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]

Author Topic: Jason Matthews interview  (Read 9894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Twilight Strategy
Jason Matthews interview
« on: November 14, 2012, 11:54:37 pm »
+2

We're going to arrange for an interview with Jason Matthews himself.  If you have any burning questions you'd like to ask him, post them in here!  Can't guarantee that they'll be asked or answered, of course, but we'll try to include as many as we can.
Logged

Cal

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +55
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2012, 01:06:10 am »
+1

All Deluxe Edition mechanics questions:

Questions I don't think have been asked:
1. Does South African Unrest still work as either 2inf in South Africa, or 1inf South Africa, and 2inf in either Botswana or Angola, and NOT potentially as 1inf South Africa, 1inf Botswana, 1inf Angola? The new wording of the card is causing a bit of a debate.
2. Is ABM Treaty's event affected by Red Scare?
3. If the US wants to play UN Intervention to cancel the 3VP award from We Will Bury You, but they don't have any USSR cards to use with it, is the card unplayable or is playing it for the event without a card legal?
4. USSR has 19 VP. Yuri and Samantha is in effect. USSR plays CIA Created at defcon 2 and the US coups a battleground country. Whose win takes priority, the USSR's for reaching 20VP or the US' for defcon1?
5. Only four cards left in the deck. Our Man in Tehran is played for the event. How is this resolved:
a. The US player sets the four cards left undiscarded aside, then reshuffles the discards, then takes the top card, reviews those five, then discards what he chooses and reshuffles what's left.
b. The deck is reshuffled with the discards, THEN the US player takes the top five cards, reviews them, discards what he chooses, and then shuffles the deck again?


Questions I think have an official answer but I'm not positive:
6. If Degaulle Leads France and Willy Brandt are played for the event before NATO is played for the event, does this mean the USSR cannot realign or coup US-controlled France and W. Germany, because NATO was not active to be 'cancelled' when they were played? (I think the answer is that the USSR cannot, because the card doesn't say 'cancel or prevent'.)
7. Can SALT Negotiations be used to retrieve an opponent's headline card that has been resolved? Such as if the USSR played Red Scare and then the US played SALT, could they then pick up Red Scare since it was resolved as an event first? (I think the answer is 'yes', because the card is resolved and already considered discarded.)
8. If the US has Containment in effect and then plays Che, does the USSR coup with 4-ops? Same question with Lone Gunman and does it become 2ops for the USSR. (I'm pretty sure the answer is 'yes'.)
9. It's AR7. The US is at 18 VP, he holds the China Card, Nixon Plays the China Card, and a scoring card for a region that will give the USSR a lot of VP. No ability that would let the US play eight action rounds is in effect. The US plays Nixon Plays the China Card for the event to get a total of 20 VP, holding the bad scoring card. Is this legal, or would the US lose the game for holding the scoring card? (I think the answer is 'yes it is legal because the US technically wins the game before they check to see if the US loses by holding a scoring card.')
10. If a player is under Quagmire/Bear Trap, then given Missile Envy by the event (they must play it for 2ops,) but they're under Red Scare so Missile Envy is only worth 1op, can they then discard no cards and must sit the rest of the turn out (except for playing scoring cards), even if they have other cards that would qualify to be discarded?  (I think the answer is 'yes, they must sit the rest of the turn out because missile envy cannot be discarded now'.)
11. If a player is under Quagmire/Bear Trap, unable to discard any cards, and has Scoring Cards to play, may they choose which AR to play them, or must they play them immediately? For example, it's AR6 and they have one scoring card in hand. Must they play it in AR6, or can they skip AR6 then play it in AR7? (I think the answer is that they must play them immediately and cannot sit back and wait.)

