The first time I played twilight struggle we fumbled around aimlessly for a few turns and someone won on turn three. The short and long term strategies of that game are not immediately apparent and take playthroughs to tease out.
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
The first time I played twilight struggle we fumbled around aimlessly for a few turns and someone won on turn three. The short and long term strategies of that game are not immediately apparent and take playthroughs to tease out.
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
Unless you look through the cards first (and remember) there's nothing on the board that tells you that south america, central america and africa are not scored into the midwar. There was nothing telling me that investing effort in to controlling Japan was a gigantic waste of time as the USSR (seemed like a logical place to grab after snagging South Korea). Any decent, cohesive strategy is going to take some playthroughs.
The first time I played twilight struggle we fumbled around aimlessly for a few turns and someone won on turn three. The short and long term strategies of that game are not immediately apparent and take playthroughs to tease out.
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
Unless you look through the cards first (and remember) there's nothing on the board that tells you that south america, central america and africa are not scored into the midwar. There was nothing telling me that investing effort in to controlling Japan was a gigantic waste of time as the USSR (seemed like a logical place to grab after snagging South Korea). Any decent, cohesive strategy is going to take some playthroughs.
I'd say the clue you missed regarding Japan is that it's a US bastion from the very beginning. You're playing an area control game. Why would you expend huge effort on just one country when you know they're worth equal amounts during scoring and for the same outlay of resources you could pick up many more than one elsewhere?
Personally, I found that solid initial strategies in this game were obvious. The first game we played, we immediately knew to stalemate Europe and wrestle elsewhere. We took it to the final round and it came down to a +2VP victory. Struggled right to the wire as influences rose and fell.
But we're arguing anecdotes, so I'll just agree to disagree and leave it there.
TL:DR; As said previously, Body: If you have a partner who won't get bored playing a four hour game then you should definitely get it.
I found DEFCON suicide cards, the Space Race as a release valve for unplayable events, and realignments rolls (as opposed to coup rolls) to be nonintuitive. And Inquisitor's experience is a perfect example of what I was talking about with "deep knowledge" of the cards. There's no way for a new player to know that neither side should ever touch Japan at all, or that the U.S. is absolutely required to hold a 3-ops card, or that De-Stalinization is terrifyingly powerful (move 4 influence? who cares?).
The first time I played twilight struggle we fumbled around aimlessly for a few turns and someone won on turn three. The short and long term strategies of that game are not immediately apparent and take playthroughs to tease out.
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
Unless you look through the cards first (and remember) there's nothing on the board that tells you that south america, central america and africa are not scored into the midwar.
Wrong. Your included players guide, provided for each player, tells you this. As for the event cards, a cursory knowledge of history and an awareness of the fact that cards reflect them should prepare you against any surprises. Don't, for example, expect to make a capitalist heaven in Cuba and ignore history in the process.
The first time I played twilight struggle we fumbled around aimlessly for a few turns and someone won on turn three. The short and long term strategies of that game are not immediately apparent and take playthroughs to tease out.
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
Unless you look through the cards first (and remember) there's nothing on the board that tells you that south america, central america and africa are not scored into the midwar.
Wrong. Your included players guide, provided for each player, tells you this. As for the event cards, a cursory knowledge of history and an awareness of the fact that cards reflect them should prepare you against any surprises. Don't, for example, expect to make a capitalist heaven in Cuba and ignore history in the process.
Oh drop the pretentious bull crap please. Yes, most everyone knows about fidel castro and the cuban missile crisis. Not everyone knows that Japan and America in the cold war. Or about Romanian abdication. Or whatever pope event it is that gives the US influence in eastern europe. Or countless other major and minor historical events that comprise the over 100 unique cards in the deck.
As lyk mentioned, there is also nothing obvious about knowing you need to hold a 3 ops card as the US. Or that the USSR needs to worry about being forced into playing a card that lowers defcon. Etc etc.
Also if you need to player aid to know what chunks of the map are scored when I personally don't find that very intuitive.
But agree or not, please drop the toxic attitude, it helps nothing.
