Twilight Struggle » Rules » Official Errata from the Designers

Author: JasonMatthews
Map:

1) "Chili" -- The nation of Chili is more commonly known as Chile; we apologize profusely to that beautiful country and traditional US regional ally.

2) Saudi Arabia -- Its stability number should be highlighted in red. It is a battleground country.

3) People's Republic of China -- That's "Republic" not "Replublic" which is some new, scary form of government.

Cards:

1) Defectors (card #103) -- This is not an asterisked event. It should NOT be removed after play as indicated at the bottom of the card.

2) Marshall Plan (card #23) -- Title should be underlined as this card has the lasting game affect of allowing play of NATO.

3) Scoring Summary (card #104)-- The description of "Domination" of a region is incomplete. You are required to have more countries AND MORE BATTLEGROUND COUNTRIES to dominate a region. See rule 10.1 for further elaboration.

4) Cuban Missile Crisis (card #40) -- It is underlined. It should not be. The card does not have effects that carry beyond the current turn. Additionally, the last line of the card "Germany" refers to "West Germany."

Rules: Important Please Note

1) 3.3 Game Setup

Rule 3.3 should read "The U.S. player sets up second, placing a total of 23 Influence markers in the following locations . . . 4 in Australia.

2) [Copy of Player Aid Card] SETUP -- Fourth bullet should read 23 US Influence markers . . . 4 in Australia


Example of Play:

1)Turn 3 Headline Phase -- Korean War is played, but we did not adjust the DEFCON Status. We had hoped to correct the Example of Play, but the correction did not make it to the printers in time. So, the rest of the example is off somewhat, as the DEFCON level should have been 1 lower, prohibiting several actions that occurred subsequently.

2) Turn 4 USSR 4 -- Central American scoring. The example incorrectly states that the US had Presence in Central America. The US player only had 1 Influence Point in Panama. He needed 2 Influence Points to control Panama. Therefore the total victory points is off by 1, it should be USSR 11 here, and increased by one subsequently.

Player Aid Card (front)

1) SETUP -- Fourth bullet should read 23 US Influence markers . . . 4 in Australia

Player Aid Card (back)

1) Card List -- Card #17 "De Gaulee" is misspelled. It should be "De Gaulle." No, this was not a subtle jibe at our French allies.
Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:05 am
Author: taragalinas
JasonMatthews wrote:
Map:

1) "Chili" -- The nation of Chili is more commonly known as Chile; we apologize profusely to that beautiful country and traditional US regional ally.


...it's the land of very hot food.

Looking forward to the game, thanks for the update!
Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:02 pm
Author: AllenDoum
Thanks for posting, and maintaining, this here. You might consider a link to whereever the current list is posted. Assuming you have a place to link to to, of course.

I will check back here as soon as I get my copy, which doesn't look like it will be this week. cry

Note avatar. Is this on the production mapsheet?
Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:13 am
Author: JasonMatthews
AllenDoum wrote:

Note avatar. Is this on the production mapsheet?


Allen, leaving Reagan off the final map would be like designing a Cold War game without America. Rest assured he's there. And both Ananda and I appreciate the roundabout publicity

Sat Dec 31, 2005 4:02 am
Author: starshaman
I have a rules question, or perhaps a rules clarification.

If I play an opponent's event card to get Operation points, the opponent gets the event anyway and the event comes to pass. Does this mean that for the purpose of the event, my opponent is the phasing player?

What happened was this: I was playing a game as the US and a friend was USSR. Defcon had gone down to 2. I played Korean War for op points which meant he, as USSR, got the event and thus starts the Korean War. But the event states that the Defcon is lowered one level, which resulted in nuclear war. I said that he lost the game because since it was his event, he became the phasing player, and the phasing player who causes a nuclear war loses the game. The card is clear that the USSR causes the Korean War.

I also based my reasoning on the fact that in the rules it says that if I play a Headline Card that is my opponent's event, he becomes for the purposes of that event the phasing player. I figured the same would be true for Action Events.

Of course, he denied this and said that I lost since I was the one who played the card in the first place, thereby causing nuclear war.

So, allowing that with nuclear war everyone loses (!), as a rules question, who won the game, my friend or me? Which one of us actually caused Defcon to move from 2 to 1, the one who played the card or the one whose event was triggered by the card?
Sun Jan 1, 2006 10:39 pm
Author: crazyyog
To quote Jason Matthews and Michael Harvath from the Twilight Struggle thread over at Consimworld:

"Fault, blame and other esoterica


Michael wrote:

Kevin, if it makes it easier to understand why the American still loses, think of it this way. During the phase of the game where the American player plays his action card, he is always the phasing player. The Russian player may react during this phase to the card the American plays if the card allows/requires it, or the Russian player may get to play the event himself if it is a Russian event card; but as all these things are still considered to happen during the American plays an action card phase, the American is still the phasing player. Thus if the American plays any card that ultimately results in a nuclear war, even if the war is caused by the Russian reaction or the Russian using the event on the card to set off the war, the American, as the phasing player, still loses.

Michael has it exactly. As mentioned about a hundred posts ago, we used the Olympic example because it was one of the most counter-intiutive applications of the rule. However, consider if we had applied the rule the other way given cards like Korean War. If DEFCON was at 2, and the US player played this card for Operations Points, the Soviets would get the event. But guess what, the event drops the DEFCON 1 level. If the phasing player did not lose, regardless of the card, you could force players into nuclear war without their having any control over the situation. So in the Olympics, like the Korean War, the US player is ultimately in the driver's seat. Perhaps not always totally equitable, but certainly clean.

Jason"
Sun Jan 1, 2006 11:06 pm
Author: texasjdl
According to everything I've read on ConSimWorld, you lost. The phasing player is whoever played the card that caused nuclear war, regardless of the behavior of the opposing player. That you allowed the other player to take advantage of the card made you lose. This is a situation where you'd like to burn the card in the space race, or hold it over.

There is quite a bit of TS discussion over at consimworld.com. It's not the easiest site to navigate, but click on Forum -> Boardgaming -> Individual Game or Series Discussion -> Era:Contemporary and then TS should be in the list.
Sun Jan 1, 2006 11:15 pm
Author: AllenDoum
This has been confirmed bby Jason on CSW. The wording of the Headline phase does not apply to regular card play, and may yet be clarified for the Healine phase itself.

If you play the card. You are to blame for ending the game, and lose.
Mon Jan 2, 2006 12:47 am
Author: bkindt
Thanks for the post. I just ordered the game!

Ben
Mon Jan 2, 2006 1:01 am
Author: starshaman
Thanks for the help, everyone, and for directing me to CSW.

David
Mon Jan 2, 2006 6:37 pm
Author: dirubin
>1) Card List -- Card #17 "De Gaulee" is misspelled. It should be "De Gaul." No, this was not a subtle jibe at our French allies.


"De Gaul" may be an improvement over "De Gaulee", but would not "De Gaulle" be even better?
Fri Jan 6, 2006 5:30 am
Author: JasonMatthews
dirubin wrote:
>1) Card List -- Card #17 "De Gaulee" is misspelled. It should be "De Gaul." No, this was not a subtle jibe at our French allies.


"De Gaul" may be an improvement over "De Gaulee", but would not "De Gaulle" be even better?


