I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed historical topic, such as espionage or intelligence, and creates a gaming experience tailored around the events to highlight and evoke the difficulties and tension that would have been present. In January 2026, GMT Games announced such a game in Checkpoint Charlie, which is a solo or cooperative game focused on SIS espionage missions in Berlin in the 1960’s designed by Russell Brown. We have posted an interview with Russel and it was very well received and he has now agreed to create a series of History Behind the Cards to highlight the events of the 1960’s Cold War struggle in West Germany but also to share aspects about the game play and how it models the history.
*Note: The cards highlighted in this series and their event text, as well as any pictures used showing any of the various components, are still in the design and development process and as such event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
History Behind the Cards – Checkpoint Charlie from GMT Games – Card #3: Demonstrations
West Berlin, and West Germany as a whole, spawned a number of large, very active student demonstration organizations in the late 1960’s. These were generally in response to a perceived return to very traditional German authoritarian government, and specifically as a reaction to former members of the Nazi party, like Chancellor Kiesinger, serving in the Bonn government.
However, during the slightly earlier time period of Checkpoint Charlie (early 1962 to late 1963), demonstrations were not as organized. They were spontaneous and in response to specific events, like the Speigel Affair (Card #16) and President Kennedy’s Visit (Card #7). As with those later, more organized movements, they consisted primarily of young Germans, and the universities acted as catalysts and staging areas. Even during the period of this game, marches and demonstrations were common enough to warrant an event card.
As a side note, Chancellor Keisinger, who’s Nazi affiliation spawned some of those later protests, was replaced as Chancellor of West Germany in 1969 by Willie Brandt, who was mayor of West Berlin during the period of Checkpoint Charlie. Mayor Brandt has his own token in the game and plays a role in a few of the missions.
The Demonstrations Event Card places a special Demonstrations marker in one of the West Berlin locations on the map. Demonstrations could last for hours, or even days, so this marker generally remains on the City Map for the rest of the mission. East Berlin locations are not eligible because the Stasi secret police, along with the confinement imposed by the Berlin Wall, had effectively suppressed any open opposition in the East. In game terms, the Demonstrations marker provides some cover for assets, increasing their chances of passing both detection and compromise saves.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Faceoff with the Soviets when East German police placed barbed wire barriers to stop East Germans from defecting.
In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am appreciative to Russell and his efforts to bring us these cards and to write these entries to share with our readers. I am also very glad that this topic is being covered in a game and look forward to playing this one day soon.
The June 2026 Monthly Debrief Video, which is the 6th episode in Season 6 of this series, saw us discussing Nostalgia and its effects on the wargaming hobby. I think that nostalgia is generally a good thing but it definitely can be something that holds the hobby back. Too much nostalgia tends to keep us away from new and emerging games and systems and in general can be a suppressor of innovation and progression.
Also, as usual, we covered the games we played in June as well as the games we plan to play in July.
We will remind you here that we are fortunate to be continuing our relationship with Noble Knight Games as the sponsor for our Monthly Debrief Video series. In case you don’t know, Noble Knight Games specializes in hard to find games but also carry all the new releases. But what makes them truly unique is that you can find some of the rarest games, long out of print games, hand made games, imported games from overseas, etc. Thanks to them for their sponsorship and we hope that you will consider them first when looking for the games we cover.
We met Akar Bharadvaj while attending SDHistCon in 2023 and played his award winning design Tyranny of Blood: India’s Caste System Under British Colonialism, 1750-1947 and very much enjoyed the experience and talking with him about game design. Since that time, he has been working on another designer called Chalice of Poison: The Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988 from GMT Games, which was announced in March on their P500. Chalice of Poison is the first volume in a new series that models complex conflicts not only as clashes between adversaries in the air, land, and sea, but also as political struggles within the regimes and military forces fighting it. We reached out to Akar and he was more than willing to share.
*Keep in mind that the design is still undergoing playtesting and development and that any details or component pictures shared in this interview are for prototype purposes and will definitely change prior to final publication as they enter the art department.
Grant: Akar welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
Akar: Thanks, Alex and Grant! It’s great to be here. I live in sunny Arlington, Virginia, just across the river from our nation’s capital. Besides board games, I enjoy travel, museums, graphic design, bad movies, comedy shows, and nice meals. As for my day job, I work as professional wargame designer. I work on teams that make analytic games and tabletop exercises to help policymakers think through challenging issues related to international relations. That said, Chalice of Poison is solely a personal project, and does not reflect my day job or the views of my employer.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?
Akar: I’ve always enjoyed board games since I was a kid, and have gotten into historical games in the last 15 years or so. I flirted with the idea of designing my own for years, but then I actually decided to design one in 2020 when I heard about the Zenobia Award, which is a competition and mentorship program for historical games on underrepresented topics. I was looking for a good project to distract me from the ongoing pandemic, so I entered the contest on a lark, not expecting it to go anywhere. But Zenobia did a great job of helping me walk gradually through the game design process, and before I knew it, I was hooked. When the award project finished, I learned that I had won first place. But more importantly, I had discovered a new passion.
My two favorite things about game design are the creative process and the people. I find the creative process immensely satisfying. I get to analyze systems, experiment, and iteratively solve problems and improve a process, and there’s few consequences to failing! If I find that a design doesn’t work, I can just move on to another one, and hopefully return at some point in the future. It’s a beautiful process, and one that actually feels a lot like playing a game.
I also love the people I’ve met through game design. I’ve made lots of designer friends through various cons, and it’s always a delight playing games with them, talking about game design, and just chatting. I always leave cons full of inspiration and ideas, and it’s largely due to all the great people in this field.
Grant: What was it like winning the 2021 Zenobia Award for Tyranny of Blood? Where does this game stand at the present time?
Akar: Winning the award was one of the greatest moments of my life. As I mentioned earlier, I started designing the game just to see what it was like, and I didn’t expect it to go anywhere. (If I knew there would eventually be interest, I would’ve designed a simpler game as my first one!) So, I was pleasantly surprised when I learned that I won, and was excited at how much interest it received.
For those who do not know, Tyranny of Blood is about changes to the Indian social structure under British colonialism, through the lens of the caste system. I designed a fully playable game during the Zenobia Award process, but like so many first designs, it had a bit of a “kitchen sink” approach, and had far too many layers placed on top of each other.
I realized that the game had lots of great elements, but it had some flaws at its core, and so I needed to redesign lots of it. The topic is a difficult one, both ethically and in terms of complexity, so I needed to get the game right to do justice to the subject matter and avoid creating something offensive. On top of all that, the rapid prototyping during the Zenobia process left me exhausted (in a good way). So, I decided to take a break from it, and work on other games in the meantime to improve my game design skills before I can return to Tyranny. Now that Chalice is in development, I can return to that project. That said, it’s been a while, so I need to read through my notes and remember all the nuances of the topic.
While attending SDHistCon in November 2023, we played Tyranny of Blood with Akar and had a great time. We shot the following video interview at the time and you can watch that at the following link:
Grant: What is your upcoming game Chalice of Poison about?
Akar: Chalice of Poison is about the Iran-Iraq War, which took place in the 1980’s. The game focuses on the interplay between external conflict and internal regime stability. You play as one of the two countries, and you are trying to improve your military effectiveness so that you can win the war, without making your military so effective that it becomes a threat to your own regime. Players can win the game if they capture certain objectives in the war, or they can lose if their regime collapses due to political challenges.
The actual combat resolution and prosecution of the war is only one part of the game; the other part is managing your regime and ensuring it does not fall to internal threats, whether that be generals who instigate a coup d’etat or dissident groups fighting against your government.
Grant: What should the name convey to players about the history of the Iran-Iraq War?
Akar: The phrase “chalice of poison” comes from a quote from Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. When he signed the ceasefire agreement in 1988 that ended the war, without any major concessions despite all the bloodshed, he described it as “more deadly than drinking from a chalice of poison.”
Additionally, I found the evocative phrase to be an appropriate name for a game about accepting risk and making sacrifices to achieve objectives. The game is full of hard decisions that seem enticing at first, but end up doing internal damage.
On a lighter note, ever since Tyranny of Blood, I’ve been trying to give each of my designs a name that sounds like a heavy metal album.
“Taking this decision is more deadly than drinking from a chalice of poison.” ~ Ayatollah Khomeini, on accepting the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq War
Grant: What is the new series called? What type of games might be included?
Akar: I haven’t been able to find that perfect name yet, despite coming up with a long list of ideas. So, the series doesn’t yet have a name. If anyone has an idea, I would love to hear them! Please sound off in the comments.
The system best models historical conflicts where major dynamic changes occurred within the halls of state power and the military command structure, rather than with territorial exchanges on the battlefield. So, future games in the series could model other conflicts where weak states fought each other while dealing with significant internal tensions. There are no shortage of those throughout history, from the modern Middle East to 1960’s Vietnam to Ancient Rome.
Grant: What games have you used as inspiration for your design?
Akar: I tend to prefer historical games that include strong political dynamics over straightforward wargames. So, a major point of inspiration has been the Great Statesmen Series, to include Congress of Vienna, Versailles 1919, and Churchill. Those games do an excellent job of demonstrating the interplay between peace negotiations and warfare, and it inspired a lot of the ideas I had about war being played in two phases, and how the two interact with each other. Instead of the connection between fighting war and negotiating peace, I focused on the connection between fighting war and improving military effectiveness. From a purely user experience perspective, I enjoy the tactile feel of placing cubes on cards that was in Versailles 1919, and the mechanic seemed to work well in this game.
Additionally, the war mechanics are loosely based on the States of Siege Series, though with a lot of complexity added. That system offers a simple push-pull model for combat, which I employed for a 2-player tug-of-war. I needed a fairly simple mechanism at the core, so that I could layer many other mechanics on top of it without overwhelming players.
Lastly, one of the solitaire modes is inspired by Mark Herman’s Peloponnesian War, a genius solitaire game where players face off against a bot, but if they begin to defeat the bot by too much, they then switch sides and have to fight against everything they set up in previous turns.
Grant: How have you used and followed the academic research of Dr. Caitlin Talmadge?
Akar: Dr. Talmadge’s 2015 book The Dictator’s Army explores the question of why some authoritarian regimes, especially so-called “strongman regimes,” are ironically so bad at fighting war. Her research delves deeply into 2 case studies: Iran versus Iraq, and North versus South Vietnam.
