|
-
That might come in as a ridiculous question.
But in my games, it is frequent that most regions are not dominated by anyone because the battleground countries are too evenly divided.
So my question is how do yo actually manage to take over someone else's country, if the stability is high (say 3 or above).
Because coups are all virtually ineffective, they tend to be surrounded with other controlled countries, so realignments don't work too well, and placing influence often leads to a losing race...
Thanks.
-
Patrick Korner
Canada
Coquitlam
British Columbia
Stop poking me! Ow! I mean it! That hurts!
-
I'm by no means an expert on the game - most of the time I end up wishing I'd done something different two rounds previously.
That said, you will probably always be able to tell who is 'winning' and who is 'losing', both in a region as well as overall. The 'winning' player has little incentive to make drastic changes to the balance of power in a region, while the 'losing' player needs to upset the apple cart to try and gain the upper hand. What that means is that there should always be at least one player with a strong interest in destabilizing a region. And that makes it worthwhile to at least try 'cause you're losing otherwise, right?
While couping high stability countries is hella hard (and often not even allowed thanks to DEFCON levels), it's not impossible to use card events to try and reduce influence to a more manageable level. You can also try couping those surrounding countries to gain better position for realignment rolls.
Much of the time I see an early rush to claim battleground countries in a region, leaving one or two that end up getting fought over until one player manages to lock them in to some degree. That's when it's time to use events to your advantage... 
Hopefully one of the world-class TS players around here will chime in to point out all the flaws in my argument.
pk
-
Chris Linneman
Canada
Vancouver
BC
-
Changing the balance of power in high stability countries is indeed very difficult, as you have noticed. This is why it is so important to take opportunities, when presented with them, to take control of these countries.
Really the events are the only practical way to take control of these countries away from your opponent much of the time. This is why it's important to know what events are in the deck, so you can plan for them. For example, Indo-Pakistani War can switch the control of one of these two countries from your opponent with the roll of a die, however you get modifiers for controlled adjacent countries, so if you have a heavy investment in the region, try to take adjacent countries as well (or take them if your opponent controls those countries.)
Most regions, except Europe, have low stability battleground countries -- even Europe has Italy. These are usually where the battles are fought. The high stability countries are often left alone. This is thematically appropriate, and you should be careful not to dump too many resources into a country that is going to prove nearly impossible to take.
Feel free to ask about specific regions, I would be happy to let you in on my experience of what is commonly done to change ownership of battlegrounds in that region.
-
Steve Bauer
United States
Gilbert
Arizona
-
In general you don't. Most of the game is a battle for the 2 or 1 stability battleground countries. Unless you have some way of knowing your opponent has a very week hand it is a huge waste of op points to add to a region he controls. They will just take back control with less ops than you use.
There are a few exceptions. USSR can combine a headline event and a first round play to get a huge amount of influence in one country. (IE headline Socialist revolt to remove 2 influence from france and then add 4 influence as a first round play. US can do something similar but not as effective by breaking control of somewhere (North Korea is a popular target) on the last card of the round and then USSR has to give up his coup or lose Korea.
-
Proudly annoying Capitalists since 1959
Cuba
Santa Clara
Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned
-
Reallignments are usefull.
You will need to plan it though, so be carefull.
A country like Cuba is vunerable for reallignments from the US.
Therefor the USSR player might put influence in the Haiti and Nicaraqua.
Since these are low stab countries (Both 1), you can easely coup them and get a decent amount of ip's in there.
Then use reallignments to remove USSR influence with a +2 modifier.
Or South Africa. Take Angola & Botswana (which is always coupable) and reallign with a +1.
ofcourse this only works in the Americas and Africa, since coups aren't allowed anywhere else most of the game, but the principle is the same when you consider the available war cards (As mentioned before).
And indeed, some countries are simply not worth it.
UK - 5 stab. Don't even try as the USSR
Australia - 4 stab. - even less reason to go there as the USSR.
Japan - 4 stab. - only when desperate with a china card + 4ops combo.
Under strategy I posted an article about strategic important non-battleground, which might help.
Cheers, Haring
-
Conor Hickey
Ireland
Dublin
-
CaptainHook wrote:
So my question is how do yo actually manage to take over someone else's country, if the stability is high (say 3 or above).
With difficulty is the answer, and that's the way it's meant to be - sstability 3 or higher countries are generally those that historically landed in one camp or the other during the Cold War, and were never likely to change.
One of the skills in TS is knowing when to give up in a region - if your opponent has you well beaten in a region like Central or South America, it is far more efficent to beat him in Africa and/or Middle East to balance it out, rather than ploughing in ops which he can normally cancel out at half the cost you are paying.
For 3 or more stability countries:
Cuba: can be realigned by the US, or taken with Fidel as USSR.
Chile: Allende for the USSR, US will have a hard time taking this in most games.
South Africa: USSR: SA Unrest, Portuguese Empire Crumbles (to get next to SA), realignments if you have Angola and Botswana. Decolonisation or DeStalinisation to a much lesser extent.
US has less options to get back into Southern Africa generally if kicked out, really only Colonial Rearguards and Puppet Governments (usually ineffective as USSR will almost always have inf in Angola, Sth Africa and Botswana if you are kicked out).
Morocco: only rarely worth taking, can be nice in some games though to help a quick and reasonably secure Domination.
UK: uncoupable, and never any need for USSR to go there anyway.
