We fight against terrorism. Labyrinth: The War on Terror game review

 Labyrinth: The War on Terror is a strategic wargame (although the game also has a lot of politics), which takes place in modern times. Designed for 1-2 players. In the duel, one player plays for the United States, and the other plays for Islamic extremists, between whom an extremely asymmetric confrontation is played out. In the solo version, the player plays for the United States against Table II controlled extremists.

 Usually, a duel takes about 90 minutes: that's how long it takes to completely scroll through the deck, as soon as the players get used to it and start to understand the cards well. However, the length of the game can be changed by playing until the deck is rolled twice or three times. Each additional scroll adds about 60 minutes. However, the final may come earlier if one of the parties fulfills the winning condition. Solo parts take a bit longer, but at least getting to know the part table is faster.

 At the start, 4 layout options are available, each of which reflects a certain era in the US war on terrorism. Most likely, the option "Let's go!" (Let's Roll), in which the action takes place after September 11, when the world community does not yet have a clear position, and other countries are waiting for how the United States will react. There are also post-Operation Enduring Freedom and post-Operation Iraqi Freedom options in which other countries have a stronger stance. There is also an alternate history version in which Albert Gore became president in 2000. The layout is no different from the "Let's Go!" option, but the US has different views on the methods of combating terrorism.

Usually I describe the rules in fine detail, but this time I will limit myself to general information.

 The countries on the map are divided into Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Muslim countries take one of three possible positions toward the United States: allied, neutral, or hostile. The U.S. can only station troops in allied countries, so if the U.S. wants to attack or suppress terrorist cells in a certain country, it must first secure an alliance with it. Also, Muslim countries have one of three possible governments: good, normal, or bad (again, from the US perspective). These indicators reflect the degree of stability of the country's ruling regime and their ability to independently fight terrorism. So even if a country is hostile to the US, it is in the US's best interest to have a good (effective) government because it reduces the global influence of terrorists. As for non-Muslim countries, their views on methods of combating terrorism play an important role: they can be soft or hard. If the views of most of the world community contradict those of the US, then the US receives penalties for every attempt to influence the governments of other countries.

 The engine in the card game. Players can use the cards in their hand to either play the corresponding event or to use the operation points (GO) indicated on the card to perform one of the available actions. Some events are positive for the US, others for terrorists, others are neutral and can bring both profit and loss to both. If you put a card on the GO, and this card has a profile event for the opponent, then the event will still be played automatically. Each map can bring 1-3 GO. After receiving GO, the player can spend them on one of the available actions.

 Let's move on to one of the genius inventions of the game, which provides a balanced asymmetry. Each type of government in Muslim countries has a certain "price": 1 for good, 2 for normal, 3 for bad. To take action in a country, the US must play a cost card no less than the cost of the government; that is, to act in a country with a good government, you need a card with a price of at least 1, and with a bad government - a price of 3. Therefore, it is easier for the US to act in countries with good governments. Terrorists can play a card with any cost to perform an action in the country, and receive as many actions as the GO indicated on the card. For example, a card at the cost of 1 GO allows you to recruit one cell, and at the cost of 3 GO - up to three cells. However, the success of terrorist actions is not guaranteed; with each action they roll a D6. If the number rolled is less than or equal to the stability level of the government, then the action is successful. Otherwise, it will fail, and GO will still be wasted. Thus, it is more difficult for terrorists to operate in countries with good governments and easier in countries with normal and bad governments.

 There is another level of stability - the rule of Islamists. Countries under Islamist rule are always considered hostile to the US, and terrorist actions in these countries are automatically successful without a die roll. The US cannot take any action in these countries other than to attempt regime change: essentially sending troops to install a US-friendly government there. However, this is a risky tactic because it ties up a lot of troops, requires resources and action, and the operation is often delayed until the US can establish a stable government in the country.

 The US has three victory conditions: economic, political and military victory. Each Muslim country has a resource level from 1 to 3 that reflects the value of the country, from its culture to its oil reserves. USA instantly wins economically if Muslim countries with good governments have a total of 12+ resources. The US wins politically if the 15+ Muslim countries have normal or good governments (the region stabilizes enough that terrorism is eliminated). The US wins militarily if not a single cell of terrorists remains on the map.

 Terrorists also have three victory conditions. For an economic victory, it is necessary that the Muslim countries under the control of the Islamists have 6+ resources, political - that the reputation of the USA is at level 1 and that 15+ Muslim countries have a bad or Islamist government (the region is so destabilized, and the attitude of the world community towards the USA is so negative , that the US can do nothing more). An analogue of a military victory requires a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction on the territory of the United States.

SETTING AND ATMOSPHERE

 Bringing real events into the game is a potential problem. Not only that some are indignant (and many tabletop players like to be indignant), but also the historical reliability is always in question, since in any game there will be elements of an alternative history in one way or another - otherwise the game will not work.

 However, September 11 is still fresh in my mind, this is a sensitive topic. And the very thought of playing Labyrinth, not to mention getting a fan from it (especially when you're playing as terrorists and trying to use weapons of mass destruction on the US), requires a certain abstraction from reality. That said, I'm amazed and delighted that there are both people willing to make games about these themes, and people willing to play them.

 I'm also impressed by the fact that the game is unbiased. I don't mean to say that the game puts the US and terrorists on the same moral level; it does not. However, Labyrinth takes an unbiased view of US politics. The player can choose a tough approach to the fight against terrorism in the spirit of neoconservatives and find out the strengths and weaknesses of this strategy. Or maybe it's softer in the spirit of the left, and find out the strengths and weaknesses of this strategy as well.

