Games that feel close even when playing with

newbies.

I'm finding that I have less and less time for multiplayer games, what with everybody in my game group getting busy so I'm leaning more towards playing 2 player games -- it's easier to organize a game day for, and usually plays faster too.

The thing with 2 player games though, is that unless you play with somebody of the same skill level, the games usually end up being one sided. Without the benefit of an ally/allies to help beat up on the better player on the table, the game might end up feeling like a bit of an asskicking.

Which leads me to my point -- I think games that feel close are by design, better and add tons to the replayability (to be qualified later) of the game.

Let's compare some of my favorite 2 player games - War of the Ring, Space Hulk and Twilight Struggle.

Space Hulk is fast and furious, and even though the better player will win majority of the games, sometimes the dice will just really mess you up and still it's ok. It balances the game out when you play with a newbie because he still has a good chance of winning, and even if he doesn't, he can always blame the dice.

War of the Ring has so many moving parts, from the rolling of the dice (action and battle) the drawing of the cards, the drawing of the hunt tiles that the game is just basically you having a general plan and rolling with the punches. What I really really love about the game is that as long as the newbie player doesn't do anything that's really far out, he will stay in the game and it'll usually end close. Even if the good player is actually dominating, the game still feels close and it creates a lot of tension all the way to the end.

Twilight Struggle suffers from the fact that there really isn't a way that luck balances out to help the newbie. The luck of the game is so easily mitigated and can be manipulated (through the Space Race and holding the card and burying it), but only by good tactics and strategy AND a deep understanding of the game engine, that newbies stand no chance of putting up a fight.

Good players will just repeatedly win, and it'll feel like you're just going through the motions when you play with somebody who is of lesser skill.

I guess there's not enough luck in the game, and I feel that luck is an important part of games, especially since I play a lot of games with different people, the skill disparity is so large sometimes that I wish there was just a little bit more luck in the game that my opponent feels like they can still keep fighting.

In general, one of the reasons I play longer involved wargames is sort of because of this. I'm not great at games, just average. I find that playing a longer, experience game, tends to pretty much move the importance of winning to about 0. That's why I love experience type wargames and the sort. Both players are trying to win but it doesn't really matter if somebody isn't as good because the experience is still going to be great.

There are a few common ways to balance TS between unequal players--

Allow more PC placement from the start
Straight VP handicaps to start the game
Use the US

I think wargames are better at providing a shade-of-gray ending. You may not have technically won, but putting up a good defense when you're less experienced at the game provides some level of satisfaction. Some don't even provide a clear victory condition -- you judge the winner based on where the pieces lie. That's much less common in newer games though.

I'm uncomfortable with games the try to control the spread between the scores of the players -- if you play better you should generally score better. Introducing luck into the equation keeps the player that's behind emotionally in the game, and in my opinion that's a better solution to the problem. If someone goes for the Hail-Mary and wins so be it, they took their chances.

S.

Gary Sax wrote:

In general, one of the reasons I play longer involved wargames is sort of because of this. I'm not great at games, just average. I find that playing a longer, experience game, tends to pretty much move the importance of winning to about 0. That's why I love experience type wargames and the sort. Both players are trying to win but it doesn't really matter if somebody isn't as good because the experience is still going to be great.

There are a few common ways to balance TS between unequal players--

Allow more PC placement from the start
Straight VP handicaps to start the game
Use the US

The US isn't too much of a handicap on its own, it needs to be coupled with the VP handicap. The rules provide an official VP bidding mechanism for who gets to play the USSR for tournament play.

I think the US has enough of a disadvantage to make it a fair handicap. I've never lost a game as the US player BUT i can tell you that I BLOW OUT players when I'm the USSR. With the US, they always make it to mid-war and sometimes make it to late war (rare). but with USSR I win the game in the early war almost all the time (I'm talking about playing against lessor players only).

I agree that bad players have no chance to win TS but that's what TS is. It's like Caylus/Chess where a lessor player can't beat a better player. That's what that game is. Whereas WotR has enough luck to turn the tides (I play as fellowship always as a handicap in that one too).

Black Barney wrote:

I think the US has enough of a disadvantage to make it a fair handicap. I've never lost a game as the US player BUT i can tell you that I BLOW OUT players when I'm the USSR. With the US, they always make it to mid-war and sometimes make it to late war (rare). but with USSR I win the game in the early war almost all the time (I'm talking about playing against lessor players only).

