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.
#100: KSM from Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001-? from GMT Games
Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001-? from GMT Games is a 2-player asymmetrical Card Driven Game that pits the mighty and powerful United States military and all of its various antiterrorist agencies against the Jihadists in the Middle East whose sole goal is to spread terror, sow the seeds of deceit and ultimately destroy Western civilization. The game is a Card Driven Game where the cards contain Operation Points or Events and each turn the player must strategize and use their cards to their best ability in order to effect the state of the board and further their individual and asymmetric victory conditions. But the game is raw and is tied to the actual events of the early 2000’s as the United States was reeling to recover from the terrorist attacks in New York.
In the game, the Jihadist player is working to destabilize the Middle East through a series of clandestine activities such as destroying stability, toppling governments and forcing the US to react to their actions. One of their biggest strategies is to work to place what are called Plots out on the board in order to destabilize but also to generate local support and funding for their activities from the populace. If left alone, these Plots will go off at the end of a round and cause trouble that will then have to be cleaned up by the US player over the next turn. In order to uncover these Plots, the US player will have to play a 3 Ops card to take the Alert Action and different from most other actions there is no die roll required and the the Plot removal is automatic. But, the cost is steep as a 3 Ops card is pretty rare and spending it on this action is very painful. Jihadists use these Plots to force the US player to have to stamp out fire after fire rather than working to reform and stabilize governments to create allies. And when these Plots appear, the player’s long-term strategy will have to be put aside and a focus will have to change from managing regime change and the Global War on Terror (GWOT) posture to dealing with urgent plots. The KSM card is a very powerful tool in this game as it allows for the US player to remove Plots from an Ally or non-Muslim country but also to replace this investment with drawing 2 cards to replace it. This is specifically tied to the intel that was obtained from the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and how it was then used to defuse several ongoing plots. The Jihadist player also gains a pretty large benefit as they will be allowed to place a Plot Marker into a non-Islamist Rule country with a cell. The process of successfully placing a Plot can be very challenging for the Jihadist player as it takes the play of a card for Operations points, uncovering a cell in a country and then rolling a die equal to or less than that country’s Governance Level to then place a face-down Plot Marker. This takes the need for a roll away and makes the placement of a Plot an automatic success.
I think that one of the other important distinctions and differences with the KSM card is that it is a 3 Ops Neutral Card that can be played by either side but when played by the US player for the event, it will be removed from the game while when being played for the Jihadist portion of the event it will remain and be able to be used in a later turn when it is drawn again. This reflects the important role that KSM played in al-Qaeda’s plans and if allowed to stay at large he will continue to plan and execute plots across the globe.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden’s militant organization al-Qaeda, and was specifically in charge of leading al-Qaeda’s propaganda operations from around 1999 until late 2001. Mohammed was captured on March 1, 2003 in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi by a combined operation of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Immediately after his capture, Mohammed was taken to secret CIA prison sites in Afghanistan, then Poland, where he was interrogated by U.S. operatives. By December 2006, he had been transferred to military custody at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Sensationally nabbed in Pakistan, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was photographed for the world in a disheveled state immediately after his capture—symbolizing an apparent laying low of the once mighty al-Qaeda network. According to his US captors, he later provided information that thwarted other attacks.
Mohammed is widely regarded as the chief planner of the September 11 attacks. The United States government has alleged that he further participated in planning Richard Reid’s shoe bombing attempt to attack an airliner, the 2002 Bali bombings in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the murder of Daniel Pearl and various foiled attacks as well as numerous other crimes. These claims have been criticised by others, such as military prosecutor Moe Davis and journalist Andrew Brown, as inadmissible due to being obtained through torture. He was charged in February 2008 with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which could carry the death penalty if convicted. A 2008 decision by the United States Supreme Court had also drawn into question the legality of the methods used to gain such admissions and the admissibility of such admissions as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
This image shows Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks, photographed shortly after his capture during a joint raid in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003.
In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Constantinople Sends Aid Core Event from The Shores of Tripoli from Fort Circle Games.
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 #9 Daily Military Train
This is one of the cards I added to Checkpoint Charlie based on conversations with my local coffee shop spy, John (see Card #7). I had assumed most significant traffic from West Germany to Berlin used the autobahn corridor from Checkpoint Alpha at Helmstedt, across East Germany, to Checkpoint Bravo in Berlin. However, the military trains, of which there were three – American, French and British – ran every day, back and forth along roughly the same corridor as the automobile traffic. The US Military Duty Train, which my friend John rode, let out at the station in Charlottenburg and is the basis for this Event Card. It was primarily used by US military personnel, but other people associated with the military could get permission to ride.
Cars full of East German police, or vopos, kept vigilant watch over the autobahn access route, but it was more difficult to keep track of the train and whether western passengers were jumping off illegally somewhere in East Germany, or East German citizens were boarding the train as it slowed for one of its scheduled stops along the way, getting free passage into West Berlin. To solve this problem, all doors on the train were chained and padlocked for the duration of the four-hour journey across East Germany. In Checkpoint Charlie, the Daily Military Train Event assumes that the KGB has been tipped off to the arrival of some interesting person or item on the next train and move to intercept. Charlottenburg Safehouse is placed under surveillance and the Nugget Marker, already detected, is placed there. This can be a useful diversion for your assets, or it can draw KGB agents right into the center of your mission.
The Berlin Military Train operated by the Royal Corps of Transport.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Moscow Rules.
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.
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.
#99: Truman Doctrine from Twilight Struggle: The Cold War, 1945-1989 from GMT Games
Twilight Struggle is a 2-player game simulating the forty-five year ideological struggle known as the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States which can be played in 2-3 hours. The entire world is the stage on which these two countries “fight” to make the world safe for their own ideologies and way of life. The game starts right after the end of World War II in the midst of the ruins of Europe as the two new “superpowers” of the world squabble over what is left and ends in 1989, when only the United States remained standing.
The map is a world map of the period, where players abstractly move units and exert influence through the placing of Influence Markers in an attempt to build local support and gain allies and control for their superpower. The beauty of the CDG system used here is that each decision of whether to use a card for the event or the operations value is a struggle as if it is the other side’s event, it might go off hurting you very badly. There are mechanics to allow for the ignoring or cancelling of some of the best cards for your opponent in a side game within the game called The Space Race as well as nuclear tensions, with the possibility of game-ending global thermonuclear war (Shall we play a game, anyone?). I have played TS about 30 times and love it more and more with each sitting. The game makes me sweat, cringe, jump with joy and bite my fingernails. To me, a game that can do all of that in one sitting is worth the price.
The Truman Doctrine is an Early War U.S. 1 Op Event Card that removes all Soviet Influence from a single country in Europe where the U.S. has presence. This means that the U.S. at least has 1 Influence in a space and the space must be uncontrolled. I think that players should be judicious and patient with this card and do not rush to play early in the game on Turn 1 or Turn 2 if Europe is stable and the USSR has minimal presence there. The best way to use the card is to wait for a window where you can do the most damage in a key Battleground space where each side has been fighting for control by placing Influence there such as in France or West Germany on the last action round of a turn or playing the card during the Headline Phase to wipe out stacked Soviet Influence as a precursor to bumping up your own Influence there for control. The Truman Doctrine card is such a nice booby trap in many ways and the proper use of it can be very efficient and give you a leg up in Europe.
The Truman Doctrine was a United States foreign policy established by President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947, which pledged that the U.S. would provide political, military, and economic assistance to democratic nations threatened by external or internal authoritarian forces. President Harry S. Truman asked for $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey. “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,” Truman declared. “If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world — and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.”
In asserting that the U.S. would intervene in faraway conflicts, President Truman dramatically reoriented U.S. foreign policy. The writing of this ground-breaking message went through multiple stages. In his memoir, Truman noted that the State Department’s first draft of the speech “was not at all to my liking.” Rather than asserting a new foreign policy doctrine, the State Department writers had “made the whole thing sound like an investment prospectus.” Truman returned the draft to Secretary of State Dean Acheson “with a note asking for more emphasis on a declaration of general policy.”
The State Department complied, and included a general policy statement in the next draft. But Truman was not satisfied. “It seemed to me half-hearted,” he recalled. President Truman “scratched out” what he deemed equivocations. For example, Truman replaced “should” with “must” in a key sentence that read “I believe that it should be the policy of the United States…” According to Truman, “I wanted no hedging in this speech.” Because this speech “was America’s answer to the surge of expansion of Communist tyranny,” it “had to be clear and free of hesitation or double talk.” A total of eight drafts of Truman’s speech to Congress are featured on the Truman Library’s website. Many include handwritten comments and corrections. Combined, they give readers a sense of the tremendous effort that went into drafting the Truman Doctrine as well as the importance a single word can make when crafting foreign policy.
Truman delivered his address on March 12, 1947. Over the next several weeks, Congress debated the merits of Truman’s proposed foreign policy. On April 22nd, the Senate approved the legislation to provide assistance to Greece and Turkey. The House followed suit, approving the bill on May 9th. On May 22, 1947, Truman signed the bill into law. According to President Truman, the enactment of his bill “served notice that the march of Communists would not be allowed to succeed by default.”
We have played all of the games in the Reivers and Reformers Series designed by Ed Beach, including Here I Stand (multiple times), Virgin Queen (multiple times but not as many as HIS), Tanto Monta (once) and Border Reivers (twice) with our most recent play being a full 5-player game in March while attending Buckeye Game Fest. This series is just special and I very much enjoy our experience with these games each time we play them. The card driven mechanic simply makes the series and it really is a bit of a sandbox as you can win in various and sundry ways. Several months ago, GMT announced the fifth entry in the series called Foxes and Lions:Renaissance City-States in the Age of Machiavelli designed by the duo of Paul Wright and Liz Davidson. This one looks to be epic and is set during warring city-states and dominions of Renaissance Italy during the era known as the Italian Wars (specifically, the period from 1494 to 1527). I am very keen on a new addition to the series and look forward to diving in and learning more about the game over the next year or so. My first step was to reach out to the design team to do a designer interview and Paul Wright was more than willing to answer our questions.
*Note: The pictures used in this interview showing the various components and cards, are still in the design and development process and as such rules,event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the components are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
Grant: Paul welcome to our blog. First off, please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
Paul: From Chicago originally, I’m a cultural historian by training, having taken my doctorate in Comparative Literature at Princeton and worked with the masterful historian Anthony Grafton. I’m happy if even a tiny percentage of his vast knowledge has lodged itself in me. My focus in my doctoral research was Renaissance humanism in Italy and England, including work on Leonardo Bruni, Pico della Mirandola, Machiavelli, Gabriel Harvey, and John Milton. I have been dialoguing with Machiavelli ever since my undergraduate days at Northwestern, when one of my mentors (the wonderful Albert Ascoli) tasked me with translating long sections of The Prince into English. I’m certain those early efforts were awful and too literal-minded, but what an instructive exercise that has only made me more admiring of great translators. Alongside Machiavelli remaining a key part of my research, I have also been working on the political and social impact of Savonarola.
I taught for three decades in higher education, including my graduate T.A. days at Princeton, as well as teaching posts at Osaka University, Villanova University, and Cabrini University. That last school, sadly, closed in the wake of all the pressures on higher ed in the last fifteen years or so. I then turned to teaching in the independent school world, which brought me to Main Line Classical Academy in Bryn Mawr, PA, where I teach English and History, as well as a games-based learning history elective funded by a grant I recently received from the Renaissance Society of America.
In my games-based learning exercises in my classrooms over the years, I have used analog board games as well as the occasional computer game (Europa Universalis in particular), but I also use role-immersion pedagogies like Reacting to the Past; I serve on the national consortium board for RTTP (for more info, see https://reactingconsortium.org/). I’m currently developing a RTTP game on Florence in the period 1494-1512, the era of the republic with the Medici in exile. In that game students may take on one of over thirty historical roles, including Piero Soderini, Da Vinci, Da Vinci’s portrait subject Ginevra de Benci, followers of Savonarola, condottiere Fabrizio Colonna, or even Machiavelli himself. Think of this as a role-playing game that zooms in even further than does Foxes and Lions. The game has been tested by professors at over a dozen institutions so far; it will be used in a high school setting for the first time this year.
My hobbies include film and media studies. I have taught film and media courses (on everything from the Coen Brothers to Kurosawa to The Sopranos) at the Bryn Mawr Film Institute for some twenty years now. I also have a screenplay (in painfully drafted form) on Machiavelli’s time spent with Cesare Borgia, which certainly informed Machiaveli’s thinking and later writing.
I also treasure any chance to travel abroad, and it was a big part of my higher ed career in international affairs. I hate how expenses have curtailed that experience for so many of us, as well as how the U.S. has become less welcoming to international students. Not surprisingly perhaps, Italy is my favorite destination, with Albania (home country of my wife) and China (home country of my daughter) tied for a close second. I also lived and taught in Japan for four years from 1996-2000, and it was one of the most formative times of my life; I treat any chance to return as a treat.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?
Paul: I waded into game design after decades of intensive play of wargames, euros, RPGs, and so many other types of games that I’m clearly an omni-gamer—certainly on the heavier side of the complexity scale with a focus on historical games. I’ve always been happy to solo (even multi-handed) because playing more games teaches you so much about how games are put together and how they try to model complex realities, including the past. I’m an admirer of David Lowenthal’s classic book, The Past Is a Foreign Country, which certainly evokes how games draw me into historical eras and crises.
