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: Card I'd like to see changed  (Read 13350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fugitive Unknown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Card I'd like to see changed
« on: November 16, 2012, 06:40:11 pm »
0

Red Scare / Red Purge. I hate this. Drawing it early war, either side, ends up being too great an advantage, in my opinion. Losing 5-6 IP. Plus, there aren't many 4's, so its actually possible for a soviet player to force a blockade through, which seems kind of annoying. I'm of the opinion that this is massively underplayed as an event.

What it should be:

Eratta: "This card may not be used for an event in early war."




Logged

Cal

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +55
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2012, 07:25:22 pm »
+2

I think it is fine. In the early war there are enough good headlines that even if someone draws it, they might not play it for the event.

Also the person under Red Scare might have many non-op cards to play. Scoring Cards or beneficial events that don't matter for ops. It could be argued that playing it for the event in the Early War is a waste.

Incidentally, Red Scare/Purge is the reason the US should never ever headline Blockade. More than once I've seen the US headline Blockade only for the USSR to headline Red Scare and the US have nothing to discard, shooting themselves in the foot.
Logged

Fugitive Unknown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2012, 07:28:28 pm »
0

Well, at least don't headline blockade unless you have a 4, Red Scare, or know that RS is in the discard deck already.

As for the viability of playing other headlines.. I really don't see it, particularly for the US. You'd have to give me some examples of cards that make better headlines then a RS in early war, particularly considering how screwed you are if you can't develop your board position with early OPS (and this goes double for the US, since they are behind on coups).

Now MID WAR, that's a totally different kettle of fish. You've got Grain Sale, Missile Envy, ABM.. but it's the Early War I'm really concerned about.




The problem is that in the early game, you NEED to put out influence if you want to win. Marshall Plan and
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 07:36:35 pm by Fugitive Unknown »
Logged

Chaosslayer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2012, 01:35:48 am »
0

The 2 cards I really hate are Beartrap/Quagmire - these are sort of cards that can win/loose the game by having 1 player randomly locked in discard/skip phase potentially forever.

Considering that those cards suppose to represent Vietnam for US and Afghanistan for USSR, I proposed to my play group to substitute the effect with something like:

Quagmire - US player removes all influence in Vietnam, and 3 influence in countries connected to Vietnam (by US player choice), and at least 1 in West Europe.  removed as US player wishes.
If US doesn't have enough influence in Asia to be removed, he must remove that influence from Europe
USSR may add 2 Influence anywhere where US has lost it (2 total)

BearTrap - USSR removes all influence in Afghanistan and must remove 3 influence from combination of any of the following:
Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Libya (Islamist countries)
US may add 2 Influence anywhere where USSR has lost it (2 total)
If USSR doesn't have enough influence in those countries to be removed, he must remove that influence from Europe


IMHO, with new effect, the cards still pretty scary, but at least their effect is non random, and can be prepared for and dealt with in a normal manner.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2012, 01:37:39 am by Chaosslayer »
Logged

Jayne Starlancer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Hero of Canton
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2012, 07:30:23 pm »
0

Marshall Plan is an amazing headline for the US, allowing the US player to easily prevent USSR Domination during nearly the entire Early War before even the first action round is played.

Vietnam Revolts can be great for the USSR during the 2nd or 3rd turns because they can grab Thailand in the first action round if it hasn't been taken already.

Duck and Cover can deny the USSR player his coup advantage.

Truman Doctrine can be severe if the US player sets up for it with his AR7 play.

Containment is obviously beneficial and pulls less Ops out of your hand (3 Ops to Red Purge's 4 Ops).

Decolonization & De-Stalinization are both super-important USSR events that I would rather headline and then play Red Scare for Ops.
Logged

sael

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2013, 09:30:30 pm »
0

I'd like to see change of RSP, too. I dislike one card being that decisive.

Based on my limited experience, twice RSP in Early War usually means victory. I saw several sessions where a less competent player repeatedly headlining no-brainer RSP and comfortably defeated a tournament-level player. I understand that the power of this headline varies in different hands, but I think 90% of the time it can deal a great blow to your opponent. To reduce the OP of your opponent is already a gem, while to combine with other killer event is invaluable.

I'd like to at least give some limitation against this card, like 'if your opponent use a card to place influence, reduce the OP of the card  by 1'. It's still very useful, and still a game-changer in Early War. But, at least it makes you re-consider whether to sacrifice your 4OP for the effect.