Also tell him thank you, and sorry for the constant mechanics questions.
Logged

Ioan76_TM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2012, 08:22:24 am »
+2

1. Will be any extension/addition to further balance the game and/or offer additional flavor ?
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Twilight Strategy
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2012, 10:24:25 am »
+1

All Deluxe Edition mechanics questions:

Questions I don't think have been asked:
1. Does South African Unrest still work as either 2inf in South Africa, or 1inf South Africa, and 2inf in either Botswana or Angola, and NOT potentially as 1inf South Africa, 1inf Botswana, 1inf Angola? The new wording of the card is causing a bit of a debate.
2. Is ABM Treaty's event affected by Red Scare?
3. If the US wants to play UN Intervention to cancel the 3VP award from We Will Bury You, but they don't have any USSR cards to use with it, is the card unplayable or is playing it for the event without a card legal?
4. USSR has 19 VP. Yuri and Samantha is in effect. USSR plays CIA Created at defcon 2 and the US coups a battleground country. Whose win takes priority, the USSR's for reaching 20VP or the US' for defcon1?
5. Only four cards left in the deck. Our Man in Tehran is played for the event. How is this resolved:
a. The US player sets the four cards left undiscarded aside, then reshuffles the discards, then takes the top card, reviews those five, then discards what he chooses and reshuffles what's left.
b. The deck is reshuffled with the discards, THEN the US player takes the top five cards, reviews them, discards what he chooses, and then shuffles the deck again?


Questions I think have an official answer but I'm not positive:
6. If Degaulle Leads France and Willy Brandt are played for the event before NATO is played for the event, does this mean the USSR cannot realign or coup US-controlled France and W. Germany, because NATO was not active to be 'cancelled' when they were played? (I think the answer is that the USSR cannot, because the card doesn't say 'cancel or prevent'.)
7. Can SALT Negotiations be used to retrieve an opponent's headline card that has been resolved? Such as if the USSR played Red Scare and then the US played SALT, could they then pick up Red Scare since it was resolved as an event first? (I think the answer is 'yes', because the card is resolved and already considered discarded.)
8. If the US has Containment in effect and then plays Che, does the USSR coup with 4-ops? Same question with Lone Gunman and does it become 2ops for the USSR. (I'm pretty sure the answer is 'yes'.)
9. It's AR7. The US is at 18 VP, he holds the China Card, Nixon Plays the China Card, and a scoring card for a region that will give the USSR a lot of VP. No ability that would let the US play eight action rounds is in effect. The US plays Nixon Plays the China Card for the event to get a total of 20 VP, holding the bad scoring card. Is this legal, or would the US lose the game for holding the scoring card? (I think the answer is 'yes it is legal because the US technically wins the game before they check to see if the US loses by holding a scoring card.')
10. If a player is under Quagmire/Bear Trap, then given Missile Envy by the event (they must play it for 2ops,) but they're under Red Scare so Missile Envy is only worth 1op, can they then discard no cards and must sit the rest of the turn out (except for playing scoring cards), even if they have other cards that would qualify to be discarded?  (I think the answer is 'yes, they must sit the rest of the turn out because missile envy cannot be discarded now'.)
11. If a player is under Quagmire/Bear Trap, unable to discard any cards, and has Scoring Cards to play, may they choose which AR to play them, or must they play them immediately? For example, it's AR6 and they have one scoring card in hand. Must they play it in AR6, or can they skip AR6 then play it in AR7? (I think the answer is that they must play them immediately and cannot sit back and wait.)

Also tell him thank you, and sorry for the constant mechanics questions.

I can try to answer some of these.  I'd rather not the interview be a whole series of rules questions :)

1. Unclear.  But I doubt they meant to change the intent.
2. Yes ("as if they played a 4 Ops card")
3. Unplayable
4. Unclear, since it doesn't have the WWBY text
5. a

6. Unclear but I think they should be prevented anyway
7. Yes
8. If CIA Created is triggered, regardless of who triggers it, Containment will boost its value but Brezhnev will not.  I assume this will apply to Che as well.
9. Legal.  But note that this trick does not work with the space race "discard a held card" power.
10. No.
11. Immediately.
Logged

ristonj

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Wargameroom username: JohnRiston_TSL
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2012, 11:48:33 am »
+1

1. Which Cold War event(s) did you most want to include but were forced to leave on the cutting room floor (e.g. Watergate, "Crisis of Confidence"/Malaise)?
2. How is the PC game coming along?
3. Not a question, but for the record, I'd buy a Spanish Civil War CDG!

