Yes this is one of my favourites and one of the best out there. It's so tactically deep, and there are so many decisions to make, but it has just the right amount of varience. Plus its one of the best exmaples of mechanics and theme coming together.
I had to chuckle when you said you could probably teach the basics of this game to someone in 10 min. I read on some thread about the game that this guy had a PhD and could not figure out the game so he was getting rid of it. This video made me think I need to reconsider and def. add it to my collection. Thanks for this series--great idea!
I love it when Tom says that the opposite of communism is "freedom". I'm not criticizing. He's patriotic and that's okay. "Capitalism" is probably more accurate though.
I don't wanna get into a thing here. But naming 100 examples of cruelty still doesn't equate communism with oppression. Communism = political theory. "Freedom" is not a political theory.
I think his comment perfectly fits the theme - since he grew up on the US side of things :D For me personally his remark only adds irony to the review, which is good :)
The opposite of freedom is society. Another opposite of freedom are human needs. The opposite of having no way of making a better life with your own hard work is called capitalism. The opposite of freedom of speech is communism. Simple
I keep hearing you say you've heard the US is favored and I'm really curious where you heard that. I'm guessing that Jason lost once to a superior player playing the US and just assumed it had to be better and convinced everyone that was the case? Weird. The USSR is objectively stronger in the game as it has a distinct early game advantage. In fact, a successful first turn coup in Iran is so powerful for the USSR that in tournament level play the players literally bid on who gets to play the USSR by blindly offering the other player extra influence to place in Iran to force the other person to take the US. In casual play it's common practice to simply allow the US player to add two extra influence in Iran to start the game. There was an actual statistical analysis someone did on BGG that I can't seem to track down right now which showed that: with zero extra influence for the US, the USSR wins somewhere around 60% of the time in tournament play; with 1 extra influence, around 55%, and with 2 extra influence if finally balances out to around 50%. If you find that the US is regularly winning without extra influence, it's because the USSR player is playing poorly and should be more aggressive.
Absolutely right! The game starts with the USSR roaring out of a hole and the strategy is to bury the US so deep they are stuck on the defensive for good. Early war is almost all USSR. Late war almost all US, as the West shifts from containment to dominance.
When I started out I was failing as USA every single time and win as USSR every time. Now it's the other way around. Idk what is this fucking witchcraft. I think USSR is strong in early game and gets weaker in the mid game, which is the longest phase. Late game is a crap shoot and can go either way. Now, if you are experienced USA player you know what to expect in early war, and it all comes down to the luck of cards drawn and coup rolls. If you made it to mid war your chances of winning go up quite a bit. However, you can be rolling 1s all the time and 6s on space so none of your strategy will matter. P.s. extra influence in Iran is real. Have been playing with that for so long I forgot it was a house rule
Nice review. I just got this to play with one of my friends I'm moving in with. I think we both have very little board game experience but we play cards and chess so hopefully it's a good fit.
in a two player game, the scoring system in this game is identical to keeping score individually. for example: the reach 20 points victory is identical to "have 20 more points than your opponent". but this system is more spaceeffective
I totally respect your opinion but man I deeply dislike this game. I bought it for my husband since it was number one on the BGG at the time and he loves it. I find this game really slow, graphically unappealing and it just feels like a slog. It's incredibly thematic - I guess I just don't feel like it's very fun being in the Cold War.
Yes, super cool Game. Like the series very much. I like the new editing as well but please don not overdo it with the pop ups. Can easily get too silly... and become annoying...
Hey Tom, I understand why most people enjoy this game regarding the theme and mechanics. Its like 1960: The Making of the President with its flavor, feel, and struggle. However, the regional victory scoring cards are something that completely kills the game for me and its a huge component of the game. It seems arbitrary with its points, is incredibly athematic, and just seems like the worst, and laziest way to encourage struggle in a war game. I love 1960 because of its justification for everything and balance, and I wanted to love TS, but the arbitrary scoring just removed all the beauty the designers made into every other part of the game.
I so wanted to love Twilight Struggle, but this is a terrible game. It's a random festival (oh, look, another hand with 2 scoring and 5 your cards! How fun, we're playing cooperative how for you to win!). Yeah, when cards come up fairly balanced then the game is good, but it's so easy for cards not to come up balanced. My favourite is "Oh, look, I have 2 cards in my hand that reduce Defcon and yup, you already reduced it to 2. GG). Not to mention that yes, the game strives to give USSR initial advantage and the switch it over to US but it goes too far, Voice of America being a particularly egregious example of bad card.
"Should I really be fighting that hard over POLAND?" - Perfectly sums up every Polish ally in the history of Poland.
100/100 :-/
Someone call Ricky, I think Karl just said something smart for a change 🤣
Yes this is one of my favourites and one of the best out there.
It's so tactically deep, and there are so many decisions to make, but it has just the right amount of varience.
Plus its one of the best exmaples of mechanics and theme coming together.
I had to chuckle when you said you could probably teach the basics of this game to someone in 10 min. I read on some thread about the game that this guy had a PhD and could not figure out the game so he was getting rid of it. This video made me think I need to reconsider and def. add it to my collection. Thanks for this series--great idea!
this game is honestly very easy to teach once you know the game. learning the rules from the book is more difficult, but not impossible.
Love this series, keep it up!
A crummy a time as the Cold War was, I'd take it any day over a hot war. heh
completely agree
I love it when Tom says that the opposite of communism is "freedom". I'm not criticizing. He's patriotic and that's okay. "Capitalism" is probably more accurate though.
I don't wanna get into a thing here. But naming 100 examples of cruelty still doesn't equate communism with oppression. Communism = political theory. "Freedom" is not a political theory.
