Twilight Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Download the Twilight Strategy e-book!

Pages: 1 [2]  All

Author Topic: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran  (Read 16502 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

DC-Chaos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Wargameroom username: Damien_TS
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2013, 11:02:34 am »
0

I think the argument to give Syrian control to the USSR at the start of the game is a very valid one, in fact it's something I suggested myself a while back in a another thread. It helps balance some of the power that's given the the US with +2 influence without really giving any real advantage to the Russians or changing the board situation of the region. Most importantly it prevents the US dropping ME scoring as a turn 1 headline and scoring 4vps.

You may as well don't like USSR gaining 6VPs "like that", I mean like:
  • opening 3POL/3YUG
  • headlining SocGov
  • AR1-ing Europe Scoring

against which US may or may not have any counterplay. At least those 4VPs make USSR's start a little more fair (maybe they'll headline Nasser in T1 to prevent it?)

I don't buy into this argument. This requires a certain combination of cards and set up to pull off. The USSR must use their headline phase and their AR1 to do it and the Americans can potentially stop it with East European Unrest, Defectors, Marshall Plan etc. In the case of US scoring ME they simply have to draw that card and give up their headline phase which is commonly used to dump scoring cards anyway. The only thing USSR can do is a blind suboptimal play of Nasser, which is very weak, especially if US hasn't even got the ME card and gives the US an early coup target. It think if the game designers had intended for Iran to be under US control they would have modified the region to stop this free 4vp swing from happening. The fact that these edited rules have been made by the commmunity means the change hasn't been implemented.
Logged

Cal

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +55
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2013, 04:51:32 pm »
0

You may as well don't like USSR gaining 6VPs "like that", I mean like:
  • opening 3POL/3YUG
  • headlining SocGov
  • AR1-ing Europe Scoring

against which US may or may not have any counterplay. At least those 4VPs make USSR's start a little more fair (maybe they'll headline Nasser in T1 to prevent it?)

Let's look at possible counters.
1. East European Unrest. Then that leaves the USSR with no presence in Europe and a dangerous situation.
2. Independent Reds. You could then say the USSR puts 3+ influence in Finland instead, but then the US could put 3inf in Finland as well.
3. Marshall Plan. Assuming a 4 W. Germany 3 Italy setup, the USSR would need to remove 2inf from W. Germany to get domination. More likely the US will play a 4 W Germany, 2 Italy, 1 Spain/Portugal or Greece or Turkey, which will also block Europe domination as Socialist Governments can't remove all of them. If the US puts 1inf in Finland because the USSR put 3inf in Finland, Marshall Plan would also block domination.
4. Defectors.
5. Possibly CIA Created, if the 1op is used on a successful realignment (or a coup roll of 6) of a USSR controlled country. (I admit this is a little far-fetched.)
6. Olympic Games, if boycotted. The 4ops can be used to repair damage.
7. Five Year Plan. If the USSR is holding one of these cards and it hits it, then that can also solve the problem. FYP can also hit the European Scoring card itself, forcing the USSR to discard it.

So the US has many options against the USSR trying for a quick and easy Europe Domination. Admittedly, 5 and 6 are unlikely; the US would have to roll very well for CIA Created to work, and the USSR will just participate in the games and never boycott. But there are still a lot of variables, and if the USSR somehow has EEU, Defectors, Marshall Plan, Independent Reds, and Five Year Plan in its hand with Socialist Governments and Europe Scoring, then the USSR has problems. Comparatively, the USSR's only counter to a US headline of Middle East Scoring when the US starts the game with Iran controlled is either Nasser (a terrible thing to headline on Turn1, when the US is guaranteed at least one opportunity to coup at defcon3), or a similar Olympic Games boycott.

edit: By the way, I am personally of the opinion that the game (with optional cards) is balanced as it starts. The US doesn't need any extra influence at game start. +1 is unnecessary. +2 is unnecessary and excessive. I do not say this from the point of view of a USSR player: I am willing to play any game as the US with standard setup.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 12:42:20 am by Cal »
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2013, 06:28:18 am »
0