I’ve also been blessed in Philadelphia, my home of 26 years now, with the best gaming group anyone could ask for—a group of people who are kind, seriously competitive yet never obnoxious, while also being sharp and funny as hell. Between my own solo forays and playing with them, it has been an education that led to this first ever design for me. My Philadelphia group are truly shadow co-designers in their way.
What I’ve most enjoyed about design is the sense of something evolving before your eyes that captures the history as I understand it, but I also love designs that challenge or revise my understanding. Collaborating with an amazing co-designer in Liz Davidson and developer extraordinaire Joe Dewhurst has been an absolute treat. I’m spoiled by having these two on my team.
Grant: What have you learned about design over the years?
Paul: Like many designers, I have many designs that never saw the light of day; some of these will come to fruition, I think, once Foxes and Lions is released. What I do know is that I’m a designer by theme and subject who looks far and wide for mechanics that will capture the historical complexities that fascinate me. I know many work in the opposite direction starting with mechanics, but that’s not how I’m wired. I start with a theme or problem that haunts me, then see if a game (mine or someone else’s) can help to illuminate it—or at minimum, reframe my questions more powerfully.
I also see historical game design as a way of testing and modifying (not merely reinforcing) my own interpretive and historiographical assumptions. One of the reasons I began the journey with Foxes and Lions over a decade ago now is that I had deep questions about Machiavelli, his theories, his playful will to narrative, and the era through which he lived, an era that we all too facilely collapse under the rubric of the “Italian Wars” or “The Renaissance.” Game design can be a heuristic tool that can bear fruit eventually in a new interpretation or synthesis that we hadn’t anticipated. At minimum, it clarifies my own tortured thinking and reading of the sources.
Grant: What is your upcoming game Foxes and Lions: Renaissance City-States in the Age of Machiavelli about?
Paul: Foxes and Lions: Renaissance City-States in the Age of Machiavelli is the next game in the GMT series that includes Here I Stand, Virgin Queen, and Tanto Monta. Focused on the warring city-states and dominions of Renaissance Italy during the era known as the “Italian Wars” (specifically, the period from 1494 to 1527), this game zooms in on the Italian peninsula. Unlike many other games on the Italian Wars, Foxes and Lions puts the focus on Italian experiences of this era of enormous upheaval, which also saw some of the greatest cultural splendors that we now associate with the period known, not without controversy, as the Renaissance. The game depicts the political, military, economic, religious, and cultural affairs of five key Italian powers brought to life by players (Florence, Milan, Naples, Venice, and the Papacy).
Players struggle to create political legitimacy for themselves while contending with both Italian rivals and non-player great powers intent on conquest of their own objectives in Italy; namely, France, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. For those who have played other series games, much will be familiar mechanically, but there are many new concepts and mechanics to enjoy, including experimenting with different government types, managing local sentiment, and gathering precious florins to pay for mercenaries and their fickle condottieri captains.
Furthermore, players will be faced with the possibility of collective defeat to the non-player great powers. Players will individually pursue Virtù Points, drawing on Machiavelli’s famously pliable conception of political ability and military strength, while at the same time striving to avoid collective defeat by loss of Italian Virtù Points. Dwindling Italian Virtù embodies Machiavelli’s abiding fear of great power domination of Italy. Players will each attempt to win without Italy falling into the subjection that was historically its fate, and should they fail to prevent that, the game ascribes blame to the specific players viewed as the scourge of Italy and the new lapdog of the great powers. Can you thread the needle between your Italian rivals’ ambitions and the threat posed by the great powers of Europe?
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest in making a game?
Paul: This subject got under my skin as an undergrad as I mentioned above. I first fell in love with Dante in multiple courses with terrific and yet very different teachers. They graciously invited me to join their graduate courses as an undergrad. Milton, Spenser, and a host of political poets in the epic tradition caught my eye there too, but I fell hardest for Dante and his era. As I went on to graduate school, that love of Dante abided, but Machiavelli re-entered the chat, as it were.
After my graduate experience with Machiavelli (thanks especially to one of my teachers, Victoria Kahn), I was never quite the same. Machiavelli embodied someone both deeply troubled and somehow deeply amused by a world that was falling down around him. His political career began in the wake of the 1494 Medici exile, the rise of Savonarola, and the restoration of a republic that had long been under the Medici yoke. His career ended the first time in 1512 with the Medici restoration. It ended again with another Medici exile in 1527, with yet another republic that didn’t really trust Machiavelli anymore given his courting of Medici patronage in the intervening years. Above all, the traumatic Sack of Rome in 1527 really shook Machiavelli. He died just over a month after the Sack, witnessing exactly the kind of Italian nightmare that he had warned about for years. Someone who had lived that much life and turmoil became endlessly fascinating to me. I know Machiavelli will be a part of my scholarship and design life for the duration.
Grant: How did you come to team up with Liz Davidson on this project?
Paul: Liz has become a dear friend as well as collaborator and sounding board on everything from our shared gaming interests to our broader professional and personal lives. We met because I invited her to be a keynote speaker at a Reacting to the Past game design conference at my former institution. She was not only awesome in that role, but we immediately hit it off as people. It wasn’t long till we were talking regularly cross-country and at conventions, then talking about collaborations.
Grant: What strengths did each of you bring to the design process?
Paul: In the case of Foxes and Lions, I obviously brought the historical background and scholarly passion to the project, which I had first formulated about six or seven years before Liz and I met. But in all candor, I was spinning my wheels. I was swamped with the faculty and administration politics of a dying institution, and I was smack dab in the middle of all that drama in a leadership role for our faculty. It took Liz to help me see the real comfort of game design and of throwing myself back into my true passions, especially for Foxes and Lions.
It also helps enormously that Liz is a doctorate-holding historian of religion herself with a focus on the ancient world. And as anyone passionate about the period knows, the Renaissance was defined in many ways by its relationship to the classical world, so while Liz wasn’t an early modernist or medievalist, she understood intuitively and on a deep level why a classicist would enjoy and contribute to a game about the Renaissance. Simply put, without Liz, there is no Foxes and Lions for the world, just the game in my head. Liz also has a sharp sense of end-user needs in game design. How something will play to a more general audience and not just specialists or heavy gamers. To be clear, our game is a heavy game situated within a heavy (yet beloved) series, but Liz is working hard on materials to onboard people as only she can, including training guides, videos, and more. She is doing an amazing service with this in relation not only to our game, but also the series at large. Stay tuned for more of these things in the months to come.
I’d also be remiss not to mention the support and encouragement of Volko Ruhnke. After he visited my former university as keynote panelist for a games-as-scholarship workshop, we talked about Foxes and Lions possibly joining the COIN series in the vein of other pre-modern titles like Falling Sky and Pendragon. Liz and I even prototyped a first COIN version of our game. It was fun and quirky; it could have possibly thrived in COIN world, but at the end of the day GMT’s Jason Carr wisely suggested a retooling to the Here I Stand line. That was preaching to the choir for me given my admiration for Ed Beach and for the series. Ed became yet another guiding light as we got to know him. One of my proudest moments was having Ed participate in a play of the game at WBC this past summer. They say don’t meet your heroes; both Volko and Ed prove that dictum wrong.
Grant: What has been the division of labor between you?
Paul: Liz and I both have day jobs that are very consuming. She as creative director at Leder Games, myself as an educator (a role Liz had also previously played in independent schools). Yet we both get up incredibly early, whether we are meeting or not. We are always busy with our games at every spare moment. Liz has so many games on her plate, including with other collaborators like David Thompson, another designer for whom I’m an unabashed fanboy. I’ve got Foxes and Lions of course as my primary focus, but also a book project on Machiavelli and the Reacting to the Past role-immersion game on Machiavelli’s Florence that I mentioned earlier.
I would call our division of labor something like triage; think ER or The Pitt. We are each picking up the slack when needed, prioritizing one thing or another. If there is a functional division right now, I’m heavy into the rules and component revisions, as well as early TTS testing, about to go wider as of November 2026. Liz is contributing to the InsideGMT articles we are posting on the game; her favorite subject, not surprisingly if you know her, being espionage for an upcoming piece. Liz is also there anytime we need to vet some unusual change or some stubborn holdover of mine from earlier iterations of the game. Liz will give you her most honest take on how something plays and how it will feel in the game experience. Liz has an reliable, sure sense of that. As I mentioned, she is also developing onboarding materials for newbies that I think will be awesome.
The few times we have not seen eye to eye (and I can count them on one hand), we have always had principled discussions of where each of us is coming from, and that has always lit the way to a solution. Like myself, Liz is an omni-gamer with an historian and educator’s perspective on things. That fundamental commonality has always carried us through. Having Joe Dewhurst as our developer has been equally essential as he too is an educator and scholar, and his sharp eye for what will make a game its best is invaluable. As with Liz, no Foxes and Lions in its current exciting form without Joe.
Grant: What is your design goal with the game?
Paul: If I have an historian’s axe to grind with many games on the Italian Wars and Renaissance, they have never quite to my satisfaction captured the cultural dynamism, complexity, and sheer messiness of the period. There are success stories among Renaissance games to be sure. Many games attempt to capture the military picture and do so well; on the tactical front, Rich Berg’s Arquebus comes to mind here as well as the lesser known and under-appreciated Brien Miller game, Fornovo 1495.
Other games attempt to integrate military concerns with politics and economics on a grand scale, and of course Eivind Vetlesen’s Europa Universalis: The Price of Power comes to mind here as a masterful and inspiring example, although the cultural and political front in that game is more driven by events than player agency compared to Foxes and Lions. Pascal Ribrault’s Virtù is also an interesting euro that tackles some of these concerns in an accessible way.
And of course, we have the crowded field of games tapping into Renaissance commercialism. Brasini, Gigli, and Luciani’s Lorenzo il Magnifco and Fabiano Lopiano’s Calimala come to mind here. An underappreciated and roughhewn gem is Mario Papini’s Siena; his better-known De Vulgari Eloquentia is terrific. On the art front, Stefano Groppi’s Florenza looms large in my mind for its attention to both Florentine art and the material and political considerations behind that art; it’s also just a beautiful game to look at.
Yet for all those examples above, Ed Beach’s Here I Stand and Virgin Queen were the guiding lights to Foxes and Lions—alongside the interest in political asymmetry that transcends the traditional wargame fixation on “control,” a paradigm shift displayed so beautifully in Volko’s COIN series. What Morgane Gouyon-Rety attempted so ambitiously in Pendragon also figures in my original thinking about the game. Morgane and I have chatted of late about how the character-driven conceptualization of ever-shifting rulers has serendipitously shaped both her Hubris game and Foxes and Lions.
Yet for my design purposes, what Ed’s work on Here I Stand proved was that a wargame could tackle vitally important and culturally adjacent aspects of the period that impact things happening on the strategic battlefield—in Ed’s case the religious strife of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. COIN demonstrates to us that the sentiment and shifting support of an administered population is just as important as the intentions of those controlling a space—or trying to convince themselves that they do. This was very much on Machiavelli’s mind too.
In addition to wanting to make a game that captures the overdetermined messiness and intricacy of the Italian Renaissance, especially during the Italian Wars per se, we also wanted a game that “consciously uncoupled” (to riff on Gwyneth Paltrow’s marital breakup language) from reliance on “great power” narratives. Those narratives and the assumptions implicit in them are a recurring feature of most games on the Italian Wars and even of the Here I Stand series to date. We wanted ultimately to put the focus on Italian experiences of those conflicts—in the process creating a HIS series game about underdogs.
This was more than about zooming in on the map of Italy as depicted in earlier series games, something Carlos’s Tanto Monta did to a degree that left me hungry to do far more given my own scholarly interests in Italy. Yet it was above all about letting players personify powers that were otherwise total underdogs (or minor powers at best) in the context of the rest of the series and most other games on the period.
In this way, Avalon Hill’s out-of-print classic Machiavelli comes to mind for its attention to Italian powers alongside the greater powers of Europe and the Ottoman world. Our elevator pitch for Foxes and Lions remains a good formula—the old Machiavelli game brought to life in the mechanical exoskeleton of the Here I Stand system. Finally, as I get into in more detail below, we wanted a game that honored the messy contradictions and true interests of Machiavelli and didn’t simply replicate the many misleading stereotypes about him.
Grant: How have you modified the Here I Stand System to recount the story of the rise and fall of Renaissance City-States in the Age of Machiavelli between 1494-1527?
Paul: In addition to the non-player great powers mentioned earlier, the game features other significant additions or changes to series conventions.
Political traditions—These are the governments (current and past) that define the political character of any given space in the game (featuring merchant republics, feudal aristocracies, princedoms, theocracies, tribute states, and vassals). In keeping with Machiavelli’s respect for founders of institutions, lawgiving will be an available action that permits you to attempt to alter governments in your dominion. Each space under your control may have a very different political arrangement, which affects its prosperity, unit construction capability, and many other things. Your central government (that of your capital) may also change over time.
Sentiment—This captures the current attitude of the local population to the government overseeing it. The scale of sentiment reflects Machiavelli’s own terminology, ranging from “Hated” to “Feared,” to “Feared and Loved” (the latter an ideal Machiavelli thought hard to achieve, opting instead for being “Feared” whenever a choice between fear and love was unavoidable).
New unit types—Regulars are split into citizen militia and feudal levies, alongside a more detailed look at mercenaries (with elite variants including the Swiss reisläufer and the Imperial landsknechte).