The first time I played twilight struggle we fumbled around aimlessly for a few turns and someone won on turn three. The short and long term strategies of that game are not immediately apparent and take playthroughs to tease out.
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
Unless you look through the cards first (and remember) there's nothing on the board that tells you that south america, central america and africa are not scored into the midwar. There was nothing telling me that investing effort in to controlling Japan was a gigantic waste of time as the USSR (seemed like a logical place to grab after snagging South Korea). Any decent, cohesive strategy is going to take some playthroughs.
I'd say the clue you missed regarding Japan is that it's a US bastion from the very beginning. You're playing an area control game. Why would you expend huge effort on just one country when you know they're worth equal amounts during scoring and for the same outlay of resources you could pick up many more than one elsewhere?
Personally, I found that solid initial strategies in this game were obvious. The first game we played, we immediately knew to stalemate Europe and wrestle elsewhere. We took it to the final round and it came down to a +2VP victory. Struggled right to the wire as influences rose and fell.
But we're arguing anecdotes, so I'll just agree to disagree and leave it there.
TL:DR; As said previously, Body: If you have a partner who won't get bored playing a four hour game then you should definitely get it.
And yet france which can start with us influence in it is a trap thanks to the DeGaul card.
I was going to say something earlier, because these conversations usually go this way, but if one player says a game is complex and hard to understand, and another player says 'No, it's not' all that really means is 'I'm cleverer than you'.
It's never going to go well after that, unless you quickly move on and change the subject. Doesn't matter whether you're polite like Tayrun, or rude like Endaro.
The first time I played twilight struggle we fumbled around aimlessly for a few turns and someone won on turn three. The short and long term strategies of that game are not immediately apparent and take playthroughs to tease out.
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
Unless you look through the cards first (and remember) there's nothing on the board that tells you that south america, central america and africa are not scored into the midwar.
Wrong. Your included players guide, provided for each player, tells you this. As for the event cards, a cursory knowledge of history and an awareness of the fact that cards reflect them should prepare you against any surprises. Don't, for example, expect to make a capitalist heaven in Cuba and ignore history in the process.
So a game where you play as a major historical power has to play out in the same way as it did in actual history? What's the point of that?
Couldn't really tell much from that guide. You could really over theorycraft ANY game to death like that.
If the most complex game someone can handle is Arkham Horror, would they be able to handle Twilight Struggle?
(Anyone know how the offshoot games are: 1989 and Labyrinth: War on Terror?)
Arkham Horror and Twilight Struggle are very different.
Arkham Horror has fairly simple rules, but lots and lots of different bit and pieces and cards to pay attention to. There's not much strategy, because things can change very quickly. It's complex in that you have to keep track of all the different bits, and the design and rules are fairly inelegant so you have to remember a lot of stuff. And it's co-op, so anything you don't understand, people will explain and help you. Repeatedly if necessary.
Twilight Struggle is very strategic, there aren't lots of different pieces, but you have to remember what is on lots of cards otherwise you'll just lose all the time. It's complex because it's strategically deep. And no-one can really explain, because it's competitive.
Maybe I'd put it this way; if the complexity of Arkham Horror is pushing someone's comfort zone, I doubt Twilight Struggle will be much fun for them. However, I really love Twilight Struggle, so that's hard for me to say.
Edit: And I haven't played 1989 or Labyrinth, but another spinoff is 1960: The making of a President if you're looking into similar games, and War of the Ring is also similar.
I think you guys took my post way differently than I intended it. I apologize if it came off as rude, that was not my intent. Cool it on biting back so quick. My point was that, rather theme heavy as it is, I can't imagine anyone wanting to play it without common Cold War knowledge. The majority of the game is based around the historical event cards, and even if you're not familiar with everything, by and large the obscure events have a smaller impact anyways. I just disagree that the game blindsides and prevents strategy, even in the first play through.
If the most complex game someone can handle is Arkham Horror, would they be able to handle Twilight Struggle?
(Anyone know how the offshoot games are: 1989 and Labyrinth: War on Terror?)
