Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Twilight Struggle» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Review: Twilight Struggle (B) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stephen Harkleroad
United States
Kittanning
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[Note: This is an excised version of a review that I posted here at my blog. I've removed the pictures and the rules summary; if you would like to read the full review, you can go there.]

The theme of Twilight Struggle is the Cold War. One side plays the US and the other plays the USSR. There are ten rounds in the game, each representing about a five-year stretch, between the end of World War II and the real-life collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Similarly to 1960 and many other card-driven games, each player is dealt a hand of cards, and must play them out for the round, good or bad; success in the game depends on a player's ability to time the card play and make decisions on how the cards affect the game.

The map itself has several key nations represented on the board. Some of these are colored as "Battleground" nations, which take on more importance. Nations are also connected with lines, since certain action require checking on the status of adjacent nations. Note that many of the "connections" and areas are done more for the political climate instead of geographical accuracy--Canada is considered part of Europe due to its participation in NATO, for example.

Each nation also has a stability rating. Nations with high stability are harder to overthrow, and require more influence to control.

The cards each represent a different event during the Cold War. They each also have an operations value. Like other card-driven games, a player has the choice to either use the event or the OP. Unlike 1960, however, player a card with an opponent's event automatically allows them to use it--which makes the decisions you make significantly more important

There are three types of cards: Early, Mid, and Late War. After certain turns, the new era of cards are shuffled into the deck. That way you won't run into Lady Thatcher right after the Berlin Wall is built, but you still don't know exactly what round she's going to show up--you just know it will be late in the game. Many cards have restrictions as to when they can be played.

Some cards are scoring cards that must be played on the turn they are dealt to a player. They score in a specific region, such as Europe or Southeast Asia. Players score more points based on the number of nations they control, and the number of those that are Battleground nations.

If a player doesn't like the event or isn't ready for it, they may use the operations points on the card. This is used in various ways to add and remove influence on the board.

To act as a "safety valve," the Space Race is abstracted into a mechanic that allows a player to discard a card without triggering its event. Roll a die and if the result favors you, you move one step closer to landing on the moon. Doing this at certain levels will allow you to gain victory points and earn a small benefit.

Of course, the object of the game is to score points, and this is done primarily through Scoring Cards. There are several Scoring Cards in the deck, and when they are played, both players score. There are different score levels depending on how much control a player has in a region--for example, a player has Presence in an area if they control at least one nation; they have Domination if they control more Battleground nations than their rival and more regular nations than their rival (minimum of 1); they have Control if they control all of the Battleground nations and more nations than their rival.

At the end of the ten rounds, the player with more Victory Points wins. If either player gets more than 20 points during the course of the game, they can win early; and, of course, if Defcon reaches 1, the game ends as well.

This game is much more complicated than 1960 or CM08. It's also apparent this is the first game in the series. Many of the ideas from this game will pop up much cleaner in 1960. Still, it's not nearly as complicated as it seems; it's just that there is a lot more going on.

Things I like about this game:
*The theme is far and away the best I've seen integrated into a game. There is legitimate tension, and the effects of the events are remarkably specific enough that it feels accurate, yet not so ridiculous as to grind the game to a halt each turn.
*There are a lot of options involved. Each turn, you have the normal event vs. point decision common in card-driven games, but you also have the Space Race to contend with, and using the points in three different ways presents even more choice. New players will no doubt be overwhelmed, but that's OK. A game like this nearly required you fly by the seat of your pants the first few times; that doesn't mean it's not fun.
*The timing of the cards is very well designed. At the beginning of the game, players concentrate more or less on Asia and Europe. As new cards are added, focus shifts to the Middle East and South America, and finally Africa and Central America. While this follows the real-life trajectory of the Cold War, it's not so rigid that a small brush war could emerge in Argentina early in the game, or a warning rocket from southern Africa be fired off. So while the game follows history, there's no reason that the players can't try and alter it; they just can't alter it enough to cause odd results.
*While there are a lot of rules and a lot f decisions, after you get the hand of it much of it becomes intuitive.

Things I don't like about the game:
*There's some slight math. It doesn't bother me in the least, but I know it irritates some people.
*Length. I haven't played this game a ton, but I've played it often enough that the time to play it should be shortening, but it isn't. It's almost always a 3 to 4 hour session. While I like long, deep games, it also means I don't get to play it often.
*I would rather have the Defcon nuclear war trigger restrict player's actions, but I somehow wish it wouldn't trigger war without your complete control. As it stands, the phasing player get the "credit" for launching the war (and thus losing) even if it was through the actions of your rival. Sometimes this is good, since letting yourself get in that position is part of the game; but sometimes it is blind luck. It wouldn't be so bad except it's a game-ending, all-other-factors-ignored rule. Defcon adds a lot of tension into the game, but sometimes I think it's the wrong type of tension.
*As a corollary, a strategy has emerged that, since the USSR goes first, they can more or less drop Defcon to 2, and then the US can only react--and there are very, very few cards that raise Defcon mid-turn. As such, the US has a large part of their opportunities chopped off right from the get-go. It's not 100% effective, but it's enough that I see it as an issue.
*Some people have disliked the balance in the game, saying Russia has a slight advantage. I never saw it, but there are several decent optional rules that allow for some balancing. If nothing else, players can bid Victory Points for the right to play Russia.
*The game production seems clumsy at times. There are chits for events, for example, which I guess is fine; leaving the cards up and available seems to make more sense than squinting at a bunch of similarly-looking tokens piled to the side of the board. The notations for persistent and discarded events could more easily have been done with icons or banners; instead they are nondescript asterisks and underlines. Not a huge deal, but given the high presentation quality of their other games it seems odd.