Condottieri captains—Twenty of the colorful, talented, and sometimes treacherous mercenary captains of the era will be available to players in competitive blind bidding for their services, with each captain reflecting unique battlefield abilities, vulnerabilities, and other surprising game impacts. Captains are essential to success in the game, and if not properly paid and retained, will go up for auction again; they may even be suborned and taken from you by nefarious rival actions. Among the captains are the infamous Cesare Borgia, Fabrizio Colonna, Giovanni delle Bande Nere, and “El Gran Capitán” himself, Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba. Yet the captains also include those who are captains for our game, but not condottieri narrowly defined; these include militaristic cardinals like Francesco Alidosi as well as the famously defiant Caterina Sforza.
Money economy—Alongside the high-level political capital of command points (CP) already familiar to CDG players, Foxes and Lions features the cold, hard cash that mercenaries and dominions crave. Florins are collected by a trade action connected to the prosperity of the various governments in one’s dominion. The florin economy will be necessary not only to pay or bribe mercenaries and captains, but also for espionage, government maintenance, and more. Player treasuries are hidden behind a screen, so no one is ever quite sure of a rival’s wealth. Should you run out of florins for a required or desired expenditure, the banks will be available to lend to you at exorbitant interest rates, and failure to repay may cost you dearly.
Espionage available from turn one—Nefarious measures are available to players from the outset of the game, including familiar operations from Virgin Queen like Gain Intel and Assassination, now supplemented with Appeasement, Foment Rebellion, Sabotage Fortifications, and Suborning others’ employed condottieri to your cause.
New patronage systems and figures—For those familiar with Virgin Queen, patronage now features three tracks (artists, scientists, and humanists) with 10 figures of each type. Each patronage target affords unique game effects. Among the 30 patronage subjects are figures such as Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Botticelli, Copernicus, Pacioli, Paracelsus, Machiavelli, Manutius, and even a prying poet-courtesan, Tullia d’Aragona.
New ruler dynamics—Each player will have an often-volatile lineup of rulers who will transition based on circumstances in the game (26 rulers in total across five player powers). In the case of the Papal States, a conclave procedure involving all five players will determine the next pope whenever the current pope dies, however mysteriously.
Variable impulse order—Players may bid their florins to change the impulse order for a given turn, creating dynamic opportunities for surprising your enemies—or lying in deadly wait for them.
More opportunities to declare war mid-action phase—No game about Machiavelli’s era would be complete without the temptations and risks of back-stabbing rivals, even erstwhile allies, including in the middle of a turn. Great coalitions (like the historical “Holy League”) may form, but no alliance is ever truly safe.
Grant: What elements do you feel are most important to model from the period?
Paul: If there was one thing that consumed me more than anything else in formulating this game years ago, it was the desire to make the best possible game on the richness, diversity, and contradictions in Machiavelli’s whole body of work—a game that would capture Machiavelli the writer and, above all, the human being as I’ve come to know him.
I didn’t want a game that just brought The Prince to life, or that just reveled in the skullduggery so often associated with Machiavelli, even in games that somehow invoke him. I wanted a game that also featured the other Machiavelli(s). The celebrator of republics in the Discourses on Livy who also knew just how fragile republics really are, a lesson for today if ever there was one. Machiavelli the historian in his state-sponsored Florentine Histories, an example of urban history compromised by political pressures to dance around certain uncomfortable truths. Machiavelli the military theorist of The Art of War, who appreciated the potentially dangerous impact of militarism on civic life in addition to the positive virtues of citizen soldiers (there is something of both James Madison and Stephen Ambrose in Machiavelli here). And finally, even the Machiavelli of La Mandragola (“The Mandrake Root”), a viciously funny sex comedy about cuckolding with a sly political subtext commenting on the differences between classical virtues and Renaissance realities. Further down in this interview, you can see three event cards that were inspired by Machiavelli’s diverse array of writings.
In all that effort, we also want to be sure that Foxes and Lions never simply takes Machiavelli at his word or at face value. Given his own internal contradictions, that would be unwise. We instead see the game as interrogating Machiavelli’s assumptions and claims. His critique of mercenaries versus citizen militia is explored both in design and in actual play, never simply rehearsed uncritically. His appreciation for the libertà of republics is tempered by his continued recognition of their fragility and their vulnerability to other powers with more direct mechanisms of control and decision-making; think here of today’s debates about democracy and autocracy.
Machiavelli’s sense was that Italy might be doomed by great power intrigue—exacerbated by Italian powers courting the greats to their own ends rather than looking to Italy’s good. This was always balanced with a deep yet tortured belief in the possibility of resuscitating Italian virtù. In addition, we wade in this game into Machiavelli’s discussion of virtù itself, a term almost untranslatable given its variety of uses in his works. The tension between individual and communal greatness was always on Machiavelli’s mind in using that term—with a preference at last for the latter as it was most pursuant to true glory and historical legacy, as well as most compatible with republics. Lawgivers (as opposed to generals and strongmen) were always most admired by Machiavelli, I would say. The serendipity of our victory points in the game easily transmuting into “Virtù Points” was an early discovery, as was realizing that we should also track Italian Virtù Points to gauge the threat of collective defeat.
To say that this is a game of ideas in the crucible of conflict is an understatement, but even more vital to us is that the game’s ideas should be tested in a sandbox of historical conditions that confronted the historical actors, both individual and collective. We want a game that is not on historical rails, but that instead allows for historically plausible surprises and strange developments. So far testing has provided just that. Thankfully, the game allows shockers—the imperial troops of Charles V against Cesare Borgia; Savonarola arranging a cuckolding of the “Warrior Pope” Julius II; Piero de’ Medici lingering on for multiple turns as the hapless ruler of Florence. Testing has seen a lot of these unanticipated “what ifs,” and we imagine even more strange developments over the life of the game. Above all, testers have stressed just how fun and crazy the game can be. Mission accomplished, to my mind.
Grant: What major design challenges did you encounter and how did you overcome them?
Paul: I go into more detail on this below, but one of the challenges I personally faced is the same that confronts any designer—the old “kill your darlings” mantra. This is why I’m especially grateful to Liz and to our amazing Joe Dewhurst on the development end. While there are many things in Foxes and Lions that I deem “thesis-level” in importance and non-negotiable, there are plenty of things I fell in love with early on that it took me time to see were hampering the design and gameplay.
Sometimes you don’t have to kill the “darling” as much as reshape it. One example is sentiment, discussed above. At one point, we really needed to find a way to make sentiment matter more to the game mechanically. We had it as conceptually important, and it truly is, but it wasn’t doing what we needed to make players care about it. Once Liz and Joe encouraged connecting sentiment to espionage, battlefield impacts, and other power-specific concerns, I saw the light. We didn’t jettison sentiment, but we made it matter to players and to the thesis of the game. A similar thing happened with political traditions. Originally, we were tracking up to four governments (current and previous) in each space’s political traditions box. We wisely revised so that now you only trace the current government and any previous dominant political tradition in that space; that simplification kept the interest in government forms without creating a truly unwieldy board state.
In other cases, you do just need to kill the “darling” altogether, as we did with dynamic prosperity management for each space. While each space still has a political traditions box and its current government affords a trade value to that space impacting your power’s florin economy, originally I was foolishly insistent that each space have dynamic prosperity that you could spend CP to raise or lower (subject to caps by government type). That might have worked for a computer version of the game, but it was decidedly awful for a game that already has lots of moving parts and elements new to the series. Dynamic prosperity was not only killing the delicate Command Point economy of the game, but it was also just boring to players. They definitely wanted florins and economics, but they didn’t need that much granularity. Again, so grateful I had Liz and Joe to help me see the light. The game is way better for all these refinements.
Grant: How does designing a game in an established system work? Any constraints on your thoughts for the period?
Paul: One might think designing within an existing series framework is an easier task. There is a template, a style, and a set of mechanics and design assumptions. And to an extent, this is true. It’s nice to “stand on the shoulders of giants” like our predecessors in the series, Ed Beach and Carlos Diaz Narvaez.
The difficulties I encountered, however, were met and overcome thanks to a 2025 game designer retreat hosted on Beaver Island, Michigan by Central Michigan University’s Center for Learning through Games and Simulations, run by my friend and an intrepid scholar of colonial Mexico, Jon Truitt. In that weeklong retreat in a remote, beautiful setting, I spent uninterrupted days studying the entire Here I Stand series and its rulebooks. I wrote the new rules for Foxes and Lions from the ground up there, with an eye toward retaining what was essential to the series while weaving in what was of thesis-level importance to our game and its historical setting.
The real challenge of adapting to an existing series framework is not so much what you will keep, but what you will add or change altogether. If you are standing on that giant’s shoulders, you never want to annoy (let alone topple) the giant carrying you by flailing around thoughtlessly in a shared design space. In this case, the giant isn’t just someone like Ed; it’s a community of dedicated series players who have made HIS games a lifestyle choice. Many of them are making series games of their own, such as the gracious and supportive Luis Rubio, whose game Primus Inter Pares is of great interest to me.
We know this community will put Foxes and Lions through its paces. We know too that GMT is seeking a game about the complexity of Virgin Queen, a design goal we share and think we have met. Things that we don’t fret over in our game (e.g., the religious mechanics of Here I Stand) are replaced by things that we feel we must have (e.g., political traditions).
The way Liz and I have tackled any additions or changes to the sturdy, muscular frame that is this series is always to ask a fundamental question of anything new. Does it support a “thesis-level” contention or historical organizing principle of the game? Does it add something to the series that offers a new, welcome dimension to gameplay that shakes things up for the better? If something didn’t speak to one of those needs, we generally ended up revising it until it did or dumping it.
Ultimately, we never felt the series hamstrung our vision of the period, but it enriched it. What we kept our attention on was how you can redeploy series conventions to treat a more focused region that would be a mere few spaces in the larger scale games like Virgin Queen. This change of scale and perspective was a challenge, but the system opened itself to that. To borrow from my side work as a teacher of film, we think of Foxes and Lions as zooming the camera in from the eagle-eye view of the great powers in the other series games. Like Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard, the Italian Wars (and as I keep stressing, the Italian experience of those conflicts) were ready for their closeup.
Grant: What sources did you consult for the historical details? What one must-read source would you recommend?
Paul: I could be here all day talking about the game’s primary and secondary sources, but I’ll keep it brief. Liz and I recently did a video about precisely this topic of sources or ancillary readings for the game and you can watch that at the following link:
The books we mentioned there are terrific places to begin. Some commentary follows the list here.
The Essential Writings of Machiavelli (translated by Peter Constantine)
Foxes and Lions: Machiavelli’s Confidence Men by Wayne A. Rebhorn
The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy by Jacob Burckhardt
The Beauty and the Terror by Catherine Fletcher
The Machiavellian Moment by J. G. A. Pocock
Niccolo’s Smile by Maurizio Viroli
Inventing the Renaissance by Ada Palmer
Florentine Histories by Machiavelli (translated by Laura Banfield and Harvey Mansfield)
A History of Florence 1200-1575 by John Najemy
Fortune is a Woman by Hanna Pitkin
The Tigress of Forlì by Elizabeth Lev
Fortune is a River by Roger Masters
Mercenaries and their Masters by Michael Mallett
The Italian Wars 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe by Christine Shaw and Michael Mallett
This is very much a partial list. Of these, the most welcomely irreverent in terms of pieties about the Renaissance is Palmer’s Inventing the Renaissance. Great stuff that explodes many preconceptions and has some great sections on Machiavelli. That side, the pieties deserve their day in court too though, and no one was more influential there than Burckhardt. It has become fashionable to pile on Burckhardt for his missteps, which is a shame because there is much he got right to which it is worth returning.
Mallet and Shaw are terrific on the Italian Wars proper, as well as the role of condottieri, whom they treat evenhandedly and with nuance missing elsewhere. Roger Masters in Fortune Is a River illuminates a lesser-known military plan to deploy terraforming of all things; the book explores a collaboration between Da Vinci and Machiavelli to divert the Arno River to strike at Florence’s favorite obsession, Pisa. The book puts into dialogue two of the most unique figures in the Renaissance; it remains a proud moment for me that I introduced my dissertation Tony Grafton to this book, as it is quite rare to find anything on this period that Tony hasn’t already read.
I’d of course recommend reading Machiavelli himself, but please, read widely, not just The Prince. There is as much to learn in his Discourses on Livy, Florentine Histories, Art of War, and his sex comedy Mandragola as there is anywhere else. Machiavelli even wrote some historical and political poetry (Decennali) on the dramas of his day.
John Najemy offers what I view as the single best modern history of Florence in English. Pocock’s classic, The Machiavellian Moment, is a most ambitious attempt to trace Machiavelli’s ideas about republics backwards to the ancient writer Polybius, but most compellingly forward to the English Civil War and the American Founding. A truly monumental book that loomed large in the conceptualization of the game.
Grant: What are the playable factions?
Paul: The player factions are the Republic of Venice, the Duchy of Milan, the Republic of Florence, the Kingdom of Naples, and the Papacy. These are the “big five” mentioned by Machiavelli in The Prince. They are confronted not only by each other, but also by four non-player “great powers”—France, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. Some have asked why Genoa is not among the playable powers; Machiavelli’s “big five” aside, this is because Genoa finds itself under the thumb of Milan at game start. It is a minor power held hostage by a player power, but it may break free and find new allies. I do have in mind a prequel expansion in which Genoa is playable though (see below for more on that).
Grant: How did you try to differentiate them in their style of gameplay?
Paul: The asymmetry of the playable powers is deeply baked into the game, both in the event deck featuring events drawing on their histories, but also in the mechanics, victory conditions, and play styles.
