One thing about the DEFCON track, it isn't the player who makes DEFCON degrade to 1 that loses (though that's usually what happens), it's the current phasing player's (the player who plays their cars) who loses. This distinction is important. If DEFCON is at 2, and the US plays the Olympics, if the USSR declined to participate, DEFCON falls to nuclear war. However, the USSR wins despite causing DEFCON to fall because it was the US player's action turn. Something else I saw once was someone playing the USSR played a card that forced the US player to exchange his highest ops card with the USSR player, and then if it was a USSR event, then the event is played. DEFCON was again at 2, and the card that was forced to be played decreased DEFCON, caused nuclear war, and the US player won. That one is less ambiguous, but it's one of the reasons I love this game, there's a ton of depth and strategy with room for a little exciting randomness.
+Brandon Johnson Indeed. I once lost the game on turn 10 as the US due to not playing Ortega Elected in Nicaragua early enough (or knowing what it did, actually). And because in that very round I had a card taken from me (after another one got chucked on the Space Race), I was forced to play it...when the DEFCON was already at 2. Lol. Cards like CIA Created for the Soviets can be painful too, as players usually don't want to use it early and lose a coup attempt, nor can they Space Race it due to its Ops value, so they end up holding it...only to find they're in holding it in the next turn with 2 other DEFCON suicide cards. Lol.
Closest thing to a ten I've played. This game BLEEDS theme--particularly, I suppose for those of us who grew up during the Cold War. Brilliantly executed...it PLAYS like the Cold War itself. Few games match both elements so well! Fun to hear your views, guys.
The game slightly favors the USSR among experienced players (USA is typically given +1 influence at the start). But I can understand that people could see it as going either way. USSR is very strong early game thanks to the initiative it has and the ability to dictate the defcon marker. While late game USA is strong thanks to its late game cards. A typical game has USSR building a VP lead with USA picking into the lead as the game goes on. If the USSR player plays passively then the USA can seem more dominant, while if the USA cannot slow down the USSR then the game will feel tilted the other way.
@@ElfHostage Usually people think that if the US gets two extra influence at the beginning that it STILL slightly favours the Soviets, but not as much.
I've played this game 4 times with a friend and we both played games as the USA and games as the USSR. So far we're 2-2. So I find it to be fairly ballanced. It is a really great game.
4:50 USSR player will also win +1pt by controlling Canada when Europe is scored due to Canada is adjacent to U.S. and, for gaming geographical purposes, it is considered part of Europe.
Slightly tilted towards US? No way. I have played this game several times and I have NEVER seen US player win the USSR. The closest time was when I, as a US player, gathered about 18VP difference in the first few turns, but even so at the last turn, the USSR was victorious. I haven’t tried the auctioning mechanic in the beginning that the rulebook describes however. That could be interesting. Also I think it’s way too long to play two times with different sides. No thanks for a 5-7 hours of Twilight Struggle. Also a friend of mine had a slight problem with the theming of the scoring cards. What do those mean thematically, when you play them? I have no idea… Not an issue for me though. Minor issue for me though are the luck of the cards because that affects the game too much for me sometimes. I tend to get very stressed out when that happens. My awesomeness rating for this game is 8. It’s a great game but for me the imbalance of the sides and the luck of the cards makes it not to be the perfect game people seem to think it is.
You do start with those, but after that, each side also gets a few extra influence to add to the map before the game starts. I can't remember the exact numbers, it's all in the rules.
Since this was the #1 game on BGG I had interest in trying the game, but thanks to the review, and a recent play of History of the World, which I seem to see a few similar mechanics, I doubt I would like this game (I hated History of the World). But if pressed I may try it, but now I will not pursue it. I appreciate the review. Thanks
Actually there is a third factor when determining domination and control of a region. You need to control more countries than your opponent, and for domination more battle ground countries, and for control all battleground countries plus one non battle ground country. That last thing is all so important and sometimes really annoying when you control lots of battle ground countries in a region but forgot to take a non battle ground to close the deal..
Control is wrong. To control a region you only need all battlegrounds and more total than your opponent. So if I control all 5 European battlegrounds as the US and no non-battlegrounds, the USSR could only prevent control by controlling 5 non-battlegrounds (albeit losing 6VP on scoring), or breaking control of a battleground
Discouraging to hear this game has a noticeable tilt towards one side, I'd expect better for a 1v1 game. Why is it that doesn't seem to bother anybody?
How did you walk away from this video thinking the game is "noticeably tilted". Tom said slightly tilted. If balance were a problem, it wouldn't have been the #1 game on BGG for so long. You won't notice any unbalance until you master this game, and few people actually master it.
"Tom said slightly tilted." Yes. He *noticed* that it was tilted. Thus, it was *noticeably tilted*. Fans on BGG seem to even point out statistics that give one side getting 60% of the wins (I think USSR). Having played the game now, I can't say I enjoy how much it feels like luck plays a role.
Give the US +1 influence at the start and it's fine. Since you played it only a couple times and the complexity i doubt you can already see through this balance issue.