If you can handle Arkham Horror, you can handle Twilight Struggle. Far fewer exemptions and far fewer rules to remember, though certainly a longer learning curve depending on how good you want to get. I have no experience with either 1989 or Labyrinth, but I heard Labyrinth lost some of the balance and precision TS had.
So a game where you play as a major historical power has to play out in the same way as it did in actual history?
Like that Axis & Allies game where Japan conquered America. Or those ANZAC guys I had in the Atlantic attacking Africa. Totally. Historically. Accurate.
So a game where you play as a major historical power has to play out in the same way as it did in actual history?
Like that Axis & Allies game where Japan conquered America. Or those ANZAC guys I had in the Atlantic attacking Africa. Totally. Historically. Accurate.
I think.
A real Axis & Allies historian knows that Japan used its Indochina tank factories to race across Siberia and invade Moscow.
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
sure I haven't played Axis & Allies extensively, but I think the real historical takeaway is this:
early on in 1942, Germany had three options:
Attack Stalingrad and lose the war.
Don't attack Stalingrad and lose the war even harder.
Do whatever and hope USA, Russia, and Britain keep rolling sixes against all odds.
@MrBody Twilight Struggle and Arkham Horror are so different I'm not convinced that meaningful conclusions can be drawn from a comparison. Based on the highly polarised opinions us CF denizens seem to have on whether TS is intuitive or not, I think the real conclusion is that you should try before you buy.
Custom pitches? What about the mats with the player boxes and match timers and the reroll markers? And all those rule reference cards?
Using models from all over the place, that is perfectly understandable, even though Blood Bowl minis are like the most reasonably priced minis on all of GW's website, considering they're all metal. Keep in mind I mean reasonable by GW standards.
The rules for BB you can get for free from the GW site
I'm playing a small league with some old school friends, as it gives a pretty decent excuse to meet up, chat, maybe have a drink. I made my own Skaven team out of the Stormvermin and Gutter Runner kits (I'll try see if I can post a pic at some point), mainly because I prefer the latest aesthetic for Skaven.
As said the old metal teams you can buy from GW fairly cheaply, although there are other companies out there that sell Fantasy Football models; a quick google of Fantasy Football teams will net you quite alot of results, but to save you some time, there's
http://bbtactics.com/ is a handy site if you need help thinking of a starting 11, or how you should maybe develop some of your players.
http://www.ff-fields.com/ is a site that sells blood bowl fields (15 normal ones; you can customize stuff, but it can start to add up fairly quickly; I'll note I'm the proud owner of the Skaven field and am very happy with it)
This discussion of Twilight Struggle somewhat reminds me of Britannia, which I love playing for giggles. Most people hate it, though, because it takes forreeeeveerrr. You get rewarded points based on achieving the historic goals of the races of Britannia, but you have to carefully watch your cards, because overextending to things that are ridiculous historically isn't worth anything. For instance, getting your Picts all the way into Wales during the 13th century isn't going to net you anything, because that's fucking ridiculous.
Those systems definitely aren't intuitive. They're fun, and if you figure them out they're neat. But arguing that they're intuitive is stretching the word to breaking point.
I think you guys took my post way differently than I intended it. I apologize if it came off as rude, that was not my intent. Cool it on biting back so quick. My point was that, rather theme heavy as it is, I can't imagine anyone wanting to play it without common Cold War knowledge. The majority of the game is based around the historical event cards, and even if you're not familiar with everything, by and large the obscure events have a smaller impact anyways. I just disagree that the game blindsides and prevents strategy, even in the first play through.
You're still being a back-handed dick and trying to flaunt how smart you are. Cut it the fuck out.
@MrBody Twilight Struggle and Arkham Horror are so different I'm not convinced that meaningful conclusions can be drawn from a comparison. Based on the highly polarised opinions us CF denizens seem to have on whether TS is intuitive or not, I think the real conclusion is that you should try before you buy.
Here is good advice, and there is a good electronic version that you can play.
