear Trap/Quagmire as response to Missile Envy

SpaceGhost — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:49:26 +0000

by SpaceGhost

sbauer9 wrote:
I believe the USSR player must play Missie Envy to satisfy the Bear Trap as the Bear trap require that he discard a 2 op card and the Missile Envy requires it be the next card USSR plays.

Well, this is nitpicking, but missle envy says that it has to be "used for operations the next round". Technically, discarding a card isn't using it for operations, so the USSR player should be able to discard some other card instead. Usually the USSR player would probably discard missle envy; however, if he had something like Grain Sales it might be better to hold onto missle envy and may be forced to play it immediately upon coming out of the Bear Trap -- which would be the next round he would be using a card for ops.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Bear Trap/Quagmire as response to Missile Envy

sbauer9 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:00:18 +0000

by sbauer9

I believe the USSR player must play Missie Envy to satisfy the Bear Trap as the Bear trap require that he discard a 2 op card and the Missile Envy requires it be the next card USSR plays.

Now if the USSR player is also under a purge so the missle envy can't be played to the bear trap then what happens? It could not be a headline play but could still happen. I would guess you could discard any legal card to the bear trap and still have to play envy as your first play after the trap, would this requirement carry over to subsequent turns if the bear trap did, I would guess so but am less sure.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Bear Trap/Quagmire as response to Missile Envy

SpaceGhost — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:48:20 +0000

by SpaceGhost

I would say yes, as Missle Envy becomes part of the Soviet Player's hand.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Bear Trap/Quagmire as response to Missile Envy

rievler — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:36:36 +0000

by rievler

Can't find this issue specifically addressed in previous posts. What do the rules lawyers think? Example below uses BT, but in reversing the players the same situation arises with Quagmire.
Situation-US Opponent headlines Missile Envy. I exchange with Bear Trap. ME requires the event of an exchanged card that benefits US player to occur immediately, so now the Soviet player is under BT. BT requires that Sov discards a 2 ops card (and roll 1-4 to break the trap)and Missile Envy which is required for the Soviet player to use next is a 2 ops card.
Question-Can the Soviet discard ME to satisfy the first attempt at breaking the BT?

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:29:52 +0000

by leroy43

Paptimus wrote:
　Don't want to be nitpicky (yet I know I am...), but if USA won 15 out of your 25 games, then it won three fifth of your games, not two third... Which mean they won exactly 60% of the games...

Yes, of course. I was using the ratio as a fraction, which is incorrect.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

JAKitt — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:46:53 +0000

by JAKitt

leroy43 wrote:
The biggest differences we've found are that the inability of the Soviets to play Red Scare while being subject to Red Purge has been a pretty big influence on the game, especially when combined with the inability of the USSR to skip playing a nasty US event by using the China Card.

Yes, RS/P is certainly the main downside to an inactive China card. OTOH, you could argue that it's mostly a wash - in games where the USSR gets Purged they would have been Purged anyway, whereas if the Soviets draw the card themselves they get 4 ops. Not as good as the event, generally, but not far off.

In terms of skipping US events, it's my opinion there are no Early War events so nasty that they need to be skipped except CIA (situationally) and Duck&Cover (at Defcon 2 only). Once you get to the Mid-War it gets trickier.

So I remain tentatively unconvinced. :)
It will be good if we can get some data through the Ladder, but I can understand the reluctance to use unproven balancing methods in a competitive format when we have a pretty well tested alternative. Personally I will be using the 3-bid for standard Ladder games for now but I'd like to get some Quick Rounds in with the CCW to try it out.

leroy43 wrote:
The DEFCON wins happened in small part because of this inability to use the China Card safety valve.

I guess experience will help to avoid such cases. If you're the USSR and draw CIA, consider playing CIA or sparing the ops to activate the China card earlier than you normally might. It's kind of analogous to the US holding a 3-op card to guard against Blockade.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

Paptimus — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:32:51 +0000

by Paptimus

　Don't want to be nitpicky (yet I know I am...), but if USA won 15 out of your 25 games, then it won three fifth of your games, not two third... Which mean they won exactly 60% of the games...

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:44 +0000

by leroy43

JAKitt wrote:
I'm personally surprised that the record is pro-US. Do you have any stats on your games using a US 3-bid?

