Recommend
18 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

Triumph & Tragedy» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Mixed feeling but will play again (Review) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gilles Daquin
Japan
Tokyo
Tokyo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Let's cut to the chase: Not a bad game but verdict is still out there


What it is not:
The game is not Axis and Allies in spite of the similarities. While in Axis and Allies the sides are clearly defined, Triumph & Tragedy has three sides and only one will win in the end. This aspect is particularly important and easy to forget.


Components:
Usual high quality from GMT, mostly blocks for the three factions
-Map is quite pleasing to the eyes and we played on the mounted one which comes as an option
-cards are good quality albeit a bit simplistic in design and more functional than beautiful.

Rules complexity:
Rules are not particularly complex and game can be played quite easily in no times. However, quite a number of points were obscure to us and we did not find the rules tight enough to completely lift any ambiguity, or certain other aspects of the rules required ecclesiastic interpretation to figure out in the end what was meant. So overall, be prepared to have some rough moments on nice actions that you might want to execute.

Points to keep in mind with the game:

-First of all, get out of your mind the script for WWII as you know it!!! You have the possibility to re-write Europe history from 1936 to 1945. This a crucial point to have in mind. This game is an hybrid between a worker placement game and a wargame. Not a simulation of WWII. Again, rince and repeat: This is not a simulation of WWII as we know it, even though it may involve a general confrontation across all countries.


-While the game is three players and only one player can win, the geographic disposition of the parties makes Germany a natural party to gang up against from the West and the Soviet union. Adding this to the pre-conceived idea that the Axis must defeated in WWII, the players have a difficult time realizing that this is not a two vs one game but rather a one vs all game. This might be the biggest drawback of this game for the beginners. It might be good to discussed this among players before starting.

-Even if this discussion takes place, the point of friction between the French-UK-US player and the Soviet Union are much less than against the Axis, so there again you might find yourself ganging up against one player in particular...

-In my opinion, Playing the Axis is very difficult because any mistake or misstep in executing a tight strategy will invariably result in an Axis defeat.

-There is an initial phase of around 4 turns (4 years in game) where you mostly develop your economic partnerships and alliances with non aligned countries. This is done easily and is quite amusing in itself as you will increase your resources and population in order to possibly grow your armies. Most diplomatic efforts are naturally countered by your opponents so keep in mind that some alliances (with non aligned countries) will be very important to secure for later troop movement rather than dispersing yourself all over the different countries: having weak alliances for resources and population is good but strong geographical continuity might be essential as well.

Game duration:
-Game is not excessively long. We played from 11 am to 6:30 pm with breaks, rules re-reading and my two gaming buddies explaining while they did not do a move or why it was not so good to do a move rather than actually doing one ... but we agreed that we were getting familiar with the game and we could play fast in the end.
-Count 5 hours for your second game, possibly a bit less

Comparing apple & oranges:
If we want to compare T&T to Axis & Allies, we could say that both games are rather light in terms of complexity with maybe some more clever mechanisms in T&T while A&A is more a "straight in your face" type of game and possibly a bit more clunkier.
However, as said, while the opponents are clearly defined in A&A, T&T should be seen as a one vs all type of game even if it is very hard to extract oneself from the automatism of ganging up against the Axis.

To be honest, I like quite much A&A and happily play it if I have a chance as a wargame you can play with non-wargamers. This being said, I find T&T more elegant and less cumbersome.


Replayability:
This is a big question and it might be better addressed by gamers who have played more intensively this game. The setup is fixed in 1936 and strategies for expansions not necessarily extremely varied. Move West, move East, try to go for an economic victory that's roughly what is available.
I'd say, that in my opinion, I would play this game 2-3 times again, then maybe occasionally.

Points for improvement:
One very important point might be to better tune the victory conditions specific to each bloc. At the moment, every faction has exactly the same victory conditions. Each player could draw a random victory conditions specific to his country. That would in my opinion greatly alleviate the "let's automatically kill the Axis" syndrome.

We did not find the aviation particularly interesting to use and it made us laugh in the end that none of us really developed anything. Too long, too costly, too random. So in 1945, we were mostly fighting with the clunky equipment of 1936... Maybe make the aviation more potent and developing new technologies less difficult?