I'm sure I'll think of some more later.
Logged

() | (_) ^/

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Wargameroom username: paddyodoors
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2012, 01:14:20 pm »
0

1. What are your thoughts on the debate about whether TS is truly a wargame or not?
Logged

Fugitive Unknown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2012, 07:21:55 pm »
0

1. Have you considered making a non-historical game? Say Science Fiction or Fantasy?

2. What came first, the card event/ops play mechanic, or the theme?

3. Have you considered making a game more focused on the educational aspects of history, say, as a teaching aid?

4. Given what you've learned over the past eight years of design, would you have done anything differently, say if you had to remake it today?
Logged

Matty Defense

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2012, 09:16:03 pm »
0

Any new cards/expansion coming?
Logged
I post a lot but I get no respect!

Chimista

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
  • Wargameroom username: chimista
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2012, 04:21:52 am »
+1

Hi!
This is my first post in the blog, thanks to everybody and specially to Theory for such an awesome blog.

IŽd really love to ask Jason Matthews about the design process of TS. How long did it take? How many people involved in the beta-testing? How different was the initial version (when beta testing started) to what we can see now?

Thanks so much!
Logged

Julio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
  • You are not a cylon!
  • Respect: +11
    • View Profile
    • Partidas al Twilight Struggle
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2012, 05:59:26 am »
0

Hello.

I would like to know if they (the designers) had preview the current standar strategy (for example couping Iran in AR1, hold Decolonization till Turn3, etc.) ?
Logged
Partidas al Twilight Struggle. Spanish blog with AAR of some games and other TS considerations.

ddddddd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2012, 03:39:02 pm »
0

1) Which events of the Cold war did the designers most wish they had made into a card?
Logged

SnowFire

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2012, 09:07:19 pm »
+1

1. Many of the cards appear to assume an almost entirely different game is happening than the one which TS turned out to be, where DEFCON randomly fluctuates from 2-5 with equal probability out of whim & how the players are feeling today.  Most notably: See the existence of NATO or US/Japan Pact's almost worthless coup / realignment protection that was thought so useful as to require a priming event, and the existence of events that counter NATO like Willy Brandt!  Did a version of the game that played this way exist early in playtesting, where reactivating realignments of West Germany was something worth writing out on card text?  Were the playtesters just types who didn't coup very often because that'd be mean and then the mil ops mechanic was stuck in to incentivize them?  Were these clauses / events known to be pointless but added for flavor?

2. Was the interaction of CIA Created and Lone Gunmen with DEFCON 2 known at release time?
[It's still not explicitly called out in the rulebook.  In essence these cards have 3-4 lines of hidden extra rule text on them.  They're an immense newbie trap and it's very easy for experienced players who played in a group that didn't notice the interaction to never realize they work 100% differently than they appear to at first glance.]

3. What was behind the creation of the Military Ops mechanic?
[In practice, it's a bone thrown to the Soviets, which makes for interesting asymmetry where the US has better events but the Soviets get a VP bonus by default if the US can't squeeze a minor coup in in the always-DEFCON 2 world of experienced TS players...  but I have no idea if that was the intent.]

4. Twilight Struggle plays out in a very cynical Kissinger's fever dream way where coups are awesome, not performing coups will get you penalized in points, and most  "liberal" nice-guy ploys backfire.  How much of this was "because that makes a good game," how much is "taking the Cold War on its own terms," and how much was "Well, that's accurate history IMHO?"
[Full disclosure: I am on the retrospective liberal side of history on this one.  I respect that this game takes the Cold War at face value, as discussed in the designer notes - the Domino Theory is true, the red arrows are crawling across the map, things that Cold War planners thought were awesome like Nuclear Subs need to somehow be awesome in a geopolitical control game, everything that is not an outright ally of the US is an enemy, etc.  Still, the mil ops points if nothing else show that in this game, you must be fighting for superiority with coups & wars & stuff, and there's no path for attempting to be Truman, friend of the Third World or the like.  I realize that not everything can fit in a game, but even given that, most of the "liberal" measures of the Cold War all backfire - ABM Treaties are about getting your opponent to let their guard down so you can stab them in the back with forbidden missiles, the Suez Crisis ruins America's true friends in colonial UK & France and gets them no real gains elsewhere, decolonization just lets the commies in, etc.  Panama Canal Returned is practically the only exception...  okay and in fairness, having Red Scare be a case of "conservative" Cold War strategies backfire is amusing too.]