I agree that bad players have no chance to win TS but that's what TS is. It's like Caylus/Chess where a lessor player can't beat a better player. That's what that game is. Whereas WotR has enough luck to turn the tides (I play as fellowship always as a handicap in that one too).

I think a better US player will almost always beat a worse USSR player. The problem many people have (I think) is that the strategies are quite different between the two superpowers and you can't play the US the same as you would the USSR. Ironically, this makes the learning curve greater for the US because, when teaching the game, the experienced player usually takes the US. I just think that the USSR strategy is more obvious.

Do you play on wargameroom? --- I am always am looking for opponents and will play as either US or USSR. Let me know if you are interested in a game -- that goes for you too Anthony.

nah, I don't play there. i just play at home with my wife and friends. Thanks for the offer tho

I think your comments are right on regarding US vs USSR

Black Barney wrote:

nah, I don't play there. i just play at home with my wife and friends. Thanks for the offer tho

I think your comments are right on regarding US vs USSR

Damn you people that have so many opportunities for Face to Face games --- I live in no man's land. AT flyover country if you will.

oh man, it's like pure joy when I come home from work to a setup game of TS with a hot pot of tea ready to go.

wow

I play a bit on Wargameroom and I repeatedly get my ass handed to me. Now if this was WotR or Popular Space Corridor 2 Player Game, I might actually stand a chance. As it stands, Twilight Struggle is the kind of game where you literally have to know every single card in order to stand a chance at winning the game -- whereas in a game like War of the Ring, you can actually roll with the punches.

You're right, TS is a bit like Chess in the sense that better players will always beat weaker players, and to be quite honest I don't think that's a good quality in games. The key word is ALWAYS.

Maybe I just need to play TS a bit more -- but that's the thing, the more I play it, the less likely I will be able to enjoy playing it with my friends who don't play as much as I do.

It's not so much a good or bad quality to a game as much as it just is a characteristic. Some games are ALL luck, some games are ALL skill, the large majority of games are a mix of the two.

I dunno, I guess my wife prefers games with some more luck than skill so she stands a chance but she did beat me in Caylus 2-player once (which in my opinion is all skill) and she is so proud of that victory 2 years ago that she still talks about it. Whereas when she beats me in Battlelore cuz I didn't roll a hit the entire game (no joke), she feels empty.

Anyway, you know what I mean.


When you play with your friends, play as the U.S., you don't win as fast and it's more fun for them. Let them pick what side they want to play each time but tell them the US has a harder time.


When I first started playing TS with new players, on advice of BGGers, I told them about many of the cards they just HAVE to know about (Blockade, etc). But receently, I've stopped telling new players and honestly, i think they're enjoying it more getting surprised. Telling new players of all these cards that can screw them I think was overwhelming for them and not fun. Learning the cards as they appear really commits them to memory forever if the effects are surprising and unpleasant. All new players I've tought in the last year are totally hooked on TS now.

I agree with Gary in a sense: Experience games are one solution where no matter who has won in the end, the experience itself from playing the game is great on its own. Games like Magic Realm, for example.

Also, there are games where you're not sure who's winning right until the end. These help make the whole experience of the game more fun, even if in the end they lose. For example, Android is a bit like this because the murder is solved at the end, but games with secret objectives like Nexus Ops, the already mentioned Magic Realm, and others also fit.

And last, you could always try cooperative games. Arkham Horror is fun with two, but there are many other coops that play well with 2 like Ghost Stories, etc...

Space Ghost wrote:

Damn you people that have so many opportunities for Face to Face games --- I live in no man's land. AT flyover country if you will.

You're in Michigan, right? Come down to Toledo sometime. We've got a solid gaming group and AT games are often played.

After playing 5 games and getting my ass handed again and again, I'm really starting to not like Twilight Struggle. Playing a game against somebody who is better is an exercise in futility, and it's barely any fun at all. It's only fun when you play against somebody of equal skill, and it's really hard to find an opponent like that in my area.

My desire to own this game has dropped quite significantly because of this.

kookoobah wrote:

After playing 5 games and getting my ass handed again and again, I'm really starting to not like Twilight Struggle. Playing a game against somebody who is better is an exercise in futility, and it's barely any fun at all. It's only fun when you play against somebody of equal skill, and it's really hard to find an opponent like that in my area.

My desire to own this game has dropped quite significantly because of this.

It's nice to play with someone who will give you advice on how to play slightly differently -- things like timing and what cards to hold and when to play ops/events. Of course, you don't want to try this with someone who is naturally condescending.