Her argument is that the factors that reduce the threat of coups also reduce military effectiveness at fighting adversaries. The ideal military promotes based on merit, trains troops robustly, incentivizes open and honest communication, and empowers junior officers to improvise within reason. Conversely, strongman regimes tend to do the opposite: promoting based on sycophancy, avoiding training, incentivizing lies and secrecy, and making all decisions through an inefficient centralized command structure. These traits help dictators feel more secure, but they make militaries less flexible to deal with changing circumstances.
This argument underpins the core argument of Chalice of Poison. The main thrust of the game is reforming your military to improve each of those four factors, but at a cost to your own political power.
Grant: What is important to model or include in a game about the Iran-Iraq War?
Akar; A game on the Iran-Iraq War needs to provide a very specific incentive structure, by which players feel the hubris of thinking a quick victory is possible, but also a deep sense of desperation when things go poorly. It also requires mechanics for dealing with internal stability within each country, and being able to affect stability in the adversary’s country. Lastly, such a game must afford players the latitude to take a wide variety of actions; the story of the Iran-Iraq War is two countries quickly falling into a stalemate, and then experimenting with a large number of strategies and unsavory steps to break the stalemate and achieve victory.
Grant: What challenges did you encounter in the design? How have you overcome them?
Akar: I had to design the game carefully to reflect some misperceptions that the actual historical figures had. We know now that the Iran-Iraq War was an enormous catastrophe for both countries, but the game had to give players some false hope that the game could end at any turn. As such, I had to implement a variable game length, with victory conditions that contract as the game progresses. I had to pace the game well so that players always feel like they’re on the verge of victory (or collapse), and I think the game is nearly there.
The early iterations for the game were very mathy, with a lot of dice roll modifiers and additions to provide bonuses for military reform. It wound up not being fun; either players would have their eyes glaze over due to the excessive math, or they would try to calculate every little decision and descend into analysis paralysis. Instead, I replaced all the bonuses with card play mechanisms, which thematically worked, because it gave players more flexibility to deal with bad situations. I replaced most of the math with a simple card color-matching system.
The game has a unique action costing system that requires players to push their luck, carefully budgeting their political power or else risk losing it all (and the game). I learned that most players instinctually spend their full action allotment, so if I give them 10 points, they want to spend 10 points! So, I had to add in some “brakes” to stop new players from losing the game immediately.
I had 2 additional in-game challenges that I needed to solve. One was how to depict the more unsavory aspects of the conflict, such as chemical weapons and human wave attacks, which were historical atrocities, but necessary to tell the story of this conflict. Typically, a game would have a penalty or cost for doing such things, but in the actual historical case, neither country actually suffered a penalty for these actions until well after the war. Additionally, I needed to balance the game a bit more, to give the losing side a chance. I quickly realized that both of these challenges could actually solve each other. I created a “Desperate Measures” mechanic that allows the losing side to catch up a bit, but at a moral cost.
Grant: What is the scale of the game? Force structure of units?
Akar: The game plays at the political and strategic level, so it is pretty abstract. It models the conflict along up to six fronts: the air, three or four different ground fronts, and the naval front. Each one has an abstracted military strength represented by zero to six wooden chevrons. Each side has one air force, one navy, and three different ground forces: the elite guard, the regular army, and the paramilitary. Each of these five forces has a commander in charge of it. That is as complex as the game’s force structure gets; it does not model more specific units or officer ranks.
Grant: What is each player’s overall goal in the game? What does this mean?
Akar: Each player is trying to win the war while preserving their regime.
Winning the war means capturing a certain amount of territory. Most spaces on the map contain stars representing the relative importance of that space. A player advances on the War Progress Track one space for each star captured. Additionally, the War Progress Track includes an Objective counter that starts at 10, but decreases as the game goes on, representing war-weariness and a reduction in expectations for what players define as “victory.” If a player’s War Progress meets or exceeds the current Objective, that player wins the war (and the game). Of note, a player can potentially win even with zero points, which reflects what happened in real life.
Preserving the regime means holding onto political power cubes within the Regime pool on the board. If the Regime pool has zero cubes in it, the player’s regime falls and that player loses. Cubes move out of the Regime pool when players reform their military, improve their commanders, face problems with dissidents, or fight against a coup d’etat. The fewer cubes in the Regime pool, the higher the risk of internal problems erupting.
Grant: How do players go about developing a professional army that values competence and skill?
Akar: Players start with a “coup-proof” military that is pretty ineffective at fighting, but they can expend political power, and thereby accepting risk to their regimes, to make reforms.
Grant: What actions are available to players to reform their military?
Akar: Players have four major actions they can take. They can coordinate to allow commanders to communicate openly with each other and their underlings, empower their forces in the field to make decisions for themselves, promote commanders based on competence instead of personal loyalty or family ties, and train existing commanders to be better at fighting. Each of these actions has four different levels; players can upgrade the actions to improve their effectiveness, but at a cost of political power.
Grant: What are the costs of this process? How do players manage these threats?
Akar: The costs of each action comes in political power cubes. Each action starts at level zero, which does not cost anything, but is not very useful. Players can make reforms, which essentially upgrades each of these actions one step at a time, up to level four. Upgrading to a higher level requires placing that number of cubes on that card. Actually taking actions usually has an additional cost in power cubes.
Players need to “push their luck” to best achieve reforms gradually. Doing too much too fast is a recipe for disaster. Players can spend a large number of cubes each turn, but they will not necessarily get them all back at the end of the turn. Reforming too quickly can threaten regime stability. To protect against these threats, players will need to go slow, keeping enough political power behind to stabilize their regimes, but inaction can also be risky if it means losing the war.
Grant: What is the Turn Sequence?
Akar: The game has up to 9 turns, each representing a year from 1980 to 1988. Each turn has 4 phases:
In the Planning Phase, players issue hidden orders for six fronts to carry out this turn.
In the Action Phase, players reform their militaries so that they can improve the likelihood that these orders are successful.
In the Battle Phase, players resolve orders, change territorial control, fight dissident groups, and learn lessons for future battles.
Finally, in the Unrest Phase, players face internal threats, to include popular outcry, dissident groups, and coup attempts.
Grant: How are hidden orders issued?
Akar: Each front has a space for an order tile, which players place face-down during the Planning Phase, so that they are secret from the other player. Each order tile has four options, which are chosen by how players rotate their tile:
Attack allows players to start a battle against the adversary, and to advance into their territory if they have a stronger force after the battle.
Defend allows players to fight against an attacker at an advantage, and to bring in a small amount of reinforcements, but does not permit advancement.
Subjugate (Air and Ground only) allows players to fight a battle against dissidents.
Attack Tankers (Navy only) allows players to threaten the adversary’s political power.
Regroup allows players to bring in a large amount of reinforcements, but not to fight in any battle that occurs.
Air and Naval forces have one order tiles each, but Ground forces have three different order tiles, representing the three different ground forces in the game: the Guard, Regular Army, and Paramilitary. The more elite the ground force, the earlier it gets to execute its order and deal damage, which gives it a slight advantage in combat.
Grant: How is combat handled?
Akar: Combat strength is a function of 3 different factors:
The Order tile, which represents orders from on high, determines whether a battle occurs, and if it does, which order the forces use to deal damage.
The Commander card, which represents high-level military leadership, determines the damage the front will do that turn. Each commander has a hit value for each of three battle suits: Fervor, Discipline, and Leadership.
The Battle card, which represents forces in the field, determines which suit on the Commander is used to deal hits on the opposing force. A new Battle card is drawn during each battle.
For each hit defined in the previous step, players remove one military strength, represented by wooden chevrons, from that front. If an attacking front is stronger than the opposing front, it may advance and capture enemy territory, for some bonuses.
In each battle where one side deals more damage than the other, the active Commander learns a lesson about how to fight, which changes his stats. Of note, not every lesson is a good one; some lessons can actually make the Commanders worse at fighting; for instance, if it makes them complacent or arrogant.
Grant: What elements of unrest confront the players? How do they handle these challenges?
Akar: Unrest comes in 3 forms, during the Unrest phase:
Public outcry occurs if a player does not attack in a given turn. This removes a political power cube from the game.
Dissidents represent groups that threaten the regime’s power. The strongest dissident group on the map each turn has a massive negative effect, the second strongest has a moderate penalty, and the other three have a slight penalty. If left unchecked, the dissident groups can cause major chaos, but any troops dedicated to fighting dissidents are necessarily not fighting the adversary, so balance is important.
Coup attempts may break out if a commander has more political support than the regime. Each commander has a number of cubes on the card, which corresponds to his risk to the regime and typically corresponds with his competence. If a commander (or a group of commanders allowed to coordinate) has more cubes than the regime, a coup attempt may break out, and then the player will have to fight battles against the rebellious commander(s).
Grant: How does the design use cards?
Akar: The game has 4 types of cards:
Action cards allow players to choose from among four different military changes each turn, as listed above. Players can “reform” or upgrade these actions to have more of an effect, at the cost of political power.
Personnel cards represent the major figures involved in the conflict. They are dual use cards:
When horizontal, they are Commander cards, meaning that the person on the card now Commands forces. These Commanders each have different strengths across three suits (discipline, fervor, and leadership), which dictate how much damage they do each turn.
When vertical, they are Battle cards, meaning that they are forces in the field who are actually fighting the enemy. Battle cards dictate which suit on the Commander deals damage in a given fight.
Dissident cards represent the negative penalties from the five dissident groups that are in the game. Each turn, during the Unrest phase, players draw one of these cards, which determines what effect they have. The strongest dissident group this turn has a major penalty, the second-strongest has a moderate penalty, and the other three groups have a small penalty.
Grant: What is the layout of the board? What do the point to point tracks represent?
Akar: The War Map is a point-to-point map, which was a necessary design choice because the terrain along the Iran-Iraq border only allows approaches through specific narrow corridors, to avoid marshes, mountains, and other rough terrain. Additionally, the amount of land that each side managed to capture in the war was miniscule, so having a map to scale made little sense.
The map has different squares representing ground territory and sea locations. Black squares are Iraqi-controlled at game start, and red ones are Iranian-controlled. Each space has icons: stars are Victory Points, representing strategically and symbolically important areas; circles are Economy, representing oil infrastructure and sea lanes, and hexagons show the presence of dissident groups.