5. The famous coffee stain in the top left of the Deluxe Edition board - art, or unintentional art?

6. This isn't a question either, but see ristonj, I'd love to see a proper Spanish Civil War CDG.  Especially one that emphasized playability and variance over recreating history, something that TS does admirably that certain other games do not I feel.
Logged

ddddddd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2012, 05:03:59 am »
0

Quote
5. The famous coffee stain in the top left of the Deluxe Edition board - art, or unintentional art?

Seconded.
Logged

Nightlyraver

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2012, 02:33:36 am »
0

Any chance of developing an iPad version of the game?  Seems like the touch interface is much more conducive for panning and zooming and simulating the handling of cards.

Also, how is the AI on the PC version?  Is it going to be a challenge to an experienced player?
Logged

ddddddd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2012, 12:05:48 pm »
0

Aldrich Ames is the only card given the term "remix" on the basis that it was significantly altered from its initial form. Which other cards (if any) did you consider "remixing", either for balance or for thematic interest?
Logged

() | (_) ^/

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Wargameroom username: paddyodoors
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2012, 09:50:50 pm »
0

Quote
5. The famous coffee stain in the top left of the Deluxe Edition board - art, or unintentional art?

Seconded.

Thirdeded.
Logged

Jayne Starlancer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Hero of Canton
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2012, 06:46:52 pm »
+1

1. On the last page of the deluxe edition rulebook, you have listed three variants for realignment rolls that were rejected during playtesting. What were the reasons (both game mechanics and thematically) for rejecting these alternatives and using the rules as written?

2. Was there ever a stage in design and development where C. America, S. America, and/or Africa were affected by DEFCON restrictions?

3. Can you share some of the alternative Space Race rewards that you eventually decided not to use, if there were any?

4. Did you ever consider creating shorter scenarios? Why are there none included in the final version of the game (besides the later inclusion of the Late War scenario in the deluxe edition rulebook)?

5. How was the Presence/Domination/Control scoring system developed?

6. Can you elaborate on the thought process by which you assigned Ops values to the various Events?

7. How were the mechanics for the war events developed?

8. What thematically do you see happening when something like the USSR winning the Korean War happens? Is Korean rejoined into one communist nation? Same type of question for all the war events.

9. Where did the Optional Cards come from? Are they leftovers from the original design process that almost made it the first time, or are they original creations made to balance the game after all the observations of a couple years public play?

10. The USSR gets an advantage for going first every action round. Was there ever a time in development when this was not always constant (it could be the US some action rounds)?
Logged

Matty Defense

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2012, 05:14:10 pm »
0

Quote
5. The famous coffee stain in the top left of the Deluxe Edition board - art, or unintentional art?

Seconded.

Thirdeded.

Fourthed - And I just noticed it after all the games I have played.  Boy I feel like a noober.
Logged
I post a lot but I get no respect!

Billw147

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Wargameroom username: Billw147
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2012, 05:24:48 am »
0

Have you considered changing the ops values of any cards to add more variety/decisions to the game where currently there is almost always only one option.

For instance, destal and decol as 4ops cards might make them occasionally played for ops by both sides.

To balance an extra two 4 ops cards in early war, Nuclear Test Ban could be brought down to 2ops and NATO down to 3ops. Also, Warsaw Pact and Comecon could come down to 2 ops for balance (might also make the USSR consider playing them for the events occasionally). 
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Twilight Strategy
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2012, 01:15:15 pm »
0

Interview sent.  Depending on when he gets back I may incorporate some followup questions.

Thanks all :)
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Twilight Strategy
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2013, 10:45:24 pm »
+2

Jason Matthews' answers, below:

TS-related
Quote
What an amazing debut Twilight Struggle is for a game designer -- not every designer's first game shoots to #1 in the BGG Rankings!  During development, at any point did you say to yourself, this is going to be a *special* game?

I'd be lying if I said I was ever certain Twilight Struggle was going to take off the way it did.  But what I did know was that I really enjoyed playing it.  Admittedly, I can like some off-beat things, but I don't know any other benchmark game designers can really uphold.  But I do remember an early playtest with a Euro-game playing friend of mine.  And at round ten, we were both on our feet waiting for the final card plays.  And I was pretty sure then, this game was ready for publication.     
Quote
How long did development of Twilight Struggle take?  How many people were involved in it?  How different was the very first prototype from the game now?

