Talk:Twilight Struggle

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelRoaUMD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Online Game

There is an online game. I don't know the URL, but we should add this if someone knows.202.82.171.186 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Struggle may be played online at www.wargameroom.com or www.vassalengine.org. It will soon be available to play at www.gametableonline.com. It may also be played by e-mail using cyberboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.226.243 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Scoring Track

The scoring track is not really "very innovative" It's no different than any two player scoring track, except that it tracks the lead, rather than the total scores of both players. The game play would not change in the slightest if each player tracked their own scores in the aggregate. 71.20.136.55 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't sound 'very innovative' so I've changed it. Of course, a source could change my mind. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear War

I've tweaked some anonymous but good-faith amendments on this topic as they didn't seem clear to me. What is clear on my reading of the rules is that the phasing player is reponsible even if his opponent is doing the action. This is obvious if, say the Americans play "Korean War" for ops - the Soviet event (Korean War) then takes place, DEFCON drops and the Americans are responsible as the Soviets had no choice in the matter (presumably they are deemed to have been provoked into invading or whatever). It's less clear if, say, the Americans choose to play "host Olympic Games" as an event, and the Soviets, rather than allow the USA a chance to claim VPs, choose to boycott, causing DEFCON to drop - even though the Soviets did have a choice in the matter, the Americans are still held responsible - this example is specifically given in the rules. Unless I've got that completely wrong. (Apologies, this discussion must seem a bit tasteless to those who don't actually play the game ...) Paulturtle (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right. Some cards (e.g. "Duck and Cover") degrade the Defcon automatically. So if the USSR plays D&C while Defcon is at 2, they lose despite the fact that it is a US event ("Defcon suicide"). Other cards (e.g. "CIA Created") give the other player the option of using operations points. So if the USSR played "CIA Created" while the Defcon was at 2, the US would get to play one op, and they would immediately use it to coup a battleground, degrade the Defcon to 1 and win the game. The only way out of a Defcon suicide card is either (a) to raise the Defcon and then play it, (b) to send it to space (if it is worth two ops or more), (c) to get rid of it with an event like "UN Intervention" or "Ask not...", (d) to hold it and hope the situation resolves itself, or (e) in the case of cards that allow the other player to use operations, make sure you don't have influence in any battleground states (not usual). If you suspect that your opponent has a Defcon suicide card, you can make the situation worse for them by playing cards such as "Red Scare/Purge", "Terrorism" or (if you're the US), "Five Year Plan". Shayday~enwiki (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Twilight Struggle is a wargame

There are two major pieces of evidence supporting Twilight Struggle's description as a "wargame":

• "The Charles S. Roberts Awards (or CSR Awards) are given annually for excellence in the historical wargaming hobby." - if Twilight Struggle wasn't a wargame, how then would it have won a CSR Award? I think we should trust the esteemed members who administer the CSR Awards to know what a wargame is, or not.
• Boardgamegeek.com, who is cited as including TS as their #1 game, lists the game as a wargame, based on a poll of their users, and those who own and play the game. 68.144.172.8 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplified

Following the note that the Gameplay section was too long and excessively detailed, I have re-written it. I hope I haven't stepped on anybody's toes. I am aware that it is still quite long but I have tried to avoid the in-depth (but very interesting) analysis of the previous contributor. I have also set it out in what I think is a more logical order. I'd welcome any comments/edits. Shayday~enwiki (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that drive-by tag was ever justified in the first place to be honest. An article about a game with a single set of rules is analogous to a plot summary in some ways, in that citations are not required as the source is self-evident, but that doesn't mean it has to be subject to the same rules as for a plot summary of a film (and even there it is sensible to bend the rules a bit for a widely watched film of unusual length or complexity). There isn't really much reason to start hacking at an article ("interesting" information removed) which people have enjoyed just to humour somebody with no constructive contribution to make. Articles come a lot longer than this. What matters is what people who want to read about the topic in question want.Paulturtle (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think in fairness the previous gameplay summary was too in-depth. It went into the details of several cards, spoke at length about tactics and play decisions. I think being interesting or enjoyed isn't enough. Wikipedia is not a game guide (WP:VGSCOPE).