Beyond the map is a series of tracks representing the current turn, the strength of each country’s economy, and the current war progress (i.e., the winning side’s victory points and current objective).
Additionally, each side of the board has an area to show each regime’s current political power and active military commanders.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
Akar: The most important spaces on the board have stars on them, which represent victory points. Every time a side captures a starred space, the War Progress counter advances that many spaces. (Of note: this value is zero-sum, so only the War Progress of the winning side is marked; if the winning side flips, the counter flips to show that the other side is winning.)
Additionally, an Objective counter, marked with a dove, represents the current victory condition. The game begins with the Iraqi side having maximalist objectives, but as the game progresses, each side is willing to scale down their goals and definition of “victory.” So, the Objective counter moves left each turn, and additionally moves due to player actions.
If the War Progress counter ever meets or exceeds the Objective marker at the end of the Battle Phase, the game ends and that side is the winner! Of note, a side can even win with zero victory points, which probably was the real-world historical outcome.
Additionally, if a side ever runs out of Political Power cubes from their pool at the end of the Unrest Phase, that regime collapses and loses the game. If the other side still has cubes, then they win the game! If both regimes collapse on the same turn, then both players lose and Henry Kissinger wins the game.
Grant: What do you feel the game models well?
Akar: The game does a great job of building tension, fostering an alternating sense of hubris and desperation, and encouraging experimentation through trying different combinations of actions until one comes out ahead. All of these factors were present in the actual history, so I am excited that the game design reflects these traits.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Akar: I am pleased about the game’s originality. I don’t know of another game that shows the competing priorities of internal political stability and external military effectiveness quite in this way. I would be most excited if I (and eventually, other designers) could employ this system to explore other conflicts through history, or perhaps even outside of history.
Grant: What other designs are you contemplating or already working on?
Akar: As I mentioned earlier, I’m hoping to return to Tyranny of Blood, my game about the Indian caste system, and finally finish it. This one is the furthest along, but I have other games that I’m in the early stages of designing.
I’m hoping to adapt the Chalice of Poison system for a 3-4 game about the Vietnam War, tentatively called Riding the Tiger. My idea so far is to add some more asymmetry to the system. The South Vietnam player will likely play similarly to the two sides in Chalice, as an unstable strongman regime prone to coup attempts. The United States player will not face coup attempts, but will have to deal with popular support and an election every four turns. The North Vietnam player will have to manage its politburo, attempting to exert influence over the southern revolutionaries and balance between its Chinese and Soviet patrons (and their competing priorities for Vietnam).
I have another game concept, tentatively called Iron and Cardboard, about intra-alliance dynamics and competition among the Warsaw Pact nations as they rebuild from the destruction of WWII under Soviet domination.
Lastly, I have a concept called Pillars of Fire about competition and conflict among Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia from 1979 to 1991. It will be asymmetrical, based on the 3 different systems of government (revolutionary theocracy, strongman dictatorship, and conservative monarchy), which will vie for dominance of the region. Chalice actually began as the military module of Pillars before it took on a life of its own, but I think the grand strategy of this rivalry is worth exploring in its own game.
At the beginning of 1793, after the execution of King Louis XVI, France was drawn into a war against a coalition of most European monarchies. On 24 February, the National Convention decreed the mass draft of 300,000 men to defend the eastern borders. Throughout the country, revolts broke out against this conscription, everywhere they were brutally repressed with success. However, an insurgent territory, called the “Vendée Militaire” resisted. Determined to engage in a trial of strength with the new revolutionary regime, the Vendéens gradually organized themselves until they formed a “Catholic and Royal Army”.
Vendée 93, a card driven two player wargame, takes you back to this particularly epic period in the French history, which pitted the young French Republic against the Royalist insurgents from March to October 1793.
“White” or “Blue”, choose your cause and take command of your troops! “White”: you will have to take the advantage quickly at the risk of seeing the Republican forces inexorably strengthen, forcing you into a sinister “Virée de Galerne”. “Blues”: time is on your side, resist the first assaults of the “brigands” to then be able to face the hell of the bocage in order to definitively extinguish the insurrection.
In SPQR: The Battle of Alesia 52 BC, you recreate the historical final battle of Alesia which took place in the year 52 B.C., during Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul. In the heart of the Gaul region, a battle unfolded that would reshape history. Julius Caesar had been carving a bloody path through the Gaul lands.
Vercingetorix, the famed and confident Celtic warrior-king, rallied the scattered tribes of Gaul into a desperate stand on a fortified hilltop in Alesia. From within the encircled settlement, he watched as a vast Gaul relief army of some 250,000 men gathered to finally crush the brutally outnumbered Romans, a storm cloud promising a final, glorious clash.
Will you lead the Roman Legions to glorious victory? Or will you face annihilation in the muddy fields of Alesia? The choice is yours…
A few years ago, after playing all of the games in the Great Statesmen Series, we heard of a new game in the series from a designer not named Mark Herman and I was immediately interested and intrigued as we have had so much fun with Churchill, Pericles and Versailles 1919. Congress of Vienna from GMT Games is a diplomatic card driven wargame based on Churchill and is the 4th game in the Great Statesmen Series. The game is set during the years of 1813-1814 and sees players take on the role of the main characters of the struggle between the Napoleonic Empire and the coalition of Russia, Austria, and Great Britain with their Prussian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Swedish allies. We played the game twice last year at Buckeye Game Fest and at the World Boardgaming Championships and absolutely were amazed at the changes and innovations to the system introduced by the designer Frank Esparrago.
With the Hammer is an asymmetric wargame covering the German Peasants War in Thuringia in 1525 along with the exploits of one of its most famous protagonists – Thomas Müntzer. With the Hammer comes with wooden pieces, counters, 2 rulebooks, and historical commentary by Professor Andrew Drummond, and a 22×17 inch map.
Each player is a peasant or a noble; the peasants win as a team, or the nobles win as a team. There is no true solitaire system, but like most wargames, it can be soloed two-handed.
Recently, I saw a post on X from one of my favorite designers Mark Herman. If you have to ask who then maybe this post is not for you. But he is one of the best and most prolific designers out there with nearly 100 designs to his credit. Hands down one of the best…and an amazing guy too. In fact, some of his designs are among my favorite wargames including titles like Empire of the Sun, Churchill, Pericles, Fire in the Lake, Washington’s War, Fort Sumter, Rebel Fury and more. Mark knows wargames and he knows how to tell the story of the historical event. Just a master really. The post was Mark highlighting a written review found on Board Game Geek about his newest game in the Civil War Heritage Series called Volume II Army of the Potomac: Campaigns of 1862 & 1864.
I read the review he mentioned and it is very comprehensive and well done. But this post somewhat triggered me. Why I am not sure but it did. I am not mad about it. Not hurt. Not overly concerned. And when I say triggered a more appropriate word would be caused my thinking juices to be stirred up. But I wanted to share my thoughts and opinion on what a wargame review is but also what it is not because I believe that a lot of gamers have a very different opinion about these things than I do.
When Alexander and I get together to play a game with the intent of doing some sort of review and sharing our thoughts on the design it does take a bit of preparation and time. We have to read the rules, and believe me, this can take hours, to truly get a feel for the game, its processes and the flow. But also to get an understanding of what the designers thesis is about the conflict modeled. I think that designers create games that they agree with and believe in. Not necessarily that are 100% a true modeling of the event. Their bias is inserted into the design and there really is no way around that. And I am fine with it because I know that each story of history has 2 (or more) viewpoints and perspectives. We also have to prepare the counters, which includes clipping them, sorting them and then storing them in counter trays or baggies. We then have to set up the game, and with wargames, this can take an hour or more to make sure you have the correct units, place them in the proper hexes and then check to see if there are any errata with the setup that we will need to change. Sometimes setting up the game wears me out…but then we have to give it a play.
Also keep in mind that the majority of games that we play are big wargames. These games have multiple maps, hundreds if not thousands of counters and a ton of different scenario options to choose from. Typically, a campaign game might take dozens of hours with shorter scenarios taking 6-10 hours. These are not light games that can be played in 45-60 minutes. And because of that, the reality of playing a game multiple times just isn’t feasible. We have never posited ourselves as full and thorough multiple playthrough guys. We just don’t have the time to sink that much time and effort into 1 game. Keep in mind that we only get to play 30-40 new wargames annually, which is a lot but not necessarily a lot for someone that attempts to give a good review of a game. But we always play a game until we are comfortable with the rules, understand the flow and get into a majority of the aspects of the game so we can confidently and accurately discuss them.
So, first let’s take a look at what I think that a review is not necessarily.
What They Are Not!…
Full Exploration
First off, I don’t see a review, or at least our brand of reviews, as a total and full exploration of a game or the system. As I stated above, we play a game until we are comfortable with the rules, the mechanics, the thesis of the game and the general flow. This can mean that we play through an entire scenario or even sometimes the campaign but that is not necessarily the case. In fact, more often than not, that isn’t the case. We also play these wargames to see if we like the system. Liking the system is a very different thing from totally dissecting and examining the system for its flaws, strengths and proving or challenging its thesis. Our focus in reviews is generally pretty simple…sharing the feeling of the game, its accessibility, meaning the clarity of the rules, and then a focus on how the game plays. We don’t always cover every aspect or mechanic but try to give an overall feel for what the game is. This approach stems from our stated goal with the blog and YouTube Channel, which is to give an overall impression of the game and create an environment that makes the viewer or reader feel that they are at the table with us just discussing the game after playing.
This is a big one that we are asked about a ton with our reviews. Is the game balanced? Does each side have a real chance of winning the game? And other similar questions. The answer to this is that these games, referring to wargames, are generally a look at the history and how it played out. This means that if one side had more and better troops, they are generally going to win the game as they did historically. But a good and skilled designer, will look beyond the numbers and attempt to create some realistic and achievable victory conditions for both sides. Something that if happens, could change the course of future battles and the overall outcome of the war. There is nothing more that I dislike as much as sitting for 4 hours and getting my teeth knocked in because I really have no chance at meeting some objective to say that I won a game.