In conclusion:
This game plays fast for the scope it covers and has elegant mechanisms. It does have organic problems though of inherently driving two players against Germany. This could be alleviated through better tuned victory conditions.
The rules could benefit from a re-write and clearer wording.


The ultimate question:

Do I want to play it? Yes, I certainly would like to try again a few different strategies but will it change anything in the end? That is really the big question for a final verdict. There is nothing less motivating than trying out many different approaches to eventually understand that the chances of wining with one faction are close to nil.

So verdict is still out there. In my view: a tangent 7 that may go down to a lower grade if the Axis faction is merely a punching ball for the thrill of the other two factions.

17 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United Kingdom
Farnham
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
On the whole this is a fair review, but a couple of points seem out of place.

Tifast wrote:
This game is an hybrid between a worker placement game and a wargame.

Maybe I'm missing something, but exactly what parts of Triumph & Tragedy are like a worker placement game?


And regarding the strategy, you should take a look at how easily the Soviets can threaten Delhi before deciding that they have to attack the Axis; or even attack anyone. If the other two are fighting, the third player is motivated to stay out of the action unless one of the combatants is threatening a sudden-death victory.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Brown
United Kingdom
Stockport
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
This is one of my most played wargame purchased over recent years.

The rules and ease of play make this game very accessable. All three sides have to walk a tight rope in the game as you can't let anyone get a lead, if they do (whether the are the West, Axis, or Soviets) the other two will have to work together to being them back in line.

My only problem with the game is that towards the end, if it is obvious that one side is losing they can become king maker.

We have also introduced a house rule that for the first turn the Germans decide who goes first rather than rolling the die
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Special K

St Albans
msg tools
mbmbmb
Very good points made in this review and hope you continue to enjoy the game. It is a precondition that this can and should veer away from historical outcomes. Take that for what is and enjoy.....it really isn't a recreation of WW2 though the general outcome can be similar on the odd occasion. I take your point that there is a danger that players can fall into the trap of Axis vs Russia and the West, and this can limit the good "gameness" of the game.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Gilles,

Good points all! Just as David, this is also one of my all-time favorite games.

In my case, it means that I do a lot of historical research and then create rules variants to hopefully improve it.

First off, let me recommend a download that will improve your experience:
Deluxe Edition: Expanded Units and Area Control Effects Tables

For a good two-player experience, let me recommend the following rules:
Alternative Two-Player T&T Rules

If you want to start with a historical deployment, check out the following:
Historical Military Forces in 1936

If you'd like to see more technologies employed in the game, try this out:
Historical Technologies in T&T

Then, if you want a more historical experience overall, here's a set of suggested revisions. You don't necessarily need to adopt all of them, but playtesting seems to bear out that these work and are a lot of fun.
Triumph and Tragedy: Advanced Rules

As to a variety of other victory conditions, I think there are a lot of possibilities. For example, here's a totally untested idea for VPs added to those in 16.1 Victory Points.

Grossdeutschland Victory (GD) +4 VPs
The Axis controls Austria, Czechoslovakia, Western Poland, and Switzerland*.
* Roll a dice +1 to place French or Soviet units that add up to the total (2-7) number of CV steps (i.e. rolling a 5 could result in 3CV Fort, 2CV Infantry, and 1CV Air).

Restoration of the Austria-Hungary (RAH) +5 VPs
The Axis player wins by controlling: Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Lvov. However, Italy leaves the Axis as a result, which could reduce the VPs from production.

Roman Empire Victory (RE) +7 VPs
The Axis player wins by controlling over Tunisia, Malta, Libya, Egypt, Albania, Greece, and Izmir.

Generalplan Ost Victory (GO) +8 VPs
The Axis controls Poland, Baltic States, Leningrad, Belorussia, Kiev, and Odessa.

Deutschland Uber Alles Victory (DUA) +24 VPs
The Axis controls Poland, Leningrad, Belorussia, Kiev, Odessa, Bryansk, Sevastopol, Kharkov, Stalingrad, Kuban, Grozny, Georgia, and Baku.

Oslo States Victory (OS) +5 VPs
The West scores an Oslo Victory if all the following states are neutral at the end of the game: Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and the Low Countries.

