Labyrinth: The War on Terror

Awesome game

Steep learning curve but the best COIN game so far.

Why 10 was affraid?... it was in the middle of 9/11 good game! can't wait for expansions

check my terraria review

UI is simple to use once you get used to it. I wish there was genuine AI for both sides rather than bots that change the base conditions for winning. It is hard to win, but very rewarding when it happens.

Kicks ass real time both figuratively and literally. Very tense and deep experience. Boardgame is even better. Just you have to do more work.

This is abstract, but if you lived thru these events, it is so engaging. The strategy bits are nail biters, every card matters, every dice roll can make or break your plans. I wish the BOT was smarter... didn't do easy things to be more competitive. Still testing the AI opponent, seems tougher to beat as the Jihadist so far. Fun game, not experiencing to many glitches. Highly recommend.

Personally I prefer this one to the most famous Twilight Struggle. I play a lot The War on Terror on my phone as well. The sound track is really well done and put you in the mood of the game.

I played Twilight Struggle - the older brother of this game - for 48 hours. It was a fantastic experience and I still play it. I bought this game because I thought I was going to have the same kind of experience, but after 10 hours I think this game has a lot of problems and a very questionable design philosophy. First of all, the bot is not really playing the same game as you. This was the biggest disappointment for me. When the bot plays a US event, your event simply doesn't trigger. When you play a Jihadist event, however, it always triggers against you. Why? That's not difficulty. That's just giving one side different rules. Then I learned something even worse. When the bot plays non-associated cards, it converts the unused OPS into Reserve points. It can even carry those Reserve points into later turns. Basically the bot doesn't play smarter, it just gets special advantages because it follows a flowchart instead of making real decisions. If your AI isn't capable of making good decisions, giving it hidden bonuses isn't the solution. The historical logic is another problem. People will probably say "it's an alternative history game." I know. Somalia becoming Islamist Rule? Fine. Indonesia? Sure, maybe. I'm not asking for a perfect historical simulation. What bothers me is the logic behind the mechanics. In one game I invaded Afghanistan on Turn 1, removed every single cell and kept the country secure for four turns. Nothing. No meaningful Prestige gain, no real reward. Then Algeria became Islamist Rule. My Prestige instantly dropped to 1. Seriously? You're telling me successfully defeating Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan means almost nothing, but Algeria falling wipes out almost all American credibility overnight? Tell that story to George W. Bush will laugh his ass off at you That is not how the real world worked. People mention Abu Ghraib or Haditha as examples. Those events absolutely damaged America's image. Nobody denies that. But Abu Ghraib happened in 2004. Haditha happened in 2005. The United States didn't suddenly pack its bags and leave Iraq the next week. It withdrew in 2011 after years of political debate, military operations and changing public opinion. The game treats every failure like an instant global catastrophe while almost never rewarding success. That creates a very frustrating gameplay loop. Another thing that doesn't make much sense is how easily countries fall. Five sleeper cells suddenly turn Algeria into Islamist Rule. Indonesia starts collapsing. Meanwhile you often can't even react because your Prestige is too low to use War of Ideas effectively. So one bad event leads to lower Prestige. Lower Prestige means failed diplomacy. Failed diplomacy creates more Poor countries. More Poor countries create more Islamist Rule. The game snowballs against you incredibly fast. And once that starts, you spend the rest of the game trying to stop fires instead of actually making strategic decisions. The coalition aspect is also surprisingly weak. The War on Terror was not fought by the United States alone. The UK sent tens of thousands of troops. Canada fought in Kandahar. Germany, France, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Turkey and many other NATO countries contributed in different ways. Pakistan was a major non-NATO ally. Saudi Arabia cooperated extensively on intelligence. The Gulf States provided support. Yet the game often feels like America is completely alone against the entire world. Finally, I think Twilight Struggle spoiled me. In Twilight Struggle, when I lose, I almost always understand why. I made a mistake. I mismanaged DEFCON. I lost Europe. I overcommitted somewhere. While playing this ''GWOT'' game, after ten hours, I still find myself asking "What exactly was I supposed to do?" Sometimes there literally isn't a response available. You can't Disrupt. You can't use War of Ideas because Prestige is already destroyed. You can't intervene because you don't have six undeployed troops sitting in USA and having a bbq and watching Ball games. The game keeps throwing crises at you while giving you fewer and fewer tools to respond. I really wanted to love this game because the theme is incredible.But instead of feeling challenged, I often feel restricted by mechanics that punish the player much harder than they reward good play. It isn't the difficulty that bothers me.It's the feeling that the game is fighting the player instead of challenging the player.

No support it appears.