I didn't mean to sound condecending. I'm just reading both ways all over the place that's why normally doubt people's opinions when they say "oh this is imbalanced clearly", could be coincidence.
Only played this once but I dont get the buzz. The dice rolling was super frustrating and reminded me of risk. I dont like how there is card memorization. I dont like how the us starts at a disadvantage. I really dont like that the game uses these tiny tokens as reminders for future things. The thing I don't get is many would criticize some of those design choices in other games but apparently not this one? Maybe I didnt like it because I was the US and we didnt finish and just felt like the game was lopsided the entire time? At any rate, I suppose with only 3\4 of a play under my belt this should be taken with a grain of salt. We do plan on playing again and I will definitely go in with an open mind! :)
I agree. I tried Twilight struggle, holy shit was it dry. I didn't feel like I was in the Cold War in any way, I felt like I was changing numbers on a board, it felt like playing a boring abstract game with no immersion, by far the dryest "wargame" I have ever played. I felt more immersed playing CIA vs KGB, which is a filler cardgame. I really don't get the appeal or why it is rated so high.
Not too bad. I prefer Euros though. I found the experience similar to playing Star Wars X-Wing, similar mindset (for me anyway). Can see the appeal: just not my favourite style of game.
Actually the FAQ says whomever played the card that caused the game to go into thermonuclear war loses. Same thing though as I don't know when someone would play a card out of turn :-P
Just bought it because it was at 1st place on BGG. Boah what a disappointment. Tons of card text and most of them not very clear so that you have to check the rules.
The Dice Tower Not sure I could pull my wife into this. The cold war theme is great, but the dice rolling reminds me of risk and the board is dull. Does it earn it's super high rating on BGG?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If anyone is interested it was #1 on BGG for a long time until it was dethroned by Pandemic Legacy Season 1.
One thing about the DEFCON track, it isn't the player who makes DEFCON degrade to 1 that loses (though that's usually what happens), it's the current phasing player's (the player who plays their cars) who loses.
This distinction is important. If DEFCON is at 2, and the US plays the Olympics, if the USSR declined to participate, DEFCON falls to nuclear war. However, the USSR wins despite causing DEFCON to fall because it was the US player's action turn.
Something else I saw once was someone playing the USSR played a card that forced the US player to exchange his highest ops card with the USSR player, and then if it was a USSR event, then the event is played. DEFCON was again at 2, and the card that was forced to be played decreased DEFCON, caused nuclear war, and the US player won. That one is less ambiguous, but it's one of the reasons I love this game, there's a ton of depth and strategy with room for a little exciting randomness.
+Brandon Johnson Indeed. I once lost the game on turn 10 as the US due to not playing Ortega Elected in Nicaragua early enough (or knowing what it did, actually). And because in that very round I had a card taken from me (after another one got chucked on the Space Race), I was forced to play it...when the DEFCON was already at 2. Lol. Cards like CIA Created for the Soviets can be painful too, as players usually don't want to use it early and lose a coup attempt, nor can they Space Race it due to its Ops value, so they end up holding it...only to find they're in holding it in the next turn with 2 other DEFCON suicide cards. Lol.
Closest thing to a ten I've played. This game BLEEDS theme--particularly, I suppose for those of us who grew up during the Cold War. Brilliantly executed...it PLAYS like the Cold War itself. Few games match both elements so well! Fun to hear your views, guys.
The game slightly favors the USSR among experienced players (USA is typically given +1 influence at the start). But I can understand that people could see it as going either way. USSR is very strong early game thanks to the initiative it has and the ability to dictate the defcon marker. While late game USA is strong thanks to its late game cards. A typical game has USSR building a VP lead with USA picking into the lead as the game goes on.
If the USSR player plays passively then the USA can seem more dominant, while if the USA cannot slow down the USSR then the game will feel tilted the other way.
As a child of the 60's, I lived through many of the events in the cards. Probably the most thematic game I own.
Statistics say that USSR wins slightly more games than USA.
Is here a house rule that could make it even?
The optional cards are supposed to make it a but more balanced.
Tournaments use the optional cards and 2+ starting influence for the US.
@@ElfHostage Usually people think that if the US gets two extra influence at the beginning that it STILL slightly favours the Soviets, but not as much.
Tom vs. Jason live stream?
we need this!!!
no, thank you, jason will destroy Tom!
this IS a perfect game IMHO. It is an achievement in game design. I too would love to see a Tom v Jason!
+Majdi Al-Jazrawe How about a Tom v Jason live playthrough?
I've played this game 4 times with a friend and we both played games as the USA and games as the USSR. So far we're 2-2. So I find it to be fairly ballanced. It is a really great game.
How would you compare this game with its easier version : 13 Days-the Cuban missile crisis ? Has anyone played both?
4:50 USSR player will also win +1pt by controlling Canada when Europe is scored due to Canada is adjacent to U.S. and, for gaming geographical purposes, it is considered part of Europe.