From the time that we showed GMT a prototype to the time it was published, it took five years.  A lot of things happened in that period.  GMT went through some difficulties, and it looked like they may even go under.  Twilight Struggle did not exactly pole vault to the top of GMT's P500 system either.  So there was a bit of sitting around on waiting.  We used the time to tweak cards.  Swap a few cards out.  Add a few cards.  The game as it is known today probably existed about a year after the initial prototyping.  Most of that first year was editing the game down to be leaner.  Originally, the military component of the game was higher.  The "stability rating" of countries was actually 2 numbers.  One for political stability, one for military capability.  There was a subsystem for dividing and uniting countries like the Koreas, Vietnam, Palestine and Germany.  But essentially, anything that was too fiddly or distracted from the central mechanics of the game got left on the cutting room floor.  So the first prototype would be recognizable to players, but would still be a very different game. 
 
Quote
Were there any Cold War events that you really wanted to include but had to cut at the last minute?

There were cards that got dropped.  There was a card on the Greek military juntas that I just found too weak, for instance.  Defectors was a late addition, because I thought the effect was neat.  In fact, the Headline Phase was probably the last major revision to the game system, and Defectors followed from that.  We used a criteria for events that helped us weed them out.  Essentially, we focused on "international" events or at least domestic events with international repercussions.  So for instance, while you could argue "Lone Gunman" was purely a US domestic event, the air of conspiracy and plot around the Kennedy assassination, allowed it to make the cut.  Similarly, we avoided intra-alliance issues that did not affect the relationship with the Super Power.  Therefore, there is no card about the rift between the Greeks and the Turks or the Hungarians and Romanians.  But there are cards dealing with Tito and Suez Crisis.     

Quote
Some of the cards in Twilight Struggle have unusual text on them that rarely come into play -- for example, US/Japan Mutual Defense Pact's restriction on couping Japan, and NATO's restriction on European realignment/coups.  Was that a legacy carryover from a very different game, or were they simply intended to be thematic?

A little of both.  It is true that rule changes did make some of the card text less powerful, but the limitations were left on the card because they were thematic, and even if the contingencies are rare, they are still possible.   

Quote
Were there any promising ideas that ended up being discarded before publication?  For example, alternative Space Race rewards, new event mechanics, etc.?

The Space Race was reworked a couple of times.  But I am hazy on all the rewards.  I think we started with just victory points and then started with the power alternations.  But to answer you question directly, no there are not any subsystems that we had originally in the game that I wish were still there, or that we had worked harder to make fit.  I did take a decent critique of the early game that always makes me think though.  The person played the game and found it wanting.  He expected a game that simulated the differences that the governmental structures and economies made for the two Superpowers -- in other words a game with even more asymmetry.  We essentially treat the two Superpowers cynically as two similar entities with similar objectives.  However, a game that incorporated that concept really appeals to me.   

Quote
How were the Op values chosen for the cards?

The cards had a military operations value and a political operations value originally.  The numbers were combined and rounded.  We tried to give the values a dilemma, though clearly that was more art than science. 
 

Quote
What is behind the concept of "Military Operations"?  What does it represent thematically, and what do you think is its primary purpose in the game?

The concept behind military operations was the internal and to some extent international pressure to confront the enemy.  Perversely, this has an inverted relationship to to peace.  When relations between the superpowers are tense, people clamor for peace, when they are peaceful people clamor for war.  The purpose in game terms is to compel players to balance the way they use operations points or pay the penalty.  To some extent, I find gamers to be a very risk averse lot. They would rather drop a counter than roll a die.  This ensures that they will do both. 

Quote
What is your favorite part about the design?

I LOVE how the scoring cards help simulate the paranoia that gripped both superpowers.  Why is he playing operations in South East Asia?  Does he have the SE Asian Scoring card?  I guess I need to play there too!  And then it turns out that your reactions convinces the other player that YOU have the SE Asian Scoring card, and you are both continue escalating until you realize neither of you had it in the first place.   

TS Deluxe Edition
Quote
That famous coffee stain on the top left of the Deluxe Edition board -- art, or unintentional art?