Curses, caught insulting France again!
Fri Jan 6, 2006 6:23 am
Author: otrex
Is it just me, or is this amount of errata a bit high for a game of this type? It's still appreciated that the designers would post the information here on BGG, of course.

Any chance of getting replacement cards from GMT that have the correct underlines, asterisks etc? I don't mean a replacement deck, but rather just the 4 cards? I have a hard time convincing myself that drawing on my cards would be a good idea.
Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:08 pm
Author: Rulemonger
Doesn't seem too high.

Plus, only the asterisk on Defectors and the 1-to-4 start on Australia really matter -- the underlining you can derive from card text.

Not enough to warrant printing replacement cards, IMO. (But hope they fix it in the second printing.)
Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:05 am
Author: chemist
I agree, a few plays and the changes will be second nature and not a big deal. Heh, name a Warfrog title that doesn;t have an error . . . not so easy. The only one I can think of is Byzantium, but I haven;t played it enough to notice.
Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:16 am
Author: Tom Kassel
chemist wrote:
I agree, a few plays and the changes will be second nature and not a big deal. Heh, name a Warfrog title that doesn;t have an error . . . not so easy. The only one I can think of is Byzantium, but I haven;t played it enough to notice.


The rules say that the game ends when Constantinople is attacked. I believe that should read "attacked successfully".
Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:05 pm
Author: AllenDoum
First, Constantinople is not a space in Twilight Struggle.

The asterisks on all of the cards are correct. Defectors should not say it is removed, however, because it does not have an asterisk.

Underlines are a different issue. The cards with underlines are those cards that either do or might have effects lasting beyond the current turn. It is best to read the card when the event is played to see if it has any lingering effects, underline or not.

In play, I have just lined up those cards with continuing effects by the side of the board, until the effect ends or is canceled.
Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:06 am
Author: usa_patriot
Once again GMT pushes another half-baked game out the door. Chock full of eratta and play-balance issues which will take several 'living rules' versions to make playable. You would expect higher quality products from the mainstream game publishers. Sadly, the end-user (i.e. the buyer) is one of the final playtesters. Nobody produces an error free game, but GMT's track-record recently has left me with the feeling that deadlines are more important than playtesting and quality control.
Mark
Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:37 am
Author: AllenDoum
Mark -

Have you played, or seen, the game, or are you just trolling?

The play balance questions that have arisen so far seem to be due to a combination of rules errors made by the players (when the rules were there), and the fact that it is easier for new players to play the USSR. Some of the same players that were declaring the game broken after their first games are now backing down from that position.

The initial balance perception is caused, IMO, by the fact that this is the first two-player, asymetric, game on this subject. Previous games have been multiplayer and have started players with equal, not historical, resources.

The eratta bothers me, in part because there will be reactions such as yours, and in part because "Replublic" is just an embaressment. But the game is a blast to play if you get beyond that. (Based on two playings. There were at least 6 games going just on Saturday at Conquest LA, more than the playings of most of the scheduled tournaments, and the GMT booth sold out of the copies they brought.)

While wargame companies, such as GMT, have a more relaxed attitude about eratta, at least they provide it on-line and in a timely manner. And this game ROCKS, already.
Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:14 am
Author: abimilech
First let me preface my remarks with a few positives:

1) Nobody puts out the quality OR quantity of games that GMT does. NOBODY! They may not be Euros in terms of pieces or boards, but they are great games.

2) NOBODY is as quick to post errata, correction, or clarifications on the internet. Every GMT game has a forum on consimworld with a designer or a producer who actively responds to rules questions. NOBODY offers the type of internet presence that GMT offers.


With that said, I have to agree that GMT needs to slow production slightly in order to catch some of these glitches BEFORE they go out the door. So many great games are being delivered with required errata that occurs almost instantly.

I think rules errors are permissable and understandable. Players today seem to want to "break" the game by finding a loophole. This comes from the CCG end where multiple card combinations tend to make this fairly easy.

I have problem with errors in the initial setup, though. This is not a basic problem hidden deep within rule umpteen thirty-two, but is right there in front of the player from the beginning of the game.

In days past, the issue of computer games with bugs was brought to the attention of the editor at Computer Gaming World magazine. He pointed out that some of the so-called bugs were in fact conflicts with various forms of hardware. With all of the different configurations, some games just plain crashed. They weren't bugs because they only crashed on some systems. No computer game designer should be required to write code that will work on every single configuration. This has improved since those days, with the addition of a system requirement tags on most game boxes, and X-Box and PlayStations don't have the problems found in the earlier days of gaming.

GMT doesn't have to deal with multiple configurations, faulty hard-drives, etc. They need to write and publish correct rules. This is going to require some more serious playtesting, rules reading, etc. than we have seen in the past.

I also want to point out that not everybody has internet access. I read recently that only about 40% of Americans have internet access at home, with another 20-25% having access at work. Not sure how up to date those numbers are, but I know some gamers who don't use the internet. A game should be able to stand as published and should not require the use of the internet. The internet is cool and useful, but should not become a crutch.

I appreciate the time and effort GMT takes to design these games. It is my opinion that even with the errors- Twilight Struggle is a great game. In fact, it ROCKS, as Allen said.


David "the preacher" Wilson

Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:09 pm
Author: JasonMatthews
abimilech wrote:
First let me preface my remarks with a few positives:

GMT doesn't have to deal with multiple configurations, faulty hard-drives, etc. They need to write and publish correct rules. This is going to require some more serious playtesting, rules reading, etc. than we have seen in the past.

I also want to point out that not everybody has internet access. I read recently that only about 40% of Americans have internet access at home, with another 20-25% having access at work. Not sure how up to date those numbers are, but I know some gamers who don't use the internet. A game should be able to stand as published and should not require the use of the internet. The internet is cool and useful, but should not become a crutch.

I appreciate the time and effort GMT takes to design these games. It is my opinion that even with the errors- Twilight Struggle is a great game. In fact, it ROCKS, as Allen said.


David "the preacher" Wilson



David, I wanted to thank you and Allen for your posts regarding the game. In responding to the earlier post, and some of what you are saying, I want to add a little bit of a reality check on errata and problems with game design. First, as someone in this hobby for a long time, I am not sure I can remember an Avalon Hill game WITHOUT errata. The big difference was of course, most of us never got the errata. We had to mail in a self-addressed stamped evenlope, (or subscribe to the General) and that was only if you had miraculously become aware that there WAS errata. Being lazy slugs, we didn't. We just accepted that we would have to resolve many ambiguities ourselves.

Secondly, (and this is not an excuse, just a reason for the way things are) almost no one works in this hobby as a full-time occupation. That goes for the folks at GMT as well. This is a hobby run by and for hobbyists. Yes, games are not cheap. So, maybe there is a gap between expectations, and what a company of volunteers can produce. Regrettably, this is an outgrowth of the declining number of wargamers, and the shrinking print runs. However, I can personally attest, if game designers (and probably everyone else involved) were compensated at rates equal to time and input, wargames would be totally unaffordable. Because games are largely a labor of love, rather than economic interest, you can still find people willing to design and playtest, and generally keep the hobby alive.

