Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Twilight Struggle» Forums » Rules

Subject: Indo-Pakistan? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Drew G
United States
Thiells
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
So if I control both India and Pakistan, and my opponent plays the card for op points, what happens? And even if he plays it as the event? I'm confused. Otherwise we are having a good time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henrythesecond
United Kingdom
Camborne
Cornwall
flag msg tools
badge
A future player sleeps...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If your opponent plays the Indo-Pakistani War card for Ops points, that is ALL that the card is used for. The event does not occur as the event is not dedicated to either US or the USSR.

If the card is played as an Event, simply do as it says on the card. Who controls either country does not effect the outcome of the event, only who controls adjacent countries.

Obviously, choosing which country will invade which will depend upon controlled adjacent countries and which country the player of the card wishes to gain influence in should he be victorious in the Indo-Pakistani War.

Cheers.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Linneman
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sleepytimes wrote:
So if I control both India and Pakistan, and my opponent plays the card for op points, what happens? And even if he plays it as the event? I'm confused. Otherwise we are having a good time.


If he plays it for the event, he chooses one: either Pakistan invades India, or India invades Pakistan. It does not matter who controls each. Think of this as an independent act of war by an independent nation. The country that gets invaded is checked for adjacent countries controlled by you. Since the countries are adjacent to each other, this number will be at least 1. Then you apply this number as a modifier to the die roll. On a modified roll of 4+, all your influence in the target country are belong to him.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McLintock
Scotland
Glasgow
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
badge
"Roll dice and kick ass!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
QBert80 wrote:
If he plays it for the event, he chooses one: either Pakistan invades India, or India invades Pakistan. It does not matter who controls each. Think of this as an independent act of war by an independent nation. The country that gets invaded is checked for adjacent countries controlled by you. Since the countries are adjacent to each other, this number will be at least 1.

Not at all. There are many possible situations in which Pakistan could invade India or vice versa and no adjacent countries are under opposing control.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Linneman
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I meant that because his specific example was where he controlled both India and Pakistan. Of course, it's possible to control no adjacent countries.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McLintock
Scotland
Glasgow
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
badge
"Roll dice and kick ass!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oops, my bad. I missed that citation of the OP's first post and so misled myself into thinking you were making a general statement. D'oh! blush
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FEB
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
QBert80 wrote:
[q="Sleepytimes"] Since the countries are adjacent to each other, this number will be at least 1. Then you apply this number as a modifier to the die roll. On a modified roll of 4+, all your influence in the target country are belong to him.


I think this rule is broken, and we had house-ruled that, where is the point of the bonus for adjacentcy ? In real life terms, the bonus could be described as support (troops/arms/money/etc.) from third party neighbouring countries for the respective combatants, but naturally, the ememies wouldn't support each other in a war situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rick nichols
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Containerguy wrote:
QBert80 wrote:
[q="Sleepytimes"] Since the countries are adjacent to each other, this number will be at least 1. Then you apply this number as a modifier to the die roll. On a modified roll of 4+, all your influence in the target country are belong to him.


I think this rule is broken, and we had house-ruled that, where is the point of the bonus for adjacentcy ? In real life terms, the bonus could be described as support (troops/arms/money/etc.) from third party neighbouring countries for the respective combatants, but naturally, the ememies wouldn't support each other in a war situation.


Is there an official ruling on this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McLintock
Scotland
Glasgow
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
badge
"Roll dice and kick ass!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Containerguy wrote:
QBert80 wrote:
[q="Sleepytimes"] Since the countries are adjacent to each other, this number will be at least 1. Then you apply this number as a modifier to the die roll. On a modified roll of 4+, all your influence in the target country are belong to him.

I think this rule is broken, and we had house-ruled that, where is the point of the bonus for adjacentcy ? In real life terms, the bonus could be described as support (troops/arms/money/etc.) from third party neighbouring countries for the respective combatants, but naturally, the ememies wouldn't support each other in a war situation.