Skilled designers will attempt to create balanced wargame victory conditions by avoiding certain things, such as simple point-based kill mechanics or even reaching a particular geographically significant spot on a board. Instead, they use scenario-specific objectives and asymmetric victory conditions to ensure that each side has its own unique path to success. These rules force players to focus on historical strategy rather than just duking it out and seeing who can kill more units. But, when we play these wargames, we generally are not necessarily able to devote the time to gain a true understanding of and to uncover whether the victory conditions are balanced. We typically go off a gut feeling and observation of time and distance covered in a historical push to see if the game is reasonable to win by either side. I love Holland ’44 from GMT Games. It is one of my favorite wargames of all time and is a titanic struggle between the Allies trying to run up Hell’s Highway to reach and capture 3 bridges along the way and the German defenders who are trying to do just enough to stop their advance and hold at least 1 of the 3 bridges. I have played this game a few times and found that I have a real tough time as the Allies making the appropriate level of progress over historical results to even get to the final bridge located at Arnhem. But that doesn’t mean that the game is broken or that it is imbalanced, it means that the history is well represented here as historically the Allies failed to reach the “Bridge too Far” and had to turn back.
Expositions on Historicity
Finally, I don’t feel that reviews are about expositions of historicity. I am not a true historian. I know enough to understand the basic events of major wars such as World War I, World War II, etc. but not necessarily the full details of the battles, the maneuvers used and the outcomes. One thing that I know we are asked a lot is about the Orders of Battle (OOB’s) for these wargames. An OOB is simply the makeup of each sides troops, including their historical units, numbers of troops, type of troops and their quality generally represented with movement values, combat factors and defense factors as well as morale values. And my answer typically is that I don’t know. I ask these designers these type of questions in our Designer Interview Series but am not able to verify or check their math because I don’t have the experience or knowledge to do so. And with just a single play will be unable to comment on this aspect of the design. Remember, that wargames somewhat function as interactive experiments intended to bring history to life for key battles. History is interpretive and sometimes facts about the makeup of troops, the terrain involved or even the weather at the time of the battle is sketchy and tough to piece together. But most of these games are attempts at telling the story as accurately as possible. But, keep in mind, that a good historical simulation wargame, will attempt to challenge players with the real limits, rules, and stresses that those commanders faced. Wargames test historical ideas by turning narratives into active problems and allowing users to explore “what if” scenarios. But I cannot necessarily always comment on the plausibility of a design because I usually lack the expertise or intimate knowledge to do so.
Sometimes I know that ours will be the only review on a game. And that worries me.
I do not think that reviews are what other people believe they are. I see them as insight into a game and how it plays, what can be expected and how it feels to experience the game. Not a full and insight filled thesis paper on the historical plausibility and outcome. But I do believe that our brand of reviews is useful…at least in my humble opinion. But it sometimes does worry me that our review may be the only content out there on a particular game and I have a real fear of misrepresenting something and causing others to turn away from that game. That definitely worries me and I do make sure that I understand what it is that I am going to say about a game before I say it. But keep in mind that our reviews are our opinions and you may have a totally different take on the game. And that is fine as well because in the end your opinion is the one that matters and that will be used to make a purchase decision. Your wallet is yours to protect and I respect that.
What They Are!…
Sharings on Perspective
In the end, any review is an opinion and is something that the creator has taken the time to write down (or video) to share with others. It is about attempting to describe the experience of the game and how it plays. This does mean that each reviewer may see things differently. May focus on different aspects that spoke to them. May decide not to share each and every aspect of the game. But will focus on the experience! And then share that with us. I for one love that there are people out there that are willing and able to do these reviews. It is work and takes time. But in the end, the real treat for us as consumers of these reviews is that we get a bit of insight into the game and an understanding of what it is. This perspective is the most valuable element of a review and is worth its weight in gold. A lot of times, people consume reviews because they have already played a game, made their mind up about that game and what it is and are simply looking for someone to corroborate their feeling. They don’t really care what the person has to think and whether their stance is well reasoned and supported by evidence form the game itself. They are simply reading or watching to validate their own opinion. They want to hear their thoughts come out of someone else’s mouth.
Recently, during one of our Monthly Debrief videos, we discussed games that we disagree on. There are not many games that Alexander and I disagree on…but there are some. As a part of that discussion, we dove into our conflicting thoughts about the venerable tactical level wargame series Advanced Squad Leader. We disagree on this game. I like parts of it, and the overall experience, but Alexander does not. And that is fine. But one of our viewers told us to “put the game back on the shelf” and that listening to us was “cringe”. Well, I do agree that we are cringe but this comment proves my point. We didn’t agree with him and so we are not correct. And that is fine.
Windows into Mechanics
I think that one of the most important parts of any review though is a window into the mechanics. Does this mean a full and detailed description of each and every mechanic, how they work, why they were chosen by the designer and how they reflect history? No…absolutely not. But understanding the base mechanics of a game is critical to understanding whether the game is for you or not. If you happen to really like block wargames and are watching a review on a block wargame such as An Impossible War from Bellica 3rd Generation you would like to know how the block wargame mechanic works. If you like Chit-Pull Activation and you are consuming a review about a Chit-Pull Activation game such as with Blind Swords: Gettysburg: The First Day from Revolution Games, you want there to be some discussion about how the Chit-Pull works. A review should have at least a mention about the mechanics and what is good about their implementation.
Gauges on Complexity
Wargames are generally complex affairs. They have a lot of rules, exceptions to those rules, rules variants or optional rules and sometimes have ambiguity in their explanation of these rules. This last part is really a problem with a lot of games, wargames and other types, but a designer sometimes gets “nose blind” to their own game and takes into account a lot of assumptions about how their description and instructions for the game will be received. I like to make sure that those consuming our reviews understand how complex or difficult to learn the game rules are. I also like to focus on player aids and how they affect the learning process and play so that those who may purchase the game and attempt to give it a play can get an idea of what their learning commitment will be with the rules. And remember, complexity and rules depth doesn’t equate to a good game. If you ultimately cannot get the game played because of the learning curve or the poorly written rules, then a review will do you no good.
A Look at the Fun Factor
In the end, while I play games for many reasons, I am mainly playing a game because I want to enjoy myself. I want to have a good time with the game and its efforts to tell the story of the event and enjoy my time with my opponent. I want to be able to focus on the game and get into the strategy and not have to worry about the rules, the mechanics or the production. And a good review will provide an insight into this aspect of the game. It doesn’t take multiple plays to understand whether a game is right for you or whether it matches your tastes. You can typically see that in just a single play and that is the way we approach things. We have played a lot of games and know when a game is not for us. But, that is not always the case for others and their experience with wargames. And that is fine. But that is a key part of what a review should be.
There you have it…my thought’s on what a review is and what it is not. I know that many will not agree with these points and that is fine. These are my opinions and I have developed them over the past 40+ years of playing games and 10+ years of covering games as The Players’ Aid. What are your thoughts on what a review is? How do you think they best serve the wargaming community? What would you change about our reviews? I look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions on this matter. Thank you.
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#86: LRRP from Fire in the Lake: Insurgency in Vietnam from GMT Games
The COIN Series uses cards in a very different way from other CDG’s. These cards are not necessarily the driver of the action but more assistive to the actions of the players by setting eligibility and also providing powerful events. The Event Cards are more often than not, very powerful. They either give you a continuing bonus on future Operations and Special Activities (as in the case of the volumes that include the various Capabilities) or allow you to take Operations and Special Activities more times that round than you would normally have been able to had you not chosen the Event and more often than not, at no cost! Also, because of the power of the cards and their ties to one or more factions, you can take the Event which allows you a huge advantage, only to see that very powerful Event reversed with the next Event or with a regular Operation. This is very frustrating but is one of the major reasons that I love the card-assisted element of the COIN Series. Today we are going to take a look at the LRRP Event Card.
The LRRP Event Card, with LRRP standing for Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrol, allows the US player to place 3 Irregulars outside the South then conduct a free Air Strike, that also allows for the removal of Bases first. Keep in mind that Irregulars are US Special Forces pieces, which are the hexagonal shaped cylinders not ARVN Rangers. “Outside the South” means any Laos or Cambodia Provinces. Seems pretty pedestrian but it is important to note that this card changes the rules when played as normally all other units in a space must be removed before Bases can be removed. A very powerful card that typically will be played by the US player when it comes up. But keep in mind that Air Strikes are a dual edged sword as you get rid of pesky enemy pieces but it will result in shifts of Support/Opposition but can also Degrade the Trail. On the bottom of the card, the text allows the VC or NVA to ambush these LRRP”s and remove 3 Irregulars from the map to Casualties. Then it gives an added benefit of shifting each space these removed Irregulars were in 1 level toward Active Opposition.
Image courtesy of Boxxer’s Blog.
A Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrol, or LRRP, is a small, well-armed and nimble recon team that is tasked with patrolling deep into enemy territory to identify or destroy key targets and gain recon on the enemy. The concept of scouting forces such as LRRP’s dates back to ancient warfare but also has been used in more modern and contemporary wars such as the French & Indian War where specialized Rangers, such as Rogers’ Rangers, were tasked with raiding Indian settlements, disrupting supply lines and reporting back to command on troop disposition and movement.
In Vietnam, veteran or specially trained forces often augmented with Vietnamese irregulars usually carried out Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols into enemy territory. The Studies and Observation Group (SOG) was the ground element of the US air war against the Ho Chi Minh Trail as illustrated by Project Tiger that spotted for and marked enemy trail activity for elimination by US air assets.
Here is a link to a very interesting summary of an LRRP and its mission on a Vietnam veteran run blog called Boxxer’s Blog: From the seat of a motorcycle: LRRPs: “—doing the impossible for the ungrateful.”
While attending Buckeye Game Fest in spring 2024, we met with a new designer named John Lapham. John had with him a new game called A More Perfect Union and we got a chance to play the game and chat about it with him. A More Perfect Union is a 2-player card driven game that simulates the public debate over the ratification of the Constitution that took place across the United States from 1787-1789. The game uses the same system as Twilight Struggle and 1960: The Making of the President but felt very fresh and unique to the situation. Catastrophe Games is planning a Kickstarter campaign in the near future and we reached out to John to see about getting some more insight into the design and he was more than willing to share.
Grant: John welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
John: Thanks so much for having me, Grant. My main hobbies will surprise no one – gaming and history. I also enjoy hiking, cooking, and theater. As for my day job, that is in the past. I’m retired now. Before that, I had jobs in both the legal and educational professions.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?