Finally, there is the related reality that GMT (and I am guessing most of the others are virutal companies). They may have an office somewhere, but that is meaningless in terms of game production. I live in DC, Mark Simonitch is somewhere else, the Company is in California, Andy is in Delaware etc. etc. That means, that although the production of a game is a collaborative effort, we are not all in the same room double and triple checking everything to catch errors. I wish we were, but we are not. Obviously, there are software solutions to project managment that have been adopted by corporations to address this same problem, but then we go back to the fact that we are all essentially freelancers. There is no guarantee about what kind of hardware or software we will bring to the table. Were it not for pdf's things would be even harder.

None of this is an excuse. I wish there were not map errors; I wish that we had caught the problem with Australia. As the designer, I wish it more than anyone. So, I am speaking as a consumer -- I've been doing that a lot longer than I have been designing games. We have to understand that we are dealing with a niche hobby, and we have to realize that poses certain limitations on what can be accomplished. Secondly, the errata free era is mythological. It was the derth of instant communications that kept us in errata-free bliss.

Jason
Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:35 pm
Author: abimilech
Jason,

I think an errata free game is going to be a very, very, rare animal in the future. The complaint offered by another in this forum is the amount of errata in GMT products that appears immediately following publication seems to be growing and the complaint went on to suggest that the consumers are becoming final playtesters.

While I would NEVER state it as strongly as the original complainer/poster-- I will say that it does seem that the problem is getting WORSE instead of better.

One would think that the virtual office that you mention would help. Files can be quickly rewritten, corrected, saved, prior to publication. I understand that the difficulty of communication via email, phone, etc. rather than face to face can cause problems.

Twilight Struggle is QUITE playable, even with the Australia setup mistake. I haven't played a game in years that didn't leave me wanting to immediately go to the computer and email somebody.

I also understand that there are virtually NO game designers who work solely at designing games. (Outside of possibly Richard Garfield at WOTC or David Williams at Alderac Entertainment)... Each game is a labor of love. Having a bestselling game is not the same as having a bestselling novel.

I think the problem is that the final production gets these products RUSHED out the doora tad too early, pushing the limits of the designers, producers, etc. The P500 may make this happen.

Nobody is looking for errata to disappear. However, I agree with the original poster (despite the hoops GMT jumps through to get the answers, clarifications, and corrections to us) that more care needs to be taken at some step in production to reduce these errors. Failure to minimize future errors can only cause the public to delay purchase of a game until the errata has been published, which would be the definition for some folks of the completion of the game.

Twilight Struggle is a great game. I don't want my remarks to diminish that in any way.

David "the preacher" Wilson
Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:26 pm
Author: Rednax
JasonMatthews wrote:
Map:

1) "Chili" -- The nation of Chili is more commonly known as Chile; we apologize profusely to that beautiful country and traditional US regional ally.

2) Saudi Arabia -- Its stability number should be highlighted in red. It is a battleground country.

3) People's Republic of China -- That's "Republic" not "Replublic" which is some new, scary form of government.



Hi,

what about a pdf-File where these errors are fixed so that you can print out and glue the corrected sections to the board?
Regards
Alex
Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:01 pm
Author: abimilech
Rednax wrote:
JasonMatthews wrote:
Map:

1) "Chili" -- The nation of Chili is more commonly known as Chile; we apologize profusely to that beautiful country and traditional US regional ally.

2) Saudi Arabia -- Its stability number should be highlighted in red. It is a battleground country.

3) People's Republic of China -- That's "Republic" not "Replublic" which is some new, scary form of government.



Hi,

what about a pdf-File where these errors are fixed so that you can print out and glue the corrected sections to the board?
Regards
Alex


If those silly spelling errors are so annoying-- Go to the local Office Supply Store and purchase a Sharpie permanent marker. Make corrections as desired.


David "the preacher" Wilson
Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:54 am
Author: Philip Thomas
The Scoring Summary card omits a clause from 'Domination'.
The clause is the one saying you need more battleground countries than your opponent.
Sun Feb 5, 2006 9:07 am
Author: Rednax
abimilech wrote:


If those silly spelling errors are so annoying-- Go to the local Office Supply Store and purchase a Sharpie permanent marker. Make corrections as desired.


Silly or not, maybe there are some people out there who don't fancy the idea of scribbling around on the board. Besides that how would you correct the spelling errors? Cross out the erroneous name and write the correct name above? Very neat looking indeed.
I personally have no problems with the errors but I think that would be a nice thing to have and it should not be a big deal to do these corrections since they have the artwork and such.
Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:28 pm
Author: wargamer66
Im guessing the designers had a reason, but why isn't Vietnam a battleground country? The designer notes state that superpower battlegrounds (Korea) are battleground countries, which Vietnam was not, of course. It just surprised me a bit to see Thailand a battleground country and not Vietnam
Tue Feb 7, 2006 4:45 am
Author: AllenDoum
Just because it isn't a battleground doesn't mean that you won't have to fight there.

In the case of Vietnam, There is the Vietnam Revolts event, which may give the USSR an entry into an area of the map that he doesn't start with access to. Since it is a Stability 1 Country, Decolonization can also mean control there.

As for the long term effects, that is what the Quagmire event is all about.

And thanks to the way influence spreads, and realignment works, the Domino Theory is alive and well in Twilight Struggle.
Tue Feb 7, 2006 6:30 am
Author: abimilech
Cuban Missile Crisis-

Official Errata added--

Cuban Missile Crisis (card #40) -- Should not be underlined. The card does not have effects that carry beyond the current turn. Add the word “West” before Germany in the card’s text. The text refers only to West Germany.


BRUSH WAR-

Errata being considered at this time:

5) Brush War (card # 36) Text should read “Attack any country with a stability of 1 or 2. Roll a die and subtract one for every adjacent opponent-controlled country ..."

NOT YET OFFICIAL


David "the preacher" Wilson

"Duh, gee, Tennesee, What are we gonna do now?" A Walrus speaking to a penguin. Seconds later, the penguin replied, "We'll go and see Mr. Whoopie" which sounds sort of like the name of a gay club, doesn't it?
Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:58 pm
Author: abimilech
Brush War will not be receiving errata, but the FAQ will describe its function as a -1 die modifier for each adjacent opponent controlled country.

The major concern over this card is its use in Italy. This can be countered by controlling France, Greece, Spain, ETC. making it more difficult for another player to eliminate your influence there.

A new FAQ will be published via consimworld AND here, as soon as Jason approves it.


David "the preacher" Wilson
Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:35 pm
Author: Philip Thomas
Controlling Spain or Greece just transfers the Brush War to those countries, admittedly better for US than taking Italy..Yugoslavia and Austria are good bets here. France is dicey until De Gaulle and Suez Crisis have happened...

Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:44 pm
Author: abimilech
Phillip,

either I misread your response re: my comments about Brush War or you misunderstood.



If the US controls SPAIN and GREECE, then a brush war hitting Italy is a -2 die roll. Should he manage to control France as well , it is a -3 and CANNOT succeed. It is a -1 die roll for EACH ADJACENT CONTROLLED COUNTRY..

Therefore, US must create protective flanks around Italy, if the US player is concerned about a possible Brush War hitting Italy.


David "the preacher" Wilson
Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:57 pm
Author: stephenhope
I think Philip is just making the point that the opponent will target one of those countries instead of Italy.

I don't really agree as those two are much less attractive targets, but I think that's the point...
Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:27 pm
Author: Philip Thomas
Yeah, that was my point. Not a good point, really. Just a point, which would be fixed by the proposed cover of it by NATO.

Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:14 pm
Author: chicagometh
Well, I was going to buy this game until I read this post. So, I can either pay $50 for a paper and cardboard game which has errors in the cards, on the board, and in the rules, or I can buy the new game from HiG, which includes twice as many cards, plenty of wooden pieces, a sturdy board, and rules without errors for $27. I'm sure once you play this game, it is a good one, but I demand more from a purchase. I'm surprised more wargamers don't as well. You can give me all the excuses in the world as a player or as a developer about print runs or whatever (This is P500, right? So this has had time to correct errors before printing). And it is not like this game is ASL or something. From what I have heard, this a card-driven war game that would appeal to Euro players. How hard is it to spell Chile (accent or no accent)? Was the board drawn in crayon too? I think wargame companies would have a huge backing from people who play Euro games, as I can say that about 60% that I have talked to would like 2-4 hour wargames. We've been introduced to Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex, which are great games but have the same gripes. So I'm not talking about just GMT here. But look at the sales of Memoir '44 and Conquest of the Empire, albeit not simulations, but within the same ballpark. We just don't buy these cardboard counter games because it is not a wise decision, and is not worth our money. Any wargame company that can get this through their head stands to actually make money. Just because there is a market for $500 automobiles that don't run very well, doesn't mean this would be your only customers. Call me when you release an error-free second (or sixth) edition. There are alot of others out there who will be waiting with me. Let the flames begin.
Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:54 pm
Author: Philip Thomas
This is most definitely a card-driven (war)game that would appeal to Euro players. It appeals to me, after all. The errata are readily available and mostly trivial. Your decision whether to buy or not, but I recommend this game!meeple
Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:23 pm
Author: stephenhope
OK, I'll start...

Go play Star Wars Monopoly, Travis. I hear the pieces are great!



Edit: Argh, Philip beat me to it. But at least mine is fiestier!
Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:24 pm
Author: chicagometh
Or maybe I will go play Through the Desert and Tikal, which together cost the same price and give me value in both repeated gameplay and production. Your post makes about as much sense as the "I know you are but what am I" defense.
Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:45 pm
Author: stephenhope
Well, my response was meant to be lighthearted. I hope that came through, and I'm surprised if it didn't.

If you want a real answer...

I think it's rude to insinuate that the designers/producers/etc. of this product are somehow to be sneered at because there were typos on the map ("drawn in crayon?"). The economics of making a game like Twilight Struggle have been discussed here and elsewhere at great length (short version: they suck), and if the designers didn't catch every last flaw in the production process I can't really blame them. They wanted to create a GAME that people would love to play, not spend a ton of time proofreading and defending against production gremlins--which I'm sure they did anyway for unpaid hours! I think they've succeeded in creating that game.

The economics of the industry don't support producing a game like TS to a production standard like that for War of the Ring (to pick a game I also like with a much higher product quality and lower price), which has probably sold 5-10 times as many copies (just guessing, I have no idea). If wooden pieces are that important to you, maybe these games aren't for you. Go play Tikal, and I don't mean that to slight Tikal.

You're not telling anyone anything they don't know, Travis. It's just that the math doesn't work.
Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:45 pm
Author: abimilech
chicagometh wrote:
Well, I was going to buy this game until I read this post. So, I can either pay $50 for a paper and cardboard game which has errors in the cards, on the board, and in the rules, or I can buy the new game from HiG, which includes twice as many cards, plenty of wooden pieces, a sturdy board, and rules without errors for $27. I'm sure once you play this game, it is a good one, but I demand more from a purchase. I'm surprised more wargamers don't as well. You can give me all the excuses in the world as a player or as a developer about print runs or whatever (This is P500, right? So this has had time to correct errors before printing). And it is not like this game is ASL or something. From what I have heard, this a card-driven war game that would appeal to Euro players. How hard is it to spell Chile (accent or no accent)? Was the board drawn in crayon too? I think wargame companies would have a huge backing from people who play Euro games, as I can say that about 60% that I have talked to would like 2-4 hour wargames. We've been introduced to Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex, which are great games but have the same gripes. So I'm not talking about just GMT here. But look at the sales of Memoir '44 and Conquest of the Empire, albeit not simulations, but within the same ballpark. We just don't buy these cardboard counter games because it is not a wise decision, and is not worth our money. Any wargame company that can get this through their head stands to actually make money. Just because there is a market for $500 automobiles that don't run very well, doesn't mean this would be your only customers. Call me when you release an error-free second (or sixth) edition. There are alot of others out there who will be waiting with me. Let the flames begin.



So Euros are error free? What sort of elitist attitude is that? And why did you troll in here just looking to start a flame war?

I think it is quite amazing that you would condemn a game without playing it? Sort of a judgmental attitude. I didn't much care for the spelling errors either. But, you've missed out on one of the greatest games ever made because of your attitude. We aren't missing you.. you are missing the game.

David "the preacher" Wilson
Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:34 am
Author: Troymk1
The value for money in a game is not in the components, its in the design and playability.

I can grab Monopoly for very little, but no matter how gorgeous the map and pieces I will hardly enjoy them.

Twilight (now after a few plays) looks like it will be a mainstay 2 player game for myself and my friends for many years to come. Compare that with say going to a movie for 2-3 hours at X dollars/euros and you soon work out that a well played game pays itself off relatively quickly.

The pricepoint of a game that expects to sell under 5000 units will be quite different to one that expects to sell in the tens of thousands. Anyone unaware of this fact probably should review their schooling system.

As a Corollary a game that expects to sell in the tens of thousands of units (and if a hit in the hundreds of thousands...thats how big the European market is for these) can afford a bigger initial production cost on chrome (components and map). The cost of these for such a producer is offset by ordering in quantity and having contractors that have made such components before and therefore not having to pay onset costs every single time you want something made!

I shake my head at the diatribe by Travis and I am consoled by the fact he won't get to play it!

yours crankily,

Troy

PS My 2nd cranky post on this game forum. I might be typecast as the grumpygeek soon
Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:46 am
Author: chicagometh
Why does everybody bring up Monopoly? I think this has become standard gamer defense against critique from Joe Schmoe. But I am a gamer just like you and haven't played Monopoly since I was a kid. Step back, take a look at your attachments and think for a second, instead of spitting out a third grade response to a serious issue.

What I am saying is that I am attempting to answer the chicken and the egg question of which comes first: the poor components or the poor sales. I say it's the poor components because I refuse to pay alot for something and get very little in return. If the components were better (not just pieces, but at least proofreading), many people who play predominantly Euros would switch over quite a bit and buy games like this. But they aren't going to start on a game that goes for twice as much as many other great games, has blatant typos, and offers very little in the way of durability.

Or are you saying games like this don't sell well because of their theme which only appeals to wargamers? Most Euros are very light on theme. Who gives a crap about creating kingdoms in Mesopotamia? I care very little, but a game like Tigris and Euphrates seems to sell well with great components at a decent price for what you receive. And again, we are not talking about a wargame with a 50 page rule book trying to obtain a simulation feel. I expect a game as detailed as that to have some issues and develop over time (I would expect them to spell the countries of the world correctly, but whatever).