Venice begins the game leading the pack by a good margin. An economic powerhouse of merchant republican bent, Venice has wealth coming from its colonies abroad, especially the Balkans in our game. Yet, what was often called Venice’s “Long Decline,” which would not be completed until Napoleon’s era, was already in motion at the start of our game. The Ottomans threatening the colonies, combined with Venice’s own dangerous ambitions on the Italian mainland, would lead to disaster at Agnadello in 1509, with what must have felt like the world arrayed against Venice.
Milan begins as a powerful duchy, wherein the Visconti had been replaced by the condottieri family of the Sforzas long before game start. Milan has its thumb on Lombardy, but also Genoa. Genoa is a source of wealth and prestige, but also a constant headache and a state that might break loose. Milan is a viable threat for autowin and may expand south (as they did in the early 15th century), but it is also surrounded by great powers (notably, France and HRE), as well as neighboring Venice, their closest rival at game start.
Naples has the stability of a feudal kingdom to support its military and political cause, but it is also torn between the dynastic claims of the French and Spanish, which go back centuries. Naples is in a great position to keep what it has, but expanding toward victory is a major challenge unless it chooses to cross swords with the Papacy and others. Naples cannot rely on the status quo, even though the French armies of the time were already threatening that.
The Papacy is vexed by a roster of alternately skilled and disappointing rulers, as well as internal divisions in Roma between the Orsini and Colonna families, whose vendetta threatens both the city and papal stability. The Papacy has considerable spiritual powers with material benefits for its allies and punishments for its enemies. Occasionally it boasts military leadership to boot; think Cesare Borgia and Pope Julius II, the “Warrior Pope.” The Papacy’s advantages are often situational and fleeting though, and it is surrounded by rivals, not to mention great power intrigue (above all, from the Holy Roman Emperors, such as Charles V).
Finally, my beloved Florence. It begins with the single greatest mess of any of the powers. Piero de’ Medici, hapless and unprepared son of the late Lorenzo il Magnifico, is alienating citizens left and right. He is in the pocket of French interests and will controversially cede Pisa to King Charles VIII. In his wake comes someone no less controversial, Friar Savonarola, whose apocalyptic vision of Firenze as the “New Jerusalem” will bring it into direct conflict with the Papacy of the Borgia Pope Alexander VI. Their confrontation is an early set-piece in most games. The other rulers who follow the Friar (Piero Soderini and two Medici) offer radically different political visions for Florence. Of all five player powers, Florence must wrestle with the most political instability, particularly in a difficult starting position.
With Venice, Milan, and Naples functioning as the “big dogs” (at least among Italian player powers), both Florence and the Papacy have their work cut out for them, but many avenues to victory. Florence can play the patronage game like few others, and the Papacy will have opportunities for expansion as long as they also maintain their influence over the Christian great powers and keep the Orsini and Colonna in stalemate. Florence and the Papacy also have the game’s only option for a joint victory. Provided a Medici rules both powers (a thing not always easy to coordinate), they can win the game together by one of them achieving an autowin (i.e., military victory) on the map. This assumes of course both players are interested in and capable of this coordination.
Grant: As a CDG, how does the game utilize cards?
Paul: Our game uses the classic CDG framework of multi-use cards pioneered by Mark Herman and used to such great effect in the Here I Stand series. We have added some wrinkles, however. First, there are 26 rulers in the game (4 for Venice, 5 for Florence, 5 for Milan, 6 for Naples, and 6 for the Papacy). There are two home cards for each power, available from game start. Each home card can be used for varying purposes unique to that power, but one of the two home cards benefits more from that player having allies, who will also appreciate that card’s advantages to them. The other home card tends to be best when going it alone with few or no allies, but players are free to use either home card each turn. There are some events that impact this; one (“Well Governed Dominion”) allows a player to use both home cards that turn, while another (“Confused Administration”) allows a rival to force you to pick a home card of the rival’s choosing, while also saddling you with -1 card next turn.
Finally, we introduce an important new type of mandatory event card: Captain auction cards. These 20 figures represent the condottieri and other influential figures (even ostensibly non-military figures who nonetheless have a powerful effect on the battlefield and other arenas). Captains are the subject of aggressive florin bidding wars in secret auctions (or sometimes, assigned to a player with highest influence on a specific great power). As these captains are the most decisive on-map leaders in the game, accumulating them is vitally important, especially given the vagaries of a captain’s fate on the battlefield (a captain is a potential casualty in any battle, even a victory) and off (being subject to assassination attempts or certain events). Being a power without any captain at all is the surest way to be easy prey in a land of many predators.
Grant: Can you share a few examples of individual cards with us and explain how they work?
Paul: Here are some examples of the types of cards in Foxes and Lions, especially those that break with series conventions in one or more ways. Please note that all card images here are prototypes and will undergo further graphics work, refinement, etc. Some commentary follows the images.
First, let’s consider one of our rulers: Venice’s Andrea Gritti, not to be confused with the mind-warping mascot of the Philadelphia Flyers. In addition to typical Admin and Card Bonus ratings familiar to series veterans, each ruler card also includes important additional information. Every ruler in the game has conditions for accession and removal (if a game start ruler, removal only). These conditions are almost always situational in nature, and in Gritti’s case, depends on his predecessor Doge Grimani having been removed. Doges and Popes are most typically removed by failing a survival roll at end of each turn; some, but not all rulers have these rolls. Elderly doges and popes always do. We also see here Gritti’s effects on the game—a helpful boost when paying CP for diplomatic influence. Other leaders may have disadvantages and outright weaknesses (e.g., Piero de’ Medici’s awful Admin rating of 0).
In a sense, you must endure and exploit the ruler you have rather than necessarily embodying that ruler, as is more the role-playing conceit in other HIS series games. For example, in HIS, you feel you are Suleiman the Magnificent, and that’s great for that game with all its high-level great power shenanigans. But in Foxes and Lions, it might be most helpful to think of yourself as a Machiavelli-type advisor behind the scenes, and you certainly won’t relish embodying the weaker and more problematic rulers when navigating their serious tradeoffs. I sometimes think of the role-playing conceit of this game as you portraying no mere ruler or advisor, but perhaps an entire polity, a people weathering the rulers they’ve been dealt. The conceit at last is up to you and your play group.
Alfonso II of Naples is a different ruler example. He is the starting ruler for Naples. Alfonso is awful at Appeasement (formerly “Pacify” as seen here), which is the effort to improve sentiment in your dominion; he is so poor at this that no dominion space may even reach the coveted Feared and Loved status. Note too that while he does have a survival roll, he may also be removed if Napoli (the capital space proper) is enemy-controlled. This is a situational timer on this ruler, and other situational timers apply to many rulers (in Milan, Florence, and Naples especially).
The captain examples here include one conventional condottiere, Paolo Vitelli. You bid on captains when they are played as mandatory events. Some turns there will be few or no captains on which to bid; on other turns, they will appear in great waves. Each game play is very different on this front. Our Paolo, adept at siege assaults, nonetheless has an Achilles’ Heel—if he doesn’t assault at least once a turn, he is executed by his employer! This reflects the curious history of the real Paolo, whom the Florentines accused of treacherously soft-pedaling the siege of Pisa on their behalf. His execution enraged his brother Vitellozzo (another captain in the game), who will become an inveterate enemy of Paolo’s former employer if this happens (and it might be another power that employs Paolo, not necessarily Florence).
Then we have the illustrious Caterina Sforza, scion of a family of condottieri, but not herself one as classically defined. We felt it important that our game have a preponderance of captains who do fit that classic description, but we also wanted a few, unusual “captains” who don’t, but nonetheless had battlefield and even other impacts. Caterina is celebrated in Machiavelli’s Prince as a commanding leader defending the siege of Forlì, with Machiavelli (perhaps apocryphally) crediting her with this infamously defiant statement to her besieging enemies, who had kidnapped her sons and threatened their lives: “To show them that she did not care about her sons, she revealed her genitals, saying that she still had the means to produce more” (trans. Peter Constantine). Accordingly, in the true Man Who Shot Liberty Valance spirit of “printing the legend,” our Caterina excels in siege defense alongside other advantages upon “hiring.” If she has a vulnerability, it is that she will stand down and not fight against her beloved Milan. Every captain has a downside of sorts to go with the silver lining.
Finally, we have two card types familiar to series players, but with wrinkles. “Diplomatic Maneuvers in the Dark” is in one way your typical mandatory event; the event player gets 2 CP to spend after the mandatory event fires. What is important here is the event itself reminds us that a good number of event cards will drive the activities of the non-player great powers. Some of those events are optional, but many are mandatory to ensure regular activity on the part of the greats threatening Italy. This card also nicely pairs activation of one great power with evaluation of one minor power, the latter something quite familiar to series veterans.
The Home card example pairing here is also instructive. Both are from Florence. The first, “Civic Humanism,” exploits Florence’s advantages in patronage, lawgiving, and maintenance of dominion sentiment. The second, “Lucrative Textile Trade,” focuses on Florence’s distinctive economy in wool and cloth, but it also rewards Florence and its allies with additional florin generation beyond what is typical in the trade action. As remarkably different as the home cards of the others player powers are, this template of one ally-focused and one other home card is consistent throughout. Either card can be used with or without allies, but the ally-focused cards are especially attractive to courting, rewarding, and retaining allies. Until of course, they see you as being in the way of their own ambitions.
Grant: What role does Patronage play in the design? How have you modified the system used in Virgin Queen to fit this era and your focus?
Paul: The biggest change to patronage compared to Virgin Queen is the addition of humanists (broadly defined to include literary creators of all kinds) to the original categories of artists and scientists (also more broadly defined for our game’s purposes). We now have thirty patronage subjects (ten in each category), with two figures having different potential contributions in different categories (Michelangelo in both the arts and humanism for his poetry, and Da Vinci in both the arts and sciences for his engineering gifts).
Speaking to the broad definitions by category, a few examples suffice. Among the more predictable artists of the era, off the beaten path we have Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, a chronicler commissioned by Emperor Charles V. Vermeyen eventually designed the “Conquest of Tunis” tapestry series, and in some ways can be viewed as a proto-journalist. Among scientists in our game, we have Luca Pacioli, often credited as the “father of accounting.” And among our humanists (extended to include classicizing poets), we have Tullia D’Aragona, a brilliant courtesan-poet who can function as an espionage informant inflicted upon a rival; the rival must both pay Tullia and can never shake her off.
Another significant change from VQ is that for the most part, patronage figures are available for any power to patronize. A few have some restrictions; for example, Machiavelli is for Florence only, while Pico della Mirandola is available to any power except the Papacy given his storied troubles with the Church’s reaction to his more provocative ideas about syncretism. These less common examples aside, most patronage subjects are open to all comers.
We also modify the rollout of our many patronage subjects with only three in each category randomly selected from the available pool on turn 1, then three more added each turn thereafter (with all having appeared by turn 4, albeit in a different order each game). This creates a bit of uncertainty about when your preferred patronage target will become available; it also afford players less cognitive overload than were all ten figures of each type available from game start. Each patronage figure has unique game effects, some immediate and some long-term, and the effects run the gamut of applications to war, politics, economics, other patronage endeavors, or entirely different effects.
Unlike VQ where artists offered VP and scientists VP and/or abilities, every subject of each type in Foxes and Lions has a completely unique patronage ability and the capacity to reward VP. No two figures are the same, and each effect is tailored to the historical achievements or longer term influence of that person.
Grant: How important is Espionage? Why is it available early from Turn 1?
Paul: We wanted the cutthroat environment and skullduggery of Renaissance Italy to be captured from game start. We understand why Virgin Queen delays those things, but we felt Foxes and Lions needed it right off to be a believable recreation of that brutal environment in Italy. No one held back historically, so why should our players?
Espionage is one of the most effective tools at any power’s disposal in the game, but only if you really commit to it. We have seen some players go hard on it, while others stay focused on patronage, conquest, their own victory conditions, etc. If you are to make espionage work for you, having informants and (when possible by event) the cypher key (another holdover from VQ) goes a long way toward exploitation of these tools.
In addition to classic VQ-style espionage actions such as Plant Informant, Gain Intelligence, and Assassination, we also have Foment Rebellion to cause sentiment problems and unrest in enemy territory, as well as Appeasement to address or put down such problems.
We also offer a Sabotage Fortifications action that can remove fortified status from a target space—a nice complement we think to the ability in other series games to build fortifications. Successful sabotage doesn’t change a space’s key status (if any), and it can thematically be understood as anything appropriate to the space; in other words, it could be a literal sabotaging of town walls, but it could easily represent traitors in the leadership ranks of that town, undermining of garrison readiness, or anything else imaginatively appropriate. Fortifications themselves should also be understood in our game to be thematically diverse. In Forlì, there may be literal walls at Ravaldino, but in Volterra, this may additionally represent the natural defenses of high ground. In Venice, imagine the natural defensibility of Venice’s storied lagoon.
Lastly, the espionage action Suborn Captain allows a power to attempt corruption of a rival’s captain (i.e., a battlefield leader), causing that captain to join your cause and possibly causing defection of some of his mercenaries too. Our research has shown that, Machiavelli’s opinion notwithstanding, captains did not defect quite as often as is held by some, but we certainly allow for it to happen in the game as it did occasionally take place. It just won’t be a slam dunk without significant effort and investment (including florins).
In sum, we think espionage is especially robust in our game. Many creative uses are already being discovered in testing.
Grant: How is the next Pope decided when a change is called for? What dynamic does this create between players?
Paul: Pope Leo above is a good example of how the Papacy’s rollout of rulers is different from any other player power. You will note Leo becomes Pope by accession in Papal Conclave.