Caucasus Oil Victory (CO) +10 VPs
The West (Operation Pike) or the Axis (Fall Blau) captures Baku and holds it at the end of the game.

- Dieter
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Pollock
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Me and my pals have played 9 games I think so each of us have played each of the factions 3 times.

We have a had a variety of victories achieved ranging from Axis Sea Lion to points win to holding 2 capitals, with 2 capitals probably being the most common. The only one we haven't had yet is the Atomic Bomb tech card victory, though one of the other guys got real close with USSR once. He just needed to draw the fourth one in the final turn and spent nearly his entire production trying to do it.

I'd say each game we've had has been different suggesting that replayability is fine, though I would argue that now we're more experienced, certain tricks like capturing Baku for a win as the Allies isn't likely to happen again.

I'd also agree that, while the Axis are the most 'fun' to play in the early game, if you make a mistake as them while pushing for a military win or you get screwed by the dice, you are likely to get double teamed as the other two push for victory meaning that the late game can become rather dull. This has happened quite a few times and has led to rather cagier Axis play in recent outings with our most recent play seeing a points win for the Axis.

I do think the aircraft are slightly underpowered, but not to the point where they're not useful. They circumvent border limits and an early hit can make a big difference if you're not hitting first with tanks and infantry.

Lastly, the tech for us varies wildly in usefulness. We've never seen sonar or precision bombsights, and the aircraft tech is arguably more of a luxury. Meanwhile, heavy tanks, rocket artillery or motorised infantry can be game changers.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Szarka
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
When it is your turn to send a VASSAL move, the wait is excruciating. When it's my turn, well, I've been busy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jambo wrote:

I'd say each game we've had has been different suggesting that replayability is fine, though I would argue that now we're more experienced, certain tricks like capturing Baku for a win as the Allies isn't likely to happen again.


And yet, if you try to counter every "winning" strategy, you can't counter any of them...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicolas Le Roux
Canada
Montréal
QC
flag msg tools
mb
Hello and thank you for your review. As a disclaimer, this is a game I love and by far my most played heavy game of 2018.

Tifast wrote:

-Even if this discussion takes place, the point of friction between the French-UK-US player and the Soviet Union are much less than against the Axis, so there again you might find yourself ganging up against one player in particular...

-In my opinion, Playing the Axis is very difficult because any mistake or misstep in executing a tight strategy will invariably result in an Axis defeat.

-There is an initial phase of around 4 turns (4 years in game) where you mostly develop your economic partnerships and alliances with non aligned countries.

This is the crux of your review: that, despite its theoretical openness, the game might be scripted with Allies and Soviets ganging up against the Axis before realizing that there's only one winner. The comment about the first 4 years is along the same lines.

Interestingly, if you look at this thread, where the designer asks for feedback on the balance, you'll notice two things:
- the overall balance is really good
- the balance within each gaming group is not that great.

What seems to happen is that each group gets convinced that a strategy is superior and focuses on refining said strategy. What's fun is that the strategy varies wildly from group to group. For instance, our group tends to declare war fairly late (around 1940) with most action being on the west front. However, there are regular discussions about an early Sealion forcing France to build their defences on the first turn.

The issue is that, while the game is not exceedingly long, as you mention, it's still a bit too long to try a completely new strategy that can fail miserably early on. Despite this issue, my advice to you would be to try new things or even to read the forums and check which strategies that you hadn't thought of seem viable.

Tifast wrote:

We did not find the aviation particularly interesting to use and it made us laugh in the end that none of us really developed anything. Too long, too costly, too random. So in 1945, we were mostly fighting with the clunky equipment of 1936... Maybe make the aviation more potent and developing new technologies less difficult?

I'd go further and say that the wargame bit is uninspired. While the diplomacy itself and its ties with the wargame part are deep yet streamlined, it seems the designer followed the standard trend of wargaming by having many types of units with very similar behaviour. I have a hunch that we can get the same strategies using only 4 types of units: submarines, fortresses, ground units (which would merge infantry and tanks) and support units (which would merge boats and planes). This would greatly simplify the war aspect while maintaining the tough decisions.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Jamie and Nicolas,

C'mon, please try just one game using the Historical Technologies in T&T download. :-)

You'll be amazed at how many technologies are used in the game, when they're less expensive. In my opinion, it makes T&T blossom!