Also, I don't think making a game like this is any more tortuous than the production of a medium to heavyweight Euro game, which goes through years of development and playtesting, or sometimes multiple print runs (look at Britannia by Fantasy Flight...components weren't up to snuff, sent it back....this is the type of business model that should be emulated). Yes, many Euros are not perfect, but a extremely small portion need errata or a sharpie taken to the flimsy cardboard, as someone else has suggested, and very few cost this asking price.

The gameplay must be great. It is ranked very highly. But if I said that gameplay was all I was after, I would be lying to myself. And it's not just the components I am talking about. It is the overall value of the game that is important. This was brought up by Tom Vasel and Joe Steadman on The Dice Tower about what is changing about games in recent years. No longer is the old Avalon Hill style going to work. People are starting to demand more substance and value from the games they buy, there is alot of competition now and games are getting bigger and better. Are the game companies that are still relying on this business strategy expecting little sales or settling for them and taking advantage of people like you? People like me think about it for a second and realize that they are tired of canned excuses. I would like to meet the Mom and Pop that are "struggling" to keep this company alive against the evil Walmart of Euros.

I just find it irresponsible. If I had bought this game not knowing about the geek and saw what I received for my money, I would be really ticked off. Why people defend the fact that they got taken to the cleaners is really eerie to me. I would be asking for a replacement board and cards, and a downloadable updated rule set. I think it is the same mentality of those people who have corvettes in their front yard with no wheels on them, or those people who insist their $200 copy of Reef Encounter is superior to the new $40 version. It just gets harder and harder to explain. I would really like to buy some of GMTs games, but I am on "try first buy later" policy. I am not alone here, and this is what makes their game releases risky, if you ask me.

I know there is a paradigm that exists with many wargamers and eurogamers, because they have a collector-like emotional attachment to certain ideas, and I'm not going to change many minds. But I thought it would be good for a typical eurogamer to put this out there for discussion.
Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:05 am
Author: stephenhope
chicagometh wrote:
Why does everybody bring up Monopoly? I think this has become standard gamer defense against critique from Joe Schmoe. But I am a gamer just like you and haven't played Monopoly since I was a kid. Step back, take a look at your attachments and think for a second, instead of spitting out a third grade response to a serious issue.


We just use Monopoly to lampoon the idea that components are more important than playability, Travis. I don't know or care what games you play except insofar as I think it's a shame if people don't play great games because of minor typographical errors.

chicagometh wrote:
What I am saying is that I am attempting to answer the chicken and the egg question of which comes first: the poor components or the poor sales. I say it's the poor components because I refuse to pay alot for something and get very little in return. If the components were better (not just pieces, but at least proofreading), many people who play predominantly Euros would switch over quite a bit and buy games like this. But they aren't going to start on a game that goes for twice as much as many other great games, has blatant typos, and offers very little in the way of durability.


Well, that's their loss and gets back to the question of how important component quality is versus gameplay. It matters more for some than for others. Clearly it matters a lot to you. As an aside, I would guess it would take well over 200 hours of play for this game to actually suffer from meaningful physical degradation--by which point, you've probably been well-reimbursed for your cash outlay.

chicagometh wrote:
Or are you saying games like this don't sell well because of their theme which only appeals to wargamers?


Nope, that's a straw man.

chicagometh wrote:
Also, I don't think making a game like this is any more tortuous than the production of a medium to heavyweight Euro game, which goes through years of development and playtesting, or sometimes multiple print runs (look at Britannia by Fantasy Flight...components weren't up to snuff, sent it back....this is the type of business model that should be emulated). Yes, many Euros are not perfect, but a extremely small portion need errata or a sharpie taken to the flimsy cardboard, as someone else has suggested, and very few cost this asking price.


I'd agree Euros generally are well-constructed because their internal systems are simpler, so degenerate strategies are more apparent and the REALLY bad Euro-style games don't make it to market in the first place for the most part.

Your argument here seems to be a blend of game development issues and (surprise!) component quality. I would certainly agree that a much higher percentage of Eurogames that see print (at least in the US) are playable games with some semblance of balance and payoff (i.e. fun) for the time invested than are wargames. However, wargames have gotten BETTER in that regard as the print runs have gotten smaller and the component quality has gotten worse. I'd guess that many of the worst wargames produced these days are those with the best component quality (there are lots of exceptions, but check out the ratings for Eagle or Avalanche games as opposed to GMT games for example).

chicagometh wrote:
The gameplay must be great. It is ranked very highly. But if I said that gameplay was all I was after, I would be lying to myself. And it's not just the components I am talking about. It is the overall value of the game that is important. This was brought up by Tom Vasel and Joe Steadman on The Dice Tower about what is changing about games in recent years. No longer is the old Avalon Hill style going to work. People are starting to demand more substance and value from the games they buy, there is alot of competition now and games are getting bigger and better.


Great. You like components. That is clear.

chicagometh wrote:
Are the game companies that are still relying on this business strategy expecting little sales or settling for them and taking advantage of people like you? People like me think about it for a second and realize that they are tired of canned excuses. I would like to meet the Mom and Pop that are "struggling" to keep this company alive against the evil Walmart of Euros.


I have no idea what this quote means. Is your thrust here that the guys at GMT are making money hand over fist, laughing at the fools who buy their shoddy games? If so, you are woefully misinformed. If you ever happened to go to wargaming conventions, you'd meet all these shadowy billionaires. Just don't look for the Porsche with the "GMTGAMZ" vanity plate, because you'll waste a lot of time.

chicagometh wrote:
I just find it irresponsible. If I had bought this game not knowing about the geek and saw what I received for my money, I would be really ticked off. Why people defend the fact that they got taken to the cleaners is really eerie to me. I would be asking for a replacement board and cards, and a downloadable updated rule set. I think it is the same mentality of those people who have corvettes in their front yard with no wheels on them, or those people who insist their $200 copy of Reef Encounter is superior to the new $40 version. It just gets harder and harder to explain. I would really like to buy some of GMTs games, but I am on "try first buy later" policy. I am not alone here, and this is what makes their game releases risky, if you ask me.

I know there is a paradigm that exists with many wargamers and eurogamers, because they have a collector-like emotional attachment to certain ideas, and I'm not going to change many minds. But I thought it would be good for a typical eurogamer to put this out there for discussion.


I'm not really looking for decorative plastic when I buy a game. If you are, there are plenty of games out there for you. A game company doesn't need to "defend" or "explain" the quality of their components to me if I like the game and enjoy playing it for dozens of hours.

If you want to turn a game like Twilight Struggle into the eye candy that you think it needs to be to sell well among Eurogamers, I'd encourage you to step up to the plate with the $30K+ it would take to do a 5000-copy print run of the game with Euro-caliber components that can be profitably sold at lower prices. Send the designers a GeekMail and negotiate with them.

I'm sure they'd be thrilled. The people who make this kind of a game as a hobby (because they CAN'T do it for a living) would love to have someone with your insight lead them to the promised land of mass-market sales.
Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:46 am
Author: chicagometh
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I said before I don't expect to change many minds. It's just that I personally think these productions are narrow-minded fiscally and irresponsible commercially.

And you seem to selectively pick your battle without facing the issue. It is not all about components, although a large portion of my argument is. It is about lack of forethought, planning, responsibility and care for their consumers in producing a lighter wargame with a heavy price tag. I never said I thought GMT was making money hand over fist. In fact, I am sure I argued the exact opposite of that about 8 times. And as I also said, which you seem to have ignored, it is about value. Gameplay is a large portion of value, I agree. The games I buy are chockful of replay value, as I am sure this game is, which is why I was close to purchasing said game.