Only from the ACTS ladder (which I also play on).

On paper, it might seem the CCW doesn't make a big difference, and Bruce Wigdor who runs the ITSL over at wargameroom even made an impassioned plea that it not be adopted for the league with a long list of why all the changes would make no difference for the US.

However, our experience is that the small changes, taken in their totality, have made a significant difference.

The biggest differences we've found are that the inability of the Soviets to play Red Scare while being subject to Red Purge has been a pretty big influence on the game, especially when combined with the inability of the USSR to skip playing a nasty US event by using the China Card.

The DEFCON wins happened in small part because of this inability to use the China Card safety valve.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

JAKitt — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:37:04 +0000

by JAKitt

I'm personally surprised that the record is pro-US. Do you have any stats on your games using a US 3-bid?

As can be seen from the Ladder, a US 3-bid seems to give the most balanced game, and it is still slightly pro-USSR. IMHO I'd expect a bid of 1 plus CCW to be about equivalent. While it looks equivalent in raw influence points, lack of bid leaves the US very vulnerable to Iran coups, T1 Socialist Governments and disables the powerful T1 ME Scoring +4VP Headline. The downside to an inactive China card seems far less pronounced until the Mid-War when the best US cards come into play as it is.

However, I've not played any games with CCW, so this is primarily speculation. It's my personal hope that the optional cards will give the US enough oomph that those plus the CCW will result in a balanced game with no bidding required.

leroy43 wrote:
Riku Riekkinen wrote:
WTF? 2 and 17? I would only expect something like that from a rookie.

You make it sound like DEFCON wins can't ever happen.

Perhaps he was a little blunt, but all the early war Defcon wins ought to be avoidable. I have to agree, for players of your experience I would not expect Turn 1 Defcon wins.

The only trap I can think of is that the USSR player had CIA and the US player activated Fidel and FYP'ed a non-CIA card when he had insufficient ops and.or AR's to activate the China card before playing CIA...... is this what happened? A highly unlikely situation for it to happen twice, in any case.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:15:09 +0000

by leroy43

Riku Riekkinen wrote:
WTF? 2 and 17? I would only expect something like that from a rookie.

You make it sound like DEFCON wins can't ever happen.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

dgeverett — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:46:32 +0000

by dgeverett

If you throw out those two extreme results, then the record is only 13-10 in favor of US. Seems pretty even to me.

-Donald

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Sessions:: Re: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

Riku Riekkinen — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:27:02 +0000

by Riku Riekkinen

WTF? 2 and 17? I would only expect something like that from a rookie.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Strategy:: Re: US Strategy fail

Riku Riekkinen — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:59:01 +0000

by Riku Riekkinen

Well, you still seem to concentrate on non-BG countries.

I have a "computer" program for you:

1: Coup a (lowest stability) BG if you can
2: Coup 1 stability country that is is next to an uncontrolled BG
3: Place IPs in BG if you can (not in Israel, before Camp David)
4: Place 1IPs in a country next to an uncontrolled BG country. You should place next to as many as you can simultaneously.

Session: Twilight Struggle:: 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant in play

leroy43 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:15:20 +0000

by leroy43

Jonathan and I eagerly awaited C3i #21 because of the Chinese Civil War variant, and we've now played 25 games using it.

Some statistical information up front:

In the 25 games, the Soviets are 10-15. That's right, the US is winning two thirds of the time, or 66.7% of the time.

The China Card has only appeared 12 times, but the Soviets are 7-5 in those games, a 58.3% win rate.

The China Card has never appeared in the Late War. If it's come out, it's been Early or Mid War, and more often Mid.

In the 25 games, 5 ended in the Early War, 3 in the Mid War, and a 17 in the Late War.

In the 25 games, 12 were won on VP during the course of play, 10 after final scoring, 3 by DEFCON, and 1 with the Wargames card.

Of the 10 Soviet victories, 4 were end game scoring. The other 6 were all VP, evenly split in the early, mid, and late wars. Of the seven wins with the China Card in play, 4 were end game scoring, 2 were Late War, and 1 was Early War.

Here then, a brief synopsis of 25 games with the Chinese Civil War variant.