Dieter
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Who knew trench warfare could be such fun?
badge
Ashwin in front of Tiger 131
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Bang on the money with the disclaimer that this has little to do with WW2. That was my problem with the game from my first play of it.

Fortunately 'Cataclysm' came along and filled the three player sandbox WW2 game niche. I still own TnT but the chances of it getting played are only slightly above zero.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim,

The point that Gilles made--which I agree with--is that T&T is not a *scripted* WW2 game, but it's elegant for its level of abstraction and makes a fun and easy game to learn and play. Craig Besinque and company did a wonderful job designing it!

It's great that you found a game you like better, but it's truly comparing apples and oranges. Cataclysm has double the word count in rules, which makes it considerably more complex.

Admittedly, I once was into complex and accurate monster games such as DAK, Wacht am Rhein, and War in Europe.

WiE covered nearly 47 square feet of floor space, came with 3,600 cardboard pieces, and included a rule book the size of a master's thesis. It was fun, but took and immensely long time to play.

From my perspective, I think that some rules could be added to T&T to make it more accurate without adding a lot of complexity (see my links above). Craig disagrees, but I understand what he's focused on achieving.

Hope you continue enjoying Cataclysm--that's what the hobby is all about. I'm sticking with T&T.

Dieter
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Who knew trench warfare could be such fun?
badge
Ashwin in front of Tiger 131
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

My fault for speed reading but my point remains the same. It's a bland design that with a couple of tweaks could have been applied to almost any setting, including space (yes, I'm aware that is now the case).

'Cataclysm' is a more complex game but it does what the designers intended - creates a sandbox WW2 without stripping out almost any historical context. I'm not really buying your point about monster wargames. 'Cataclysm' is no monster, nor does it have that level of complexity. A bit of a smokescreen really.

You enjoy TnT - great that you like that design. I just think there's now a much better one out there.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff C
Canada
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim, that's fodder for another thread, not here. Suffice to say I completely disagree and find T&T to be the superior game by far.

To the op;

Quote:
Replayability:
The setup is fixed in 1936 and strategies for expansions not necessarily extremely varied. Move West, move East, try to go for an economic victory that's roughly what is available.


Not true. Setup is very much open as nearly every block choice is up to the player.

Strategies vary wildly according to faction (a long game economic victory on vps is possible for the Axis but less so than for others, their best option is military) and completely ignores the nuclear victory. Strategy also varies based on how the early game diplomacy plays out. Especially for the axis. I have won both military victories and economic victories, without declaring war in the latter case.

In short, strategy varies and I find the game varies a lot. Tons of replayability.

Quote:
That would in my opinion greatly alleviate the "let's automatically kill the Axis" syndrome.


As soon as the non-axis players understand that only one of them can win, this should disappear.

Quote:
We did not find the aviation particularly interesting to use and it made us laugh in the end that none of us really developed anything. Too long, too costly, too random. So in 1945, we were mostly fighting with the clunky equipment of 1936... Maybe make the aviation more potent and developing new technologies less difficult?


Having trouble understanding what you are saying here. I thought at first 'aviation' was technology, but then you use that term as well...the technology game is fascinating to me.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Who knew trench warfare could be such fun?
badge
Ashwin in front of Tiger 131
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Geoff, thanks for the drive by assertion. Very enlightening. The OP has mixed feelings on the game, I'll direct him - and others to look at an alternative.

If you want to start a thread on the specifics I'll happily comment there too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jim,

Smoke screens can be very useful, but in this case, my point is that there's no end to complexity, plus--and this was Craig's point in another great design, Rommel in the Desert--that the proliferation of units and special case rules (aka "chrome") provides only the illusion of realism without the real unknowns and quandaries that the generals involved faced. I agree with Craig's observations.

If you haven't already done so, consider downloading and reading through the
Triumph and Tragedy: Advanced Rules and see what you think.

Dieter
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Romain Duchesnes
Japan
Nakano
Tokyo
flag msg tools
I was one of Gilles's opponents.

What felt weird to me playing the Allies in this game is that declaring war without being provoked in any way is just as easy for the democracies as it is for the fascist or communist powers. I'm having a hard time buying the idea that the British, French or American governments would have had such an easy time selling an illegitimate, aggressive war to their public opinion.

