Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
4 Posts

War on Terror» Forums » General

Subject: The terrorists have already won. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Neil Sorenson
United States
Springfield
VT: VERMONT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Just got the game and have played only 2 3-player games so my yardstick is a little limited but the terrorists won both games absolutely hands down. In the second game, we were much more careful about funding terrorism and yet it took no time at all for the terrorist to generate awesome forces through the Civil War card and through funds gathered by extortion and kidnapping.

How are other people seeing the game play out?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Sorenson
United States
Springfield
VT: VERMONT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Another game or two later and I'm still convinced that the buying and placing of terrorist units is still totally out of whack.

Any empire that is remotely on the verge of winning need only have the other players spend a minimal amount of money to flood every country of that empire with terrorist vanguards. It would be incredibly unlikely for that empire to have enough War and Terrorist Attack cards to clean house and thus the game drags on and on in a mopping-up effort.

I have an untested variant idea that goes like this:

Empires cannot place terrorists in countries that are currently occupied by enemy empires unless there is already a vanguard/column unit within that country. In other words, empires would need to place terrorist either in totally neutral countries or in "home" countries and then use movement cards to put the terrorists into position. This idea appeals to me quite a bit for both the gameplay reason above and to replicate the reality of terrorist groups springing up deep within the borders of unfriendly countries.

For the terrorist players, the same rules would apply except that they would not have "home" countries and could only place in neutral areas or by upgrading pre-existing units.

A last-minute thought: a player could place terrorists within another player's countries if that player agreed to the placement through extortion or some kind of deal-making process.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Sheerin
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With just 3 players, you have to keep a keen eye on the spread of your empire, otherwise, it's true, the eventual terrorist player might have an easy win because you're concentrating on building upwards only instead of spreading out and colonising all continents too.

In your example, I'm not sure I see the problem of littering the planet with terrorist vanguards. They're cheap, but they also don't do anything. So if one player is on the verge of winning and you cover their territory with vanguards, they can still win unhindered.

To prevent any further development, you would need to place columns in every country and few players are so rich that they can afford such an investment.

Well, at least, that's how I've seen things pan out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Sorenson
United States
Springfield
VT: VERMONT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Oh! I was under the impression that a player could not score liberation points for a "continent" unless it was clear of all enemy empires AND terrorist units. Maybe I should look at the rules again!


10 minutes later


Okay, I looked at the rules again and obviously I invented that rule about needing to be free of terrorists to score liberation points. OOPS!

Well, that changes things pretty dramatically.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.