by mkiefte
I'll take a stab at this:John Rogers wrote:
1) Is there a significant/noticeable difference in playing time (30 mins or more) between the two?
1989 is a bit longer. My limited experience suggests that it goes on for more turns before an auto victory and scoring countries in 1989 takes a significantly greater time than scoring regions in Twilight Struggle.
2) Is one title easier to learn/play than the other?
I would learn Twilight Struggle first. 1989 is easier to explain in terms of Twilight Struggle as it adds some features.
3) Is one more streamlined than the other?
See question 1 above. Scoring countries in 1989 is a game within a game.
4) Is there more asymmetry in one than the other?
Twilight Struggle is much more asymmetrical in terms of actual game play.
5) Does either game have a higher reply value than the other?
Not particularly.
*Bonus question - Which do you prefer and why?
I like them both equally. However, I can get more people to play 1989 with me because I suck at it. Being half-decent in Twilight Struggle does not generalise to 1989, unfortunately.
I am intrigued by the history in both titles and in a perfect world I wouldn't mind owning both. However, one will invariably see more playing time than the other as I only have one interested game partner. We both enjoy 1960 and Campaign Manager and have considered Twilight Struggle and Labyrinth in the past but until now, neither of us have had the time to devote to such an endeavor.
Labyrinth is the other one I like a lot. It is far more asymmetrical than the other two which really appeals to me. It is, however, harder to teach to new players.