"An article about a video game should summarize the main actions the player does in the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry."

Having said this, I still think my explanation, shortened though it is, might infringe on this policy. Shayday~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Further to above, I've just read through your edits. Thanks, I appreciate them! Shayday~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Best not to pay too much attention to that kind of thing. Obsessing about WP:THIS and WP:THAT and quoting them as supreme ends in themselves is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and it's only a short step from there to becoming one of the tedious busybodies who infest Wikipedia like knotweed nowadays, and in many cases clearly "get off on" lecturing other editors about what they must "please" do and "please" not do. But in answer to your point, discussing a few key cards, e.g. the events which open up the possibility of the USA gaining control of Eastern Europe in the 1980s, is perfectly permissible. A catalogue listing every single card or the point value of every country wouldn't be.Paulturtle (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

BoardGameGeek Ranking

Twilight Struggle is ranked fourth on BoardGameGeek at this moment. Recent archive link for posterity.

Should that part of the article be changed to "...highest-ranked game on BoardGameGeek from December 2010 to January 2016. As of November 2017, it's ranked fourth"? Is it better to keep updating the current ranking as it changes, or just stop at "...highest-ranked game on BoardGameGeek from December 2010 to January 2016."? --Doc faust (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd stop at 2016, personally. Do we actually have a citation for the rank lasting that long? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears that as of Jan. 1, 2016 Pandemic Legacy Season 1 had already replaced it. It's close though; Twilight Struggle remains number one until at least Dec. 29. Should it be changed to 2015? --Doc faust (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

And that's why we like secondary sources here. :-) I don't know. I'd say leave it as it is for now...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now. If this edit is made in the near future, there's a blog post here which has the ranking transition as "just" occurred, dated to Jan. 1 2016. -- Doc faust (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Twilight Struggle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article, comments should be added here in the next few days. Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead appropriate length for article
• Doesn't follow the Board game style guide (linked in #Verifiability)
• The italics in the gameplay overview do not make sense. Why are certain words italicised - looks like game mechanics, yes, but why?
• Do we need to wikilink dice?
• Mentions Eurogame a few times where knowledge of what that means is important, without even giving a brief explanation; yes, there's a wikilink, but a short line about it would help
• Generally written well
• First two lines of Reception seems perhaps too descriptive and not summary style
• Fail for now

Coverage

• May go into too much detail on the rules per the Board game style guide (linked in #Verifiability)
• Doesn't mention if the digital versions are via Steam, which I only realised when looking because the lead made me interested to play.
• Development and later edition section otherwise has good coverage
• Awards section good, not long enough to need columns. Glad decision made to include it.
• Fail for now

Illustration

• Good use and spread of images throughout
• Appropriate fair use rationale for image of gameplay
• Pass

Neutrality

• Seems good, but the sentence "It became GMT Games' all-time best-seller by far, with still-accelerating lifetime sales of approximately 100,000 copies as of July 2016" is somewhat biased. Could be rewritten to contain the same information more neutrally.
• Needs attention

Verifiability

• Wouldn't say I'm an expert on boardgames, but the sources look good.
• Gameplay largely uncited - this isn't a plot, needs RS per WP Board game Style guide
• Rulebooks in competitive play section uncited
• Fail

Stability

• Edited erratically, up to only adding a citation for something yesterday. Concerns about article drastically changing on the regular.
• Fail

Copyright

• Check looks clean
• Good fair use rationale for copyrighted image
• Pass

Overall

• Is there a steam version I can get?
• on hold Some stuff to work on. And I found the Board game Style guide, which I feel should be followed. Needs refs. Kingsif (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kingsif, I've edited the article to address some of your points but I don't understand or agree with all of them:

• Could you explain in what way you do not think it corresponds to the WikiProject Board and table games style guide? I followed the guide while editing and the only point of divergence I see is that gameplay could perhaps be shortened further. However, most elements do relate to what is mentioned in the development or reception sections, as the guide recommends. To understand the influences of other games,those elements must be described for this game, reviewers' appreciation of the historical focus requires understanding how gameplay deals with history, etc.