What happened more specifically in our game is that the USSR seized Romania (an Axis protectorate) very early on. Germany declined to repudiate Romania, and thus war broke out. In retrospect it seemed like a losing proposition for both the USSR and Germany, as leaving the West out gave them (me, as it stands) plenty of room to develop economically and build up their armed forces. The USSR will have a hard time competing economically and the Axis, not having had the opportunity to knock France out, will inevitably end up fighting a two-front war against two very strong opponents. The fact that building up your military is almost as fast and effective during peace time as it is during war (no commitment rules) and that military doctrine and technology develops just as easily without being tested on the ground is another aspect that feels strange to me.

So around 1943, seeing the Axis as an easy prey to get the necessary VPs to edge out the USSR after years of reaping peace dividends while the others were fighting, I embark all three Western powers on an invasion of Germany to win the game.

It made sense from a game standpoint but thematically that's also something I don't quite understand. Unless I misread the rules, the US, as long as they're a Western "satellite", will support their Allies unconditionally. In our game, the entirety of Eastern Europe+Persia+Turkey+Finland+Sweden was under Soviet military rule with only Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, under Axis control, standing in their way. Why would the US government, when in our game the USSR is the real threat, see it as being in its interest to support a war against the only political entity (temporarily) preventing the Communists from achieving almost complete domination of Europe, even as Germany has never infringed on their interests? (leaving alone the question of why public opinion would support that)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gard R.
Norway
Akershus
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
First of all, there is so much awesome in the post. Thanks for a great summary and the look from one of the opponents of thread starter! I love the game and how it plays. Thus I hope I'm not offending anyone with my thoughts on some of your points.

Quote:
What felt weird to me playing the Allies in this game is that declaring war without being provoked in any way is just as easy for the democracies as it is for the fascist or communist powers. I'm having a hard time buying the idea that the British, French or American governments would have had such an easy time selling an illegitimate, aggressive war to their public opinion.


"It is up to the western democracies to free the people from the devastating war raging. We start with those closest, the AXIS!" -- Almost any war can be "just", as long as the propaganda justifies it.

Quote:
What happened more specifically in our game is that the USSR seized Romania (an Axis protectorate) very early on. Germany declined to repudiate Romania, and thus war broke out. In retrospect it seemed like a losing proposition for both the USSR and Germany, as leaving the West out gave them (me, as it stands) plenty of room to develop economically and build up their armed forces. The USSR will have a hard time competing economically and the Axis, not having had the opportunity to knock France out, will inevitably end up fighting a two-front war against two very strong opponents. The fact that building up your military is almost as fast and effective during peace time as it is during war (no commitment rules) and that military doctrine and technology develops just as easily without being tested on the ground is another aspect that feels strange to me.

So around 1943, seeing the Axis as an easy prey to get the necessary VPs to edge out the USSR after years of reaping peace dividends while the others were fighting, I embark all three Western powers on an invasion of Germany to win the game.


So two things here -- first the war thing. I've been both WEST and AXIS in similar situations, I'm at war and the third party is peacefully acquiring dividends. While playing WEST I realized USSR will win, and I know AXIS won't declare war - why would he? In that game I declared on USSR, to stop the dividends. This is what the USSR should've done in your game. A justification is the fact that you not engaging AXIS makes it harder for the USSR. Almost like some kind of "Operation Pike", but more gamified. For the AXIS player, an option is to engag in diplomacy with USSR to attack WEST together, seeing as they both are becoming loosers. However this is always hard, as weakening the front makes it easier to be backstabbed arrrh

Secondly it makes sense to build up military when the rest of Europe is. And in some way you could say it is easier to build up the military during wartime as a defender. The decrease in factory cost makes it possible to use more industry on military build up. Equally it is harder to justify an offensive war, so it makes sense it's "equally hard" to build up military in peace-time as in offensive-war-time. Although I do agree to your point two somewhat. Maybe the two dictatorial powers should get some military build help, or the democratic power more reduction?