1. A Soviet win in turn 5 on VP - USSR20. No China Card.

2. A US win on turn 1 on DEFCON. No China Card.

3. A massive US win, with the final score USA-45 after final scoring. The US controlled Africa, South and Central America, and dominated Europe and Asia. The Soviets dominated the Middle East. No China Card

4. The US won on turn 4 on DEFCON. A headline of Missile Envy by the Soviets was preceded by a US Junta. The Junta's coup made the DEFCON 2, and then the US played "We Will Bury You" for the Missile Envy. No China Card.

5. The US wins on final scoring with a final score of USA-19. No China Card.

6. The Soviet steamroller wins on turn 3 with 20VP thanks to very fortuitous scoring card timing - a double dose of Middle East scoring (turn 2 and in the headline) and Asia scoring to cap it. No China card.

7. The Soviets win (USSR-21) in turn 6 after Asia scoring seals the deal. No China card.

8. Soviets win on turn 8 (USSR-20) with domination in all regions except Central America and the Middle East. China Card in play.

9. The US wins on end of game scoring (USA-15). The US had control of South and Central America, domination in Africa and Asia, and had used Chernobyl to save themselves from losing control in Europe. China Card in play.

10. The US wins on turn 8 on VP (USA-21). US dominated Asia for much of the game. China Card in play.

11. The US wins on turn 9 on VP (USA-20). The Soviets had control of Europe at one point, but the control was broken at the end of turn 8. China Card in play.

12. The USSR has a massive win on final scoring (USSR-28), with control of South America and the Middle East, and domination of Africa and Central America. Europe and Asia had mutual presence. China Card in play.

13. The US wins at the end of the game after getting control of Europe in turn 10. This was the first game for either of us where the win was from European control. China Card in play.

14. The USSR wins at the end of the game on VP (USSR-9). The US had domination of Europe and Asia, but the USSR dominated the Middle East and Africa. China Card in play.

15. The US wins a tight game on final scoring (USA-5). Another turn and the Soviets likely would have won. No China Card.

16. Another very close US victory (USA-5) on final scoring. China Card in play.

17. A DEFCON win by the Americans on the opening turn. No China Card.

18. A Soviet win on final scoring (USSR-8). China Card in play.

19. The Americans used War Games to win on turn 8, as the board was going increasingly red. No China Card.

20. The Soviets get off to a quick win on turn 5 on VP (USSR-21). China Card in play.

21. The Soviets used Mr. Ames to arrange Asia Scoring early into the US mix, giving them the win on VP (USSR-20). China Card in play.

22. The Americans win on turn 3 because the scoring cards came out that way. USA-20. No China Card.

23. The Americans win on VP, the final points coming off an Arms Race. USA-20. The USSR dominated the Middle East and Europe and controlled Africa, while the US dominated Asia. No China Card.

24. The Americans win on turn 8 on VP (USA-24), with domination of Asia, Africa, and South America. No China Card.

25. The Soviets win on final scoring (USR-8) with control of South America and the Middle East, and domination of Africa. The Americans dominated Asia, Europe, and Central America. China Card in play.

Comments & Observations: The Soviets do quite well with the China Card in play with a 7-5 record, but show a woeful 3-10 record without it.

I think the variant is an excellent one, but I am beginning to think a tweak to the variant where the China Card would come into play automatically at some point would serve the purpose of making the record more even between the US and the USSR without pushing things too far the American way.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Are you playing with "safe" realignment rolls or vanilla?

leroy43 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:29 +0000

by leroy43

Anwar wrote:
It basically make realignment rolls too "aggressive" for my taste, because you will usually only use them where you have no influence to lose - that's not very historic though.

I suggest you haven't played enough. :D

Kidding aside, my primary opponent and I didn't really appreciate the power of realignments until probably past our 40th game. We use them even when we have influence to lose - no risk no reward as they say.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Are you playing with "safe" realignment rolls or vanilla?

Anwar — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:47:09 +0000

by Anwar

Thanks for the feedback, Ben!

Obviously a huge majority of voters shares your opinion. I'm quite surprised - though maybe it's just lack of experience with the game on my part. Realignment rolls weren't all the rage in my two games, even though we did play with the "safe" variant.