 
Logged

Comrade Pwnuby Khilemolov

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2013, 11:02:39 pm »
0

Ussuri River Skirmish is oddly overpowerful, certainly when compared to the other two "steal China or get a nice bonus" cards. Placing four Influence anywhere in Asia, regardless of enemy control, is insanely powerful.
Logged

Chimista

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
  • Wargameroom username: chimista
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2013, 05:01:38 am »
0

True: RS/P is a powerful card, and an annoying one when you are the one who gets to suffer it. But I don't agree that its power should be curtailed. I once was Purged 5 times! Yes, 5 times! (in turns 1, 3, 7, and twice in T8 as my oponent recovered the card with Salt Negotiations to headline it and then with Starwars in the same turn to double-purge me!!!!). My oponent was an advanced player, he usually beats me, but I still managed to keep up and win the game in an epic end. I shall share this game some time in the forum, if I get time to do the post.

My point is that for advanced players RS/P is still a game changer, -indeed a mood changer- but not necesarily the doomsday, if you are prepared to deal with it.

In the early war, as the US, for example, you have two cards that help you: Defectors and Containment, which cancel the card efect. If you get RS/Ped you still have to keep playing and try to control de damage, for example accepting domination in a continent but grabbing presence and trying to spread in the Midwar regions.

During the rest of the game RS/P can be a deadly issue if you find yourself with too many suicide cards you can't space. But there are some desperate solutions for desperate situations. As Theory described recently, for example, you can self-Quagmire/Beartrap so you can just lose AR's but survive to, say GS  + CIA without the China Card.

I think the effect of RS/P is well crafted and balanced as it is. It's a pain in the ass to suffer it, but that's one of the reasons this game is so cool, isn't it folks?

« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 07:23:11 am by Chimista »
Logged

Butik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2014, 06:42:49 pm »
0

I have a simple solution to "fix" RS/P. When I have more time i'll post a lengthy comprehensive analysis why I think this is THE BEST solution.

Give a option to the player affected to cancel the RS/P effect for ONE action round only.
In the the line of something like: "You can give 2 VP to the opposing player to suspend the effect of this event for one action round".

My quck toughts are that 1 VP is too less and 3 VP could be too much. With this change the players would almost never use this in order just to play their cards for OPS, but they might use to avoid potential game changes (almost game breaker) with blockade, and a SURE game breaker with quagmire/bear trap combo if you happen to have almost all 2 or less op cards.
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2014, 02:56:12 am »
0

I don't like this change. It would end scenarios like: USSR must play VoA because he is unable to either play or space Grain Sales.
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

Billw147

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Wargameroom username: Billw147
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2014, 01:18:33 pm »
0

My biggest gripe is losing several turns (and often the game), through no fault of my own other than atrocious dice rolling, to Quagmire/Bear Trap. 

The events are powerful enough as AR7 or headliners or in your opponents hands and getting two actions in a row if they play them.

I personally think they would be better if the first roll needed 1-4, the second and subsequent 1-5, mostly eliminating being stuck for several turns but still keeping some randomness.

Logged

Butik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2014, 03:24:14 pm »
0

My biggest gripe is losing several turns (and often the game), through no fault of my own other than atrocious dice rolling, to Quagmire/Bear Trap. 

The events are powerful enough as AR7 or headliners or in your opponents hands and getting two actions in a row if they play them.

I personally think they would be better if the first roll needed 1-4, the second and subsequent 1-5, mostly eliminating being stuck for several turns but still keeping some randomness.



Quagmire/Bear Trap is not broken. Without RS/P it is not a big deal. RS/P is the broken card with Quagmire/Bear Trap combo. RS/P alone it still no game barker but it is much worse the Quagmire/Bear Trap, cause it is recurring event. Since my suggestion to change RS/P, but not Quagmire/Bear Trap.
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2014, 04:44:55 pm »
0

I hardly ever get stuck in Quagmire/Bear Trap due to rolling multiple fives. In fact, I don't consider the events too powerful alone. Quagmire is what I usually use to get rid of NORAD and get headline/AR1 combo. Bear Trap usually comes as AR7/headline to get rid of Lone Gunman. But statistically they are harmless enough even to play them on yourself if you need (which I do, especially as USSR with Bear Trap, Grain Sales, and VoA in my hand).

RS/P is powerful mainly due to the fact that many opponent's events are suddenly unmitigable. For example, you can't safely play de Gaulle with empty France and put IPs there (because it may turn 2/5) or John Paul II if you don't double overprotect Poland. For me, the main uses of RS/P are:

in Early War -- a steamroll (sometimes even in favor of US) and a combo with Blockade
in Mid War -- provoking DEFCON suicide due to unspaceability of several cards and combos with Quagmire/Bear Trap
in Late War -- winning plethora of VPs in certain region through Ops-war.