To be more precise, 4 VPs from Middle East Scoring headlined by USA can be prevented not only by headlining Nasser or boycotted Olympic Games but by De-Stalinization as well. Headlining De-Stal in turn 1 is risky but not that uncommon if USSR has problematic hand but has De-Stal and Defectors. If I had headlined it and saw ME Scoring headlined by US, I'd probably De-Stal from Finland, Syria, and leaving Poland and East Germany at 0/3, to Lebanon (making ME 1 VP), India, Chile, and South Africa. I feel good.
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

Cal

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +55
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2013, 11:29:38 am »
0

Good point. De-Stal is also a possible counter. It's even worse than Nasser, but it is a counter, technically. (How is it bad? You have too few targets to move influence from, and De-Stal is best used for getting into S. America/C. America and Africa/SE Asia; doing that at the opening of Turn1 lets America coup you at will.)

If I had headlined it and saw ME Scoring headlined by US, I'd probably De-Stal from Finland, Syria, and leaving Poland and East Germany at 0/3, to Lebanon (making ME 1 VP), India, Chile, and South Africa. I feel good.
The US player then spends a 4-op card to put 3 influence in E. Germany. The US then plays Truman Doctrine and steals E. Germany outright.  Sure, Warsaw Pact is still out there, but that's going to require a bit of cards and effort to steal back.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 02:53:01 pm by Cal »
Logged

Chimista

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
  • Wargameroom username: chimista
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2013, 01:53:46 pm »
0

Good point. De-Stal is also a possible counter. It's even worse than Nasser, but it is a counter, technically. (How is it bad? You have too few targets to move influence from, and De-Stal is best used for getting into S. America/C. America and Africa/SE Asia; doing that at the opening of Turn1 let's America coup you at will.)

If I had headlined it and saw ME Scoring headlined by US, I'd probably De-Stal from Finland, Syria, and leaving Poland and East Germany at 0/3, to Lebanon (making ME 1 VP), India, Chile, and South Africa. I feel good.
The US player then spends a 4-op card to put 3 influence in E. Germany. The US then plays Truman Doctrine and steals E. Germany outright.  Sure, Warsaw Pact is still out there, but that's going to require a bit of cards and effort to steal back.

Hard to imagine a worse way to dump De-Stal, maybe the most powerful USSR card, just to prevent ME Scoring leaving a weak position in Europe and a coup target in Lebanon. I believe a well used De-Stal is worth more than 4 (hypothetical) vp's
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2013, 07:15:22 am »
0

Good point. De-Stal is also a possible counter. It's even worse than Nasser, but it is a counter, technically. (How is it bad? You have too few targets to move influence from, and De-Stal is best used for getting into S. America/C. America and Africa/SE Asia; doing that at the opening of Turn1 let's America coup you at will.)

If I had headlined it and saw ME Scoring headlined by US, I'd probably De-Stal from Finland, Syria, and leaving Poland and East Germany at 0/3, to Lebanon (making ME 1 VP), India, Chile, and South Africa. I feel good.
The US player then spends a 4-op card to put 3 influence in E. Germany. The US then plays Truman Doctrine and steals E. Germany outright.  Sure, Warsaw Pact is still out there, but that's going to require a bit of cards and effort to steal back.

Hard to imagine a worse way to dump De-Stal, maybe the most powerful USSR card, just to prevent ME Scoring leaving a weak position in Europe and a coup target in Lebanon. I believe a well used De-Stal is worth more than 4 (hypothetical) vp's

These VPs are not hypothetical. You headline De-Stal, then you see ME Scoring headlined, then you decide where to De-Stal.
If extremely early De-Stal (T1AR1) is still bad for US, it must be still good for the USSR because it does not give US 3 Ops.
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

Chimista

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
  • Wargameroom username: chimista
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2013, 09:30:00 am »
0

Good point. De-Stal is also a possible counter. It's even worse than Nasser, but it is a counter, technically. (How is it bad? You have too few targets to move influence from, and De-Stal is best used for getting into S. America/C. America and Africa/SE Asia; doing that at the opening of Turn1 let's America coup you at will.)