Leaving aside countries other than India and Pakistan for the moment, what is the net effect of the rule as written? That using the Indo-Pakistan war to take control of India or Pakistan is harder to achieve when your opponent controls both countries, and that the optimum play is when your opponent only controls the country you're trying to take over.

I imagine that the designers decided that this was good for reasons of game balance: a base 50% chance of taking control of a stability 3 country with a card which ignores DEFCON and which is otherwise worth 2 Ops is very good indeed compared to using those 2 Ops to coup or realign (if you can). After all, you couldn't empty an enemy-controlled 3-stability country of all opposing influence with a 2 Op coup even if you rolled a 6. And I think the rule makes sense thematically too: just how much more difficult do you think it would be to launch a successful invasion of your opponent's territory from another country they already control?

So the rule is certainly frustrating because of the spanner it can throw into your plans (but then, that's Twilight Struggle for you, isn't it?). But broken? No, I don't think so.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kiefte
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Senor Swanky wrote:

Is there an official ruling on this?


Yes. On the card itself. If the opponent controls both India and Pakistan, the roll is at least -1.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FEB
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
JMcL63 wrote:
Containerguy wrote:
QBert80 wrote:
[q="Sleepytimes"] Since the countries are adjacent to each other, this number will be at least 1. Then you apply this number as a modifier to the die roll. On a modified roll of 4+, all your influence in the target country are belong to him.

I think this rule is broken, and we had house-ruled that, where is the point of the bonus for adjacentcy ? In real life terms, the bonus could be described as support (troops/arms/money/etc.) from third party neighbouring countries for the respective combatants, but naturally, the ememies wouldn't support each other in a war situation.

Leaving aside countries other than India and Pakistan for the moment, what is the net effect of the rule as written? That using the Indo-Pakistan war to take control of India or Pakistan is harder to achieve when your opponent controls both countries, and that the optimum play is when your opponent only controls the country you're trying to take over.

I imagine that the designers decided that this was good for reasons of game balance: a base 50% chance of taking control of a stability 3 country with a card which ignores DEFCON and which is otherwise worth 2 Ops is very good indeed compared to using those 2 Ops to coup or realign (if you can). After all, you couldn't empty an enemy-controlled 3-stability country of all opposing influence with a 2 Op coup even if you rolled a 6. And I think the rule makes sense thematically too: just how much more difficult do you think it would be to launch a successful invasion of your opponent's territory from another country they already control?

So the rule is certainly frustrating because of the spanner it can throw into your plans (but then, that's Twilight Struggle for you, isn't it?). But broken? No, I don't think so.


Thanks for above post John !

Your point is definately makes the rule much more understandable for me.

Rule-wise, TS is a quite well balanced and thoughtfully designed game, so my above "critique" of the mentioned rule/effect is in no way contradictory to my enjoyment and appreciation of TS
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JayJay Twicotcha
Poland
flag msg tools
Still, it is odd that in a situation when (for example) the USSR controls Iran, Afghanista, Pakistan, India and Burma there is a chance that as a conseqence of a "local war between two nations" (both controlled by the USSR) one of them (the more stable one, India) changes its orientation to the US. This is not realistic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward
United States
New York City
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jason_55 wrote:
This is not realistic.

This is also a game where the Pope can go to space. Sooner or later, realism and theme has to give in to gameplay considerations.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Gilberg
United States
Norman
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jason_55 wrote:
Still, it is odd that in a situation when (for example) the USSR controls Iran, Afghanista, Pakistan, India and Burma there is a chance that as a conseqence of a "local war between two nations" (both controlled by the USSR) one of them (the more stable one, India) changes its orientation to the US. This is not realistic.


Er, why isn't it realistic? The USSR controlled everything around, called itself a great friend, and yet Pakistan still attacked. Some friend the USSR turned out to be. I can see a rather abrupt political change occurring from that shocking turn of events.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JayJay Twicotcha
Poland
flag msg tools
theory wrote:
This is also a game where the Pope can go to space.