This discussion of Twilight Struggle somewhat reminds me of Britannia, which I love playing for giggles. Most people hate it, though, because it takes forreeeeveerrr. You get rewarded points based on achieving the historic goals of the races of Britannia, but you have to carefully watch your cards, because overextending to things that are ridiculous historically isn't worth anything. For instance, getting your Picts all the way into Wales during the 13th century isn't going to net you anything, because that's fucking ridiculous.
Points, no, but it's still pretty funny.
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
Couldn't really tell much from that guide. You could really over theorycraft ANY game to death like that.
If the most complex game someone can handle is Arkham Horror, would they be able to handle Twilight Struggle?
(Anyone know how the offshoot games are: 1989 and Labyrinth: War on Terror?)
Arkham Horror and Twilight Struggle are very different.
Arkham Horror has fairly simple rules, but lots and lots of different bit and pieces and cards to pay attention to. There's not much strategy, because things can change very quickly. It's complex in that you have to keep track of all the different bits, and the design and rules are fairly inelegant so you have to remember a lot of stuff. And it's co-op, so anything you don't understand, people will explain and help you. Repeatedly if necessary.
Twilight Struggle is very strategic, there aren't lots of different pieces, but you have to remember what is on lots of cards otherwise you'll just lose all the time. It's complex because it's strategically deep. And no-one can really explain, because it's competitive.
I just wanted to contribute the experience with my wife and I on Twilight Struggle. We were both brand-new to the game, so the relatively simple rules and fun historical cards was the "hook" that kept us playing. Maybe we each got punished by cards that we didn't know were in the game, but the "discovery" aspect of the game was interesting enough so that it didn't matter much (though we were forewarned about Japan and Cuba). And then in our next game, we could play with more foresight and strategy.
However, Arkham Horror is a very different kind of complexity, as poshniallo said. It is NOT an easy game to "figure out as you go"; you almost NEED an experienced player on hand. So we're really not interested in Arkham Horror; Twilight Struggle is a no-brainer choice for us. I think that Twilight Struggle is similar to Puerto Rico in that respect, because though they are classics that have deep strategy, they also have a "path to mastery" for a group of new players. I would argue that games like Arkham Horror really shine only after all the players have become familiar with the game mechanics and rules.
jergarmar on
When I was a child, I had a fever... My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I'm playing a small league with some old school friends, as it gives a pretty decent excuse to meet up, chat, maybe have a drink. I made my own Skaven team out of the Stormvermin and Gutter Runner kits (I'll try see if I can post a pic at some point), mainly because I prefer the latest aesthetic for Skaven.
As said the old metal teams you can buy from GW fairly cheaply, although there are other companies out there that sell Fantasy Football models; a quick google of Fantasy Football teams will net you quite alot of results, but to save you some time, there's
http://bbtactics.com/ is a handy site if you need help thinking of a starting 11, or how you should maybe develop some of your players.
http://www.ff-fields.com/ is a site that sells blood bowl fields (15 normal ones; you can customize stuff, but it can start to add up fairly quickly; I'll note I'm the proud owner of the Skaven field and am very happy with it)
Good list, but you missed one: http://www.impactminiatures.com/. Minis are fairly average, but also relatively cheap. However, they also sell great tokens and other aids, like skill rings and dice.
This discussion of Twilight Struggle somewhat reminds me of Britannia, which I love playing for giggles. Most people hate it, though, because it takes forreeeeveerrr. You get rewarded points based on achieving the historic goals of the races of Britannia, but you have to carefully watch your cards, because overextending to things that are ridiculous historically isn't worth anything. For instance, getting your Picts all the way into Wales during the 13th century isn't going to net you anything, because that's fucking ridiculous.
Points, no, but it's still pretty funny.
Best game we ever had the Picts held Scotland until the end, for no reason at all. Plus, we had an exchange that went something like, "YOUR ANGLES DON'T EVEN GET POINTS FOR BEING THERE! WHY ARE YOU BEING SO OBTUSE?" "BUT I THINK MY ANGLES ARE SO... ahhh... CUTE THERE!"