John: I wanted a game on this topic and no one else seemed willing to oblige me—although Jason Matthews and Christian Leonhard came close with Founding Fathers. I enjoyed the beginning and end of the experience. I love historical research and pondering messy interpretive narratives and historical hypotheticals. So, I was not surprised by how much I enjoyed the front end of the design process. What surprised me was how much I enjoyed the collaboration that occurred near the end of the project, and the practical and artistic challenges of turning an idea into an actual, physical game. I had no experience with that process and enjoyed learning about it.
Grant: What is your upcoming game A More Perfect Union about?
John: A More Perfect Union is about the political struggle to ratify the U.S. Constitution in the thirteen states from 1787-1789. The game employs the popular card-driven mechanics of such well-known games as Twilight Struggle and 1960: The Making of the President.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
John: It was the subject of some of my earliest graduate school research in the late 1980’s (yeah, don’t ask, I’ve been around the block more than a few times). As a history educator, I was drawn to less well-known stories, involving people and events that popular and school histories have neglected. This is one such story, and it is an important one that has enduring relevance for understanding much of American history and our current turbulent moment.
Grant: What is your design goal with the game?
John: I had two main goals. I wanted the game to offer a window into the history of that moment and to spark interest in the topic. I also wanted it to be a fun, tense game that could be played in a couple hours but with enough complexity and variability to invite repeated plays.
Grant: What from the Constitutional Convention was most important to model?
John: Ok, that’s a hard one. I cannot give you just one. Several things were important to me.
First, I wanted the game to capture the intense war of words that occurred in the nationwide debate. America was on the leading edge of the first wave of mass media made possible by high literacy rates and the printing press. Americans of the period were highly literate, avid consumers of news, and intensely interested in politics. Ninety different newspapers and hundreds of presses across the country printed thousands of essays, letters, and pamphlets over the course of the debate.
Second, I wanted the game to capture the importance of political strategy in terms of grabbing and holding onto the initiative in the debate through the scheduling of the thirteen state conventions, as well as exploiting the momentum gained from successful outcomes in those conventions.
Third, I wanted to express the tension and uncertainty felt by the delegates during the actual conventions themselves. Delegates often went into these conventions uncertain of their outcomes.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I wanted players to come away with an understanding of the immense challenges faced by the new nation to come together and form a strong union that did not threaten the individual liberty that Americans prized at this time. It is in large part the work of the Anti-Federalists that delivered the country its Bill of Rights, a fact that is perhaps too often overlooked or forgotten by modern Americans.
Grant: What sources did you consult about the details of the history? What one must read source would you recommend?
John: Tremendous digital resources are available on the ratification debate thanks to the phenomenal work done by the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (https://csac.history.wisc.edu/). I encourage anyone interested in this topic to explore their website and the treasure trove of material available there.
For a more curated collection of primary source material, the Library of America has published an excellent two-volume collection of many of the most important essays, speeches, newspaper articles, pamphlets, and private letters, The Debate on the Constitution, which also includes a detailed chronology and biographical information on the participants in the debates.
For a single, narrative history of the entire series of events, the best choice is Pauline Maier’s Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, published in 2010. Reading that book was the last nudge that I needed to start designing the game.
Grant: What is the goal of the game? How do players go about trying to sway States to their way of thinking?
John: Fortunately for me as a designer, the main goal of the game was set out for me in the Constitution itself, which required nine states to ratify it to become binding on those states. Thus, the Federalists win the game immediately if nine states ratify the constitution without recommended amendments, and conversely the Anti-Federalists need five state conventions to reject the Constitution to win immediately. If enough states thread the needle of compromise and ratify the Constitution with recommended amendments, then victory is determined by the weight of the states on each side of the ledger.
The primary tools to convince voters in the states are direct campaign efforts, which involve the use of the campaign points in particular states, and the play of publication events. Publication events address one of three broad sets of issues that animated the debate – commerce, states rights, and individual rights. Each state in turn has a rating that reflects how important each of those sets of issues is to its voters. As a result, the effect of a publication will be more or less, depending on the state in which it appears.
Grant: What is the layout of the board?
John: The board includes several broad features – a map of the thirteen states with a state information and holding box for each state, turn and round tracks, a convention track, a state status track, and a table of information.
Grant: What information is contained in each State Box?
John: Each State Box has a number that reflects the maximum number of combined player cubes that can be present in the state, icons showing if either player starts with cubes in the state, numerical ratings for each of the publication issues, the convention value, and the momentum value of the state, and a spot for the state’s status marker, which shows if the state has scheduled or held its convention. Finally, the state boxes are color coded to show the section of the card deck in which the state’s convention card is seeded.
Grant: What are the 5 different words and corresponding values in these boxes mean? How are these elements connected to the cards?
John: The words “Commerce, States, and Individual” relate to the three publication issues and the numbers (0,1, or 2) next to them reflects the effect that a publication on that issue will have in the state – either adding or removing that number of player cubes in the state. The word “Convention” refers to the convention value of the state and the number next to that is the number of campaign points (CP) a player must expend either to call an early convention in the state or to attempt to take control of the State Status Marker through legislative maneuvering. The word “Momentum” refers to the campaign bonus a player will earn if they win the state’s convention.
The issues ratings connect directly to the publication event cards. The Convention ratings connect to the expenditure of CP gained from card play. The Momentum rating does not connect to the cards but instead relates to the outcome of the convention in the state.
Grant: What is the purpose of the State Factors Table and the State Issues Table?
John: This table summarizes in one place the information contained in the individual State Boxes, and it groups the states by their color codes to show players when they will draw the State Convention Cards over the course of the game.
Grant: What is the Back Room? What role does this play in the game?
John: Each player has a Back Room in which they can place a maximum of two cards. Cards in the Back Room are not part of a player’s hand, cannot be played during a player’s action round, and are not discarded at the end of the turn. Players can access the cards in their Back Room at three times – (1) during the card draw phase of each turn, when they can freely remove or add cards to the Back Room, (2) at the start of any convention, when they can remove, but not add, cards from their Back Room, and (3) during an action phase by playing a card for the sole purpose of adding or removing cards from their Back Room.
The Back Room plays two main roles in the game: (1) it provides a means by which players can hold onto powerful events that are not yet ripe to play – often convention events for conventions that will happen on a future turn, and (2) it provides a way to avoid playing a strong opponent’s event at an inopportune time.
Grant: How does the game use cards?
John: This a classic Card-Driven-Game. Each player is dealt a hand of cards each turn and plays one card each round either to spend the Campaign Points provided by the card or to implement an event described on the card.
Grant: What different types of cards are there? What is the purpose of these different types?
John: There are five different types of cards: State Convention Cards, Publication Events, Convention Events, Reaction Events, and General Events.
Each state in the game has a State Convention Card, which are mandatory events that must be played in the turn in which they are drawn. They grant the player cubes in the state and control of the State Legislature, and they schedule the state’s convention by placing the state’s status marker on the Convention Track.
Publication Events publish and distribute a publication addressing a particular issue in a particular state that and a few of its neighbors. Most of these events will specify the state in which they originate and the issue that they address. A few allow the player to pick the state and/or issue for the publication.
Convention Events can be played for their event only during a convention and will have some effect on the outcome of that convention.
Reaction Events are played in response to some other game effect.
General Events are a catch-all for any other type of event.
Grant: Can you share a few examples of cards and explain their use?
John: Sure, here is an example of a State Convention Card:
Each state has one of these cards and they all work the same way.
These cards trigger the scheduling of State Conventions.
They must be played on the same turn they are drawn and cannot be discarded or placed in a player’s Back Room.
They are seeded in a particular quarter of the draw deck at the start of the game, as indicated by the colored banner in the upper right corner of the card.
When played, you move the indicated state’s Status Marker from the map to Box 1 on the Convention Track and mark it with a cube of your color. This represents that you are in control of the state legislature and can spend CP to call an early convention in this state on a later turn. In addition, you may add or remove 2 cubes in the state.
Here is an example of a Publication Event:
These are the most involved events in the game but like the State Convention Cards they all work the same way. So, once you’ve done it a few times, it becomes straightforward.
The red star identifies this card as an Anti-Federalist Event.
The “3” in the star shows that this card is worth 3 CP.
The newspaper icon under the star shows that this card is a publication event, as do the words in the white banner running along the left side of the card.
When played for the event, publications are distributed in a number of states equal to the CP value of the card. In this case, that means 3 states. The first state the publication must be distributed in is the state identified by the postal code in the title of the card. In this case, it must be distributed in Virginia. In addition, the publication may be distributed in twoadditional states that are adjacent to Virginia for a total of 3 states.
The issue addressed by this publication is individual rights, which is indicated in text at the bottom of the card. The issue controls how many cubes the player will add or remove from each state based on that issue’s value (from 0-2) in each state. The individual rights value in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina is 2, but it is only 1 in Maryland. That means that this publication with add or remove 2 cubes in Virginia, Pennsylvania or North Carolina, but will only add or remove only 1 cube in Maryland.
Grant: What happens if you play an opponent’s event? What type of thinking and strategy does this create?
John: Generally, the event triggers, although the player gets to decide whether the event happens before or after they use the card for campaign points. There are two ways to mitigate powerful opponent events. They can be played during the Initiative Phase of the turn to bid for initiative without triggering the event, although doing so often reduces the player’s chance of winning the initiative for the turn, which is costly in its own right. They can also be stored in the player’s Back Room for possible play on a future turn when the event might be less damaging. This too is costly as the Back Room can hold only two cards and those spaces can also be used to save your own events for a future turn when they will be more effective. Thematically, in both instances you are spending time and energy managing a potential problem rather than advancing your own agenda.
Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?
John: Each turn has the following phases:
Card Draw – Slightly more involved than a standard CDG because each turn you can change the cards in your backroom, which is often a challenging decision.
Initiative Phase – This phase sets the initiative and the first player for the turn.
Action Phase – The heart of the game when players alternate playing cards from their hands.
Convention Phase – State Conventions are resolved or move closer to resolution.
Voter Apathy Phase – Some voters lose interest and players remove some cubes from the map.
Grant: What is a Convention and how does it work? What is the outcome of this process?
John: A Convention is when a state makes its final decision as to whether it will ratify the Constitution. Thematically, this is the moment that elected delegates meet, debate, and vote on the Constitution. To model the drama of these events, players have a final opportunity to play cards that can affect the outcome. After that, the player’s cube totals in the state are compared. If the Federalists have the most cubes, the state ratifies the Constitution. If the Antifederalists have the most, the state does not ratify. If the two factions have an equal number of cubes, the state ratifies with recommended amendments.