If I had headlined it and saw ME Scoring headlined by US, I'd probably De-Stal from Finland, Syria, and leaving Poland and East Germany at 0/3, to Lebanon (making ME 1 VP), India, Chile, and South Africa. I feel good.




The US player then spends a 4-op card to put 3 influence in E. Germany. The US then plays Truman Doctrine and steals E. Germany outright.  Sure, Warsaw Pact is still out there, but that's going to require a bit of cards and effort to steal back.

Hard to imagine a worse way to dump De-Stal, maybe the most powerful USSR card, just to prevent ME Scoring leaving a weak position in Europe and a coup target in Lebanon. I believe a well used De-Stal is worth more than 4 (hypothetical) vp's

These VPs are not hypothetical. You headline De-Stal, then you see ME Scoring headlined, then you decide where to De-Stal.
If extremely early De-Stal (T1AR1) is still bad for US, it must be still good for the USSR because it does not give US 3 Ops.

In general HLing De-Stal is a bad move in T1, since it allows the US to coup you (or realing you) out, unless you place your inf in hard to coup targets, as Chile and South Africa, but that's sub-optimal, as 1 inf in each continent is easy to remove expending some ops in realingments, plus there are already other cards that grant the USSR presence in those countries.

Placing 1 inf in each SA BG or 2 in SA and 2 in Africa, etc. is using DeStal to its full potential and can be a game changer. Anything else is just something you do to handle a crisis and IMHO is suboptimal. I would feel some relief (and surprise) if, playing as the US a USSR player would use DeStal as you suggest.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 09:39:34 am by Chimista »
Logged

discomute

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2013, 11:49:52 pm »
0

I think the argument to give Syrian control to the USSR at the start of the game is a very valid one, in fact it's something I suggested myself a while back in a another thread. It helps balance some of the power that's given the the US with +2 influence without really giving any real advantage to the Russians or changing the board situation of the region. Most importantly it prevents the US dropping ME scoring as a turn 1 headline and scoring 4vps.

You may as well don't like USSR gaining 6VPs "like that", I mean like:
  • opening 3POL/3YUG
  • headlining SocGov
  • AR1-ing Europe Scoring

against which US may or may not have any counterplay. At least those 4VPs make USSR's start a little more fair (maybe they'll headline Nasser in T1 to prevent it?)

I don't buy into this argument. This requires a certain combination of cards and set up to pull off. The USSR must use their headline phase and their AR1 to do it and the Americans can potentially stop it with East European Unrest, Defectors, Marshall Plan etc. In the case of US scoring ME they simply have to draw that card and give up their headline phase which is commonly used to dump scoring cards anyway. The only thing USSR can do is a blind suboptimal play of Nasser, which is very weak, especially if US hasn't even got the ME card and gives the US an early coup target. It think if the game designers had intended for Iran to be under US control they would have modified the region to stop this free 4vp swing from happening. The fact that these edited rules have been made by the commmunity means the change hasn't been implemented.

USA starting with Iran control still don't dominate because they don't auto start with any non-battleground countries.

Logged

DC-Chaos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Wargameroom username: Damien_TS
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2013, 08:49:35 am »
0

I think the argument to give Syrian control to the USSR at the start of the game is a very valid one, in fact it's something I suggested myself a while back in a another thread. It helps balance some of the power that's given the the US with +2 influence without really giving any real advantage to the Russians or changing the board situation of the region. Most importantly it prevents the US dropping ME scoring as a turn 1 headline and scoring 4vps.

You may as well don't like USSR gaining 6VPs "like that", I mean like:
  • opening 3POL/3YUG
  • headlining SocGov
  • AR1-ing Europe Scoring

against which US may or may not have any counterplay. At least those 4VPs make USSR's start a little more fair (maybe they'll headline Nasser in T1 to prevent it?)