I think you guys took my post way differently than I intended it. I apologize if it came off as rude, that was not my intent. Cool it on biting back so quick. My point was that, rather theme heavy as it is, I can't imagine anyone wanting to play it without common Cold War knowledge. The majority of the game is based around the historical event cards, and even if you're not familiar with everything, by and large the obscure events have a smaller impact anyways. I just disagree that the game blindsides and prevents strategy, even in the first play through.
You're still being a back-handed dick and trying to flaunt how smart you are. Cut it the fuck out.
What? I think you're overreacting. I'm not saying I expect people to know the obscure events, or even that I know them; I'm saying they don't matter. Knowing or not knowing tiny event #23 won't really matter in the long term of strategy because those usually just push around a couple of influence, while the bigger historical events (Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Arab-Israeli wars, etc) are the cards that can sway things a lot. I'm not saying I have any usual knowledge, or even interest for that matter, in cold war history so I don't understand the accusation of flaunting. Is the assumption that players will come in to the game aware of the most famous events the point of contention? I honestly don't think it's too much too assume, I think everyone knows Cuba is still communist. Besides, if you are playing with another new player, if there are enough significant cards you don't see coming, they probably won't expect them either. If you're new and playing against an experienced player, you're doomed anyways, as they will have a much better handle of the mechanics as a whole.
Got to play two games of For Sale and one game of Flash Point last night! Both were a lot of fun, and I can't wait to play Flash Point once we are familiar with the rules enough to play the advanced rules and more difficult settings! We got off pretty easy with 4 players with the family rules and kept the fire in check. Only two explosions happened during the game.
This discussion of Twilight Struggle somewhat reminds me of Britannia, which I love playing for giggles. Most people hate it, though, because it takes forreeeeveerrr. You get rewarded points based on achieving the historic goals of the races of Britannia, but you have to carefully watch your cards, because overextending to things that are ridiculous historically isn't worth anything. For instance, getting your Picts all the way into Wales during the 13th century isn't going to net you anything, because that's fucking ridiculous.
Points, no, but it's still pretty funny.
Best game we ever had the Picts held Scotland until the end, for no reason at all. Plus, we had an exchange that went something like, "YOUR ANGLES DON'T EVEN GET POINTS FOR BEING THERE! WHY ARE YOU BEING SO OBTUSE?" "BUT I THINK MY ANGLES ARE SO... ahhh... CUTE THERE!"
That is simultaneously the worst and best Britannia joke ever. The way I see it, the secret victory condition is keeping an army alive that's supposed to die off.
I've had to teach Twilight Struggle to a number of different people. I usually let them play the Soviets as I find the early war cards favour to them helps. Once I explain the mechanics, which are fairly straight forward, I will tell them which scoring cards are currently in the deck, when the reshuffles happen, and especially explain to them how to use destalinization to good effect. Also, I tend to explain the logic of what I'm doing with the cards. For example, playing Blockade to discard a soviet event I don't want to happen.
The other big thing I find is to not take the Defcon victory if they play CIA created or Olympic games at DefCon 2. Explain that they just lost the game with that move, but play the whole thing out so they know what full game is like.
@Redcoat-13 thanks for the links. The league already has given everyone links to the BB rules on GW's website. I was talking more about the little diagrams that come with the base game for scatter charts, weather changes, etc.
My local store had a copy of Eclipse that seems to have followed me home. I will feed it and keep it warm.
First play through we managed to absolutely misunderstand the rules and expanded way too far. The rest of the game passed without any player conflict, until the last turn when a sly move from an opponent robbed me of five victory points. Bastard. Excellent game, though, and I'm looking forward to playing it again.
My local store had a copy of Eclipse that seems to have followed me home. I will feed it and keep it warm.
First play through we managed to absolutely misunderstand the rules and expanded way too far. The rest of the game passed without any player conflict, until the last turn when a sly move from an opponent robbed me of five victory points. Bastard. Excellent game, though, and I'm looking forward to playing it again.
That's what happened my first game. I expanded to every possible system because WHY NOT? Meanwhile I overestimated early tech and underestimated money. With a paltry 3 money income all game and tons of influence discs out on the board, I was pretty crippled all game.