Slightly tilted towards US? No way. I have played this game several times and I have NEVER seen US player win the USSR. The closest time was when I, as a US player, gathered about 18VP difference in the first few turns, but even so at the last turn, the USSR was victorious. I haven’t tried the auctioning mechanic in the beginning that the rulebook describes however. That could be interesting. Also I think it’s way too long to play two times with different sides. No thanks for a 5-7 hours of Twilight Struggle.
Also a friend of mine had a slight problem with the theming of the scoring cards. What do those mean thematically, when you play them? I have no idea… Not an issue for me though. Minor issue for me though are the luck of the cards because that affects the game too much for me sometimes. I tend to get very stressed out when that happens.
My awesomeness rating for this game is 8. It’s a great game but for me the imbalance of the sides and the luck of the cards makes it not to be the perfect game people seem to think it is.
Do you start with the influence points in the bottom left or right in the beginning of the game?
You do start with those, but after that, each side also gets a few extra influence to add to the map before the game starts. I can't remember the exact numbers, it's all in the rules.
Since this was the #1 game on BGG I had interest in trying the game, but thanks to the review, and a recent play of History of the World, which I seem to see a few similar mechanics, I doubt I would like this game (I hated History of the World). But if pressed I may try it, but now I will not pursue it. I appreciate the review. Thanks
Live Play please guys. Tom vs. Jason or vs. Internet!!!
Actually there is a third factor when determining domination and control of a region. You need to control more countries than your opponent, and for domination more battle ground countries, and for control all battleground countries plus one non battle ground country.
That last thing is all so important and sometimes really annoying when you control lots of battle ground countries in a region but forgot to take a non battle ground to close the deal..
Control is wrong. To control a region you only need all battlegrounds and more total than your opponent. So if I control all 5 European battlegrounds as the US and no non-battlegrounds, the USSR could only prevent control by controlling 5 non-battlegrounds (albeit losing 6VP on scoring), or breaking control of a battleground
Discouraging to hear this game has a noticeable tilt towards one side, I'd expect better for a 1v1 game. Why is it that doesn't seem to bother anybody?
How did you walk away from this video thinking the game is "noticeably tilted". Tom said slightly tilted. If balance were a problem, it wouldn't have been the #1 game on BGG for so long. You won't notice any unbalance until you master this game, and few people actually master it.
"Tom said slightly tilted."
Yes. He *noticed* that it was tilted. Thus, it was *noticeably tilted*. Fans on BGG seem to even point out statistics that give one side getting 60% of the wins (I think USSR).
Having played the game now, I can't say I enjoy how much it feels like luck plays a role.
Give the US +1 influence at the start and it's fine. Since you played it only a couple times and the complexity i doubt you can already see through this balance issue.
Darkgalahad I was only commenting on Tom's feedback on balance, not my own. My own feedback was solely about the feeling of the luck factor.
I didn't mean to sound condecending. I'm just reading both ways all over the place that's why normally doubt people's opinions when they say "oh this is imbalanced clearly", could be coincidence.
Sigh. This makes me want to play this again, but it is tough believing that I will get the chance.
Only played this once but I dont get the buzz. The dice rolling was super frustrating and reminded me of risk. I dont like how there is card memorization. I dont like how the us starts at a disadvantage. I really dont like that the game uses these tiny tokens as reminders for future things. The thing I don't get is many would criticize some of those design choices in other games but apparently not this one? Maybe I didnt like it because I was the US and we didnt finish and just felt like the game was lopsided the entire time? At any rate, I suppose with only 3\4 of a play under my belt this should be taken with a grain of salt. We do plan on playing again and I will definitely go in with an open mind! :)
I agree. I tried Twilight struggle, holy shit was it dry. I didn't feel like I
was in the Cold War in any way, I felt like I was changing numbers on a
board, it felt like playing a boring abstract game with no immersion, by
far the dryest "wargame" I have ever played. I felt more immersed
playing CIA vs KGB, which is a filler cardgame. I really don't get the
appeal or why it is rated so high.
A W E S O M E....Finally
Not too bad. I prefer Euros though. I found the experience similar to playing Star Wars X-Wing, similar mindset (for me anyway). Can see the appeal: just not my favourite style of game.
A great game!
It's actually whoever's turn it is when it goes into nuclear war is the loser not who does it
Actually the FAQ says whomever played the card that caused the game to go into thermonuclear war loses. Same thing though as I don't know when someone would play a card out of turn :-P
Joshua Simone
Soviets playIng Grain Sales or Five Year Plan would cause the US to play a card on a Soviet action round.
Play each other
Ages 13+? Challenge accepted.
Card memorization is the major flaw of this game. Not perfect at all.
Just bought it because it was at 1st place on BGG. Boah what a disappointment. Tons of card text and most of them not very clear so that you have to check the rules.
"The fall of communism" bahahahaha
This looks so incredibly dull.
It is not!
The Dice Tower Not sure I could pull my wife into this. The cold war theme is great, but the dice rolling reminds me of risk and the board is dull. Does it earn it's super high rating on BGG?
It does not imo. It felt like playing a more advanced version of Risk, holy shit it was dry.