Where I disagree with you is ignoring that which is everything else we get when we purchase a game or anything else for that matter, such as a car or a household appliance. I don't look for plastic pieces. The games I like for the most part don't have plastic miniatures. But some care in producing the item wouldn't hurt. And these minor typographical errors you speak of go beyond what I think is acceptable for a game that costs this much. The game as it sells right now is incomplete if you have to find a way to reach people to tell them that the game is incorrect in many spots...They couldn't see this before they released it? Did they playtest this at all? I would feel ashamed to sell something in this condition, even if the game, fixed as it is, is good. Just because GMT makes little if any money on their games doesn't make buying them looking this way a good decision.

And I have decided that I am not going to martyrously (if that is a word) defend a game just because I invested money in it. Instead I would feel cheated and would ask for what I feel would be the correct reparations for the amount of money I spent. Putting up excuses, which have been become repetitive since it seems to happen for a large portion of wargames, light or heavy, is just not good enough. You said "A game company doesn't need to "defend" or "explain" the quality of their components to me if I like the game and enjoy playing it for dozens of hours." I guess not. As long as your Bentley gets you to work and back, you could care less if it came without a back seat and the rear bumper is hanging off and scraping the ground. I would feel taken advantage of.
Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:20 am
Author: Philip Thomas
Of course, travis is looking at a significantly higher price than what those of us who ordered P500 paid. So he's entitled to feel more annoyed about the quality issues.

Twilight struggle is a fine car, it has the rear seats etc. The paintwork is sloppy, that is all.

The small market size is a problem, and it "came first": wargames were around before eurogames and had a minimal audience even then.
Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:24 am
Author: Rednax
Hi,

just my 2 cents: Proof reading is not a matter of funds and number of print runs, but a matter of organisation. Though the error of TS are by no means showstoppers, they are annoying and avoidable. They have nothing to do with the higher complexity of rule in wargames (which in the case of TS isn't high anyways), they just demonstrate bad quality control.
I don't mind higher prices because of lower print runs, I don't mind not so perfect components as these would increase the price aswell, but I do mind obvious errors which should have been eliminated by any proof reading process, which deserves to be told one.
And this is not a matter of funds, they could give the playing pieces their girlfriend, wife or hardcore grognard and they would spot these blatant errors on the map immediately.
So thumbs up for the game, but there is no denying that the quality control did not work properly... shake
And what do you do if you buy a car and everthig is in place but the paintjob is sloppy? You would insist to get what you paid for, an error free car...
Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:05 pm
Author: stephenhope
If all we're talking about (now) is the typos, I agree that those errors are unfortunate, annoying, and avoidable. I actually started a thread about this game called "Typos" in which I expressed my disappointment about the physical production errors. I also agree that they reflect poorly on GMT's quality control (which IS to some degree a question of resources available).

I don't fully understand GMT's production process or where along the line the mistake occurred. Jason has said that he saw a copy of the map at one point which did NOT have errors, then when he saw the final map it DID have errors.

I agree that it seems a shame that in this day and age that the designers were for whatever reason unable to review the final map electronically before it went to be printed, and that it seems like GMT should be able to do what (for example) the Fantasy Flight guys do, which is send a set of electronic files to the printer with all the game components on them. It may be that GMT doesn't have the resources or the graphic design skill in-house to do that.

But I don't think attacks on the moral fiber of GMT employees (i.e. they should be ashamed for releasing such a game) are warranted. The economics of the industry are what they are, and nobody is getting rich off of sending out copies of Wilderness War. We all hope they will do a better job next time, but mistakes happen. Someone misspelled "Chile", they didn't shoot a 78-year old man in the face with buckshot.

On a separate topic--Travis, if you're interested in finding introductory wargames which DO have a high component quality, I'd recommend going to www.simmonsgames.com and buying Bonaparte at Marengo and possibly Friedrich.
Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:21 pm
Author: Philip Thomas
Well, depends how I obtained the car

Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:41 pm
Author: chicagometh
Thank you Steve for the recommendation. These have been on my radar also.
Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:06 pm
Author: abimilech
Travis said:

"Step back, take a look at your attachments and think for a second, instead of spitting out a third grade response to a serious issue."


THUS SAITH THE PREACHER:

Obviously you came in here attempting to pick a fight and so you reply in an insulting manner. In regards to SERIOUS issue, I don't think it is a serious issue at all because the game is GREAT. In fact it is wonderful. You wouldn't know that because you refuse to take the time to do anything except crticize that which you have yet to see.

Travis continued:

"What I am saying is that I am attempting to answer the chicken and the egg question of which comes first: the poor components or the poor sales."


THUS ASKETH THE PREACHER:

What poor sales? Copies of Twilight Struggle are flying out of Hanford, California. It is selling well at game conventions. You have not seen the sales records or reports, so once again you speak of that you know not.


Travis ranted on:

"I say it's the poor components because I refuse to pay alot for something and get very little in return. If the components were better (not just pieces, but at least proofreading), many people who play predominantly Euros would switch over quite a bit and buy games like this. But they aren't going to start on a game that goes for twice as much as many other great games, has blatant typos, and offers very little in the way of durability."



THUS SAITH THE PREACHER:

I wonder if you proofread the above paragraph. Can you spot the spelling error. I wonder. You're ranting now. Do you not recall seeing errors in Euro games? Have you never seen a poor English translation of rules? Errors happen, and these are indeed quite embarrassing. I've even given GMT some grief over them. However, they do not detract from a great game, but your PREJUDICE will keep you from finding out.

Travis continued to demonstrate his ignorance:

"Or are you saying games like this don't sell well because of their theme which only appeals to wargamers? Most Euros are very light on theme. Who gives a crap about creating kingdoms in Mesopotamia? I care very little, but a game like Tigris and Euphrates seems to sell well with great components at a decent price for what you receive. And again, we are not talking about a wargame with a 50 page rule book trying to obtain a simulation feel. I expect a game as detailed as that to have some issues and develop over time (I would expect them to spell the countries of the world correctly, but whatever)."


THUS SPEAKETH THE PREACHER:

I've played many wargames, especially from GMT. I have yet to see a fifty page rulebook. Twilight Struggle has nine pages of rules. The rulebook is slightly longer as it offers some perspective and an example of play. It is true that there are some MONSTER-SIZED games out there, but Twilight Struggle should not be lumped in with "World at War" or "Advanced Third Reich." It is unfair and misleading for you to do so.

Travis kept on pecking at his keyboard

Also, I don't think making a game like this is any more tortuous than the production of a medium to heavyweight Euro game, which goes through years of development and playtesting, or sometimes multiple print runs (look at Britannia by Fantasy Flight...components weren't up to snuff, sent it back....this is the type of business model that should be emulated). Yes, many Euros are not perfect, but a extremely small portion need errata or a sharpie taken to the flimsy cardboard, as someone else has suggested, and very few cost this asking price.

THUS SAITH THE PREACHER:

You must not remember Warcraft: The boardgame. Great mechanics and interesting pieces. However, poorly playtested. Several races had SUPERPOWERS which made them unbeatable. Unforgiveable for a game to be released with such obvious and quickly discovered flaws.

Twilight Struggle had SPELLING errors, not mechanical flaws or balance problems.