• The points being the structure (history before gameplay), not being excessive on the gameplay, and needing to cite the mechanics. I searched for it because there weren't refs for the gameplay and I wasn't sure if the plot style (i.e. don't need to cite plot for a publicly-accessible book or film) would apply here. Safe to say, it needs refs, and the other things mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Italicizing newly introduced game concepts is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS: "A technical term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted." Game rule books often capitalize such concepts to distinguish them, but I don't think the MOS supports that. I'm not married to it, if you think it's more legible without.

• No, I was just asking, I assumed there would be a reason. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• The article mentions the platforms the Digital Edition is available on. It seems inappropriate to mention a specific vendor like Steam. It's obviously convenient if you're a Steam user, but MOS:VG does not recommend doing so for video game articles (but only explicitly recommends against it as an external link). The Digital Edition has rather limited coverage compared to the board game (though I hear it's a good adaptation), and this should be reflected in the level of detail given in the article.

• Thanks for response here (glad I can get, and I see the rationale for not mentioning). Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• The game is a primary source for itself and the citation is clearly implied; writing about what the rule book says is just like writing about the contents of any other book. (By contrast, a secondary source interpreting the rules would be explicitly cited.) The WikiProject style guide doesn't say otherwise, as I read it. I'll add a footnote to each of the gameplay section paragraphs if you insist, since it's better to err on the side of more footnotes, but I ask you to reconsider; I don't think the article will be improved. On the same principle, mentioning the rule book of a particular edition in prose is a kind of citation, but I'll add a footnote if you prefer.

• The game is a primary source for what it looks like, not for gameplay, and I don't think the rulebook is... (see my comment about why I checked the style guide - I was looking). See, what happens in a film is obviously visible, the words in a story are, but the gameplay of a card/board game is not clear from looking it, and the rulebook is a secondary source that provides this information about something else. Like, we can see where buildings are but for WP purposes we must find either a document describing it or a map showing it and include a citation for that. So I'd like at least a footnote, please, I hope this explains why. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging @Kim Post: re Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• The stability criterion refers to instability due to an "an ongoing edit war or content dispute" and excludes "good faith improvements to the page", so I think it is satisfied here. Kim Post (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but at reviewing discretion, it found it odd that there was something necessary added only yesterday, and (though I realize now I didn't leave this comment) wondered what else might suddenly be found necessary that isn't here... but as a main editor, I shall leave these worries to you, as it seems otherwise satisfactory to me. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Rephrased the bit about Reception that I mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Kingsif, does abrief mention of its Euro-games influence resolve your point? Particularly the emphasis on its use of scoring cards derived from Alan Moon as per the reference for the section? MichaelRoaUMD (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• No activity from the nominator in over a week after their first response, even with ping reminders. Kingsif (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Rules summaries do not need to be cited, nor does the style guide mentioned above impose any such formal requirement (and why should it? the source for verifying the information is blatantly obvious). It just says that cites to RS should be added "where appropriate". I'm a little wary of paying too much attention to sets of "rules" like that, as I've personally come across examples in game play articles of editors changing the "rules" and then editing articles to comply with "rules" they've just invented, but here at least we are within touching distance of common sense.Paulturtle (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of Twilight Struggle References into Twilight Struggle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No indication of list notability for this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's a lot to merge. Most of the list is stating the obvious, and the rest can be managed with a note that there's card histories in the rulebook (which is freely available for download). CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I vote to merge or delete. There's no reason for this to be a standalone article, and frankly I don't think it's necessary for the main article to have this laundry list in it. -Literally Satan (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete the list, do not merge. A list like this belongs on Fandom, not a general encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.