The Papal Conclave process is used anytime a pope has “shuffled off this mortal coil,” for whatever natural or nefarious reason you imagine. Other player powers have a fairly linear progression of rulers, who change based on shifting game conditions and/or survival rolls as specified on each ruler and discussed above. Yet early on, Liz and I decided it would be delicious fun to allow the popes of this era to roll out in a potentially different order based on conclave intrigue.
The short version is that a conclave does favor the Papacy player with some extra voting power, and any ties will be decided by that player. Ties are rare though as each player power in the game will have some voting power, which can be modified by territories lost to or taken from the Papacy. Having high influence on the Christian great powers (France, Spain and the HRE) can help one’s voting power, but having too much Ottoman influence will hurt it since you are viewed as consorting with an enemy of Christendom.
Finally, we allow players to spend their precious florins to bribe their way to an outcome in secret bidding, wherein even the preferred candidate of a player is not known till everyone reveals their pick and any florins spent.
So while the game begins with the Borgia Pope Alexander VI, it may wind its way to out-of-order candidates of the era succeeding him. Sticking the Papacy with a weaker pope (hello, scrupulous Adrian VI, who foregoes espionage altogether) may hinder the Papacy’s efforts, while the Papacy’s desire for the “Warrior Pope” Julius II will often be transparent. That said, sometimes a wise Papacy player will support a weaker candidate in hopes of drawing out financial support for that weaker candidate, with the knowledge that a better pope will come down the road at perhaps a more opportune time. The Conclave, like bidding on Captain auctions, is one of the major “head games” of Foxes and Lions.
You will also note in the Leo example above a great example of a ruler with downsides. Limitations on dominion sentiment are paired with higher costs to trade. The latter reflects Leo’s tendency to spend papal resources on his own extravagances; the saying ascribed to him comes to mind, “Since God has been pleased to give us the Papacy, let us enjoy it.” It doesn’t help either that Leo causes sentiment problems in Roma, in part due to his refusal to take seriously emerging threats to church authority, including Luther as the game reaches its end stage. At least Leo opens the possibility of a joint Florence / Papacy victory as described earlier. As with so many rulers in our game, there are always tradeoffs and always ways to exploit even a troubling ruler.
Grant: How do players bid for Impulse Order? Why was this important to include?
Paul: Impulse order might be the most debated subject among designers, developer, and testers so far. We decided to include secret florin bidding for variable turn order to create yet another arena in which to angle toward your goals and thwart those of others. We also see it as appropriately reflecting the chaos of Italy compared to the great power canvas of other series games.
Variable impulse order also allows us to use the current order (established after bidding each spring) as a tiebreaker for just about any situation in the game. We have found our current group of ten veteran testers to be unanimously in favor of the variable order bidding. Winning a bid only allows you to move one power’s marker (it need not be your own), thereby altering the impulse order in the Action Phase and impacting the tiebreaker mechanic I mentioned above.
That said, some players will surely not like it, and we had some recently who were new to the game at conventions argue that having a set table order is just easier to keep track of with seating, and we acknowledge this is valid concern for some groups. Online it might not matter, but in person with limited table space, it really might. My group of ten is vocal about keeping variable order bidding as a unique feature of the game, but who knows what wider testing will show.
The upshot is that we are most likely to have a set impulse order as the default rule, but with two variants. In one variant, you can embrace the full “wild west” of variable order bidding described above. For groups that like such volatility, they’ll still have the option. Another variant we have in mind is that you can bid, but all you are changing is which player goes first, while the order proper doesn’t change. We are happy for play groups to use whatever approach they prefer. If fully variable order bidding is not used, the tiebreaker that mechanic affords disappears and is replaced by a dice off. The argument for fully variable order could be that its tiebreaker usage will entail less dice rolling in a game series that is already chock full of that.
Grant: I see there are more ways to declare war during mid-turn. How does this work?
Paul: We knew early on that we needed shifting alliances, betrayals, and overall volatile situations of war and peace in the game. While we love the other series games, we tend to find them a bit too stately for Italy in this period. Yes, some of the other games have a card that lets you start a war mid-Action Phase (famously, Machiavelli’s Prince card in HIS), but we wanted more of this to be possible and more of it to happen!
Originally, we had a mechanism that allowed mid-turn betrayal of allies and declarations of war on the fly at any time provided a cost in CP and florins was paid. This still proved to be too easy and common. It was more in keeping with the wildness of the original Machiavelli game from Avalon Hill, itself a nasty and rich Diplomacy variant.
When we discovered that process was making mid-turn betrayal and declaration of war too common and easy for the good of the game, we compromised. Most declarations of war and making of alliances will happen as normal in the Diplomacy Phase in Foxes and Lions. We still want uncertainty about the reliability of an ally (or the intentions of a possible attacker), so we created four event cards that involve the option of a) attempting to suborn a rival captain on the eve of a battle or b) declaring war mid-Action Phase, even against a current ally. The latter is relevant to this discussion.
There are a few other cards that might situationally create such an opportunity, but these are the big four that clearly do. And so long as you haven’t accounted for those four cards in the discard pile (or preferably, your own hand), you just don’t know who might be able to stab you in the back at any moment. This approach has preserved the paranoia that is necessary for the game, while at the same time preventing a betrayal from happening just anytime on a pure whim. Marshaling your hand effectively is always important in any CDG, but arguably even more so in Foxes and Lions. “Suborn” cards (that include the betrayal and DoW option) are worth their weight in gold, and smart players try to hold onto them for future use.
Grant: How is ultimate victory obtained?
Paul: We have a few types of victory, most recognizable to players of other series games. We have the classic, end-of-last turn race to highest VP (Virtù Point) total; our game is 7 turns long maximum. We have the possibility of the series-typical domination victory from turn 4 on, whereby if you are leading all other players by 5 or more VP at turn end, you can claim victory that way. Finally, we have the traditional autowin condition (getting all your key markers out on map), in essence a military victory, although diplomacy and the minor power influence game may play a large role in that outcome too. What we tinkered with was adding to autowin another requirement for each power. For example, for Florence to autowin, it must retain control of Pisa-Livorno, an historical objective that obsessed many a Florentine government. For Venice to autowin, it must have a certain number of Balkans colonies still in it is possession. And so forth with other playable powers. Autowin isn’t automatic unless you meet that power’s sine qua non condition too.
Frankly, the biggest change in our game is not to victory conditions so much as the introduction of collective defeat. Having all players lose to the “great powers” (France, Spain, HRE, and Ottomans) because Italian Virtù has tanked is our favorite innovation and very appropriate to the situation historically. The game also specifies in the rules which one or two players at your table the others get to blame (perhaps unfairly, but who said life or games are always fair). The lapdog in a collective defeat will be the player with the most VP at the time of that outcome. Many in Italy see the lapdog’s ambitious rush to personal glory as the cause of the great power triumph. The scourge in a collective defeat will be the player with the most influence on all four great powers at the time of that outcome. That influence will not reflect all the influence invested over the course of the game, but those looking for an easy scapegoat will find one in the player currently dallying most with the great powers at that moment. It is even possible for one player to be both the scourge and lapdog; no greater infamy in our game is possible.
One inspiration here is another Avalon Hill classic, Republic of Rome (soon to be back in print, it seems). In that game, players are Roman patricians battling each other, but they are also battling the game, which throws challenges at them like the Carthaginians, Gauls, manpower shortages, etc. We felt Foxes and Lions absolutely needed that possible outcome of collective loss. We are also working on variants to calibrate how likely that is to happen in any given play. The default will be collective defeat as a serious threat, but we will have variant options to make that outcome more or less likely depending on a group’s wishes. If a group wants the focus to be on a likely player triumph, they can reduce the impact of the greats; if a group wants players constantly on their heels, they can increase it.
One can reliably argue that the Italian Wars ended in great power triumph by 1559. As our current game ends with the year of the Sack of Rome in 1527, we allow the game to put that writing on the wall sometimes, but it doesn’t have to be that way if players stand tall against the great powers as Machiavelli wished—often far easier said than done. We are estimating collective defeat to be less common an outcome in the game, but a constant worry. Testing will tell on that front, but we will certainly allow play groups to calibrate this possibility to their tastes as mentioned above.
Grant: What are some general strategies for each of the sides?
Paul: We will have eventually have detailed strategy guides for each power in upcoming InsideGMT pieces and of course, in the eventual Playbook. For now, referring to my answer above about player power asymmetry, the short version for strategies would look like this.
Florence
Put your messy house in order early. Try to move past Piero de’ Medici, even if you must play cards and create conditions for that yourself (Piero’s awful 0 Admin rating is a killer). We did once in testing see Piero persist three turns and threaten a joint victory with a Clement-led Papacy, but Piero is overall a drain on your prospects. You will also have to adapt to each of your next rulers in turn; Florence has perhaps the most dizzying political dance to do in the game. They also begin with serious sentiment problems in their dominion (Pisa, for example, is not particularly thrilled about losing its republican liberties to Florence).
Milan
Keep Genoa under thumb at all costs and find ways to expand into the Romagna, Tuscany, or the Veneto Region at the expense of the Venetians. Alternatively, play nice or even ally with Venice until it’s just the two of you with a viable shot at victory, bearing in mind other players will have a lot to say about such an alliance.
Naples
Continue your investment in Feudal Aristocracy in your capital and beyond. While your kingdom is safe on most sides, you need to expand to win. Papal territories seem the best and nearest opportunities for that, but you can get creative. Even Roma itself is calling you, but you must remove some pesky exclaves of Milan and the Papacy from your dominion before you truly commit to broader expansion. You will also need to play the patronage game like anyone else.
Papacy
Manage the flow of your popes through the conclave process to your advantage whenever possible. Don’t rush to get Julius II till you feel you are ready militarily. It would be premature to install him as pope, then have him die due to a survival roll before you can fully exploit him. Learn to manage the weaker popes (Adrian VI and Pius III), sometimes opting for them when your enemies least expect it and may have spent precious resources trying to inflict them on you. And above, make hay while the sun shines with Cesare Borgia. He is called “Darth Vader” by our testers for a reason. He will burn out at some point once Daddy (Alexander VI) dies, but like Roy Batty in Blade Runner, he should burn “so very, very brightly.”
Venice Maintain your top dog status as the game begins. Your bigger problem is growing into actual victory, which will take playing every aspect of the game wisely lest you be overtaken by lesser lights. You must preserve your colonies in the Balkans against often constant Ottoman threats. You need to expand on the mainland where you can without courting the wrath of all others upon you; historically, this was the disaster of Agnadello, which Machiavelli said cost Venice the efforts of eight centuries. You should patronize strategically to boost your VP total and ability profile. And you should always ensure lots of florins in your treasury; each turn end that you have 20+ florins brings VP to you. Weather your weaker doges and exploit your best; above all, the incomparable Leonardo Loredan
Grant: What has been the feedback of your playtesters?
Paul: One recent tester, Stephen Franco, made a comment that was truly gratifying: “Similar to what actually happened historically, the game is a free for all in a confined space, making for entertaining and unexpected outcomes. Great game.” That “knife fight in a phone booth” vibe, which I’ve always loved in games like Cuba Libre, has been shining forth in Foxes and Lions.
There has been a similar reaction from testers both internal and external at select conventions. That said, we are about to extend TTS testing more widely, followed by Vassal testing down the road. There may be very different reactions, concerns, and suggestions there. We look forward to all of it. Like myself, my core testing group of ten people has been very appreciative of the “thesis-level” interests of the game, and they have been amazing with suggesting how to capture the game’s theses in a way that is compelling for players while faithful to the history, as much as any game can be.
The area in which testers have been the most helpful is with implementation of the non-player great powers. That took a lot of play and effort on their part, and their ideas got us to a place where we are now very happy. Joe Dewhurst has also been terrific in helping us calibrate the greats too.
Grant: What do you feel the design excels at?
Paul: Recreating the feeling of the political and cultural climate in which Machiavelli labored, and in which he continually agonized over his beloved Florence’s fate, not to mention Italy’s. The game also has plenty of the paranoia, second-guessing, and treachery that characterized the era, but as I mentioned earlier, above all it’s a game about Machiavelli’s ideas and ideals, however pragmatically or provocatively he expressed them.
That testers have talked mid-game and afterward about Machiavelli’s deepest political concerns—that they have gotten beyond the image of the treacherous Machiavel of the Shakespearean stage in Richard III or the like—is what most gratifies me. Foxes and Lions is meant to stimulate conversation, including about our own political moment when democratic republics are in grave danger indeed. The “Machiavellian moment” is that invoked by John Pocock’s great book—the moment when any state, especially a republic, realizes its utter, temporal fragility in the wake of Fortuna. And when such a state realizes its own contradictions and failings are as dangerous to its survival as any external threat.
An example of how Machiavelli remains front and center in our game is found in three event cards dedicated to his incredible body of work, not just The Prince. Here are these cards, with a brief comment following.
We wanted our game to have some events that reflect the diversity of Machiavelli’s thought and literary output. We also wanted the event effects to tie into those key works and to be usable by any player. With the first card above, the focus is squarely on The Prince and the Discourses on Livy as political explorations of de facto princedoms and republics respectively (bearing in mind that each text explores the ostensible subject of the other too). The second card puts us in the realm of military theory and historiography; the Florentine Histories are in fact the subject of a scholarly book on which I have been working for years now, so I really wanted it to appear. Lastly, the third card always generates the most belly laughs at the table, focused as it is on Machiavelli’s scandalous sex comedy, a tale of cuckoldry and trickery worthy of the ancient comedian, Plautus. The card effect puts quite a hit on a rival, but the mockery the player endures is perhaps even more stinging. This card has had some wonderfully odd uses (e.g., as mentioned above, Savonarola instigating a cuckolding of Julius II has gone down in my tester group as legendary).