TRAVIS continued his confused discussion:

The gameplay must be great. It is ranked very highly. But if I said that gameplay was all I was after, I would be lying to myself."

THUS SAYS THE PREACHER:

The gameplay IS GREAT! I share to a very small degree your frustration with the spelling errors. With the exception of the placement of U.S. influence, there is no major errata affecting the game. You are simply mistaken if you believe otherwise.

Travis thought he would quote some experts:

"And it's not just the components I am talking about. It is the overall value of the game that is important. This was brought up by Tom Vasel and Joe Steadman on The Dice Tower about what is changing about games in recent years. No longer is the old Avalon Hill style going to work. People are starting to demand more substance and value from the games they buy, there is alot of competition now and games are getting bigger and better. Are the game companies that are still relying on this business strategy expecting little sales or settling for them and taking advantage of people like you? People like me think about it for a second and realize that they are tired of canned excuses. I would like to meet the Mom and Pop that are "struggling" to keep this company alive against the evil Walmart of Euros."

THUS SAITH THE PREACHER:

I don't see an evil Walmart of Euros. I believe that there is room on my gaming shelf for games from both sides of the Atlantic. I don't care for "Puerto Rico" and joke about it being a failure as a game, but I respect folks right to play it. Oh, and I played it before insulting it, about five times. I don't see the appeal. At least I tried it before going online and trying to start a flame war of Euro vs. Wargamers.

While I respect Joe Steadman, I have never read a review by Tom Vassel that didn't offer some sort of glowing statements, even when desribing the worse games. Their opinion about the quality of games might have some relevance in a discussion of errata, but you've managed to walk way off-topic (Official Errata from the Designers) and started your own topic (I hate GMT's games or I'm prejeudice against American published games?)


Travis said:

"I just find it irresponsible. If I had bought this game not knowing about the geek and saw what I received for my money, I would be really ticked off."


Thus asketh the Preacher:

You would be ticked off because you bought a great game with some spelling errors? A game with a lot of replay value? A game with a really clever design and nearly infinite variants? It sounds to me that you have unfair expectations.



Travis just kept on typing:

"Why people defend the fact that they got taken to the cleaners is really eerie to me. I would be asking for a replacement board and cards, and a downloadable updated rule set."


Thus Laughs the preacher:

GMT always updates their rules and they will be downloadable. The errors are embarrasing, but not such that the game cannot be easily played and enjoyed. Get a Sharpie and CHANGE the word Chili to Chile if it will make you feel better. Stop annoying people who are having a great time with a great game.

Travis decided to play psychologist:

I think it is the same mentality of those people who have corvettes in their front yard with no wheels on them, or those people who insist their $200 copy of Reef Encounter is superior to the new $40 version. It just gets harder and harder to explain. I would really like to buy some of GMTs games, but I am on "try first buy later" policy. I am not alone here, and this is what makes their game releases risky, if you ask me."

THUS SAITH THE PREACHER:

You say you are not alone here, but I think you are. I think you need to start a thread somewhere about Euros vs. non-Euros, but this particular forum isn't the place for your ranting. You may have some valid points, and you are most cetainly entitle to your opinion, but it doesn't belong HERE!

You want to talk about your policy fine. I encourage you to TRY the game before you buy it. Absolutely. In fact, I think everyone should normally do so. If you aren't willing to try the game why not stop whining about problems you haven't ever seen.

TRAVIS SAID:

I know there is a paradigm that exists with many wargamers and eurogamers, because they have a collector-like emotional attachment to certain ideas, and I'm not going to change many minds. But I thought it would be good for a typical eurogamer to put this out there for discussion.


THUS REPLIETH THE PREACHER:

You thought wrong. It might make for a good discussion, but you came in here and picked a fight. This discussion is OFF TOPIC and UNWANTED!

THUS SAYS TRAVIS:

"I say it's the poor components because I refuse to pay alot for something and get very little in return. If the components were better (not just pieces, but at least proofreading), many people who play predominantly Euros would switch over quite a bit and buy games like this. But they aren't going to start on a game that goes for twice as much as many other great games, has blatant typos, and offers very little in the way of durability."


THUS RESPONDETH THE PREACHER WITH A LITTLE FIRE:

You won't switch over, Travis. Even if a game is GREAT. We don't have the little plastic toys that you like so much. What we have is a great game that you won't experience because of a few typos. Durability.. that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

If all Euro players are like you, judging a game without SEEING or PLAYING it, then I don't want to know such stuck up hypocrites. However, most Euro players I know will at least try a game before condemning it.

My father had a great saying about people who talked about things without knowing much about them. He would say "He's heard the big boys talking." Do you act like you know all about a movie you have never seen? A book you haven't read? Based solely on reviews? My, how close-minded can you be?


David "the preacher" Wilson

"There is none so blind as he who will not see." Ray Stevens

"The advice of friends must be received with a judicious reserve; we must not give ourselves up to it and follow it blindly, whether right or wrong." - Pierre Charron

"A definite purpose, like blinders on a horse, inevitably narrows its possessor's point of view." Robert Frost

Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:04 pm
Author: chicagometh
Wow. It looks like everyone else took my point, thought about it, and wrote a thoughtful reply. Although they disagreed with it, I think they can see where I am coming from, except for you.

You may call it picking a fight, I call it picking a discussion. I'm not saying playing the game is not wonderful, and I never said I would not try the game. I have seen the game with my own eyes and wondered where the $60 of value came in. That is all. Your rants about closemindedness don't work here. That is the reason we come to the geek is to get info before we spend money on a game. Save this closedminded crap for those who rate a game before it is even released yet. I'm sorry you felt I invaded your personal space, if you had any here to defend, which you don't. People like me say "Twilight Struggle looks interesting. Let's go on BGG and get some information." When they see a forum thread like this, they form an opinion, most not a positive one. You have me, who doesn't feel bad making their opinions known to the drones who accept anything that they can be spoon-fed.

I would definitely play the game, hopefully remembering all the fixes. I just wouldn't buy it, and wondered why not only people were ok with a $60 game of cardboard that had typos and gameplay errors in multiple places, but why they would vigorously defend the company who sold it to them. You must own stock. It would be valuable since the game is "flying off the shelf" as you say, although the rhetoric of recent wargame companies would say otherwise. You seem to be fine with paying this much money for gameplay alone. I am not. There are plenty of great games with amazing gameplay that offer value for my dollar, in so much as the fact that they spent time making a game that is usually, but not always, nearly flawless and appreciated beforehand the fact that I bought one. I am not going to pay $60 for a meal at Wendy's, but I will at a Japanese restaurant. You are saying "why not?" They both fulfill your appetite. I can't agree with that logic. But it is ok....you stick to your $60 Wendy burgers. I like Wendy's. They have some good stuff for what you pay for it. If they started charging $60 though, I would tell them to take a hike.

There are plenty of bad games with great components for your value. There are also plenty of great games with lousy components for your value. Neither of these types of games interest me. The first because I care about gameplay, and the second because I will not support a company that didn't care what they were manufacturing as long as people will pay extravagantly for it. If you haven't figured it out, I am not one of those of people.

