The God cards in Julius Caesar (Grant Dalgliesh/Justin Thompson, Columbia Games) are enticing, but best used in moderation. Which begs the question: Which of them are almost must-use cards and which the more disappointing of the divine bunch? Thus, I’ll rank them in ascending order, laying out how to use the card best and why I rank it how I rank it. Today, we are at the sixth (and thus second-lowest) rung of the ladder – Mars.

You can read all posts of the series so far here:

#7: Pluto

#6: Mars

If you want to read more posts like this strategy post – for example, the next posts on God cards in Julius Caesar – I strongly recommend you subscribe to the blog: All new posts in your inbox right when they go live!

What does the card do?

Normally, the blocks have their battle turns according to the initiative value (the letters) – first, all A blocks, then, all Bs, and so on, with the defender going first when initiative is tied. When Mars attacks, all attacking blocks go first in the first combat round – so, even the attacking blocks with the lowest initiative rating of D will go before the defender’s As. Then all defenders take their battle turns, and from the second round on, the usual combat sequence (initiative ratings, ties go to defender) resumes.

What would be the best uses?

A close battle between two evenly matched forces might swing in favor of the attacker if they get to inflict hits first (and thus lower the defender’s potential to strike back).

Also, an inferior enemy force might be wiped out entirely before they have any chance to fight back or flee.

Why is it middling?

In itself, the Mars card is nothing but a 1 Move/0 Levy card which lets you go first. And its offensive promise does often not hold up.

For starters, the Mars card only allows you to move one group – so, your attack has a maximum of four blocks. Often, you’d get a stronger attack by combining your main force with some reinforcements from land or sea with a 2+ move card.

In many instances, the city which you attack can be reinforced – these reinforcements will arrive on combat round 2. Mars always goes first, so your opponent can shift forces to the battle caused by it with no regard to the defense of other cities.

And finally, Mars has you trust in the dice of the first round. If you make a lot of hits, that’s great. But if you don’t, your advantage has evaporated and your opponent will hit back first with the first-round dice and then likely with the majority of the second-round dice as the combat sequence reverts to normal. I have seen countless Mars attacks where luck was not with the attacker and then the battle turned into a landslide defensive victory.

Are there alternative uses?

Yes – you can use Mars when you suspect your opponent will play a God card themselves to cancel that card (as with all God cards). And you can use it if you desperately need to go first on a given turn for one move (for example, to run away with a damaged leader block).

How do you feel about Mars? Indifferent like me – or are you an all-out Martian? What are your best tricks to use the card? Let me know in the comments!

We’ve discussed general strategy tips for Julius Caesar (Grant Dalgliesh/Justin Thompson, Columbia Games). One area that deserves closer scrutiny are the God cards. They are enticing, but best used in moderation. Which begs the question: Which of them are almost must-use cards and which the more disappointing of the divine bunch? Thus, I’ll rank them in ascending order, laying out how to use the card best and why I rank it how I rank it. Today, we begin at the seventh and lowest rung of the ladder… quite fittingly, that’s Pluto.

If you want to read more posts like this strategy post – for example, the next six posts on God cards in Julius Caesar – I strongly recommend you subscribe to the blog: All new posts in your inbox right when they go live!

What does the card do?

Pluto allows you to exceed the usual movement limits per road (only if you attack): You can move six blocks on a major road (instead of the usual four), three on a minor road (instead of two) and two across a strait (instead of one).

What would be the best uses?

This card can be useful for a bigger attack than planned – either to bring overwhelming force against a tough enemy stronghold or to force lightly defended straits.

Why is it bad?

In itself, the Pluto card is nothing but a 1 Move/0 Levy card which lets you go first. And the big attacks it promises are mostly a mirage:

Whenever you gather six blocks for a huge Pluto attack on the next card, you might as well tell your opponent with a megaphone that you hold the card. So, they can either prepare for the attack (usually by recruiting more defenders or moving reinforcements to the threatened area), or cancel it altogether by playing a God card of their own. In any case, you should probably not play Pluto as the last card of a year, because if you win the battle, you are likely to be left with too many blocks for the stacking limit.

Forcing a strait with two instead of one blocks runs into the problem that your opponent will likely have more forces nearby: If they defend the Hellespont/Bosphorus they can just reinforce the attacked space with whichever defender they had in the other space. If they defend the Straits of Messina, they can usually pull troops from Syracuse or Neapolis.

Is there a silver lining?