I don't buy into this argument. This requires a certain combination of cards and set up to pull off. The USSR must use their headline phase and their AR1 to do it and the Americans can potentially stop it with East European Unrest, Defectors, Marshall Plan etc. In the case of US scoring ME they simply have to draw that card and give up their headline phase which is commonly used to dump scoring cards anyway. The only thing USSR can do is a blind suboptimal play of Nasser, which is very weak, especially if US hasn't even got the ME card and gives the US an early coup target. It think if the game designers had intended for Iran to be under US control they would have modified the region to stop this free 4vp swing from happening. The fact that these edited rules have been made by the commmunity means the change hasn't been implemented.

USA starting with Iran control still don't dominate because they don't auto start with any non-battleground countries.

Yes but with the extra influence the US starts with control of Iran and therefore has presence plus one battleground giving them 4 VPs if the Middle East is scored. Since the USSR doesn't start with even presence they get nothing. Therein lies the problem. A problem that only comes up because the original rules have been modified by the playing community. I think another simple modification to add 1 influence to Syria for the USSR should be included to fix this imbalance.
Logged

discomute

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2013, 05:48:39 am »
0

Of course... That is a really good point, especially seeing how Middle East is a USSR advantage to begin with, 4VP's to USA is a huge swing.

Does anyone else play with 2 in Iran & 2 in Syria? Or is the general consensus just 2 in Iran?
Logged

discomute

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2013, 06:51:09 am »
0

So I've thought about it and the problem with 2 in Syria is that a successful coup in iran on ar1 forces USA to play into the Middle East. If they don't, the USSR now has domination and they don't have presence.
Logged

DC-Chaos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Wargameroom username: Damien_TS
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2014, 10:47:36 am »
0

Playing into the ME is something the US should do anyway especially if they don't have any Influence there anymore so I wouldn't see them being forced to do so such a huge problem.

All it takes for the USSR to get into the situation mentioned is drop a single influence into the Syria to grab control. Very little difference between them having to do this themselves and them just starting out like that. The US should still be able to get influence back through Israel or Turkey or by couping Syria or Iran.
Logged

discomute

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2014, 07:16:25 pm »
0

Okay, but:

- yes the USSR is likely to get syria, but since you can't place influence and score at the same time, starting with "1" gives the USSR a whole extra turn to gain control of a single country
- importantly, when the USA's counter-coup of iran is their first time, a failed coup gives a domination to USSR when they don't even have presence.

I still think starting with Syria is too good.

As 'against the rules' as it is, the only compromise that I personally would be happy with, would be for Iran to start with 2, but to consider it "uncontrolled" until USA place an influence, through either ops or a coup.

I only play the board game,but I imagine this would be impossible to work online?
Logged

TwilightOnline

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
    • Twilight Struggle Online
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2014, 01:30:08 pm »
0

I only play the board game,but I imagine this would be impossible to work online?

Depends on the version - we'll include ability to customize the default rules in our online version for sure.
Logged

MichaelPatnik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Wargameroom username: MichaelPatnik
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2014, 10:55:00 am »
+1

I've done some back of the envelope calculations to determine the chances of different outcomes given the following assumptions:

- US puts 3 total IP in Iran
- USSR has a 4 op card in hand and will use it to coup Iran T1AR1
- If Iran winds up with any Soviet Inf, US has a 4 op card and will use it to coup Iran back T1AR1
- If Iran winds up with any US Inf, USSR will coup Iran w another 4 op card on T1AR2. (Good chance this is China Card)
- US is assumed to get Thailand if US has the first turn following the sequence and Defcon is 3 or lower
- Soviets are considered successful any time Iran is completely emptied, since the goal is to deny access

My results are as follows:

US wins Access w Defcon 4 --> .333333
US wins Access w Defcon 2 --> .083333
US Total Success --> .416667
- US always has first move following sequence (chance given US wins access)
- US gets Thailand --> .083333 (total chance)
- USSR uses second 4 ops --> .083333 (total chance)

USSR Denies Access w Defcon 4 --> .166667
USSR Denies Access w Defcon 3 --> .166667
USSR Denies Access w Defcon 2 --> .25
USSR Total Success --> .583333
- US has first move following sequence --> .714286 (chance given USSR denies access)
- USSR has first move following sequence --> .285714 (chance given USSR denies access)
- US gets Thailand --> .25 (total chance)
- USSR uses second 4 ops (China?) --> .25 (total chance)