When I speak of Eurogames, I mean universally, as most everybody does, games that are of the Euro type. Don't make this an argument about Americanism. Save that for yelling at your 6 o'clock news. Z-man and Uberplay make good games with error free rules and offer gameplay and value for the amount that you pay, which for the most part would be half of what a wargame company would charge for the same thing. You know, because it was so *hard* producing the game. Boo-hoo. Yeah, uhhuh, 9 page rules. Somebody missed the boat. Others have agreed with me.

You are right. I have unfair expectations. Other game companies have given me these. Most Euro-type games offer so much. When I open them and play them, I say "Wow! What a great game! This was only $30?!" When I see the latest wargame, I say "This is a great game, but this cost how much?!"

I'm sure I have errors in my posts. I'm not selling my posts to you for $60, but you felt so interested in it as to write a long, inane reply. That's sounds like value to me. You got to verbally assault me for free. Such a deal. I got to assault ideas and concepts, and challenge people's predilection. Who got the better deal?

Oh and P.S. Don't spout off quotes from marginally famous people. Leave this to the Berkeley-roaming hippie-elitist types. I don't remember things that aren't memorable. And I'm certainly not going to look up quotes from the marginally famous on Google to make my point. It's pretentious and unnecessary. (if you need the definition to some of the words I used, try dictionary.com, you will find your picture underneath two of the words in that last sentence)
Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:11 pm
Author: abimilech
1. You discussion has left the topic of erratta... why not start a new thread?

2. Your last post was downright insulting and demeaning. I'll quote who I please.


David "the preacher" Wilson

"Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot." Clarence Thomas

"Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest of violence" Frances Jaffrey

Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:41 pm
Author: chicagometh
Clarence Thomas said that? How ironic. I think he meant to say "Good porn will open doors that the best education cannot." Before slapping his intern on the behind. Who is Francis Jaffrey? Is that your cousin? You must mean Francis Jeffrey. Which is also ironic. He failed at everything he tried to do as a youth and instigated a duel with another author over a review he wrote. Quotes without context are meaningless. If you don't know about the people you are quoting, you can't learn anything from their intentions.

My topic is dead in the center of errata. I picked this game because it is as close to a Euro-type game as a wargame company would ever make to point out the lack of similarities in production value which includes errata.

This will be my last post as somebody alerted me to something that I didn't want to consider, but must concede to as the most valuable of arguments. Wargamers lack logic, live in a world unto themselves and don't want what they do to be accessible to others. So that is what is causing the drastic loss in the wargaming population. You as a group are dying. I respect your world and would like to know about it, but things like this deny me logical access. To you, things like this make sense, while the rest of the world scratches their heads. There is a good world out here. Open yourself to it and attempt to understand an opposing point of view.
Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:45 pm
Author: John Margerum
You know have to smile listen to this debate. At home I have a Puerto Rico player board that says the Mayor's privilege is to get one off the building price, a Power Grid board that has the wrong connection costs printing on it, an Age of Steam map with the wrong number printed on the city of Detroit, and a Alhambra that has the wrong rules of wall scoring in the rule book. The errors in Twilight Struggle are no worse than these (albeit more embarrassing) and actually affect game play less.
Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:35 am
Author: stephenhope
I agree with everyone!



John, you're right that those errors are worse than the ones in Twilight Struggle.

Grant, you're right that your opinion is uninformed.

Travis, you're right that there is a good world out there.

David, you're right that Travis "discusses" things in an insulting manner. You're ALSO right that this thread has veered from "Known errata of Twilight Struggle" to "Frustrated gamers vent against/defend small game company's production problems".

There!

Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:01 am
Author: Troymk1
Guys just for some perpective. I have done work that included graphical content for magazines, publications, or release as CD format.

Sometimes you sign off on a version that is checked and cross checked and is fine. But somehow the actual producer uses an older copy of the file, or does some sort of screw up themselves that makes you look like a complete fool. It happens.

I too am annoyed by the typos, but I daresay the authors are even more annoyed. (As their name is attached)

I too balk at the cost, but if I like the game enough I will buy it. (and happily)

Travis hasn't played this game and therefore in a saner and more mellow mood I don't think it's worth anyone's time to debate with him and his ilk. (We know who you are!!)

oh and as a PS...As a Historian I do care about petty kingdoms in Mesopatamia, and so should you.....your countrymen (and mine) are dying their right now dude! And if anyone thinks that the history of a region doesn't affect the outcome of the present, well.....





Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:59 am
Author: abimilech
1. The topic of this folder is "Official Errata from the Designers." Not Eurogames are better than Wargames.. (and no doubt some are better than some)

2. I never prefaced ANYTHING I said with "Thus Saith the Lord," nor do I think God has an opinion on this subject, except that we need to be civil with one another. To do so would have been disrespectful both to the reader AND to the Lord.

Rather, you will discover that I separated my comments from Travis' with a declaration that "I" was making a declaration and did not want it confused with Travis' statements.

3. I don't think anyone should attack Travis for his personal opinion. I don't know why he decide to insult wargamers in general, make references to hippie-types, and other insulting remarks. I think he makes a few good points, but I disagree with his opinion which is formed without playing the game. However, I seriously disagree that this discussion belongs here. I know that the insults and disrespectful remarks don't belong here.


4. Travis, you came in spoiling for a fight. Your comments went from an expression of an opinion to a specific attack on me, a general attack on wargamers, and an attack on people who use quotations as taglines. Attacking other users is NOT permitted on Boardgamegeek.

David "the preacher" Wilson

"Can you read my mind? Do you know what it is you do to me?" Lois Lane's thoughts as Superman flies her around.

"You know you can't win." - the penguin to Batman.

Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:35 am
Author: abimilech
Joesox wrote:

This whole discussion has served to highlight some of the differences between that elite group of people who proudly name themselves ‘Wargamers like Abimelech’ and…well…...

I think if our friendly representative wargamer (who touts himself a preacher--how ironic is that?) were to design a game, he would purposely include errors in the game, thus rendering it unplayable by anybody but another battle worn wargamer who would be willing to plod through the 20 pages of rules in fine print and try to decipher if the quotes at the bottom of the pages really expound on the gameplay.



The Preacher replieth:

First, I never declared thus saith the Lord, that would be using the LORD's name in vain. It would be the ultimate in disrespect for Him. I don't tout myself a preacher, sir. I am a Southern Baptist Minister, pastoring for more than 20 years.

Second, what makes you say I am a wargamer. I play Euros... There is one Euro I hate, and that is Puerto Rico, but I have played it at least five times. I play TransAmerica, PowerGrid, Ticket to Ride, and a number of other Euro style games.

Third, I most certainly try to avoid mistakes such as those we see on the gameboard and example of play in Twilight Struggle. I think that such mistakes show a lack of organization and are a major embarrassment. However, I hate to see a good game get a bad reputation for some silly mistakes. If you don't want a game with such mistakes, don't buy this one. Since they are minor spelling errors, I am willing to overlook them because I've played the game about five times and had a great time every single time.

This discussion has degraded to an attack on wargamers, and that's not really fair either, in my opinion.

David "the preacher" Wilson










“This type sort of thing will not ever gain any sort of broad appeal, and quite frankly, we purists prefer it that way.”


Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:44 am
Author: dakarp
This thread is official errata from the designers. Apparently the offical errata has now been posted (if you are a designer, please correct me if I am wrong about that). Now it has turned into something of a flame war, and, as the Forum guidelines indicate, flame wars get locked.
Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:12 am