Imp Games

[The Janus]

Any East & West players still out there?

Myself and my notorious partner in crime were able to get a game in yesterday afternoon. We played with the "Nuclear Winter" and "Spy vs. Spy" optional rules, as well as an R0 house rule*. Here are some of the things we noticed:

1. Nuclear Winter turns the typical gameplay on it's head.
The general strategy of the Allies could easily be described as: concentrating all air force (particularly fighters) in France, and; concentrating naval units closely together (particularly in the North Atlantic to shuttle troops to Europe).
The threat of Soviet nukes firing off with reckless abandon (no complications), and costing half-price (10 IPCs) means the allied navy must scatter or face destruction, disrupting any shuck-shuck strategy in either case.
It also means that the Allies have to make the tough choice of leaving France open to attack (without the defense of Allied fighters) or stranding their air force in France permanently, due to EMP effects. The latter of course means the Soviets can't attack the territory, but also nullifies most ancialliary Allied attacks around the edges of the Soviet empire.

2. Spy vs. Spy makes the game more fun.
The success on a 2 means diplomacy et al. is more likely to succeed, thus removing a bit of the random factor and normalizing the dice results a bit. However, the adjunct that each faction can produce twice as many spies is a bit scary; I would hate to see the Soviets get 4 successes on one turn, as this could probably break the game at any stage (which some people like, but not me personally).
Regardless, in conjunction with half-price nukes from the Nuclear Winter rules, the 10 IPC cost of spies seems a bit steep. We often found it hard to choose whether to add an additional spy or an additional nuke, but the consensus was that the spies were more desirable in the first few turns, and the nukes in the next few.

3. USA should NOT go for nuclear tech in THIS ruleset.
Ignoring the fact that we forgot about free tech rolls for either sides (it's been a long time since we played) Ballistic Missiles was a useless tech for the USA, but excellent for the USSR.
In our game, the US researched Ballistic Missiles, which was promptly stolen by Soviet spies; if the US would never have researched it, the only way the Soviets could have gotten it was through technology rolls (max 1 per turn) whereas spying gives them up to 4, 2-in-6 chances per turn to steal the tech outright.
Even without building extra AA guns, Soviet Ballistic Missiles can easily hit Japan, UK, France, and India... but also Egypt or Saudi Arabia, possibly in conjuction with attacks on Syria and Iraq from Turkey, and Jordan via the Black Sea fleet -- a JerBear-esque "oil rush" as it were.
Conversely, Nuclear Winter makes fission bombs economically break-even for the Allies, negating much of the incentive to research up to Fusion Weapons. Additionally, since it takes at least 2 turns for the US to deliver a nuclear attack anywhere (whether by bomber, or AA gun moved into friendly territory) there is little incentive to build additional bombs, particularly if you were still having to pay 20 IPCs for them. If the Soviet navy is gone, the only other real bonus to a nuclear attack would be if you can hit a massed Soviet air force.

4. A successful Japan gambit is survivable, for the Allies.
There is some debate about the legality of some of the moves invloved, i.e. can a Soviet naval unit move to Marcus Island SZ on the combat move phase, even if it is not conducting combat? Where can the US sub at Guam move on its turn, if it survives and submerges?
At any rate, the only reason this tactic was devastating in our game was due to the nuclear threat to the US navy in the Pacific. Otherwise, a shuck-shuck into Kamchatka via Western Canada seems viable if the US cannot clear Japan SZ in time to recapture the territory before R2. The swing in IPCs is big, but not game-breaking; the US navy fleeing the Pacific and thus negating the need for the Soviets to reinforce east Asia, however, tipped the scales against NATO.

*The house rule that we used was allowing the Soviets to make combat movement, conduct combat, and do non-combat movement on R0. This is instead of any free IPCs or a bid. They do not purchase anything nor collect income on R0, and therefore purchase on R1 with their usual 48 IPCs. This allows the Soviets to strafe territories R0 or focus on naval combat, instead of rushing them to try and gobble up as many territories as possible to increase their income with their "sneak attack." This resulted in a very successful Japan gambit, but the territory was still taken with only 2 inf, as no units were added to the gameboard on R0.

Overall, we liked this house rule a lot; it allows the Soviets to reduce the random factor often found in R1 attacks, by softening up the Allies first. How many of us have played through an ugly R1 South Korea, Turkey, or Greece attack? Generally, these (along with West Germany) are must-win battles for the USSR, and can swing or even end the game early. We feel this rule eliminates the exponential troubles that can be caused by bizarre early-game dice, and gives the USSR a little bit more stability.
I also liked that it did not add a ton of extra units to the board, as a bid tends to do.


Any comments, questions? I'd love to have a fresh discussion on East & West