Quote:
It made sense from a game standpoint but thematically that's also something I don't quite understand. Unless I misread the rules, the US, as long as they're a Western "satellite", will support their Allies unconditionally. In our game, the entirety of Eastern Europe+Persia+Turkey+Finland+Sweden was under Soviet military rule with only Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, under Axis control, standing in their way. Why would the US government, when in our game the USSR is the real threat, see it as being in its interest to support a war against the only political entity (temporarily) preventing the Communists from achieving almost complete domination of Europe, even as Germany has never infringed on their interests? (leaving alone the question of why public opinion would support that)


Well, again somewhat similar to the point in the beginning - taking what the WEST can from AXIS negates it for the USSR. This reduce the real threat from likely gaining more strength. This does not feel out of character for the US whistle
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Romain Duchesnes
Japan
Nakano
Tokyo
flag msg tools
gardi wrote:
First of all, there is so much awesome in the post. Thanks for a great summary and the look from one of the opponents of thread starter! I love the game and how it plays. Thus I hope I'm not offending anyone with my thoughts on some of your points.


Same here, I've only played the game once so I'm merely raising concerns I have with the design rather than formulating a well-thought out, cogent criticism of it. I'd like to hear how more experienced players feel about what I perceive to be oddities in the design. It could be that playing sub-optimally results in historically implausible situations but that in order to keep things simple the rules don't address these implausibilities as they tend to occur less frequently among more experienced players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Szarka
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
When it is your turn to send a VASSAL move, the wait is excruciating. When it's my turn, well, I've been busy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Des_Esseintes wrote:
In our game, the entirety of Eastern Europe+Persia+Turkey+Finland+Sweden was under Soviet military rule with only Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, under Axis control, standing in their way. Why would the US government, when in our game the USSR is the real threat, see it as being in its interest to support a war against the only political entity (temporarily) preventing the Communists from achieving almost complete domination of Europe, even as Germany has never infringed on their interests? (leaving alone the question of why public opinion would support that)


Ummm, isn’t that a bit like what actually happened?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicolas Le Roux
Canada
Montréal
QC
flag msg tools
mb
Before replying to your comment, I'll echo gardi's comment and express appreciation for your post.

Des_Esseintes wrote:

What felt weird to me playing the Allies in this game is that declaring war without being provoked in any way is just as easy for the democracies as it is for the fascist or communist powers.

As others have pointed out, I believe T&T is enjoyed mostly as a more abstract game where the WW2 veneer allows you to create a story based on what happened in the game. However, it is by no means a WW2 simulation and it is entirely possible that a completely unrealistic action will be the best one. Cataclysm might be more what you're looking for.

As someone who does not fancy recreating historical battles (and knows very little about them) but sees wargames as a decorum to make mechanics more easily apprehendable (which might be why I'm terrible at wargames), T&T hits all the right buttons, despite clearly lacking in historical accuracy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Early on, France and Britain recognized that the Soviet Union was providing Nazi Germany with all the resources they needed for a war against the West and that Britain would not be able to blockade Germany as they did in WWI. Allied strategic planners identified oil as the critical resource for Germany and that the oilfields in and around Baku were the source of nearly all (90%+) the oil available to the Soviet Union, which could easily supply all the oil Germany would need.

Shocking as it might seem, the Allies planned to attack and destroy the Soviet oilfields with incendiary bombs from air bases in Iraq, and possibly Syria Iran, and Turkey. The ground around the Soviet oilfields were soaked with oil and in pools. The derricks were made of wood and very vulnerable.

Allied air forces were then transferred into the area along with 943,000 pounds of ordnance, which was deemed enough to destroy the oilfields. Apparently Stalin got wind of the plan, quickly settled the war against Finland, and rushed those forces to defend the oilfields.

According to U.S. Archivist Patrick R. Osborn in his book, Operation Pike, the Allies would have executed their plan were it not for Hitler's successful invasion of France in April 1940.

After the war, Allied propagandists spun the story that this was merely a contingency plan not to be taken seriously, that it wouldn't have worked because the Allied air forces were so bad that they wouldn't have hit any thing within miles, and that Germany already got all the oil it needed from Romania anyway.

It's interesting to imagine what it might have been the outcome of a war against both Germany and the Soviet Union . . .

So, the possibilities in T&T are indeed likely!