Grant: What other designs are you currently working on?
Paul: My next game, a design on my own and not in any existing series framework, is called Catasto. I have a prototype now that I plan to share at Circle DC next spring. This is another Renaissance game, but about something that hasn’t been treated before in games to my knowledge—Renaissance tax evasion. The Florentine catasto of 1427 is an extraordinarily important document in late medieval and Renaissance social history. In essence a combination of census and property assessment, the catasto permitted political appointees the right to dig into their fellow citizens’ wealth and other holdings to be sure everyone was paying their fair share. This was especially important in the context of ongoing military conflicts between Tuscany and the ambitious Visconti of Milan, all of which had to be funded.
The game explores how far Florentine families would go to hide their assets, and how far their enemies would go to expose those assets while protecting their own from scrutiny. An especially influential (yet very different) design is Tyler Brown’s 23 Knives on the conspiracy to eliminate Julius Caesar. That game uses some very clever mechanics to show how Romans hid, revealed, or unwillingly had exposed their positions on Caesar. The game also allows that the assassination may or may not ultimately succeed. This has been helpful in thinking through how my Florentine players in Catasto might go about concealing their wealth (or excusing it somehow once uncovered). There will also be a tension between seeking to be the catasto investigator and effectively hiding your family’s gains, however ill-gotten.
I’m also working on outlines for a prequel and sequel expansion to Foxes and Lions—no promises and don’t take this as anything from GMT! Just exploring so far, but very much on my mind. The prequel would be set in the 1464-1493 timeframe and feature the Italy of Lorenzo il Magnifico. While military matters remain important there (and Genoa would be a playable power too), there is overall less chance of collective defeat to the great powers. There is much more focus on behind the scenes skullduggery and espionage in that one, including conspiracies like the infamous Pazzi Conspiracy to eliminate the Medici hatched by factions across Italy, including Pope Sixtus IV.
As the main Foxes and Lions game covers the 1494-1527 period, any sequel would cover 1528-1559 (the year of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis that in essence ended the Italian Wars). That era would see a very high chance of collective defeat throughout and great transformations in the situation (e.g., Florence and Tuscany morphing into an eventual Grand Duchy, Venice’s overseas position worsening, Naples finally accepting its dependent status, etc.). If this envisioned triptych for Foxes and Lions comes to pass, I imagine it along the lines of the amazing Fire In the Lake with its prequel and sequel, and the last bit of Foxes and Lions would definitely have a “Fall of Saigon” feel of desperation. Again, no promises, but lots of passion and research on my part in these early days. We have to finish the main stage drama of Foxes and Lions first!
And after (or perhaps a bit alongside) all that, I am working on a CDG game on Skanderbeg, hero of my wife’s home country of Albania, as well as a game on Savonarola and the power of Renaissance rhetoric. I have no lack of projects, but of course the contingencies of time and space remain challenges. Still, good challenges to have!
In Episode 10 begeben sich Matthias und Markus in Time of Crisis: The Roman Empire in Turmoil, 235-284 AD in ein kriselndes Rom und versuchen durch politische und militärische Ränkespiele zum Imperator aufzusteigen. Wir schlüpfen in die Rolle machtgieriger Familien, die versuchen ihre Gegner auszustechen. Warum hier auch Euro-Spieler einen Blick drauf werfen sollten, erfahrt ihr in der Episode.
Battles of the American Revolution Tri-Pack II: Monmouth, Germantown and Newtown is the second compilation of earlier releases from GMT Games’ Battles of the American Revolution Series. These are tactical level battles at the regimental level with a map scale of approximately 200 yd/hex. We played Germantown and shot the following video review to share our thoughts on the game.
4 weeks from today, we will be attending the San Diego Historical Games Convention (SDHistCon 2026) held in sunny San Diego, California. This convention will include 3 days (for us) filled with gaming, designer interviews, looks at new prototypes, visiting with friends, publishers and designers, and having a great time. This will be our 3rd trip to SDHistCon and I am really excited about attending as we had such a great time the last 2 times we have attended! The San Diego Historical Games Convention is set to be held from November 6th through 9th at the S.E.S. Portuguese Hall of San Diego. The convention is about 2 blocks from the San Diego harbor, just a few miles from the San Diego airport, and is surrounded by delicious restaurants and fairly affordable hotels and other accommodations.
We have decided that we would at least like to play the following 4 multi-player wargames while there including Baltic Empires: The Northern Wars of 1558-1721 from GMT Games, The Weimar Republic: Political Struggle in Germany, 1919-1933 from GMT Games, The Other Side of the Hill from NAC Wargames and Thirty Years of Misery from VUCA Simulations. To facilitate the games, we have created a Geek List on Board Game Geek and I would encourage anyone who is attending to check it out and consider adding your name to the list. These lists are first-come-first-served and once full we will keep at least 1-2 alternates who are interested in case something happens that creates a vacancy. I will be looking at playing a few other games while there, including a few prototypes, but wanted to make sure that we got these big games scheduled at a minimum.
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 #8: Loudspeaker Wars
The Berlin Wall in the 1960’s was an interesting place. When approaching from the west (actually the south if you were at Checkpoint Charlie), you could walk right up to the wall and peer over. There are stories of East Berliners parking their cars against the wall because a small strip on the western side was actually still in Soviet Territory, and the West Berlin police couldn’t give them a parking ticket. If you were an East Berliner, approaching within fifty meters of the wall would probably get you shot. In either case, if you were close enough to the wall to see over it, you were likely to see propaganda from the other side. Most of this was billboards and banners on the eastern side, but the west had its fair share of slogans supporting democracy and the allies.
The Loudspeaker Wars card commemorates the times when this war of propaganda became audible as well as visual. An ongoing battle between vans equipped with high-powered speakers began when East Germany rolled them up to the wall and began blasting propaganda at deafening volumes. When formal complaints failed, the west responded with their own loudspeakers at the wall, making it almost impossible to carry on a conversation anywhere near them. This became known as the “Noise Offensive,” or the “Loudspeaker Wars.” It continued, on and off, for years.
In Checkpoint Charlie, this card makes intelligence operations at the wall very difficult (removing all Intel Cubes there) and also attracts a crowd of gawkers in the form of a Demonstrations Marker. In addition, if Mayor Brandt is active in the mission, he immediately moves to the wall to take part in the back and forth.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Daily Military Train.
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.
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.
#97: Prudence from 1989: Dawn of Freedom from GMT Games
1989: Dawn of Freedom is a fast paced game simulating the end of the Cold War in 1989 as the Berlin Wall fell under pressure from the people as during this year a series of democratic revolutions ended the 40 year Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. 1989 simulates the political, social and economic aspects of these revolutions using a card-driven system similar to Twilight Struggle. I have really very much enjoyed my plays of 1989 and those plays are increasing as the game has been placed on the very cool and user friendly online platform Rally the Troops!
Any game that has cards is focused somehow on attacking those cards or at least minimizing access to them or to taking a turn away from your opponent by causing them to have to discard one of their cards or to do something else with that card. But there are some type of cards that will limit your opponent’s cards and their effectiveness by imposing a penalty on them. That is the case with our next card in this series from 1989: Dawn of Freedom called Prudence. The card is very simple as it imposes a -1 Ops penalty on all cards played by your opponent for the Operations Points for the remainder of the turn. All cards still will retain at least a 1 Op value but others will be reduced. The play of this card as an Event or for the juicy 4 Ops that it conveys is a real choice and players need to understand the value in the card. If played as the first card play of a turn, the penalty can impose up to a -6 Ops loss to your opponent over the course of the turn. So you have to somewhat do a cost-benefit analysis when you play the card and decide if it is best played for the Event or for the Ops. The later the turn goes, the less impact and utility the Event will have and you must gain a return from this valuable card if used for the Event. 4 Ops cards are rare and you must come out on top or your game will suffer.
President George H.W. Bush frequently used the word “prudence” to describe his cautious, restrained approach to foreign policy during the historic collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War. Prudence meant calculating risks and weighing long-term consequences rather than reacting with flashy, immediate emotion. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Bush famously refused to publicly dance on the wall or gloat, despite pressure from political rivals like Senator George Mitchell. This was a measured and conscious choice to deescalate the tensions and fall out from the fall of the Berlin Wall as Bush feared that openly humiliating Soviet leaders or the Soviet military might provoke a hardline backlash or cause Moscow to halt troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe.
As you may know, comedian Dana Carvey popularized a famous caricature of George H.W. Bush on Saturday Night Live, using the catchphrase “Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent” to lampoon the President’s cautious speech patterns and deliberate style. While critics sometimes mocked his caution as a lack of a grand vision and understanding of his place as the Leader of the free world, historians often credit his prudent diplomacy with managing a peaceful transition out of the Cold War.
I very much enjoy the thematic connection of this card with the Event. The play of this card, which is a choice as it has a 4 Ops value and could be used in a different manner to forward the player’s interests on the game board, mimics the restraint and choices before President Bush. I think that in today’s world, this type of restraint is sorely lacking and if present at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, could have sparked further decades of struggle as the Cold War would have continued to freeze the 2 Super Powers into an ongoing and pointless ideological fight.
We posted a full review video and you can watch that at the following link:
A new series, and we have seen how well series have done at GMT Games, a new designer and a new concept to wargaming (lane battler), I think that this game has great potential and it happens to be focused on one of my most favorite wars to game – the Vietnam War. Iron Triangle: Search and Destroy Operations in the Vietnam War is designed by Darren McGuire and takes a look at the struggle between the United States military and the Viet Cong insurgents as they fight over control of three key “lanes” or regions. I am very much excited about this one and reached out to designer Darren McGuire for some additional information.
*Note: The pictures used in this interview showing the various components and cards, are still in the design and development process and as such rules,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.
Grant: Darren welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
Darren: Hi Grant, I live not too far from Glasgow in Scotland, which is a board gamer’s delight, by which I mean, plenty of rainy days and dark evenings. By day, I work as a Quantity Surveyor (Cost Engineer) on major water infrastructure projects, dealing with cost control, commercial management and contractual disputes, so it’s excitement all round! Away from work, my wife and four children keep me more than busy.
As you may have guessed, my main hobby is board gaming, which has now expanded into board game design. Unfortunately, my best ideas seem to arrive in the middle of the night rather than at my desk. When I’m not thinking about games, you’ll usually find me following Glasgow Celtic, the best football (soccer) team in the world…well, Scotland at least. Other interests include noodling away on my guitar and getting out for the occasional hike.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed the most about the experience thus far?
Darren: I am relatively new to board gaming, having played regularly for only four or five years. My growing interest in historical games was sparked by Rodney Smith’s discussion of Cuba Libre in the Discovering the COIN series. After learning and playing the game, and later watching a documentary on the Cuban Revolution, I became fascinated by how game mechanics can represent the political, military and social dimensions of historical events.
This experience led me to appreciate game design not just as entertainment but as a way of communicating history. My interest in creating games developed further through roleplaying games, particularly the Basic Roleplaying system, which inspired me to write and run a Second World War-themed scenario. Seeing others enjoy something I had created was highly rewarding and encouraged me to pursue game design more seriously.
What I enjoy most about design is the iterative process, watching an idea evolve through testing, refining it based on feedback, and carrying lessons learned from one project into the next.
Grant: What is your upcoming Game Iron Triangle about?
Darren: Iron Triangle is a 2-player card battler game about the struggle between US and Viet Cong forces in the III Corps region of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Players compete across a series of Operations while also managing the wider military, political and social factors that shaped the conflict.
The US player must balance military success with the need to maintain stability and support for the South Vietnamese government. The VC player, meanwhile, seeks to undermine government authority through guerrilla warfare, hidden infrastructure, and the careful preparation of the Tet Offensive. While battles are fought over individual Operations, success ultimately depends on how effectively players manage resources, control territory, influence Public Opinion and pursue their broader strategic objectives.
Rather than focusing solely on military confrontation, Iron Triangle aims to capture the asymmetrical nature of the war, where political legitimacy could be just as important as success on the battlefield. The result is a fast-paced experience in which decisions can have consequences beyond the immediate fight.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
Darren: I have always been fascinated by David versus Goliath conflicts, where a seemingly weaker side challenges a much stronger opponent. The Vietnam War particularly captured my interest because it was a conflict I initially knew very little about. Like many people, my early perceptions were shaped largely by Hollywood films, but after becoming interested in historical conflict through board gaming, I began to realize there was far more nuance and complexity to the war than popular culture suggests. The more I explored the subject, the more intrigued I became by the political, military and human factors that shaped the conflict.
Grant: What is your design goal of the game?
Darren: My goal is to create a fun and engaging game that feels thematic within what is traditionally quite an abstract genre. I want the mechanics and player decisions to reflect the realities of the conflict, so that the theme is expressed through gameplay rather than simply through artwork or historical flavor text.
Beyond providing an enjoyable experience, I hope players come away with a greater appreciation of the unique challenges faced by both sides in this part of the Vietnam War. The conflict was not decided solely by battlefield success. Political support, public opinion, hidden infrastructure and competing strategic priorities all played important roles. Capturing these tensions within an accessible and entertaining game has been one of the central objectives of the design.
Grant: What from Search and destroy missions in Vietnam was most important to model?