By the way, I have a question for Butik: how exactly does your rule apply in case a player is double RS/P'd in a turn (for example via SALT or Star Wars)?
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

Riku Riekkinen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2014, 05:22:36 am »
+1

I think 5-6 Ops gained from Purge/Red Scare is wishful thinking in early war. 3-5 is in my opinion closer to truth (socrings, 1s & own events played are unaffected). More so USSR has to wary Defectors, so some USSR players think its a nad idea to risk 4OPs, if you can do something else. US can avoid Red Scare+Blockade trap simply by leaving WG empty.

Now I've lost crucial league games with 8 and 9 turn Quagmire/Bear Trap, so I find it as annoying card. Usually though they are not worth it (and I do them constantly to myself... and no the 8 & 9 were not self inflicted... when you do it yourself you can choose a good moment).
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2014, 07:12:24 am »
0

(socrings, 1s & own events played are unaffected).

Also cards that are spaced and can be spaced even if RS/P'd are unaffected (like De-Stalinization). While spacing a card is formally one of four ways to spend ops, the extra ops from a spaced card are always wasted anyway.
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

Billw147

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Wargameroom username: Billw147
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2014, 01:24:13 pm »
0

I am not suggesting Quagmire or Bear Trap are broken, but do object to those cards having a material impact on the game due to bad luck. No other singular card in the game can so materially impact the game through pure bad luck with nothing you can do about it. Most games they don't have this impact but it's those times when they do, due to pure bad luck, that I really hate.
Logged

Comrade Pwnuby Khilemolov

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2014, 09:58:40 pm »
0

I got 1989: Dawn of Freedom, and I much prefer their mechanics for the analogous cards similar to RS/P edit: Quagmire/Bear Trap.

Essentially, the card allows you to discard a card and roll a die, and you add the OPs value of the card to the die roll. You must exceed a certain number in order to dispel the effect. So you could bite the bullet and throw away a high-OPs value card, with the confidence that you'll at least escape the card trap.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 02:07:29 pm by Comrade Pwnuby Khilemolov »
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2014, 04:59:59 am »
0

I am not suggesting Quagmire or Bear Trap are broken, but do object to those cards having a material impact on the game due to bad luck. No other singular card in the game can so materially impact the game through pure bad luck with nothing you can do about it. Most games they don't have this impact but it's those times when they do, due to pure bad luck, that I really hate.

Well, as the game bases somehow on luck, there must be an object (a card, a country, whatever) which has the highest impact on the game basing on luck. If Quagmire/Bear Trap were changed the way you suggest, somebody else could say the same about some other cards (and there are several to choose from: DEFCON suicide, handsize reductors, scoring cards and scoring cards discarders -- in fact I think the unluckiness potential of Quagmire/Bear Trap is much lower than the luckiness potential of "Ask Not..." which additionaly does not have its USSR equivalent. Losing turn hurts but seeing five favorable scoring cards discarded hurts more.)

Now let's do some maths. You have 1/3 chance to get stuck on Q/BT for more than one attempt but this is not gamechanging. The chance of getting stuck for more than two attempts is 1/9 in current version and 1/18 in your proposal but this itself is not gamechanging yet either. If you pass three or more attempts this starts to be a gamechanger. A game gives 1/27 chance, you give 1/108. These are both 'small' and what you really reduce is not a bad luck potential of the cards but a probability of this bad luck. You can still roll 20 sixes in a row. In fact, many a lucky realignment rolls may be more gamechanging and less probable, yet they sometimes happen. I think the luckiness impact of Quagmire and Bear Trap is overestimated because it is felt strongly. And it is felt not because it is big but because if it comes, it comes in several rounds in a row while a normal bad luck (low-ops cards, bad opponent's events, bad coup and realignment rolls) is usually a whole game accumulated effect with no particular painful turn or two.

Maybe I'm underestimating these cards in turn but I've never lost a game due to Quagmire/Bear Trap bad luck, and if I won several games thanks to these cards, it was a combination of slightly good luck and good timing and combining them with RS/P, Blockade, Latin American Debt Crisis, etc.
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

sspiker

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2014, 11:28:14 pm »
+1

RS/P and Q/BT are fine. They're topical, they're unfair, and they're exciting. The asymmetry of this game is by design and part of what makes it great.