Grant: How does Campaigning work?
John: Each state has a set number of voters. This number puts a cap on the number of combined player cubes that may be placed in that state. Players can think of it this way: the voters in each state can have one of three states of mind – undecided, Federalist, or Antifederalist. At the start of the game, most voters are still undecided, which is reflected by the fact that only a few cubes are placed on the board during setup. Campaigning involves the expenditure of Campaign Points (CP) to persuade these votes to change their mind, represented by placing or removing cubes in the states. It costs 1 CP to place a cube in a state. It costs 2 CP to remove a cube from a state. If a state is already at its cube limit, the player will first have to spend points to remove an opponent’s cube before they can place their own cube. Thus, to replace an opponent’s cube with one of your own costs 3 CP. Cards range in CP from 1-4. So many cards will not grant the player enough CP to replace an opponent’s cube with one of their own.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
John: The Federalists gain an immediate victory if nine states ratify the Constitution without amendments. Conversely, the Antifederalists win if five states reject the Constitution. If neither player achieves these conditions before the end of the final turn of the game, at least one state has ratified the Constitution with recommended amendments. Victory at that point is determined by comparing the values of the states in each section of the State Status Track. Each state has a value that represents its political and economic importance – the larger the state the more it is worth. Each player gets full credit for each of the states in their column and the Antifederalists get partial credit (the Convention value) for each state that ratified with recommended amendments. Thematically, this represents a compromise situation, where the Constitution is ratified but with amendments. The stronger the opposition to the original Constitution, the more impactful those amendments will be. Strong amendments represent a partial victory for the Antifederalists. Historically, the Antifederalists efforts resulted in the adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Grant: Which side has the tougher challenge to meet their goal?
John: The challenges faced by the two sides are different, but I hope they are roughly equal in difficulty.
Grant: What are some basic strategies the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist players?
John: The Federalists need to strive to win states quickly and build on that early momentum. They may need to consider making aggressive moves early in the game to take states off the board. They also must stay competitive is as many states as possible. They can only afford to lose four states, and the deck is stacked against them in two states – North Carolina and Rhode Island. The Antifederalist player has a wider range of strategic choices. They can focus on winning outright victory in one or two of the early states in an effort to reach the five states they need for an automatic victory, or they can build up their strength in several of the more valuable states that hold their conventions later in the game and improve their chances of winning the game on the basis of points at the end of the game. They cannot afford to compete with the Federalists in every state. They need to pick their battles carefully.
Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?
John: My hope is that it offers players challenging strategic and tactical decisions and creates dramatic moments of high tension where careful planning or bold action can alter the course of the game.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
John: Overall, I am pleased with the way it models the challenges and choices faced by the historical actors. With respect to the game play, I particularly like the Initiative, Back Room, and Convention mechanisms.
Grant: What other designs are you working on?
John: I’m working on a four-player game about the labor movement in Chicago, during the late 19th-century, and a solitaire game about the Civil War in which the player takes on the role of Lincoln and has to prosecute the war as commander-in-chief, while also navigating the challenges of domestic policy and political campaigning.
While attending Buckeye Game Fest in spring 2024, we met John Lapham and shot a video interview discussing the game and its mechanics:
Next War: Iran is the sixth game in the Next War Series from GMT Games. It is unique in the series in that the Allied player has to do the attacking while the non-Allied player attempts to defend its territory against neo-imperial oppression. With a long logistical tail, few true allies in the region, and the menace of Iran’s A2AD capabilities, re-opening the Straits is a tall order.
A few years ago, while attending WBC, I had the chance to meet Wes Crawford who was demoing one of his new games called Engine Thieves: The Andrews Railroad Raid of 1862 from Compass Games. Wes is a great guy and this game is focused on a rarely, if ever, gamed historical subject in the 1862 Andrews Railroad Raid during the American Civil War. On April 12, 1862, the charismatic Union agent James Andrews and his band of raiders stole the train powered by the locomotive, “The General,” from under the noses of about 3,000 Confederate troops training at Big Shanty (Kennesaw), Georgia. Their risky mission was to cut telegraph wires, burn railroad bridges, and damage track between Atlanta and Chattanooga, thus severing communications, reinforcements, and supplies between the two cities. This was as Union General Mitchel advanced his forces upon Chattanooga with the aim of capturing it and splitting the Confederacy in two. The raiders needed to bluff their way through the Confederate railroad stations and even pass through Chattanooga to meet the advancing Union force in Bridgeport!
Engine Thieves covers this courageous Civil War raid. Play as the Union raiders in a solo game as you race against time, and the Confederate soldiers on your tail, to get to Bridgeport. With 2 players, one of you will play as the Confederates and try to stop your opponent from reaching Bridgeport or at least minimize their destructive sabotage. Follow the adventure and real path these raiders took on their daring ride north!
As the solo player in charge of Andrews and the Union raiders, you must accumulate at least 25 Victory Points by some combination of burning bridges, cutting telegraph wires, damaging track, bringing the stolen train to Bridgeport, and defeating Confederate units that get in your way, all while minimizing raider casualties. Reaching Bridgeport is a high priority since without that accomplishment, General Mitchel would likely call off his attack on Chattanooga. Mitchel might be otherwise unaware of the Raiders’ successes!
In War in the Pacific– A WW2 Roll & Write Game from Solo Wargame, players will allocate limited resources to launch attacks, conduct strategic bombing, maintain supply lines and seize key islands. Your strategy must be swift and decisive, targeting objectives like Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. As the war intensifies, you can divert critical resources to the Manhattan Project, researching and developing nuclear weapons. The race to build atomic bombs could be the key to ending the war. Can you balance the demands of the Manhattan Project with the immediate needs of your campaign?
Once you’ve gained a foothold, you’ll face a crucial choice: invade mainland Japan in a costly land assault, or use strategic bombing and nuclear weapons to force Japan’s surrender. Each option is risky as an invasion could end the war quickly, but at great cost, while bombing and nukes may hasten Japan’s surrender, but could come too late.
With fast-paced dice allocation, resource management, and mounting pressure, every decision could mean the difference between victory or failure in your quest to force Japan’s capitulation.
I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed historical topic, such as espionage or intelligence, and creates a gaming experience tailored around the events to highlight and evoke the difficulties and tension that would have been present. In January 2026, GMT Games announced such a game in Checkpoint Charlie, which is a solo or cooperative game focused on SIS espionage missions in Berlin in the 1960’s designed by Russell Brown. We have posted an interview with Russel and it was very well received and he has now agreed to create a series of History Behind the Cards to highlight the events of the 1960’s Cold War struggle in West Germany but also to share aspects about the game play and how it models the history.
*Note: The cards highlighted in this series and their event text, as well as any pictures used showing any of the various components, are still in the design and development process and as such event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
History Behind the Cards – Checkpoint Charlie from GMT Games – Card #2: Cuban Missile Crisis
In response to the US placing nuclear missiles in the UK and Turkey, within range of Moscow, and in an effort to protect Cuba and keep it within the Soviet sphere of influence, Khrushchev made a deal with Castro in July of 1961 to base Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, within range of most of the southeastern United States.
The US knew the Soviet Union was training and supplying Castro’s army and inserting specialists, and CIA assets in Cuba had seen Soviet surface-to-air missiles. This led to suspicion that the Soviets were intending to place ballistic missiles in Cuba.
The best US assets for confirming the presence of these missiles were high-altitude U-2 Spy plane flyovers. However, the loss of Francis Gary Powers’s U-2 over the Soviet Union to a SAM missile (Event Card #12 The Powers Abel Exchange) created reluctance, since the US now knew the Soviets had deployed similar SAM’s to Cuba. U-2 flights were finally authorized in October of 1962, and it was these photos that confirmed the presence of Soviet nuclear-capable missiles.
The status of Berlin, halfway around the world, played an important role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. From 1958 until the discovery of the missiles, the relationship between the US and the Soviets was dominated by the “Berlin Crisis,” which consisted of a series of military and diplomatic moves by Khrushchev to outmaneuver the Americans and annex West Berlin into East Germany. The Cuban Missile Crisis not only brought the conflict over Cuba to a head, but also brought new attention on the status of Berlin. The two became linked. A ground invasion of Cuba might result in a military annexation of West Berlin by the Soviets, and it was not out of the question for the Americans to concede to the Soviets in Berlin to get the missiles out of Cuba.
President Kennedy avoided direct military conflict and responded with backchannel diplomacy and a naval blockade of ships coming into Cuba. The crisis continued for two weeks, with US ground forces readied for an invasion, Soviet ships attempting to run the blockade, and the US strategic nuclear forces going to Defcon 2. The tensions eased when Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles in exchange for an agreement that the US would never invade Cuba. In addition, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove US nuclear missiles from Turkey.
In Checkpoint Charlie, the Cuban Missile Crisis is assumed to have diverted Soviet attention from espionage activities in Berlin. This card not only removes surveillance from any location of the player’s choice; it also reduces the number of available surveillance pawns for the rest of the mission.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Demonstrations and what effect these student run organizations had on operations in West Berlin and West Germany.
In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am appreciative to Russell and his efforts to bring us these cards and to write these entries to share with our readers. I am also very glad that this topic is being covered in a game and look forward to playing this one day soon.
An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 from Bellica Third Generation is a block wargame that recreates the First Carlist War in the North of Spain which was a civil war between the Carlists who supported the succession of the late king’s brother Carlos de Borbón and the progressive and centralist supporters of the regent Maria Christina acting for Isabella II of Spain who were referred to as the Liberals. The game uses blocks representing units but also includes counters and uses cards. I was able to play the game about a month or so ago with Francisco Ronco who owns the publishing company Bellica Third Generation and very much enjoyed the game and how it represented this interesting struggle.
In Action Point 1, we took a look at the Game Map, discussing the point-to-point movement configuration, the various spaces and the delineation of the Carlist versus the Liberal Zones, as well as explained the use of the Rest of Spain smaller map. In Action Point 2, we examined the units available to both sides and covered the importance of Supply. In Action Point 3, we took a closer look at the Carlist Uprising Phase and what it means for the game. In Action Point 4, we examined the activation system and the use of Action Point Markers. In this Action Point, which is the conclusion to the series, we will take a look into how Battles work, focusing on the tactical aspect of combat with the use of the Battle Board.