 Labyrinth does not argue that brute force is good and diplomacy is bad. As well as vice versa. Instead, the game perfectly conveys the pros and cons of both approaches.

 There is also a fascinating story during the game, but the narrative, in my opinion, is felt more when playing for the USA. The terrorist player rather acts according to the situation; it may be atmospheric in its own way, but it doesn't compare to the US game. When the world community changes its mind and prefers soft methods, the hard methods of the US can lead to the collapse of its diplomacy and reputation. What should the United States do: try to restore the damaged prestige? Don't give a damn about politics and continue to bend your line despite the general disdain? Events help a lot in the story that is being made, but still the main elements of the narrative are the reputation of the United States and the attitude of the world community to terrorism.

DIFFICULTY OF LEARNING

 The rules are structured like a typical wargame: rule 4.6.3.2 sends you to rule 6.2.5. In general, there is nothing wrong with this, but some people find it difficult to digest such rules. On the other hand, the rule book explains all the rules in minute detail. While there are tons of rules questions on BGG, most of the answers are in the rulebook if you read carefully. But it seems that not all players can overcome these rules. I understand them, especially if you play solo. Table II is frighteningly complex, and I'm always not 100% sure I've interpreted each action correctly. However, thanks to this, the game's AI is surprisingly refined and powerful; Once you've mastered the rules, Labyrinth turns into a great solo game.

 Personally, I have only one complaint about the rule book - their structure. I must have turned out to be a bad wargamer, but even with clear content, I struggle to find some points. For example, information on what to do at the end of a turn is placed against the logic of information on what to do on your turn.

 However, these are trifles. The main thing is that everything is in the rule book.

COMPONENTS

 The components are of excellent quality, especially by the standards of GMT games. Not that they're usually terrible, but not that good. The cards are also of high quality: they are dense and will last a long time. Overall, I have no complaints about the components. There is even a tutorial book (for both duel and solo play), which is very useful.

IGROLAD

 Despite the presence of a few non-obvious nuances of the rules, once you get the hang of it and get involved, you almost never have to consult the rulebook. I stopped doing this in the second dueling game. Playing solo is a bit more difficult because of Table II, but even in this mode I find myself reaching for the rule book less and less.

 However, starting with a party in solo mode is clearly not worth it; it partly discouraged me from playing. The solo game consists of putting out pandemic "fires" started by II terrorists. I had no sense of freedom of choice - only one or two obvious courses of action.

 In a duel, everything is different: there is a lot of freedom, as well as various strategies. When introducing newbies to the game, I always put them behind the US, as US strategies are more obvious. In addition, the terrorist goes first, so the newcomer will have the opportunity to get used to the process, playing from the defense.

SCALABILITY

 Labyrinth can be played in duels or in solo preparation of Table II-controlled terrorists. I prefer duel mode, but I do solo from time to time. The AI is quite complex, and although it often plays out events suboptimally, unlike a live player, it still creates an interesting and realistic narrative.

PROS OF THE GAME

• Creates a fascinating narrative from the point of view of the US and its interactions with the world community
• Balanced asymmetry is very interesting and unusual
• The Mechanics of Government Stability and Its Importance to the US and Terrorists is a Genius to Build a Narrative
• Lots of different victory conditions, allowing players to avoid the occasional tug-of-war that sometimes occurs in Twilight Struggle.
• Politically unbiased (i.e. not leaning towards a liberal or conservative point of view)
• He is not ashamed to raise a difficult topic
• Gorgeous components
• You can play solo, and the solo mode is also challenging and interesting
• The mechanic of drawing 2 cards in a row reduces the role of randomness when you draw a lot of profile cards for the opponent

CONS OF THE GAME

• The rules are strangely structured in places
• Many small nuances that are easy to miss or forget in the first batches
• It's more difficult to play solo (which is a bummer, given that many will probably try the game solo first)
• Although the game is politically neutral, the story is told from a US perspective. Some may be put off by this, given that the game "justifies" the US response to 9/11 by banning certain actions from the game. For example, you cannot withdraw from the Middle East or stop funding Israel.
• When playing as terrorists, the narrative is not particularly felt compared to playing for the USA
• Some may feel uncomfortable playing as terrorists, given that terrorist attacks take place in real life and that they can use weapons of mass destruction.
• Despite all the advantages of the game and a tactful approach to the topic, some settings can repel

CONCLUSIONS

 Labyrinth is not just a wonderful, but also an educational game. It can be classified as an ordinary strategy game, but given its narrative, it can also be perceived as an educational game. Thus, Labyrinth clearly demonstrates that sending US troops to force regime change in a foreign country can tie up US resources and limit freedom of action in other countries. Labyrinth also demonstrates that an excessively soft approach leads to the risk of spreading the influence of radicals in the Muslim world, which will be very difficult to combat. It's good that this topic is brought up in a game that takes it seriously. The mechanics are well thought out; an excellent example of asymmetrical balance in a complex and atmospheric game.

 The question arises: will Labyrinth be able to occupy the niche of Twilight Struggle? Honestly, I don't know. It improved the mechanics of SB in many ways, made the layout more interesting and strengthened the narrative. However, the game is not as flexible as SB, and the freedom of action is less. Labyrinth is definitely not a one-day event, and is sure to challenge SB well and attract a lot of players who prefer Labyrinth's improved mechanics. But the Labyrinth setting is uncomfortable for some, and there will probably be people who don't want to play as terrorists.

 Personally, I think Labyrinth is better than Twilight in terms of mechanics, but SB is more flexible in terms of strategies. I'll probably be posting SBs a bit more often once the novelty of Labyrinth wears off. But if you take into account the solo parts, most likely Labyrinth will not give in to its competitor.