Art, and a deliberate homage to the very clever artwork by Josh Cappel in 1960: The Making of the President.  We asked Josh to make the game board look like a campaign manager's desk.  And that was one of his little touches.  Guillaume Ries picked up on it for the second edition game board.   

Quote
Where did the Optional Cards come from? Are they leftovers from the original design process that almost made it the first time, or are they original creations made to balance the game after all the observations of a couple years public play?  How about the Chinese Civil War?

They were original creations to address some play balance issues, and also give a nod to elements of the Cold War that were insufficiently highlighted in the deck as it existed.  For a long time, Canadian players gave Twilight Struggle the highest rating of any country, so I felt our allies to the north definitely deserved a nod.  The United Kingdom DOES serve a bit like the anchor for US policy towards Europe, as it did historically, but Special Relationship emphasizes this further.  Che is just an icon that probably should have always been in the deck.  And the deck did not really paint the full picture of US policy in the Middle East without including a nod to the Shah and the pivot to Saudi Arabia after his disposal.  So we tried to fix omissions while addressing play balance.  We had a huge advantage in being able to test and tweak these cards onwargameroom.com with some of the Twilight Struggle sharks.  That was a great addition to the development process. 

The Chinese Civil War variant was just a thought because one of the many timeline nuances that we gloss over in the game is that the Chinese Civil War is still going when the game begins.  The variant again tries to help the US a bit, while also incorporating a bit more history.   

Quote
Have you been involved in the production of the PC Twilight Struggle game at all?

I was very involved in the initial conversations and consultations.  But have not really been involved in the development process.   

Quote
Some game designers love to play their own games, because after all, it is their game and they put in the things that they like to play.  Do you play Twilight Struggle a lot, still? 

I do not.  Not that I do not still love it.  I am happy to play it anytime anyone suggests it, but like a lot of other designers, I am off playtesting my new project.  Or seeing what other designers are up to.  It helps keep me up to date on the state of the art, so to speak.

Quote
Having now designed several other popular board games, is there anything you would change about Twilight Struggle now? 

If I could rework a single card from the beginning, I would totally redesign NATO.   

Non TS-related
Quote
What are you working on now?  In the Designer's Notes, you mention a Spanish Civil War CDG, and I think many -- myself included -- would love to play such a game.

Well, a lot of people have taken a crack at the Spanish Civil War since I wrote that.  I think there are some very solid designs.  I really enjoyed Espana 1936 by Antonio Catalan.  So I think that ground has been covered reasonably well now.  Christian Leonhard and I are still working on a Zombie CDG, and I am working on a game on the lead up to the American Civil War with Walter Hunt.   

Quote
What game designers / games do you admire, or cite as an influence?

Of course, we have to always give props to Mark Herman for inventing the CDG genre.  Obviously his visioned has informed all of us that have followed in his footsteps.  I really like how Martin Wallace sneaks a little history in here and there without his players noticing it.  And my favorite German game designer is Michael Schacht, who has an incredible skill at infusing depth into binary decision making.   

Quote
What games are you playing right now?

I really like Fantasy Flights reprint of Netrunner.   

Quote
Do you have any plans to work with Ananda Gupta again in the future?

Yes, we are still doing some work on an Anglo-French rivalry design.  We are still close friends and bring our kids together for birthday parties and such.   

Quote
Do your co-workers and other friends in real life know that you're the designer of the mostly highly regarded board game in the world?

Well, Roll Call -- a Capitol Hills newspaper --  recently did a piece on political board games.  Most of friends knew, but now a bunch a people who didn't know before, also know.   
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Twilight Strategy
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2013, 10:53:50 pm »
0

My followup questions:

How would you redesign NATO?

Do you have a favorite card?

Do you consider yourself as having a "game design philosophy"?

Do you think of your games as related by some unifying theme?  Or are they just random areas of design that you wanted to explore?

How would you describe the process for you, from initial seed of an idea to final game?
Logged

ddddddd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Jason Matthews interview
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2013, 03:03:32 pm »
0

This is all fascinating stuff - thanks so much for setting it up, Theory, and to Jason for answering all these questions.

I love what he says about paranoia in TS. It's so true; really adds to the feel of the game!
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.099 seconds with 21 queries.