(once I got a monopoly on computers and missiles though, yowza)
Played Glory to Rome for the first time today. Had a fun time watching my friends bend their minds around how each card was simultaneously a bunch of different things. It ended kind of abruptly though when one of them built a Forum really quickly as well as a building that let him discard cards to the pool, so he was able to pretty quickly get all the clients he needed to win outright.
Is there a way to stop (or at least delay) a player with Forum? Or are you basically just trying to end the game as fast as possible so he can't use it? It seems like an annoying card since it dictates so much of what everyone does once it comes out.
Couldn't really tell much from that guide. You could really over theorycraft ANY game to death like that.
If the most complex game someone can handle is Arkham Horror, would they be able to handle Twilight Struggle?
(Anyone know how the offshoot games are: 1989 and Labyrinth: War on Terror?)
I know I'm late in responding to this, but I was on vacation for a few days, so please excuse me.
I haven't gotten to play 1989 yet, so sadly I cannot comment on that, but I feel like Labyrinth is genuinely great. The asymmetry is pushed further, as each side actually has a number of unique operations as well as different conditions for victory and board presence. There's a bit of personality lost as the cards are more generic than historic events, but that's about all I could really ding it for. In my opinion, it's different enough from Twilight Struggle to be worth owning both of them. I'm lead to believe 1989 is less different, so at this time (pending 1989 somehow blowing the socks off Twilight Struggle), I would recommend the other two before it.
Okay so, I like Board Games and the like, but I don't have many folks to play them with around here, are there good options if I wanted to play them online with people?
Okay so, I like Board Games and the like, but I don't have many folks to play them with around here, are there good options if I wanted to play them online with people?
Okay so, I like Board Games and the like, but I don't have many folks to play them with around here, are there good options if I wanted to play them online with people?
Have you tried meetup.com? There may be a gameing group or two near you. You couls also try craigslist. Course if you dont live in a big city that may be difficult.
As for online you can check the sticky thread for when games get posted here. You could check out somthing like yucata.de and see if you like it. There were a couple facebook games I was playing but they moved into forcing micropayments to play and that turned me way off. You can google Dominion Online to play that game.
Ticket to ride is on steam. Fingers crossed they get something like Catan or Carcassone.
Posts
I must disagree. The board clearly marks out what's in what scoring region and the conditions for being awarded points when a region is scored are on the player aids.
Though I certainly agree that it's a game to be played only with people willing to get deep into the strategic thinking side of it.
Unless you look through the cards first (and remember) there's nothing on the board that tells you that south america, central america and africa are not scored into the midwar. There was nothing telling me that investing effort in to controlling Japan was a gigantic waste of time as the USSR (seemed like a logical place to grab after snagging South Korea). Any decent, cohesive strategy is going to take some playthroughs.
I'd say the clue you missed regarding Japan is that it's a US bastion from the very beginning. You're playing an area control game. Why would you expend huge effort on just one country when you know they're worth equal amounts during scoring and for the same outlay of resources you could pick up many more than one elsewhere?
Personally, I found that solid initial strategies in this game were obvious. The first game we played, we immediately knew to stalemate Europe and wrestle elsewhere. We took it to the final round and it came down to a +2VP victory. Struggled right to the wire as influences rose and fell.
But we're arguing anecdotes, so I'll just agree to disagree and leave it there.
TL:DR; As said previously, Body: If you have a partner who won't get bored playing a four hour game then you should definitely get it.
Wrong. Your included players guide, provided for each player, tells you this. As for the event cards, a cursory knowledge of history and an awareness of the fact that cards reflect them should prepare you against any surprises. Don't, for example, expect to make a capitalist heaven in Cuba and ignore history in the process.
Oh drop the pretentious bull crap please. Yes, most everyone knows about fidel castro and the cuban missile crisis. Not everyone knows that Japan and America in the cold war. Or about Romanian abdication. Or whatever pope event it is that gives the US influence in eastern europe. Or countless other major and minor historical events that comprise the over 100 unique cards in the deck.