Dieter
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Romain Duchesnes
Japan
Nakano
Tokyo
flag msg tools
genji256 wrote:
Before replying to your comment, I'll echo gardi's comment and express appreciation for your post.

Des_Esseintes wrote:

What felt weird to me playing the Allies in this game is that declaring war without being provoked in any way is just as easy for the democracies as it is for the fascist or communist powers.

As others have pointed out, I believe T&T is enjoyed mostly as a more abstract game where the WW2 veneer allows you to create a story based on what happened in the game. However, it is by no means a WW2 simulation and it is entirely possible that a completely unrealistic action will be the best one. Cataclysm might be more what you're looking for.


Having played it over the week I have to say that yes, it is much closer to what I want from a Strategic WWII game. It's only slightly more complex and still very open but it seems to produce results that make more sense to me. T&T is still a fun game though and has the significant advantage of being able to be completed in an afternoon. Each has its purpose I suppose.

Personally I still don't think the US (non-interventionist at the time) would have intervened in Europe unless Germany posed a serious threat to US or British interests (which it didn't in my game). My strategy was the result of the game ending when it ended due to the artificial time limit imposed by the turn track. Tearing a (mostly) non-aggressive Germany to pieces in the face of a non-stopping onslaught of Soviet military invasions makes sense in the very short term (VPs) but not in the grand scheme of things. One of the primary US concerns in the aftermath of WW2 was precisely not to weaken Germany too much so as to keep it as a safeguard against the spread of communism (some even feared denazification would weaken it too much). I suppose T&T requires you to completely abstract out the political realities of the time and say, in our case, imagine a Germany in which Hitler was not in power, facing a US/UK/French alliance with fascist leanings or something along those lines.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Romain Duchesnes
Japan
Nakano
Tokyo
flag msg tools
mcszarka wrote:
Des_Esseintes wrote:
In our game, the entirety of Eastern Europe+Persia+Turkey+Finland+Sweden was under Soviet military rule with only Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, under Axis control, standing in their way. Why would the US government, when in our game the USSR is the real threat, see it as being in its interest to support a war against the only political entity (temporarily) preventing the Communists from achieving almost complete domination of Europe, even as Germany has never infringed on their interests? (leaving alone the question of why public opinion would support that)


Ummm, isn’t that a bit like what actually happened?


Well not really. Historically Germany was also a threat and invaded those countries first, thus justifying an alliance with the Soviet Union. If that doesn't happen (as in our game), there's no historical reason to make the job easier for the USSR.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gilles Daquin
Japan
Tokyo
Tokyo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Des_Esseintes wrote:

It made sense from a game standpoint but thematically that's also something I don't quite understand. Unless I misread the rules, the US, as long as they're a Western "satellite", will support their Allies unconditionally. In our game, the entirety of Eastern Europe+Persia+Turkey+Finland+Sweden was under Soviet military rule with only Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, under Axis control, standing in their way. Why would the US government, when in our game the USSR is the real threat, see it as being in its interest to support a war against the only political entity (temporarily) preventing the Communists from achieving almost complete domination of Europe, even as Germany has never infringed on their interests? (leaving alone the question of why public opinion would support that)


I believe the game would easily benefit from different victory conditions, more in line with the possible "logical" paths each bloc could undertake rather than the current generic ones.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Romain Duchesnes
Japan
Nakano
Tokyo
flag msg tools
Tifast wrote:
Des_Esseintes wrote:

It made sense from a game standpoint but thematically that's also something I don't quite understand. Unless I misread the rules, the US, as long as they're a Western "satellite", will support their Allies unconditionally. In our game, the entirety of Eastern Europe+Persia+Turkey+Finland+Sweden was under Soviet military rule with only Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, under Axis control, standing in their way. Why would the US government, when in our game the USSR is the real threat, see it as being in its interest to support a war against the only political entity (temporarily) preventing the Communists from achieving almost complete domination of Europe, even as Germany has never infringed on their interests? (leaving alone the question of why public opinion would support that)


I believe the game would easily benefit from different victory conditions, more in line with the possible "logical" paths each bloc could undertake rather than the current generic ones.


I also think the rules for US intervention should be more strict. Like they only intervene if war has been declared on the UK/France (and not if they start an aggressive invasion of Germany just for the heck of it).
 
 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.