To elaborate why I think the safe variant is better: A +2 realignment roll is usually the best you can do (yeah, I know you could have +3 or even +4 but those are exotic circumstances). That's still quite a risk of losing influence if you get unlucky - and if you lose influence you can't just repeat the roll, your influence is gone, no matter what.

It basically make realignment rolls too "aggressive" for my taste, because you will usually only use them where you have no influence to lose - that's not very historic though.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Re: Are you playing with "safe" realignment rolls or vanilla?

delp1871 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:09:19 +0000

by delp1871

I think a "safe" realignment variant is too safe an option. If you’re attempting realignment, you’ve already got a serious presence in the region. Even if it does swing the other way, you’re probably not in much danger anyway. Besides, there’s got to be at least some risk involved for an action that’s only costing you 1 op and that you are more than likely doing more than once in your action round. If you don’t like the result, just spend another op and try again.

Edit:
To elaborate, the risk in a coup is that you’re spending (and therefore possibly wasting) a 3-4 ops card. Realignment rolls are only 1 op, and more than likely you’re getting more than 1 of them on your action round. There’s got to be some risk.

Thread: Twilight Struggle:: Rules:: Are you playing with "safe" realignment rolls or vanilla?

Anwar — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:57:22 +0000

by Anwar

Hi,

just finished my second game of TS and I love it. One thing that bugs me though are the standard rules for realignment rolls - where the phasing player can actually lose influence. I like the suggested "safe" variant much better. Anyone with me?[poll=33443]

New Image for Twilight Struggle

JasonMatthews — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:12:13 +0000

by JasonMatthews

]]>

Custom Designed Twilight Struggle Dice Tower -- Right "Soviet" side

New Image for Twilight Struggle

JasonMatthews — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:59:05 +0000

by JasonMatthews

]]>

Custom Designed Twilight Struggle Dice Tower -- VixenTor games. Note the clever storage design elements

New Image for Twilight Struggle

JasonMatthews — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:56:10 +0000

by JasonMatthews

]]>

Custom Designed Twilight Struggle Dice Tower -- Left, "US" side.

New Image for Twilight Struggle

JasonMatthews — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:56:06 +0000

by JasonMatthews

]]>

Custom Designed Twilight Struggle Dice Tower -- Top Down at a distance

New Image for Twilight Struggle

JasonMatthews — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:55:45 +0000

by JasonMatthews

]]>

Custom Designed Twilight Struggle Dice Tower -- Frontal View with Top

New Image for Twilight Struggle

JasonMatthews — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:54:36 +0000

by JasonMatthews

]]>

Custom Designed Twilight Struggle Dice Tower -- Frontal View

New Image for Twilight Struggle

JasonMatthews — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:50:22 +0000

by JasonMatthews

]]>

Custom Designed Twilight Struggle Dice Tower -- Top Down

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

elfrododumbo — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:06:26 +0000

by elfrododumbo

I posted that it is from Atlanta before your post.

No matter, the game is due out in November, has been paid and I will get it. That is all that matters. :)

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

dirubin — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:54:09 +0000

by dirubin

elfrododumbo wrote:

I really am bemused because I pre-ordered the new edition a few weeks ago and received the e-mail from RSOLOW@COMCAST.NET today asking for payment. I paid immeditely.

Just sent an e-mail asking for explanation. It may well be that they only just started asking for payments....seems odd, though !

Not an GMT address, so your pre-order was not a direct one. Following a few searches makes it look as though you might have pre-ordered from CLS Games in Atlanta.

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

jackalope — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:46:57 +0000

by jackalope

grouchysmurf wrote:

You mean the new edition which is due to be published on November? I believe noone has played it yet.

I hope that Jason Matthew's has played it :p

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

elfrododumbo — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:39:28 +0000

by elfrododumbo

I was sure I pre-ordered direct from GMT, but no matter.

Something to gift wrap for Christmas ? Doubt it though . Probably be playing it the same week it arrives. :D

Regards

Reply: Twilight Struggle:: General:: Re: TWILIGHT STRUGGLE (New Edition)

YosT — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:34:15 +0000

by YosT

Good to know. GMT will probably start charging soon too.