This Pope was from the moon

But seriously speaking, I treated sending cards to Space Race more like using various ressources (materialized by the OPs) by the superpowers to speed up the Space Race. I think this game is very realistic and the gameplay is not really impacting the climate and the historic context. There are just a couple of oddities in the game and the Indo-Pakistani war is one of them.

Last weekend I played the game with my brother at my father's house. My father is much more impacted by the Communist regime (30 years of experience) than the modern capitalist world (20 years of experience). He also has NO command of the rules applied in Twilight Struggle (but plays other games such as "7 Wonders" and "Agricola", so he is accustomed with board games). And he loved watching us playing Twilight Struggle, as he could easily recall all these events that show up throughout a regular TS match. It was great fun for him to see Communists being driven out of North Korea ("an unthinkable has happened" he said) and also Pope John Paul II and Solidarity truly changing the situation in Poland and Europe as such (in fact he said "it's over, my son" to my brother, when I played John Paul and Solidarity).

Sorry for making this post maybe too personal, but this is one of many reasons I think this game is great.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Brown
United States
Macon
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Containerguy wrote:
QBert80 wrote:
[q="Sleepytimes"] Since the countries are adjacent to each other, this number will be at least 1. Then you apply this number as a modifier to the die roll. On a modified roll of 4+, all your influence in the target country are belong to him.


I think this rule is broken, and we had house-ruled that, where is the point of the bonus for adjacentcy ? In real life terms, the bonus could be described as support (troops/arms/money/etc.) from third party neighbouring countries for the respective combatants, but naturally, the ememies wouldn't support each other in a war situation.


I tend to think of it as the major power controlling both having a chance of preventing the war altogether.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew G
United States
Thiells
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I just want to thank everybody for all the information! You guys are great. Unfortunately we just got to midway now so I will probably have a lot more questions. This is what happens when you are the lone board game geek and you have to trick people into playing with you. Watch this space.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JayJay Twicotcha
Poland
flag msg tools
Gilby wrote:
jason_55 wrote:
Still, it is odd that in a situation when (for example) the USSR controls Iran, Afghanista, Pakistan, India and Burma there is a chance that as a conseqence of a "local war between two nations" (both controlled by the USSR) one of them (the more stable one, India) changes its orientation to the US. This is not realistic.


Er, why isn't it realistic? The USSR controlled everything around, called itself a great friend, and yet Pakistan still attacked. Some friend the USSR turned out to be. I can see a rather abrupt political change occurring from that shocking turn of events.



This looks more like the creation of "the third way" or "Third World", which by the way is not present in the game. But OK, your explanation is good enough to live with that
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FEB
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jason_55 wrote:
theory wrote:
This is also a game where the Pope can go to space.

and also Pope John Paul II and Solidarity truly changing the situation in Poland and Europe as such (in fact he said "it's over, my son" to my brother, when I played John Paul and Solidarity).
.


You guys in Poland set the stage for the crumble of the iron wall. Without Solidarity, East Germany wouldn't have the momentum to overthrow the regime peacefully
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FEB
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Sleepytimes wrote:
I just want to thank everybody for all the information! You guys are great. Unfortunately we just got to midway now so I will probably have a lot more questions. This is what happens when you are the lone board game geek and you have to trick people into playing with you. Watch this space.


Use Vassal for online gaming of TS, plenty of people use it, so rather easy to find a opponent
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JayJay Twicotcha
Poland
flag msg tools
Containerguy wrote:
Sleepytimes wrote:
I just want to thank everybody for all the information! You guys are great. Unfortunately we just got to midway now so I will probably have a lot more questions. This is what happens when you are the lone board game geek and you have to trick people into playing with you. Watch this space.


Use Vassal for online gaming of TS, plenty of people use it, so rather easy to find a opponent



And there is www.wargameroom.com
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hogetoorn
Netherlands
Amsterdam
flag msg tools
mbmb
And whoever likes competition could join the European Twilight Struggle League, played on wargameroom.com. The next season will start around June/July 2012. Check it out on http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/636777/open-european-twi... and send me a private message if you're interested.
1 
 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.