Yes – you can use Pluto when you suspect your opponent will play a God card themselves to cancel that card (as with all God cards). And you can use it if you desperately need to go first on a given turn for one move (for example, to run away with a damaged leader block).

How do you feel about Pluto? Similarly unenthused as I – or are you a plutophile, a plutomaniac, a plutocrat? What are your best tricks to use the card? Let me know in the comments!

We haven’t had a strategy post for some time here! Let’s do one on a classic – but one I only discovered two years ago: Julius Caesar (Grant Dalgliesh/Justin Thompson, Columbia Games), the block wargame on the Roman Civil War between Julius Caesar and Pompey. As per usual, we follow the structure of three basic tips which new and intermediate players can easily remember. First, we look at the low-hanging fruit of the early game, then at how to keep or gain initiative in the mid-game, and finally, there will even be spiritual advice.

If you want to read more posts like this strategy post – for example my upcoming deep dives on the God cards in Julius Caesar, I strongly recommend you subscribe to the blog: All new posts in your inbox right when they go live!

Race for the East

The victory conditions in Julius Caesar are straightforward: Have 10 victory points (VP) at the end of any year or more VP than your opponent at the end of the full five years of war. Absent the rare VP from a leader kill, these come from the control of victory cities on the board (up to 13). At the beginning, Pompeius controls cities worth 7 VP, Caesar only Massilia for 1 VP. That leaves five VPs in vacant cities: As it is much easier to take empty cities than those defended by your opponent, these should be your focus for the first year.

2 VP come from Rome, which Caesar must take and hold early (which shouldn’t be a problem for the plethora of Caesarian legions nearby). That leaves the 3 VP from three cities in the Greek-speaking East (Athens, Byzantium, and Ephesus) as the first spaces of contention between the players. Either should send an army there early, and make it strong enough not to be swatted away by the other. Especially when you use the Free Deployment, you can try to position yourself for the rush to the east. Try out a few different deployments, maybe with navis (ships) in different ports to reach cities by sea – or block your opponents from doing so. Which brings us to…

Win Naval Superiority

Once the front lines are drawn, ships become even more important. As defenders have the combat advantage of dealing hits first when battle priorities (ranging from A to D) are tied, defending is a lot easier than attacking in Julius Caesar. Successful attacks thus hinge on local superiority, and ships are the way to achieve it:

• You can transport your land forces amphibically much further than they could march on land. Instead of bashing your head against a well-prepared defensive position, your amphibious force can go ashore where the enemy is weakest.
• Instead of being limited to however many troops you can march into battle by road (four on a main road, two on the regular roads), the ships can join attacks on port cities and give you the boost needed to overcome the defenders.

Whoever has naval superiority thus usually decides where the action happens. You should gain it, or at least deny it to your opponent.

Don’t Overdo It With the Gods

Yes, I know. The God cards look great. Surprise attack with Mars! Bonus movement with Mercury! Volcanic eruption with, well, Vulcan! They are, however, not always better than the regular move/levy cards, and the more you have of them, the less flexible you are. So: One God card is fine (although I have sometimes discarded the only God card I was dealt). Two are a lot, and you should strongly consider discarding one of them. If you are ever dealt three, curse your luck and discard one for sure.

Over the next weeks, I’ll add a few more specific thoughts on the God cards. Watch this space.

Which tricks do you use to win at Julius Caesar? Let me know in the comments!

It’s Women’s Day! A great opportunity to look pair a book and a game on the American women’s suffrage struggle: The Woman’s Hour (Elaine Weiss) and Votes for Women (Tory Brown, Fort Circle).

Check out my previous Book & Game posts here:

Eastern Front: Russia’s War and No Retreat! The Russian Front

Reformation Era: Four Princes and Here I Stand

The Second Hundred Years’ War: The Rise of the Great Powers 1648—1815 and Imperial Struggle

Prussia in the Seven Years’ War: Frederick the Great. A Military Life and Friedrich

The Book & Game

The Woman’s Hour was published in 2018 by Viking Press. It focuses on the campaigns for and against Tennessee to ratify the 19^th Amendment which enshrined women’s suffrage in the US constitution – as the 36^th, and decisive, state to do so.

Votes for Women was published in 2022. It is Tory Brown’s first published board game. The card-driven game can be played in a solo or cooperative mode with the player(s) representing the American suffrage movement from 1848 to 1920 against an automated opposition, or with two to four players facing off against each other (half of them for, the other against women’s suffrage). In either case, the suffrage players must win 36 states (either by shoring them up decisively during the game, or in the final vote on ratification of the federal amendment) to win.