Me neither but I see now what you were saying. Have a good day.
I think his comment perfectly fits the theme - since he grew up on the US side of things :D
For me personally his remark only adds irony to the review, which is good :)
The opposite of freedom is society. Another opposite of freedom are human needs.
The opposite of having no way of making a better life with your own hard work is called capitalism.
The opposite of freedom of speech is communism.
Simple
saying this you seem lucky enough not to have lived in communism
I keep hearing you say you've heard the US is favored and I'm really curious where you heard that. I'm guessing that Jason lost once to a superior player playing the US and just assumed it had to be better and convinced everyone that was the case? Weird.
The USSR is objectively stronger in the game as it has a distinct early game advantage. In fact, a successful first turn coup in Iran is so powerful for the USSR that in tournament level play the players literally bid on who gets to play the USSR by blindly offering the other player extra influence to place in Iran to force the other person to take the US. In casual play it's common practice to simply allow the US player to add two extra influence in Iran to start the game. There was an actual statistical analysis someone did on BGG that I can't seem to track down right now which showed that: with zero extra influence for the US, the USSR wins somewhere around 60% of the time in tournament play; with 1 extra influence, around 55%, and with 2 extra influence if finally balances out to around 50%.
If you find that the US is regularly winning without extra influence, it's because the USSR player is playing poorly and should be more aggressive.
This guy is correct.
Absolutely right! The game starts with the USSR roaring out of a hole and the strategy is to bury the US so deep they are stuck on the defensive for good. Early war is almost all USSR. Late war almost all US, as the West shifts from containment to dominance.
i agree. from experience and search in forum
When I started out I was failing as USA every single time and win as USSR every time. Now it's the other way around. Idk what is this fucking witchcraft.
I think USSR is strong in early game and gets weaker in the mid game, which is the longest phase. Late game is a crap shoot and can go either way. Now, if you are experienced USA player you know what to expect in early war, and it all comes down to the luck of cards drawn and coup rolls. If you made it to mid war your chances of winning go up quite a bit.
However, you can be rolling 1s all the time and 6s on space so none of your strategy will matter.
P.s. extra influence in Iran is real. Have been playing with that for so long I forgot it was a house rule
Nice review. I just got this to play with one of my friends I'm moving in with. I think we both have very little board game experience but we play cards and chess so hopefully it's a good fit.
Oh my god, seriously? Cards and chess and then you move up to Twilight Struggle? That is some jump! How did it go?
It's a BAD fit.
I pretty much exclusively play 2 player games but I just can't seem to get into Twilight Struggle game despite trying it via the app numerous times.
The ussr has an advantage in the early war but mid and late war is biased towards USA
The online game has the USSR as an advantage
I didn't know you love it. Fantastic game!
Is it still a favourite? Was it on your recent Top 100? :)
You should always fight hard for Poland!!! #trzewiczek #oracz #portal #granna #egmont #rebel
in a two player game, the scoring system in this game is identical to keeping score individually. for example: the reach 20 points victory is identical to "have 20 more points than your opponent". but this system is more spaceeffective
This is the worst explanation of that system ever.
how difficult is this game to learn first time?
Same as Risk just 5x harder.
Greatest game of all time as for as I'm concerned.
It sounds like Jaipur in terms of knowing when to take the camels that might help your opponent or choosing what to take etc.
Great info, Tom! Makes me want to break this game out :)
From my experience, regardless of which side I play, the USSR wins most of the time.
great review
a great game no doubt the theme is amazing
I am not yet convinced TS is a great game. I have only spent 475 hours on in on Steam :D
How is the replayablity of this game,
Huge
Interesting game, but graphically it looks like it was designed in Paint.
AGREED
I totally respect your opinion but man I deeply dislike this game. I bought it for my husband since it was number one on the BGG at the time and he loves it. I find this game really slow, graphically unappealing and it just feels like a slog. It's incredibly thematic - I guess I just don't feel like it's very fun being in the Cold War.
frogggirl2 actually, the game is designed for Paranoia Lovers. But if you'd have a Shit Luck then better treat it like treating Monopoly.
Yes, super cool Game. Like the series very much. I like the new editing as well but please don not overdo it with the pop ups. Can easily get too silly... and become annoying...
«US: Passion of "freedom"»?? Dude! Biased!
Hey Tom, I understand why most people enjoy this game regarding the theme and mechanics. Its like 1960: The Making of the President with its flavor, feel, and struggle. However, the regional victory scoring cards are something that completely kills the game for me and its a huge component of the game. It seems arbitrary with its points, is incredibly athematic, and just seems like the worst, and laziest way to encourage struggle in a war game. I love 1960 because of its justification for everything and balance, and I wanted to love TS, but the arbitrary scoring just removed all the beauty the designers made into every other part of the game.
I would appreciate when people would stop refering to communism and rather athoritarianism as the enemy of freedom
Communism = Prison
I so wanted to love Twilight Struggle, but this is a terrible game. It's a random festival (oh, look, another hand with 2 scoring and 5 your cards! How fun, we're playing cooperative how for you to win!). Yeah, when cards come up fairly balanced then the game is good, but it's so easy for cards not to come up balanced. My favourite is "Oh, look, I have 2 cards in my hand that reduce Defcon and yup, you already reduced it to 2. GG).
Not to mention that yes, the game strives to give USSR initial advantage and the switch it over to US but it goes too far, Voice of America being a particularly egregious example of bad card.
Space? Hold cards? China card? Headline?
There's so many ways to get rid of suicide cards - it's definitely not a game winner with any reliability!