The card I'd like to see changed is NATO. It's way too underpowered, and its a free 4-ops for the Soviets early war.
Logged

Comrade Pwnuby Khilemolov

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2014, 12:42:10 pm »
0

NATO could be altered edit: to be a prerequisite for Warsaw Pact instead of vice versa.

That would give the USSR player a decent incentive to trigger it early, and the entire Marshall Plan causation tree.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 02:38:10 pm by Comrade Pwnuby Khilemolov »
Logged

Chimista

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 109
  • Wargameroom username: chimista
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2014, 08:02:53 am »
+1

RS/P and Q/BT are fine. They're topical, they're unfair, and they're exciting. The asymmetry of this game is by design and part of what makes it great.

The card I'd like to see changed is NATO. It's way too underpowered, and its a free 4-ops for the Soviets early war.

Thanks! it's nice to see a comment that makes sense in this blog, once in a while

Regarding NATO I think that right now NATO is not totally free: it makes special relationship quite unplayeble, prevents Brush War in Italy or a USSR combo consisting in raising the DEFCON to 5 with a NTB or HILTSW HL + Coup or Realingment in AR1. Of course as USSR that never prevented me from playing NATO, but the effect of the card is significant.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 08:12:52 am by Chimista »
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2014, 08:17:38 am »
+1

Regarding NATO I think that right now NATO is not totally free: it makes special relationship quite unplayeble, prevents Brush War in Italy or a USSR combo consisting in raising the DEFCON to 5 with a NTB or HILTSW HL + Coup or Realingment in AR1. Of course as USSR that never prevented me from playing NATO, but the effect of the card is significant.

Agreed. In fact, I played NATO for the event as USA several times. In most cases the key behind was that I was certainly going to win the game in Final Scoring or earlier provided I wouldn't lose due to USSR Europe Control and Europe Scoring. While USSR had all battlegrounds but Italy and I did not have majority in countries but strongly overprotected Italy (like 5/0 or so which made me sure that even after the combo of Soc Govs and Reformer the damage is reparable in my AR) the only real threat was Brush War at 2/3 chances of success.
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

Sergey Kosarev

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Wargameroom username: Sergey_Kosarev_TS
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2014, 08:24:46 am »
0

I'd like to see changed Caribbean Missile Crisis. It is not broken, but it is so boring!!!

I never have seen it is played as event, and you? As it is broadly considered, it was very extreme and fearful moment in the world history. I don't see this in the game at all. In rare situations it can be played by USA if no USSR influence in Cuba, but it has no connection with history again.

What do you think about it? Have any variants of the card been offered before?
Logged

pietshaq

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Wargameroom username: WojciechPietrzak_TS
  • Respect: +46
    • View Profile
    • My Twilight Struggle blog
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2014, 08:48:06 am »
0

I've seen this card used several times. This is indeed one of the cards played more commonly for ops than as event but still the event takes place much more often than, say, Latin American Death Squads, Nuclear Test Ban, Summit. Even if it serves a niche role, the role is significant when it comes to play.

First of all, this event is not a bad headline. For US, it blocks USSR from battleground couping and makes Che an empty event. For USSR, it prevents NORAD without giving US battleground coup and blocks US from a battleground coup US could get from headline (Grain Sales, Junta, etc.). For both sides it is a good introduction to fight for a Mid War region with many unstable non-battlegrounds and a good counterplay against a predicted Missile Envy headline. Last but not least, this card timed well suddenly allows playing DEFCON suicide cards except those suicidal for non-couping reasons. Actually, it saved me the game when I got stuck with Lone Gunman and my opponent headlined Aldrich Ames (I had to say goodbye to Wargames instead).
Logged
If you find my contribution useful, please donate some Bitcoins: 1LTicKy5ww4tAQwLqRDHxbpKHBQ9QvcK72
My Twilight Struggle blog

Sergey Kosarev

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Wargameroom username: Sergey_Kosarev_TS
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Card I'd like to see changed
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2014, 09:50:29 am »
0

I agree this event have some minor meaning in the game.
However, I supposed, it was one of the main conflicts during Cold War, so it should not be compared to regulars like Nuclear Test Ban, Summit. I'd rather compared it to Ussuri, Bear Trap/Quagmire etc. Furtermore, It was short but sharp direct confrontation betwen US and USSR near to War and possibly Nuclear War.
And, as I feel, this event suit the history very bad.
I would prefer, it will be defcon-suicide at least for USSR, or maybe for both sides at some manner(yet can't offer how).
Maybe, it's just my feel though.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 21 queries.