Connections & Conclusions

At first look, book and game seem to have very different scopes. After all, Votes for Women sets in with the Seneca Falls Convention (at which women’s suffrage was first voiced as a political demand in the United States) in 1848 and covers the following 72 years, whereas The Woman’s Hour begins with the arrival of activists Carrie Chapman Catt, Sue White, and Josephine Pearson at the Nashville station in the sweltering summer of 1920. Yet as the narrative progresses, background stories are woven into the tapestry – on the context of the 1920 presidential election, suffragists’ previous efforts to gain voting rights for women in the states and to lobby for a federal amendment, the women’s suffrage movement’s relationship with abolitionism, and all the way back to Seneca Falls (and a little bit of Abigail Adams’s “Remember the Ladies”). If you have played Votes for Women, you will recognize many of the people and events on the cards from the early and middle periods of the game when reading The Woman’s Hour.

What unites book and game is their focus on procedural politics. Historical change does not simply happen, nor is momentarily decided upon. Instead, it is brought into effect by the “strong, slow drilling into hardwood boards with passion as well as sound judgment” (Max Weber). The drills used come in both cases from the toolbox of political activism:

The Woman’s Hour details how suffragists (suffs) and anti-suffragists (antis) lobbied the Tennessee lawmakers, how they organized in associations and clubs to channel their activists’ time, funds, and energy, and, of course, how they campaigned for public opinion to win the hearts and minds of the American people with newspaper articles, public speeches, great processions, and all kinds of civil disobedience.

Votes for Women makes these the three actions from which the players choose on a given turn: Lobbying (for and against the 19^th Amendment in Congress), organizing (to gain the crucial buttons which are the currency for some powerful in-game effects and die re-rolls), and campaigning (which spreads influence cubes and thus eventually decides if enough states come out in favor of ratification of the 19^th Amendment or not).

As we’ve mentioned civil disobedience already: The women’s suffrage movement was no monolithic bloc. One of the great dividing lines was that of styles: The more conventional part of the movement, organized in the late 19^th and early 20^th century in the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA) led by Carrie Chapman Catt, paid close attention to appear as respectable as possible (knowing full well that their demand for equal suffrage was enough of a provocation to the male public opinion of the time). Others adopted a more radical style, inspired by the British suffragettes: The Women’s Party, led by Alice Paul (and represented in Tennessee by Sue White) referred to the president as “Kaiser Wilson” in reference to the German war enemy, burned him in effigy, and (successfully) provoked the police into arresting activists over minor infractions. The dainty young women and respectable matrons who served some prison time then embodied the injustice of depriving women of their vote.

The Woman’s Hour details these fractions within the movement, as NAWSA and the Women’s Party led entirely separate campaigns for Tennessee’s ratification of the 19^th Amendment. While infighting was avoided, the reader is left to wonder if the movement could have been more effective if not for these parallel structures – or if the split between a more moderate and a more radical wing was able to compel a broader spectrum of audiences by working in parallel.

Votes for Women depicts the multifaceted character of the women’s suffrage movement by splitting the suffragist player into campaigner figures and influence of cubes of two colors (yellow/gold, the traditional color of the American women’s suffrage movement, and purple, a color which Alice Paul had coopted from the British suffrage movement). As several Opposition event cards target the highest concentration of one or the other color, the Suffragist player is well-advised to aim for an even spread of colors in the individual states.

Votes for Women also tackles another split in the women’s suffrage movement which is outside the scope of The Woman’s Hour – that on strategy. After the initial push for women’s suffrage as a part of a great campaign for equal suffrage regardless of sex and race had failed in the aftermath of the Civil War, the suffragists disagreed on how to proceed: Some pushed for a federal amendment to the Constitution (like the 15^th Amendment had codified the voting rights of black men), others wanted to win voting rights in the individual states first. While the struggle for women’s voting rights was eventually won with the ratification of the 19^th Amendment in Tennessee, the voting rights advances in the individual states had laid the groundwork: Wyoming had established women’s suffrage as early as 1869, Montana sent Jeannette Rankin as the first woman to Capitol Hill, and by 1917, women in 19 states – mostly in the West and Midwest – had won the right to vote (sometimes only in a limited fashion, like voting in local elections).