Total
- US gets access --> .416667
- USSR denies access --> .583333
- US has first move --> .833333
- USSR has first move --> .166667
- US gets Thailand --> .333333
- USSR uses second 4 ops (China?) --> .333333

42% of the time, US gets access and the first move.  This could be considered great for the US.  8.3% of the time the USSR also loses Thailand and possibly the China card as well.
33% of the time, USSR will deny access without using the a 2nd 4 ops (China?) or gifting the US Thailand.  This could be considered great for USSR.
25% of the time, USSR will deny access, but may have to use the China card and gift the US Thailand.  This may favor USSR, but is closer to neutral than the other events.

This is why I have been experimenting with other openings as USSR.  The sequence is very high risk, high reward.  My current thinking is that this is a great sequence for USSR players who feel that they are at a skill disadvantage.  For USSR players who feel that they are at a skill advantage, there may be a less risky opening sequence.  I'm just not sure what that is yet. :)
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 09:56:16 am by MichaelPatnik »
Logged

Gustaf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2014, 08:04:52 pm »
0

It seems to me that any alternative USSR play, like moving into Afghanistan, allows the US to drop 3 IP into Pakistan. Then Pakistan is at the same situation as Iran, so any argument against a coup in Iran applies equally to Pakistan.

Yes, you can use the China card but that's a huge boost to the US in the early war, especially when it comes to retaining Decol/Destal.

Even with the China card, a roll of 4 leaves you with only 2 influence there. The US can then use a 4 op card to counter and have a 50% chance of control. Then they have China card and West Asia AND Iran.

In my last game I played this US strategy. My opponent rolled a 6 for the Pakistan coup so I lost West Asia, but I did manage to get rid of Decol thanks to this and ended up winning in a nailbiter, largely thanks to being in charge of Africa throughout the game. Formosan Resolution an Shuttle Diplomacy also meant that I could be competitive on 1/3 Asia scorings.

I'm still unsure on an effective USSR play in this scenario.
Logged

DC-Chaos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Wargameroom username: Damien_TS
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2014, 08:27:01 am »
0

I think everyone is a bit unsure of the best play. However I am still putting 2 into Afghanistan in almost all my games. I see your point that the same argument applies to Pakistan as to Iran but i see it a bit differently.
The US must use a 3 op card to establish the same presence.
US unlikely to be able to do anything else in their first turn.
The China card will increase the odds of success.
Success in Pakistan means quicker access to India and Burma.
Iran may be easier targeted later by coups, Muslim revolution, Marine Barrack, Iranian hostage crisis etc

I much prefer having to coup Pakistan than Iran because of these reasons. Of course with any strategy it depends on your hand and board position.
Logged

Gustaf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2014, 05:54:39 am »
0

I'm still not sure that it couldn't be a good idea to open with an Iran coup. Depending on how it goes, the US can respond either by moving to Pakistan (if they still have influence in Iran) or by a counter-coup, if they don't and you didn't just empty it. In the former case, coup Pakistan with China and they can't coup back. You didn't get Iran but you got West Asia which is what really mattered. In the latter case, coup back. If we're equal on ops an extra coup means you remove on average 3.5 more influence, netting you with 0.5 influence in Iran on average. That sounds decent to me.
Logged

discomute

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Re: USSR T1AR1 against US 3IP in Iran
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2014, 10:52:24 pm »
0

One thing that hasn't been spoken about a lot is a coup into italy

If Iran is at 3VP's then the old school coup to Italy is very much alive

USA cannot counter coup

The USA will likely take Pakistan as a result. Giving up West Asia sucks, but it likely to happen anyway with a giant 3 into Iran. Depending on your hand, you can also consider couping pakistan with China. This is a pretty ballsy move but if you have decol and they put 3 into pakistan, it could be worth it.

Sitting Syria up is next to block access to the mediterrian counties and give presence to the middle east.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 22 queries.