Darren: Two aspects were at the forefront of my mind. The first was capturing the cat-and-mouse nature of search and destroy operations through the card play. These missions were rarely straightforward engagements; instead, they involved a constant struggle to locate, pursue and evade the enemy.
Equally important was ensuring that the tactical outcomes of these operations were connected to their wider political and societal consequences. In Vietnam, success on the battlefield did not always translate into strategic success. Capturing that tension between military achievement and its broader impact on public opinion, political will, and the course of the war was therefore a key design objective.
Grant: What sources did you consult about the details of the history? What one must read source would you recommend?
Darren: The principal sources I consulted were:
The Vietnam War: An Intimate History by Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns
Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975 by Max Hastings
The Tunnels of Cu Chi by Tom Mangold and John Penycate
Of these, I would recommend The Tunnels of Cu Chi as essential reading. The book argues that the Cu Chi tunnel network became one of the most powerful symbols of Viet Cong resilience and ingenuity, demonstrating why overwhelming American military superiority alone could not guarantee victory. That theme had a significant influence on the design of the game. Mechanics such as tunneled cards, Tunnel Bases, and the creation and use of caches are intended to reflect the hidden infrastructure that enabled the Viet Cong to survive, recover and at times overwhelm a conventionally stronger opponent. Capturing this asymmetry between military power and insurgent resilience was one of the central goals of the design.
Grant: What is the goal of the game?
Darren: The VC player seeks to undermine the local population’s trust in the South Vietnamese government. To achieve this, they must win Operations, carefully manage their resources, and, most importantly, plan and execute a successful Tet Offensive.
The US player, meanwhile, has two paths to victory. The first is through attrition, exposing and neutralizing enemy forces. The second is through pacification, placing pacification chits on regional tracks to strengthen government influence. Whichever strategy they pursue, they must contend with the fallout of scorched-earth tactics, maintain control of pacified areas and disrupt the enemy’s Tet Offensive preparations whenever possible.
Grant: What is the layout of the board?
Darren: The operations are divided across three regions, with players contesting one operation in each region during every round. Running alongside these battles is a strategic layer represented on the board, which tracks the overall situation across the theatre. This includes the level of control within each region, regional stability, public opinion, and refugee generation. As a result, success in individual operations can have far-reaching consequences, forcing players to balance short-term military objectives against their broader strategic and political impact.
Grant: What are the “lanes” and how do they work?
Darren: The three lanes represent the key operational regions north of Saigon: War Zone C, War Zone D and the Iron Triangle. Each lane contains a dedicated deck of Operation Cards representing historical Search and Destroy missions conducted in that region during the period.
During each round, players will contest one Operation from each region, fighting simultaneous battles across all three lanes. The outcome of these Operations will influence the wider conflict, affecting the various tracks and areas of the main board. Success on the battlefield can shift regional control, impact public support, alter available resources and shape each side’s broader strategic objectives.
Grant: How does the game use cards? How are the player decks asymmetrical?
Darren: Each player commands a unique deck of cards representing the units, tactics and capabilities available to their side. These cards are committed to Operations, where players compete for control and the rewards those Operations provide. Every card has a strength value and a special action that can be utilized when played.
The game’s real asymmetry lies in how the VC player can deploy their cards. VC cards may be played in one of three states: Exposed (face-up), Concealed (face-down) or Tunnelled (face-down and rotated). This system forces the VC player to balance protection against flexibility. A Tunnelled card, for example, is much harder for the US player to expose and inflict attrition upon, but it requires additional effort from the VC player to reveal and activate its ability.
These mechanics give the VC player multiple strategic options. They can bluff with hidden forces, launch surprise attacks, prepare units for future engagements or hide powerful cards for the decisive end-of-round reveal. The US player, meanwhile, is rarely certain of the strength or composition of the forces they are facing, creating a constant risk that an attack may not go as planned.
To counter this uncertainty, the US player can resort to scorched-earth tactics, exposing and neutralising enemy forces through attrition. However, this approach has consequences. Such actions generate refugees, a resource that can ultimately be exploited by the VC player to advance their own objectives.
The card system is therefore central to how the game’s theme is reflected in its mechanics. Through hidden information, bluffing and the constant tension between searching for the enemy and avoiding detection, it captures the cat-and-mouse nature of the conflict and the uncertainty faced by US forces throughout the war.
Grant: What different type of cards are included?
Darren: There are several types of cards in the game. The Operation Decks form the core of the conflict, with each card detailing the rewards available for successfully completing that mission. These rewards can include gaining regional control, destroying enemy caches or bases, reducing public opinion or generating refugees, all of which contribute to the wider strategic situation on the main board.
Each faction also has its own unique deck containing units and tactics, with cards featuring different strength values and special abilities. These decks reflect the contrasting approaches employed by the US and VC forces and provide players with meaningful tactical decisions throughout the game.
Currently in development are Commander Cards, which can be employed throughout the course of the game. Each commander provides powerful advantages but also introduces specific drawbacks, requiring players to carefully consider who is best suited to lead their forces at any given stage of the conflict.
Also in development is a dedicated solo mode, being designed by Joe Dewhurst. This system includes a bespoke bot deck for each faction, aiming to deliver a challenging and thematic opponent that captures the strategic priorities and character of both sides.
Grant: Can you show us a few examples of cards and describe how they work?
Darren: Here are a few examples that highlight the key decisions and interactions players will encounter during a round.
Operation Cards
Players battle over three Operation cards during each round. The rewards gained depend on the final Strength differential between the opposing sides.
For example, on the Operation shown above, if the VC player ends the round with a Strength differential of 3 or more, they move the control marker on the Warzone C Region Track one space toward Saigon and remove one US Firebase.
Action Cards
Infrastructure symbols indicate that the Operation takes place in a populated area. When the US player uses Scorched Earth actions, such as Zippo Raids, Refugees are generated as a result of the destruction.
In this example, the Zippo Raids Card generates two Refugees for each Infrastructure symbol shown on the Operation Card and allows the US player to destroy two Caches from the VC supply.
The card also gives the US player the option of playing it rotated to its lower-strength Pacification side. When played this way, the US player may place one Pacification chit on a Region Track if the Tet Offensive has not yet occurred, or two Pacification chits if it has.
This creates an important strategic decision for the US player. They can use the card’s high Strength value to help win the Operation, potentially generating Refugees that the VC can later exploit, or they can focus on Pacification to reduce the effectiveness of VC Tax actions and move closer to their alternative victory condition.
The Ambush Card from the VC Deck illustrates the different states in which a card can be played. It may be played face-down (Concealed or Tunnelled) or face-up (Exposed).
The Attrition symbol represents a key objective for the US player, who seeks to expose and exploit these cards as part of their Attrition victory condition. The US Activation symbol indicates that the card’s action may also be triggered when it is exposed by a US card effect.
This gives the VC player meaningful agency. They can play the card face-up to gain the action immediately, play it face-down and activate it later in the round, or use it as a bluff to lure the US player into exposing it.
These are just a few examples of how the decks interact. The game includes numerous ways for players to influence and counter each other’s cards. K9 Units can negate the US Activation effect, Hueys can move cards and place Firebases, Tunnel Rats can flush out Tunnelled cards and locate Caches, Booby Traps can eliminate Tunnel Rats and Supply cards can place Caches on Operations to increase Strength.
Together, these layered interactions ensure that every card choice can have lasting consequences, creating a tense and highly interactive contest between the US and VC players.
Grant: How are the cards concealed by the VC player? What does this represent?
Darren: VC cards feature symbols indicating whether they can be played face up, face down, or either. Face-down cards represent concealed forces, while rotated cards represent units operating through tunnel networks.
The VC player must use Action Cards, such as Manoeuvre, to flip or rotate cards already committed to a lane. This creates a constant balancing act between revealing powerful effects, such as Ambushes and Night Raids, and protecting the valuable Attrition symbols contained on those cards.
These mechanics also enable bluffing. For example, a low-value Booby Trap Card can be tunnelled, encouraging the US player to believe it is a high-strength Support Card with significant Attrition potential. The uncertainty forces the US player to carefully consider where to commit resources and when to challenge concealed threats.
The VC player must also decide whether to play a card face up and immediately benefit from its effect but exposing it to US attack, or instead commit it face down from the outset and save its reveal for a decisive moment later in the round. This flexibility reflects the hidden nature of VC operations and rewards careful planning and deception.
Grant: What challenges for the US are created by this concealment?
Darren: Attrition is a key US victory path, but many VC Attrition symbols remain hidden on concealed or tunnelled cards. To succeed, the US player must reveal and engage these forces while making difficult decisions with incomplete information, risking costly overcommitment if hidden threats prove stronger than expected.
Military operations can expose VC units, destroy bases and uncover caches, but they often generate Refugees, which the VC can exploit to gain cards, add Tet tokens or reduce Regional Stability. As a result, the US player must constantly balance immediate military success against longer-term political consequences. These mechanics create a tense contest of information and deception, with the VC concealing their strength while the US works to uncover and eliminate hidden assets before they can affect the wider war.
Grant: What is the Tet Offensive draw bag? How is it built?
Darren: The Tet Offensive was the watershed moment of the Vietnam War. Although it did not bring the conflict to an immediate end, it fundamentally altered US strategy and set the conditions for the gradual withdrawal of American forces. Capturing the importance of this moment was a key design goal.
The Tet Bag is one of the most important systems in the game. Following recent design changes, it no longer acts as a simple end-game decider but instead serves as a mechanism that can greatly influence the course of the war. At the start of each round, the VC player secretly decides whether to launch the Tet Offensive by selecting one of two cards: one commits to the Offensive and the other acts as a bluff. This creates uncertainty from the outset of the round, as the US player must react without knowing whether a major offensive is truly imminent. The VC player may retract their decision during the round, but doing so becomes increasingly expensive as the cost in Caches rises with each turn that passes.
The bag begins with three US tokens and two VC tokens, but its contents constantly evolve throughout the game. The VC can add tokens through Infiltrate actions and by exploiting Refugees created by US operations. The US player, meanwhile, can remove tokens through Round-Up actions and through Attrition in an attempt to limit the impact of any future Offensive.
The primary way for the VC to influence the draw is through the accumulation of Caches. These can be generated through Tax Actions or received as end-of-round supply from the North. When the offensive is launched, the number of available Caches determines how many Tet tokens can be added to the bag, while Tunnel Bases deployed to region tracks act as multipliers, increasing the number of tokens generated from those Caches. Control of key regional spaces provides additional opportunities, with certain track positions allowing a player to add Tet tokens at the end of a round if the Offensive is launched.
If the VC player commits to the Tet Offensive, the appropriate tokens are added to the bag at the end of the round and five tokens are drawn at random. Each VC token drawn reduces Public Opinion by one step, while each US token drawn increases Attrition by one step. This can create a dramatic swing in the strategic situation. Even if neither victory condition is immediately met, the outcome of the draw can significantly alter the state of the war and shape the decisions available to both players in subsequent rounds.
The timing of the Offensive is therefore a critical consideration. The VC player must decide whether to launch early with limited preparation or delay in order to strengthen the bag’s odds while risking discovery or disruption. The US player, meanwhile, must balance efforts to contain the insurgency on the ground against the need to manage the growing threat represented by the Tet Bag. This creates a constant strategic tension that mirrors the historical conflict.
Grant: What is Public Opinion? How is it changed?
Darren: Public Opinion represents the local population’s perception of the South Vietnamese Government and, by extension, the effectiveness of the US-backed war effort. Managing Public Opinion is crucial, as it forms one of the key strategic battlegrounds in the game.
The primary driver of Public Opinion is Regional Stability, which is determined by the position of Control markers on the regional tracks. As the VC expands its influence and gains control across a region, Stability declines, reflecting a population that increasingly doubts the government’s ability to maintain order and security. Conversely, government control and stability reinforce confidence in the existing regime.
Beyond regional control, both players have additional means of influencing Public Opinion. The VC can erode support for the government by achieving decisive victories in key Operations, demonstrating its strength and undermining confidence in official authority. A successful Tet Offensive can also significantly damage Public Opinion, representing the political shock caused by the scale and visibility of the attacks.
The US player is not without tools of their own. Through Pacification actions, they can improve conditions within contested areas, securing spaces on the regional tracks and creating opportunities to increase Public Opinion. By achieving key objectives and restoring Stability, the US player can demonstrate progress and strengthen support for the South Vietnamese Government.
Grant: What is urban infiltration?
During the build-up to the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong infiltrated towns and cities across South Vietnam, embedding cadres among the local population. These operatives remained hidden until called upon to conduct terror attacks, sabotage missions, or support the wider offensive once it began. Their ability to operate covertly within urban areas was a key factor in the scale and surprise of the 1968 Tet Offensive.
This aspect of the conflict is represented in the game through a dedicated VC Action card. When played, the card allows the VC player to add a Tet token to the Tet Bag, reflecting the gradual preparation and expansion of the underground network in advance of the Offensive. While the immediate effect may seem modest, repeated use of these actions can significantly alter the balance of the eventual draw.
Grant: How are bases used and what benefits do they bring?
Darren: Bases are another important asymmetrical element of the game. While both factions use bases to influence control of the battlefield, there are significant differences between VC Tunnel Bases and US Fire Bases that reflect their distinct approaches to the war.
In general, bases are deployed to a Regional Track adjacent to a Control marker through the use of Action Cards. Once in play, they allow a player to either reinforce their position or exploit success in an Operation.