France: If you lose France in Early War as US, forget about it until Late War when you can try and get back in with Tear Down This Wall - that will let you realign France. If you intend to do this then slowly during the Mid War pay 2 ops every so often to drop in 1 inf until you have 3 in France so that if you do realign you will have control of France to stop USSR replacing lost influence. Naturally you need to get as many of France's neighbours as you can.
W Germany: if US has it and you are USSR, forget it - use Blockade turn 1 if you can to force US to discard and not allow them hold Decolonisation or Destalinistaion if they have it.
If US and USSR has W Germany, if you get Truman Doctrine then hold it and break control of W Germany as your last AR, headline Truman Doctrine next turn and dump 4 USSR influence - this also works in France.
Iraq, Saudi Arabia: usually go USSR and no major incentive to try and change them due to threat of Muslim Revolution etc. As US be content with Israel and Egypt will also come to you in Mid War, if you can get Libya too you are doing fine in Middle East.
Israel: no real need to take this as USSR, it will sometimes come your way if you were stuck for a headline and used Arab Israeli War but the 3 extra ops you need to control (4 if you want to guard against Camp David) can be spent taking Libya and Iraq instead.
India: Indo-Pakistani war can flip this. Don't take either country without having it's neighbours first if you don't know where this card is.
Japan: always going to the US, no need for it as USSR.
South Korea: the war is a pain for the US of course, can be great for USSR to take this.
N Korea: needs Ussuri River Skirmish for the US to get in here usually.
-
Kevin Brown
United States
Macon
Georgia
-
Only 18 more 3+ stability countries you didn't mention!
-
Conor Hickey
Ireland
Dublin
-
pilight wrote: Only 18 more 3+ stability countries you didn't mention!
Well I thought I had rambled on more than long enough, and the 3 and 4 stability countries in Europe are hardly worth mentioning, there's rarely a fight, or any reason for a fight, over these 
I thought I would concentrate on countries that could actually change and ignore the likes of Australia or Norway.
-
Kevin Brown
United States
Macon
Georgia
-
TwoShedsJackson wrote: pilight wrote: Only 18 more 3+ stability countries you didn't mention! Well I thought I had rambled on more than long enough, and the 3 and 4 stability countries in Europe are hardly worth mentioning, there's rarely a fight, or any reason for a fight, over these I thought I would concentrate on countries that could actually change and ignore the likes of Australia or Norway.
I generally agree, though I might have mentioned the Eastern Europe battlegrounds.
Costa Rica, Gulf States, and Taiwan are at least as worthy of mention as Morocco and get occupied more often.
-
Conor Hickey
Ireland
Dublin
-
pilight wrote: TwoShedsJackson wrote: pilight wrote: Only 18 more 3+ stability countries you didn't mention! Well I thought I had rambled on more than long enough, and the 3 and 4 stability countries in Europe are hardly worth mentioning, there's rarely a fight, or any reason for a fight, over these I thought I would concentrate on countries that could actually change and ignore the likes of Australia or Norway. I generally agree, though I might have mentioned the Eastern Europe battlegrounds. Costa Rica, Gulf States, and Taiwan are at least as worthy of mention as Morocco and get occupied more often.
Gulf States and Taiwan are pretty minor, I never see either of those being occupied unless it'll make the difference in Domination in the region, either getting it or denying it to your opponent.
Costa Rica I will admit I forgot about and is more important but once it goes to one side or the other there is little chance of it switching in a game.
-
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
-
TwoShedsJackson wrote: pilight wrote: TwoShedsJackson wrote: pilight wrote: Only 18 more 3+ stability countries you didn't mention! Well I thought I had rambled on more than long enough, and the 3 and 4 stability countries in Europe are hardly worth mentioning, there's rarely a fight, or any reason for a fight, over these I thought I would concentrate on countries that could actually change and ignore the likes of Australia or Norway. I generally agree, though I might have mentioned the Eastern Europe battlegrounds. Costa Rica, Gulf States, and Taiwan are at least as worthy of mention as Morocco and get occupied more often. Gulf States and Taiwan are pretty minor, I never see either of those being occupied unless it'll make the difference in Domination in the region, either getting it or denying it to your opponent. Costa Rica I will admit I forgot about and is more important but once it goes to one side or the other there is little chance of it switching in a game.
Gulf States is worth an OPEC VP. Taiwan is important for Formosan Resolution and Korean War. And even if Domination is not currently an issue, it may well be in future so it is worth investing in if the other options are poor (e.g USSR in early war may be avoiding Africa and Latin America to make sure USA loses vps on mil ops).
-
Conor Hickey
Ireland
Dublin
-
Philip Thomas wrote:
Gulf States is worth an OPEC VP. Taiwan is important for Formosan Resolution and Korean War. And even if Domination is not currently an issue, it may well be in future so it is worth investing in if the other options are poor (e.g USSR in early war may be avoiding Africa and Latin America to make sure USA loses vps on mil ops).
Is one VP worth 3 ops though, I don't think so. If taking Gulf States would also give you/deny opponent Domination, then maybe it's worth taking, otherwise those 3 ops could get you two countries in Africa etc.
Formosan Resolution is a very minor event, I've seen it make a difference in Asia Scoring maybe twice in a couple hundred games, again not worth 3 ops to me, especially when US in Early War.
Same goes for it's ability to mitigate Korean War, I'd rather take the chance on losing the war, (assuming I have Japan), and using the ops from the war in S Korea, then fight it out from ahead.
-
|
|