As lyk mentioned, there is also nothing obvious about knowing you need to hold a 3 ops card as the US. Or that the USSR needs to worry about being forced into playing a card that lowers defcon. Etc etc.
Also if you need to player aid to know what chunks of the map are scored when I personally don't find that very intuitive.
But agree or not, please drop the toxic attitude, it helps nothing.
And yet france which can start with us influence in it is a trap thanks to the DeGaul card.
It's never going to go well after that, unless you quickly move on and change the subject. Doesn't matter whether you're polite like Tayrun, or rude like Endaro.
So a game where you play as a major historical power has to play out in the same way as it did in actual history? What's the point of that?
If the most complex game someone can handle is Arkham Horror, would they be able to handle Twilight Struggle?
(Anyone know how the offshoot games are: 1989 and Labyrinth: War on Terror?)
Arkham Horror and Twilight Struggle are very different.
Arkham Horror has fairly simple rules, but lots and lots of different bit and pieces and cards to pay attention to. There's not much strategy, because things can change very quickly. It's complex in that you have to keep track of all the different bits, and the design and rules are fairly inelegant so you have to remember a lot of stuff. And it's co-op, so anything you don't understand, people will explain and help you. Repeatedly if necessary.
Twilight Struggle is very strategic, there aren't lots of different pieces, but you have to remember what is on lots of cards otherwise you'll just lose all the time. It's complex because it's strategically deep. And no-one can really explain, because it's competitive.
Edit: And I haven't played 1989 or Labyrinth, but another spinoff is 1960: The making of a President if you're looking into similar games, and War of the Ring is also similar.
If you can handle Arkham Horror, you can handle Twilight Struggle. Far fewer exemptions and far fewer rules to remember, though certainly a longer learning curve depending on how good you want to get. I have no experience with either 1989 or Labyrinth, but I heard Labyrinth lost some of the balance and precision TS had.
Like that Axis & Allies game where Japan conquered America. Or those ANZAC guys I had in the Atlantic attacking Africa. Totally. Historically. Accurate.
A real Axis & Allies historian knows that Japan used its Indochina tank factories to race across Siberia and invade Moscow.
early on in 1942, Germany had three options:
Attack Stalingrad and lose the war.
Don't attack Stalingrad and lose the war even harder.
Do whatever and hope USA, Russia, and Britain keep rolling sixes against all odds.
The rules for BB you can get for free from the GW site
Here is a link as it can be hard to find.
I'm playing a small league with some old school friends, as it gives a pretty decent excuse to meet up, chat, maybe have a drink. I made my own Skaven team out of the Stormvermin and Gutter Runner kits (I'll try see if I can post a pic at some point), mainly because I prefer the latest aesthetic for Skaven.
As said the old metal teams you can buy from GW fairly cheaply, although there are other companies out there that sell Fantasy Football models; a quick google of Fantasy Football teams will net you quite alot of results, but to save you some time, there's
http://www.gaspez-arts.com/
and
http://www.greebo.it/mainsite/ (I'll note, I played a guy who bought the lizzardmen team, and they looked much better in person).
http://willy-miniatures.blogspot.co.uk/ sells some quite nice models for most teams, but might be a bit expensive
also, worthy of note, is http://www.blackscorpionminiatures.com/ if you wanted a Dwarf team
http://bbtactics.com/ is a handy site if you need help thinking of a starting 11, or how you should maybe develop some of your players.
http://www.ff-fields.com/ is a site that sells blood bowl fields (15 normal ones; you can customize stuff, but it can start to add up fairly quickly; I'll note I'm the proud owner of the Skaven field and am very happy with it)
Those systems definitely aren't intuitive. They're fun, and if you figure them out they're neat. But arguing that they're intuitive is stretching the word to breaking point.
You're still being a back-handed dick and trying to flaunt how smart you are. Cut it the fuck out.
Here is good advice, and there is a good electronic version that you can play.
Points, no, but it's still pretty funny.