I like Twilight Struggle, but I have the feeling that if I played against experienced players on a regular basis I would absolutely hate it. I love looking at the board and weighing options, but there are just enough game-altering rules and cards involved that suck the fun out of the game for me. If this were a one-hour game I wouldn't mind so much, but more than once I've played two and a half hours just to have a two-card combination from my opponent force a huge positional loss in one turn, and there was nothing preventative I could have done to stop it. No, it doesn't happen often, but it happens often enough that I think it should be noted. Also, many experienced players can more or less "calculate" a win, grinding the game to a halt and making it a less enjoyable experience.

I also think that the game would have been much better post-1960. 1960 seemed to refine many of the mechanics introduced in Twilight Struggle, and I think that would have helped the original game a lot. Having three types of actions to use for operations points seems like it would allow more decisions, but in reality--since so many coups have to be done each turn--you usually end up doing a ton of coups and events, some influence placement, and rarely any realignments. While each option has its place, it seems there could be cleaner ways of doing it.

Still, the game is currently ranked as #3 at BoardGameGeek.com, so it's hard to argue that this isn't a good game. It certainly is--I enjoy playing it a lot, and would recommend it, especially to those interested in the theme. There's a bit of a learning curve since it's much more complicated than, say, 1960, but once you play through a game or two it is definitely worth the time investment. I give it a B.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Muller
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for posting this review. I'm relatively new to "serious" board games, and seeing some of these classics revisited is useful. You hear a lot about them all the time, but rarely get impressions/reviews that aren't part of a "I've played this game 100 times so let's discuss the fine details" monologue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward
United States
New York City
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
As a corollary, a strategy has emerged that, since the USSR goes first, they can more or less drop Defcon to 2, and then the US can only react--and there are very, very few cards that raise Defcon mid-turn. As such, the US has a large part of their opportunities chopped off right from the get-go. It's not 100% effective, but it's enough that I see it as an issue.

Why do you see it as an issue? The U.S. has cards that specifically compensate for the USSR's coup advantage (e.g. Nuclear Subs) or provide subtle ways to steal the coup (e.g. Grain Sales to Soviets).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Antley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
My personal blog :: http://peasantmuse.blogspot.com
badge
The Woodsman- Ivan Kramskoy, 1874
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I, too, also feel that the game has some excellent balance that fits well with the historical arc of the Cold War. The Soviets have an enormous advantage in the early war, not overwhelming but very good cards. Towards the later stages of the game, the Soviets have a much harder time- this is why I don't see the 'Defcon 2' issue to be so bad, as there have been many games as the Soviet player where I wish I could use coups or realignments in certain areas of the board later in the game. The low defcon is a double-edged sword, especially at the end of the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Harkleroad
United States
Kittanning
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
theory wrote:
Quote:
As a corollary, a strategy has emerged that, since the USSR goes first, they can more or less drop Defcon to 2, and then the US can only react--and there are very, very few cards that raise Defcon mid-turn. As such, the US has a large part of their opportunities chopped off right from the get-go. It's not 100% effective, but it's enough that I see it as an issue.

Why do you see it as an issue? The U.S. has cards that specifically compensate for the USSR's coup advantage (e.g. Nuclear Subs) or provide subtle ways to steal the coup (e.g. Grain Sales to Soviets).


I don't like that there's a built-in advantage, though I'll be honest and say I don't have a viable alternative. I don't like having to rely on specific cards to break an advantage effectively built into the rules.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward
United States
New York City
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coase wrote:
theory wrote:
Quote:
As a corollary, a strategy has emerged that, since the USSR goes first, they can more or less drop Defcon to 2, and then the US can only react--and there are very, very few cards that raise Defcon mid-turn. As such, the US has a large part of their opportunities chopped off right from the get-go. It's not 100% effective, but it's enough that I see it as an issue.

Why do you see it as an issue? The U.S. has cards that specifically compensate for the USSR's coup advantage (e.g. Nuclear Subs) or provide subtle ways to steal the coup (e.g. Grain Sales to Soviets).


I don't like that there's a built-in advantage, though I'll be honest and say I don't have a viable alternative. I don't like having to rely on specific cards to break an advantage effectively built into the rules.

Hm, I understand where you're coming from, but it's really just part of the game. Someone *has* to be able to have the last coup, and I like how Twilight Struggle deals with this by having a deep back-and-forth over it. I'd go farther and say it's not that "specific cards" deal with this advantage, but that the whole game's strategy depends on the USSR's coup advantage and how effectively the U.S. player can negate it. That's just a characteristic of an asymmetric game.

EDIT: To clarify, it's not that the USSR is strictly better than the U.S. because of the coup. It's one of the USSR's advantages; the U.S. has its own advantages.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Linneman
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Coase wrote:

I don't like that there's a built-in advantage, though I'll be honest and say I don't have a viable alternative. I don't like having to rely on specific cards to break an advantage effectively built into the rules.



One tactic the US player can use is to create a crisis at the end of one turn for the Soviet player to deal with. This can counteract the coup advantage, as USSR has to decide whether to respond to the threat or do the opening coup as normal. If he puts out the fire you started, you can do a coup on your first action round instead of USSR. An example of what you might do is break control of a low stability battleground like Italy or Thailand. Another is to spread your influence to give you access to countries he would really prefer you not take.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.