Battle
One of my favorite parts of the game is the Battle mechanic. With Battle, I very much enjoy the use of the Battle Board but also like that there are several different types of combat. Battles focus on asymmetric combat rather than massive open field engagements and are typical of the First Carlist War. These Battles boil down to 3 primary types including Skirmishes, Battles and Assaults and each type have their benefits and uses and one of the important things about the game is the need to learn their best uses and then how to perform them. If both sides have at least 3 Infantry or Cavalry units in a contested space, then there is a Battle. Also if 1 or both sides has less than 3 Infantry and Cavalry units in the space, or only has Cavalry units, then there will be a Skirmish. And finally, in order to launch an Assault on a Fortress, the besieging player must have a Field Artillery unit of any value in the enemy Fortress space.
But before we take a look at these different types of Battle, I want to cover the Combat Cards. Combat Cards provide background events and assist tactical maneuvers without running the game on their own. Each player holds a distinct 36-card deck (Liberal or Carlist) representing historical, operational, and tactical modifiers. These cards simulate unpredictable elements, like sudden skirmishes, political shifts, or logistical hurdles. The Liberal Player generally leads larger, but lower-quality forces plagued by supply issues. Their Combat Cards tend to focus on maintaining order, quelling uprisings on the Rest of Spain Map and chasing Carlist expeditions. The Carlist Player will command smaller, high-quality troops. Their Combat Cards focus on exploiting superior mobility, terrain knowledge, and sudden strikes. Since this is an “impossible” war featuring guerrilla tactics, siege warfare, and frequent skirmishes rather than massive battles, the cards adapt to these asymmetric scenarios.
There are 3 types of cards found in the decks, including Event Cards, Operational Cards and Tactical Cards. Event Cards are played immediately when drawn and provide both positive and negative benefits to the players. Operational Cards can be played when the conditions stated on the card are met, during the player’s own Player Phase or sometimes during the opponent’s Player Phase. Tactical Cards can be played in combat as stated on the card. Each player can use a maximum of one tactical card in each Skirmish, Battle Round or Assault Round.
At the beginning of a player’s Player Phase each Turn, that player will take the top card from their draw deck. If it is an Event Card then it is applied immediately. If it is not an Event Card, the card is kept in the hand so that the other player cannot see it. A player can have up to 8 cards in their hand and these can be played as indicated on the card itself.
These cards are very well done and keep the game very interesting and tense as you just don’t know what type of cards your opponent has that they can spring on you in combat. These cards alter the conditions of the battle and cannot be planned for but must be kept in mind as players enter conflicts. From adding defenses that absorb hits (such as the Stone Walls Tactical Card) or provide additional Effectiveness Rating to units in battles when they are firing (such as the False Retreat Card), these cards make a difference and keep the game feeling like a game.
Now that we have looked at the cards, let’s now take a quick look at the various forms of Battle. A Skirmish consists of just 1 single round of fire. First the defender will fire and applies all hits to the attacking units, then the attacker will fire and applies hits to the defending units. There are no morale rolls in the game. In a Skirmish a player fires with a maximum of 3 Infantry and Cavalry units. The player must choose which units will fire with several limitations. maximum of 1 Cavalry unit in rough terrain and a maximum of 2 Cavalry units in open terrain. A player always fires with all Artillery units.
The Battle Board operates as a dedicated, zoomed-in tactical area where the details of combat are resolved. When opposing blocks meet on the main strategic map, units are moved to this board to fight out the encounter safely separated from global troop movements. When a Battle begins, players move their hidden army blocks from the main map onto the Battle Board. Depending on the terrain where the battle takes place (such as rough terrain for a city or plains for the countryside), players deploy their units into specific zones on the board. The Flanks are outside positions that trap or outmaneuver the enemy. The Front Line are the units taking the direct hits and dealing the damage to the enemy and the Reserve is where extra units are kept on standby to join the battle as losses are suffered.
Combat on the Battle Board happens in rounds. As a block wargame, the number of dice rolled by any unit is based on the number of pips shown on the block and the to hit number is equal to or less than their Effectiveness Rating printed on the block. Modifiers may be added from terrain or from the play of Combat Cards. Dice are then rolled and hits are determined with the defending units taking losses by reducing their pips by rotating the block counterclockwise. It is as simple as that.
The big difference in the types of Battle are the duration. A Skirmish last only 1 round while a Battle can last up to 3 rounds. The Battle ends immediately when 1 of the following situations arises. If the Battle lasts the full 3 round, when the 3rd Battle Round ends the defending player remains in the space and the attacking player retreats. There is no Rout or Pursuit A player has no Infantry units in the front line. The other player wins, gains 1 VP, and causes a Rout by the losing side, which will then retreat. Or, a player decides to retreat voluntarily in the End of Battle Round phase. The other player wins and can carry out Pursuit.
The Battle mechanic in An Impossible War captures perfectly the frustration of asymmetry in both competing sides and their troops. The name of the game is specifically reference to the the Liberals’ massive, clunky numbers versus the Carlists’ nimble, guerrilla style of warfare. 2 different armies with 2 different philosophies has created a situation where neither side can feel comfortable with the war and their chances at winning it. I frankly think that the designer David Gómez Relloso did an exceptional job at creating this asymmetry and creating a highly playable and engaging game. If you didn’t know, I chose to add An Impossible War to my Top 10 Wargames of 2025!. It landed at #8 on the list, and probably would have scored higher had I had a chance to play the game further and experience all of the parts of the design.
I also was able to shoot a fairly short video summary of my game play with Francisco Ronco who is the owner of Bellica Third Generation and you can watch that at the following link:
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#85: Hydraulic Recoil from Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations
Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 is a massive card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games, which are both grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The game is quite grand and ambitious as it covers 70 years near the end of the Victorian Era and the Progressive Ear and sees quite a lot of global change and competition between the great powers of the time. The game is a Card Driven Game and uses Action Cards as a type of currency to spend for their Command Points or the printed event to take actions such as recruiting armies and navies, industrialize, moving fleets and armies around the globe, influencing minor powers and establish colonies in Africa, India and the Pacific Ocean. The cards are all tied to the history of the period but the game can be played very much as a sandbox allowing players to explore strategies by trailblazing new horizons or following history.
As you might imagine, the game contains combat and wars of both unification and conquest as each of these empires attempt to grow and expand their borders and the game can end with the outbreak of the Great War. These combats are referred to as Land Battles or Sea Battles. Combat is a very well designed part of the game and involves lots of maneuvering of troops on the board to get into position to have a powerful 2 unit stack be the lead attack but also to be supported by adjacent armies providing strength in the land battle. Each nation has a limited number of armies and also has access to what are referred to as Elite Corps and Expeditionary Forces that can be used to supplement goals of conquest. These Elite Corps units are represented by circular counters and are placed atop an army counter they are attached to and provide a +1 Dice Roll Modifier in combat.
When the game hits the 1880’s, which is turn 4, the Hydraulic Recoil Mandatory Event Card will be added to the deck. When this card is drawn and played, the Mandatory Event will go off and become a permanent change to how combat works. First off, the asterisk and double asterisk printed on the Combat Results Table will now be in effect. The asterisks referenced are summarized as follows from the rules:
Only apply the * and ** portions of the combat results if the Hydraulic Recoil Mandatory Event has been played. *The victor may opt to inflict +1 loss to both sides. ** Both sides take +1 loss.
But other than just the additional losses and choices about how best to use them, there are other big changes that come as a result of the Hydraulic Recoil Mandatory Event. After its play, machine guns give non-rebel units a minimum die roll of a 3 in Land Battles (in other words, rolls of 1 or 2 are now 3’s). But also anytime an Elite Corps and its +1 DRM is used in a land battle, that unit will be eliminated. This automatic elimination cannot be taken as a loss inflicted by the CRT but is in addition to those losses. Big guns equipped with new hydraulic recoil mechanisms were, by far, the number one killer during the Great War, and machine guns made most pre-war tactics obsolete. Coupled together these two technologies made combat much more deadly and far less “swingy”. These mechanics are meant to model these technological shifts on a strategic level.
The hydraulic recoil mechanism in machine guns was pioneered by inventor Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim in the 1880’s. He developed it as part of his 1883 and 1884 patents for the world’s first fully automatic, recoil-operated machine gun called the Maxim gun. The Maxim gun has been called “the weapon most associated with imperial conquest” by historian Martin Gilbert and was heavily used by colonial powers during the “Scramble for Africa”. Afterwards, Maxim guns also saw extensive usage by different armies during the Russo-Japanese War, the First and Second World Wars, as well as in contemporary conflicts.
The Maxim gun featured one of the earliest recoil-operated firing systems in history. Energy from recoil acting on the breech block is used to eject each spent cartridge and insert the next one. Maxim’s earliest designs used a 360-degree rotating cam to reverse the movement of the block, but this was later simplified to a toggle lock. This made it vastly more efficient and less labor-intensive than previous manually operated rapid-firing guns, such as the manually cranked Mitrailleuse of 1851, the Gatling gun of 1861, the Gardner gun of 1874, or the Nordenfelt gun of 1873. The Maxim gun is water cooled, allowing it to sustain its rate of fire far longer than air-cooled guns. The extra weight and complexity this added, however, made it heavier and less flexible in use.
Trials demonstrated that the Maxim can fire 600 rounds per minute (equal to 60 riflemen at the time). Compared to modern machine guns, the Maxim is heavy, bulky, and awkward. A lone soldier can fire the weapon, but it was usually operated by a team of men, usually 4 to 6 in number. Apart from the gunner, other crew are needed to speed reload, spot targets, and carry and ready ammunition and water. Several men are needed to move or mount the heavy weapon.
The Maxim gun was greatly influential in the development of other machine guns, and it has multiple variants and derivatives, such as the Vickers, PM M1910 and MG 08. Some are still in service to the present-day, such as in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Over the past several years, we have done interviews with Matt White, publicized his games and played a few of them as well and he always has something cooking. Recently, I came across his newest offering on Kickstarter called Spearhead: Hell on Wheels – Tank Battles in Normandy. This game is a solitaire or 2-player print and play tactical game that allows players to take command of US tanks in German occupied France. I reached out to Matt and as always he was more than willing to share on the design.