I just wanted to contribute the experience with my wife and I on Twilight Struggle. We were both brand-new to the game, so the relatively simple rules and fun historical cards was the "hook" that kept us playing. Maybe we each got punished by cards that we didn't know were in the game, but the "discovery" aspect of the game was interesting enough so that it didn't matter much (though we were forewarned about Japan and Cuba). And then in our next game, we could play with more foresight and strategy.
However, Arkham Horror is a very different kind of complexity, as poshniallo said. It is NOT an easy game to "figure out as you go"; you almost NEED an experienced player on hand. So we're really not interested in Arkham Horror; Twilight Struggle is a no-brainer choice for us. I think that Twilight Struggle is similar to Puerto Rico in that respect, because though they are classics that have deep strategy, they also have a "path to mastery" for a group of new players. I would argue that games like Arkham Horror really shine only after all the players have become familiar with the game mechanics and rules.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Good list, but you missed one: http://www.impactminiatures.com/. Minis are fairly average, but also relatively cheap. However, they also sell great tokens and other aids, like skill rings and dice.
Best game we ever had the Picts held Scotland until the end, for no reason at all. Plus, we had an exchange that went something like, "YOUR ANGLES DON'T EVEN GET POINTS FOR BEING THERE! WHY ARE YOU BEING SO OBTUSE?" "BUT I THINK MY ANGLES ARE SO... ahhh... CUTE THERE!"
What? I think you're overreacting. I'm not saying I expect people to know the obscure events, or even that I know them; I'm saying they don't matter. Knowing or not knowing tiny event #23 won't really matter in the long term of strategy because those usually just push around a couple of influence, while the bigger historical events (Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Arab-Israeli wars, etc) are the cards that can sway things a lot. I'm not saying I have any usual knowledge, or even interest for that matter, in cold war history so I don't understand the accusation of flaunting. Is the assumption that players will come in to the game aware of the most famous events the point of contention? I honestly don't think it's too much too assume, I think everyone knows Cuba is still communist. Besides, if you are playing with another new player, if there are enough significant cards you don't see coming, they probably won't expect them either. If you're new and playing against an experienced player, you're doomed anyways, as they will have a much better handle of the mechanics as a whole.
That is simultaneously the worst and best Britannia joke ever. The way I see it, the secret victory condition is keeping an army alive that's supposed to die off.
And now I want to play again.
The other big thing I find is to not take the Defcon victory if they play CIA created or Olympic games at DefCon 2. Explain that they just lost the game with that move, but play the whole thing out so they know what full game is like.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
First play through we managed to absolutely misunderstand the rules and expanded way too far. The rest of the game passed without any player conflict, until the last turn when a sly move from an opponent robbed me of five victory points. Bastard. Excellent game, though, and I'm looking forward to playing it again.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
That's what happened my first game. I expanded to every possible system because WHY NOT? Meanwhile I overestimated early tech and underestimated money. With a paltry 3 money income all game and tons of influence discs out on the board, I was pretty crippled all game.
(once I got a monopoly on computers and missiles though, yowza)
Is there a way to stop (or at least delay) a player with Forum? Or are you basically just trying to end the game as fast as possible so he can't use it? It seems like an annoying card since it dictates so much of what everyone does once it comes out.
I know I'm late in responding to this, but I was on vacation for a few days, so please excuse me.
I haven't gotten to play 1989 yet, so sadly I cannot comment on that, but I feel like Labyrinth is genuinely great. The asymmetry is pushed further, as each side actually has a number of unique operations as well as different conditions for victory and board presence. There's a bit of personality lost as the cards are more generic than historic events, but that's about all I could really ding it for. In my opinion, it's different enough from Twilight Struggle to be worth owning both of them. I'm lead to believe 1989 is less different, so at this time (pending 1989 somehow blowing the socks off Twilight Struggle), I would recommend the other two before it.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
How about this very forum?
Join ussss.
As for online you can check the sticky thread for when games get posted here. You could check out somthing like yucata.de and see if you like it. There were a couple facebook games I was playing but they moved into forcing micropayments to play and that turned me way off. You can google Dominion Online to play that game.
Ticket to ride is on steam. Fingers crossed they get something like Catan or Carcassone.