Votes for Women’s stance is that it needs both – after all, the game is lost for the suffragist player if their lobbying fails to get the federal amendment through Congress, but to win, they need the strength amassed in dozens of local campaigns to have the amendment ratified in enough states. The game, however, makes a statement about timing: While it is possible for the suffragist to have Congress pass the 19^th Amendment in the mid-game already, that is a decidedly risky strategy which gives the Opposition a lot of opportunity to snatch individual states and rack up the necessary 13 rejections which mean the failure of the amendment. The ideal move for the suffragist is to build up the strength in the states as much as possible before pushing Congress into action as late as possible. While that is not without its risks (Opposition can still try to throw wrenches in the wheels of congressional action), it spreads them more evenly between federal and local action.

As mentioned above, equal suffrage spread from the American West and Midwest. It had a much harder time in the Northeast and in southern states – like Tennessee. The southern states were not only more conservative in general, suffragists also faced specific obstacles there: Many southern whites remained committed to the cause of white supremacy after the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War. Enfranchising women would give the right to vote to black as well as white women, and in the mind of the white supremacists, white women would be much less likely to actually exercise it (be it because they, as “proper” women, would rely on their men to represent them, or because they would not go to a polling station where they might meet with Black Americans). Others, while generally in favor of women’s suffrage, resented the method: After the Civil War, the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments had enshrined certain rights (including male voting) for Black Americans in the Constitution. Federal amendments were thus unpopular with many southern whites.

As The Woman’s Hour details, this provided for a lot of traction for the anti movement in Tennessee. Activists like Nina Pinckard and Josephine Pearson railed against carpet-bagging outsiders swooping down from the North to meddle with Tennessee’s affairs, warned of impending “negro domination”, and appealed to the chivalry of southern men to rescue their women from being thrown into the dirty cesspit of politics. That they themselves were knee-deep in that cesspit – after all, they were political activists! – bothered them as much as modern-day “tradwives” are bothered by the fact that their plea for women to be submissive to and dependent on their men is at odds with their often successful social media enterprises.

Inherent contradictions aside, the antis’ arguments needed to be countered by the suffs. Many of the white suffragists were willing to make rhetorical or substantial compromises: One of NAWSA’s most-cited statistics in the Tennessee campaign was that the number of white women in the south exceeded that of black men and women combined. Enfranchising women, so the more-or-less subtle subtext, would thus not threaten white supremacy – it might even strengthen it. In the end, the tacit agreement was like that found after the Reconstruction amendments designed to protect Black Americans’ rights in the South: The women’s suffrage amendment made its way into the constitution. Yet voting rights were overseen by the individual states, and federal institutions looked the other way about the blatant disenfranchisement of black voters in the South until the Voting Rights Act almost half a century later.

Neither The Woman’s Hour nor Votes for Women shies away from this uncomfortable part of the women’s suffrage movement: The protagonists of the movement are not portrayed as infallible saints in the book. While they held wildly progressive views for their time on women’s suffrage, their stances on issues of race and class were often more in keeping with those of their contemporaries. They also made tactical mistakes, like Carrie Chapman Catt railing against outsiders trying to influence Tennessee – a charge that was immediately turned against her, a Northerner herself, and restricted her visibility for the remainder of the campaign. And most of them were willing to make compromises for the cause of women’s suffrage – sometimes with themselves (Carrie Chapman Catt supported the US effort in World War I against her pacifist convictions lest the women’s suffrage movement be branded unpatriotic), and sometimes at the expense of others. In short, they were human.

Would the 19^th Amendment have passed in Tennessee if the suffragists had been less willing to assuage the fears of southern whites about “black domination”? – Probably not – maybe another state could have become the decisive 36^th then, but all likely options had been exhausted before.  Did the Black Americans in the South, men and women, suffer from the continued disenfranchisement after 1920? – Undoubtedly.

Suffragist players in Votes for Women face the same strategic and ethical question (of course, with infinitely lower stakes): One of the most powerful cards in the game is The Southern Strategy which places an immense amount of suffragist influence in the South (representing the union between suffragists and white supremacists). It does open the suffragist for some counter-plays from the opposition, though. Savvy suffragist players might hold the card from turn to turn to play it as late as possible, as an uncounterable stratagem in the final struggle for women’s suffrage. Victories won that way have an odd aftertaste, I assure you.

Since Votes for Women has been released, it’s been in the top 5 of games I have played most often. And while I rarely re-read books, especially non-fiction (because there are always intriguing new books to read), I have come back to The Woman’s Hour and have now both read the physical book and listened to the (excellent) audiobook production. Besides all their worthy exploration and analysis of history, that speaks to both the game and the book being excellently crafted, incredibly engaging pinnacles of their respective medium.