Grant: What is your new project on Kickstarter called Spearhead: Hell on Wheels?
Matt: This is a brand new solitaire and co-op World War II print and play tactical wargame. In this game you are in command of a group of 3 US tanks in brutal and intense tank combat in enemy-occupied territory.
The players must lead their tanks, through unforgiving terrain, finding and then engaging the enemy in fierce fire fights. They must defeat any encountered enemy tanks and forces, whilst meeting the objectives as they move across the map.
Grant: What was your inspiration for the name? What do you want it to convey about the design?
Matt: My biggest inspiration was reading accounts from various US armored units. Keeping your tank crews alive and positioning your tanks whilst dealing with unexpected enemy positions is key to survival and success and truly seemed to be “Hell on Wheels”.
Grant: What about the battles during Normandy inspired you to make this game?
Matt: Basically I wanted to focus on and show the difficulties with the survivability of the armored crews and their vehicles during the D-Day invasion and the days after as the Allies broke out into France. That was the biggest point I wanted to make.
An American M10 Tank Destroyer.
Grant: What research did you do on the subject?
Matt: As with all my games, in trying to get the historical aspects correct both in the mechanics of the game as well as the look and feel of the art, I basically try to do lots and lots of reading! I read as much as I can on the subject, from various authors and viewpoints, and when I am not spending time playing games or making them, I basically read! This knowledge is part of the inspiration for my games as I draw upon things that I have rad and then translate them to the page.
Grant: As a tactical level wargame, what are the most important areas of focus for the design?
Matt: The positioning of your tanks in relation to where the enemy could be, and not only the tank hull but also the turret. Keeping your tank crews alive and positioning your tanks whilst dealing with unexpected enemy positions is key to survival and success. This game is point-to-point based where you must place your tank orientation and can aim the turret separately. Being able to keep the front of the hull forward towards the enemy tanks whilst hopefully being able to fire on their flank is critical.
Grant: How does the game differ in its 2 modes including solitaire and cooperative?
Matt: In the game you are in command of a number of US tanks – these can be split between players if you wish. Its quite unlike a number of solitaire WW2 tank games where you are in command of one tank. In this game you have a number which makes it really suitable for co-op play.
Grant: I know the design is a Print and Play offering. Why do you feel this model is best suited for your designs?
Matt: I like making print and play games as it forces you, as the designer, to make every component count and making the most of the physical space on a sheet of paper. I find that challenge one of the most interesting parts of the creative process. I also like the print and play model because it is very affordable for all parties, both me and the players, and allows the game to be available to anyone at anytime and on their terms.
Grant: I see that the board has a point-to-point movement layout. Why was this your chosen method of conveying information about the battlefield?
Matt: As much as I love traditional hex based games (and continue to play a lot of them), I also like point-to-point too. I like the way you can combine not only line of sight but also information about the environment in the game.
Grant: What is the meaning of the different symbols that appear on the board?
Matt: Movement is from point-to-point and where you move from a Position Point (the rectangle points) to an Observation Point (the circle points) where you will test for observation and perform the majority of combat. If combat is successful then you will be able to move to the next position point.
As you can see from the map there are multiple paths from Position Points to Observation Points and then onto other Position Points. Plus there are a variety of pros and cons to various paths to allow for a variety of terrain types and observation challenges. These paths are illustrated on the map in the shape of lines which are known as Movement & Observation Lines.
For each Movement & Observation Line there is a symbol at one end. The most common symbol is a black arrow, which denotes normal terrain and normal observation. There are other symbols which mean more difficult terrain or harder observation. These are:
Black Arrow – Normal Movement – Normal Observation
White Arrow – Normal Movement – Hard Observation
White Square – No Movement – Normal Observation
Black Circle – Difficult Movement – Normal Observation
White Circle – Difficult Movement – Hard Observation
Grant: What difficult decisions do players have to make in the game?
Matt: You will have to deal with enemies and you discover them but you don’t know where they are and so you must make some decisions based on information you do and don’t have. The player will also have several simultaneous objectives that must be obtained and will have to contend with both the German forces defending them that you know about and those that you do not.
“Lady luck” plays a part, as with any military operation, but your decisions and tactics are crucial, especially in how you position your tanks on the map when facing enemies as you cautiously roll through the environment.
A German Panther.
Grant: What dangers and threats meet the players on the battlefield?
Matt: There are a variety of dangers but not only the enemy forces as tank obstacles and mines can be a serious threat, combined with the environment itself.
Grant: What objectives does the player have to accomplish?
Matt: For each game session the objectives are randomly generated with Objective markers provided. All you have to do is safely get your tanks to those Objective markers, all the whilst dealing with the enemy!
Grant: How are hidden German units handled?
Matt: Every time you move your tanks you will need to check what they can observe and into which other points then can see. At this time you will roll on a couple of charts to see if you can see enemy units. However, just because you can’t see any doesn’t mean that they are not there.
Grant: What is the makeup of the Tank Cards? What information do they contain?
Matt: Using the Tank Cards you record the status of the major components of your tank such as the engine and tracks plus any gun jams. You also record the status of the various tank crew, all of which can have an impact in the game. Counters are provided to record all the status of both the tank and the crew.
Grant: What different types of tanks are included on both sides?
Matt: There are variety of tanks in the game with each tank having its own unique gameplay – for example the M10 tank destroyer has no hull machine gun (but does have a better anti-tank weapon). There are also Stuart M5A1 Tanks, StuG’s, Panzer IV’s, and many more.
Grant: How does combat work?
Matt: In the combat phase, you determine the order in which both your tanks and the enemy tanks fire. This is crucial to how the combat plays out as in real life WW2 tank combat, the results will favor the tank crew who can fire first on their target.
You will roll a few dice, depending on your tank positioning and other factors, and retain the highest number. You can increase your number of rolled dice by certain criteria – the more dice you roll the better! For example, if your tank turret is facing the enemy, the terrain type, the health of both the tank and the crew and if the enemy have been observed all are major factors. The enemy tanks will be doing the same, so factors such as successful enemy observation in the previous phase are crucial!
Grant: What is the goal of the game? How is victory obtained?
Matt: Your goal is to reach your various objectives on the map, whilst trying to keep your tanks and crew alive.
For each game session the objectives are randomly generated with Objective markers provided. All you have to do is safely get your tanks to those Objective markers, all whilst dealing with the enemy!
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Matt: I am most pleased to be coming to the end of the design and getting it ready for people to play! Finishing or coming close to it, is the hardest part of the development. In terms of the actual game, I really enjoy being able to get a game that has depth and is engaging that can be printed on just a few sheets of paper.
Grant: What kind of an experience does the game create?
Matt: I hope that the game creates a thoughtful representation of actual tank combat and how decisive it can be!
But that is not all. The game is modular and has several options included. As well as the map shown above, the game will also come complete with another map, additional counters and a rulebook which allows for you to create your own unique scenarios.
This map has the same points but where you will roll on tables to determine the various Movement & Observation Lines from each Position Point and Observation Point. There will be counters that you can place between the Position and Observation Points as an aid. You will be using various charts and tables to procedurally generate your map as you play, determining those gameplay elements as you progress. This type of game session will present you with a new challenge as you really have to deal with more unknown elements as you progress your tanks across the map.
Grant: What other designs are you currently working on?
Matt: I have a few games I am working on – currently working on something involving WW2 Mosquito aircraft!
For a YouTube video overview of the game, please check out Matt’s overview video here:
Thanks to Matt for his time in answering our questions and for his great little print and play games. I love it when one of these new games is brought to light as I get to oodle over the art and see what new things he has created!
Clash D-Day Special edition is a turn-based board game that is set during the longest day in history: D-Day. Take control over the Allies and Axis forces and get ready to conquer the necessary beaches and areas. Outwit your enemy, make tactical decisions and think ahead. Prepare and take action in the greatest seaborne invasion that changed history on June the 6th, 1944! Clash D-Day is very easy to learn and there is no need for historical knowledge. Clash D-Day is based on the popular board game Clash of the Ardennes and is a stand alone version of the game. Use all of your (special) units wisely, because you will run out of units very quickly. Place them strategically and tactically on 1 of the 7 streets, always think ahead and try to reach your objective a little bit sooner than your opponent.
Inflection Point is a Battalion Combat Series (BCS) game depicting two important but relatively unknown battles before and after Stalingrad. The Battle for Kalach was fought in July 1942 following Case Blue, the successful drive into southern Russia. Paulus’ Sixth Army intended to encircle and destroy the Soviet Armies and walk into Stalingrad. The Soviets were still recovering from Operation Barbarossa the year before. The result of the battle set up the epic urban fight that was the turning point of the Eastern Front. By December 1942, the Sixth Army was trapped at Stalingrad by a more capable Red Army. In the Battle of Chir River, the Soviets looked to exploit their gains and prevent German relief operations over a portion of the Kalach battlefield. Initial success along the Chir River changed when the energetic 11th Panzer Division was thrust onto the scene. These two battles show the progression of the Red Army into an offensive army that could start fighting toe-to-toe against the invaders. For the Germans, the days of blitzkrieg successes were waning and were being put on the defensive. There was a marked inflection point around Stalingrad.
The game showcases this change in quality and capability between the armies. Units famed for fighting at Stalingrad are here – 24th Panzer and 100th Jäger Divisions as well as the 62nd Army. With rules on crucial air supply that was needed to sustain the German offensive, to stubborn Soviet command in the form of Colonel Konstantin Zhuravlev, players will be able to recreate these pivotal battles. The steppes of Southern Russia are accurately depicted, with rivers, balkas, and small hills being crucial in the otherwise flat terrain. With offensive and defensive possibilities for both sides in both battles, there’s tense decision making in order to win and change the fate on the Eastern Front.
Time of Wars: Eastern Europe 1590-1660 from Stratagemata is a multiplayer card driven game that is modeled after games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen. Players take on the role of the head of superpowers in Eastern Europe including the Polish, the Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Tsardom of Russia, the Ottoman Empire, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire. Minor states are also present such as Denmark, Brandenburg, Moldova, Wallachia, Transylvania and Crimean Khanate.
The game covers the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. The period was rich in famous characters (rulers and commanders) and critical events – for example the Time of Troubles in the Tsardom, the Thirty Years War in the Reich, Swedish “Deluge” in the Commonwealth. All these and much more are smoothly incorporated into gameplay.
Anmelden