A base can be placed defensively on a Region Track between the player and the Control marker. In this position, it acts as a buffer against enemy advances. If the opposing player wins an Operation and would move the Control marker towards their side of the track, the base absorbs one of those control shifts before being removed and returned to its home space. This allows players to protect hard-won gains and makes regional control more difficult to reverse.
Alternatively, a base can be deployed aggressively between the Control marker and an opponent’s side of the track. This represents a player anticipating success and positioning assets to exploit a breakthrough. If the Operation is won, the Control marker effectively leapfrogs the base, allowing it to advance further than it otherwise would. In this role, the base accelerates territorial gains, helping a player press their advantage.
When a VC Tunnel Base is used offensively, it is flipped to its exposed side, representing increased activity and a greater risk of detection. Exposed bases are significantly easier for the US player to locate and destroy.
This creates an important strategic dilemma for the VC player. Tunnel Bases are not only valuable for influencing regional control but also contribute to the Tet Offensive system by acting as multipliers for Tet tokens generated through Caches. Committing them aggressively can produce short-term gains on the board, but doing so risks losing assets that could have a major impact on a future Tet Offensive. The VC player must therefore balance the need to consolidate territorial gains against the benefits of preserving their network for a decisive political strike later in the war.
Grant: What role do refugees play in the game?
Darren: Refugees represent one of the key consequences of the counterinsurgency strategies employed during the war. Population displacement was frequently used to separate the VC from the rural population and disrupt their support networks, creating both military opportunities and political challenges.
The US player has access to powerful Scorched Earth Action Cards. These are high-strength cards that can be used to destroy VC Caches and generate Attrition, helping the US pursue one of its victory conditions. However, such operations can also displace civilians, creating Refugees as local communities are caught up in the fighting.
When a Scorched Earth Card is played, Refugees are generated based on the concentration of the local population in the targeted area, represented by infrastructure symbols on the Operation cards. For each Refugee generated, a Refugee token is placed in Saigon.
While these operations can successfully disrupt VC activity, the resulting Refugees create opportunities for the VC player. On their turn, Refugee tokens can be spent in several ways:
Recruit – Draw additional cards,
Infiltrate – Add a Tet token to the Tet Bag, helping prepare future offensives.
Destabilise – Reduce Regional Stability, further undermining confidence in the South Vietnamese Government.
This creates a difficult strategic dilemma for the US player. Aggressive operations may achieve important military objectives by destroying enemy resources and inflicting Attrition, but they can also generate conditions that the VC can exploit for political and organisational gain.
To counter this, the US player has access to Resettlement Action Cards, which reduces the number of Refugees in Saigon. These actions represent efforts to restore stability, provide support for displaced civilians, and mitigate the wider consequences of military operations.
The Refugee mechanic reinforces one of the game’s central themes: success on the battlefield does not always translate into strategic success. Players must consider not only the immediate impact of their actions, but also the longer-term political and social consequences that can shape the course of the war.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
Darren: For the VC, victory is achieved by reducing Public Opinion to the bottom space of its track. This is accomplished through the rewards gained from winning Operations and by successfully planning and executing the Tet Offensive.
The US player has two possible routes to victory. The first is Attrition, achieved by exposing VC forces, revealing Attrition symbols on their cards, and capitalising on those symbols. Successfully pacifying individual regions and repelling the Tet Offensive also support this strategy.
The second route is Pacification. If the US player can fill all the spaces on the lower half of each regional track with Pacification chits, they have successfully stabilised the countryside and strengthened support for the South Vietnamese government. Achieving this level of security and political control results in a US victory.
Grant: What type of experience does the game create?
Darren: The aim is to create a fast-paced and tense experience in which both players must balance the military, political and social aspects of the conflict. While Operations provide the focus for direct confrontation, victory depends on managing a range of competing priorities rather than simply overpowering an opponent.
The game is not intended to be a straightforward tug-of-war over territory. Players must constantly weigh short-term gains against long-term objectives, deciding when to commit resources, when to accept setbacks, and when to focus on the wider strategic situation. Success comes from understanding how the different systems interact and adapting to an ever-changing battlefield, creating a game that rewards careful planning while still maintaining a constant sense of pressure and uncertainty.
Grant: What are you most pleased with about the design?
Darren: I am most pleased with how I have taken a relatively abstract style of game and made it as thematic as possible, capturing not only the military aspects of the conflict but also the political and social factors that shaped it. I am also very happy with the recent design changes, which have expanded the game’s scope and increased the decision space for both players. In particular, turning the Tet Offensive into a flexible strategic option rather than a fixed endgame event has created more meaningful choices for the VC player, while adding greater uncertainty and tension throughout the game. Overall, these changes have made for a richer and more engaging experience without losing sight of the historical themes I wanted to explore.
Grant: What other designs are you working on?
Darren: I have several other card battler designs at various stages of development, covering topics such as the Eastern Front, the Arctic Convoys of the Second World War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Russo-Chechen War, the latter of which served as a precursor to Iron Triangle. Each design approaches its subject in a very different way, and I am hopeful that the lessons I have learned during the development of Iron Triangle will help me refine and strengthen these projects.
I’d just like to finish by saying thanks for taking the time to reach out and for the opportunity to talk about Iron Triangle.
September has been really, really busy for me. We attended the Gaming the American Revolution Camden 250 Event in Camden, South Carolina and work was pretty busy as well. As such, I just feel like I have been unable to really give this post the time needed to make it as good as it can be. Don’t get me wrong…I am still writing it but I am not spending as much time searching this month. I also was unable to find a sponsor for the post so we are foregoing that this month as well.
This month, I was able to find 15 games to share. I was also able to find 5 games being offered on Crowdfunding through Kickstarter.
1. Battlegroup Clash: Baltics 2nd Printing from Sapper Studio
James Buckley is a name we all know in the wargaming space. He has worked with publishers like PHALANX and Nuts! Publishing and also is now a burgeoning designer as he published his first game in 2025 called Battlegroup Clash: Baltics from his new publishing company called Sapper Studio. The game has already sold out and they are currently offering up a 2nd Printing on pre-order
From the game page, we read the following:
Battlegroup Clash: Baltics is a two-to six-player tactical land warfare game that plays in two to three hours. It is a commercially-adapted version of a game recently developed for the British Army to help train its junior officers.
The game is set in Estonia and covers a hypothetical near-future Russian invasion of the country, and attempts by NATO land forces to repulse it. Each side has a maximum force size equivalent to a reinforced battalion, with individual unit sizes being platoons or sections.
It comes with six scenarios and has three play modes and optional rules, allowing for players to vary the level of realism and complexity of play. The Basic mode of play is equivalent to a light complexity commercial wargame. The Standard and Advanced modes are equivalent to a medium-light complexity game.
While the game mechanics and components will be familiar to anyone that has played a hex and counter wargame, there are several unique features about Battlegroup Clash: Baltics:
Preparation & Planning – In the Standard and Advanced modes of the game players will need to draft Orders for their forces. This happens at the start of the game. These Orders drive the actions individual units take in the game. This is a simplified version of the type of planning that would occur in real life. It presents both a challenge and opportunity to players, and greatly enhances the immersion of the game.
Drones and Electronic Warfare – Events in Ukraine have shown how much the use of drones has changed the modern battlefield. Reflecting this, in the game players use UAS drones for reconnaissance and FPV (‘kamikazi’) drones to attack enemy units. Each side can intercept their opponent’s electronic transmissions to improve targeting, and apply tactical Electronic Warfare effects such as jamming the enemy’s drone assets or crippling their GPS navigation.
Real World Mapping – The four maps in the game are based on satellite imagery from key locations in Estonia. Using computer aided design, that imagery has been turned into a highly realistic map. There are no hexes, just grid lines, the same as a real world map. Players must read the map terrain to determine key locations and terrain features, and assess how they fit into their battleplan and objectives.
If you are interested in Battlegroup Clash: Baltics2nd Printing, you can pre-order a copy for £69.00 ($92.38 in US Dollars) from the Sapper Studio website at the following link: Battlegroup Clash: Baltics (2nd printing) | Sapper Studio
2. VEKTYR: The Geopolitical Struggle for Central Asia, 1991-2020 from GMT Games
I love a good geopolitical wargame as well as a good multi-player wargame. And when these 2 are mixed, it can really make for a very interesting gaming experience with diplomacy, alliances, asymmetry and the like. This past month, GMT offered a game that have both in VEKTYR: The Geopolitical Struggle for Central Asia, 1991-2020 that takes a look at the ongoing struggle between the United States, Russia, and China. for influence and control in Central Asia. The game is designed by a new designer named Kyle Farrell so I am very interested in connecting with him to discuss the design and get more information about how it plays and what his vision and basis are for the game.
From the game page, we read the following:
VEKTYR is a 2-3 player geopolitical wargame that simulates the ongoing struggle for influence in Central Asia between the United States, Russia and China.
The game takes players from 1991 after the newly independent Central Asian nations – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union through 2020 when multiple international crises accelerated the global shift towards a multipolar world.
The extensive action deck covers over 120 distinct historical occurrences that have shaped Central Asia’s relationship with three global powers – the United States, Russia and China – as well as the rest of the world.
Over the five turns of the game, each player will have to bend history to their will in order to establish influence throughout Central Asia as well as periphery territories in the Caucasus, Türkiye, and Afghanistan. Your mission is to win hearts and minds, catch the ears of the region’s presidents, invest in critical industries and showcase your power’s prowess through military assistance.
In VEKTYR, players will accrue victory points by playing “Scoring” cards, playing event cards that award VP’s, or building pipelines for VP payouts. The game consists of 5 turns: 3 turns within the Post Independence epoch from 1991-2016 and 2 turns within the Central Asian “Renaissance” epoch from 2016-2020. Each turn consists of 6 rounds.
At the start of each turn, each player draws up to a hand size of 7 cards and plays one round in succession until every player has played 6 rounds. All of VEKTYR‘s cards have a dial in their upper left corner noting which global power the card’s event pertains to. Some cards are fully-neutral cards meaning any power can play them, others can be played by 2 of the 3 powers, and others still can only be played by a single power. Whenever a rival plays a card with an event pertaining to you, you’ll have the opportunity to resolve the event during your rival’s round. A delightful mechanic that keeps the game dynamic even when it’s not your go!
Every round, players either use their card’s event or action points to lay influence on the board, seize the ear of the region’s presidents, invest in industries, provide military assistance or build pipeline infrastructure. Much of the game centers around your ability to build influence in the Central Asian provinces as well as periphery countries. Players will use events and action points to gain a strategic foothold in these wide stretches of Eurasia. But how effective will your soft power be in fending off your rivals’ similarly enticing offers?
Also, what have you done for me lately? One of the mechanics that keeps the board fresh in VEKTYR is called “atrophy” and mimics the ephemerality of political popularity. Under this mechanic, at the end of every Turn, each player removes some of their influence from the board, opening up new possibilities for their opponents as they are forced to abandon specific countries or provinces.
I am very much interested in this title and would like to learn more about how it works and how it tries to simulate the complex situation and politics involved.
3. Empire of the Sun: China Expansion from GMT Games
Empire of the Sun is Mark Herman’s card driven design that takes a strategic level look at the entirety of World War II in the Pacific from the attack on Pearl Harbor until the surrender of Japan and is the first card driven game (CDG) to move the system closer to a classic hex and counter wargame, while retaining all of the tension and uncertainty people have come to expect from a CDG. Recently, GMT announced an expansion to the game that deals with the China Theater and the action that took place there between the combatants. The game comes with a new replacement map that will replace the China Front Track as well as some new cards. The game was dreamed up by a few Chinese designers, and fans of Empire of the Sun, named Ji So and Liu Zhijun.
From the game page, we read the following:
Empire of the Sun examines the China theater as a frontline ‘piston’ model that reprises its historical role as an Allied resource need based on the level of Japanese offensive efforts to force its surrender. We are now releasing a new expansion for the core game, which you will need to play this expansion that adds all of the ground and air forces to open up a path not really taken to include the eventual Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
About two years ago, two Chinese gamers contacted me that they had developed a China expansion for Empire of the Sun. I was certainly interested and what you hold in your hands is the product of my collaboration with Ji So, Liu Zhijun, and my developer Francisco Colmenares. What has changed is my original piston model China Front track has been replaced with a map and counters. There are a host of rules to handle this unique theater of operations, but what I have found at their core is how well we have gotten the new module to perform to history and the original track.
What you will find is if the Japanese play cards into China offensives, they will likely capture and control the rail lines plus the coastal ports. Achieving more is possible, and everyone is likely to try, but it is hard to get forward momentum as long as the Allies put some equivalent effort into defending Chungking. This is exactly how the original track worked, but what is very interesting is you more clearly see the connection between the China-Burma-India (hereafter CBI) theater and mainland China. In my various opposed playtests, I have found that in half the games there is some action in China and in others not much happens. I have also found that if the Japanese army strategy is followed, the US makes quicker progress across the Pacific. What this will give you is more control over how you decide to prosecute the war from the Japanese perspective. That said, every so often I have had spectacular success with a surprise Chinese offensive. More options, more strategy, and for me, more interesting game play.
Empire of the Sun: China Expansion comes with 33 new cards (18 Allied and 15 Japanese), a 22”x34” paper map (original map art with the China theater shown in detail), one counter sheet featuring new US, Nationalist Chinese, Communist Chinese, Japanese, and Soviet air, ground, and naval units, replacement player aids with the new rules added for China, PLUS an integrated rulebook with all rules integrated into the original core system. Empire of the Sun: China Expansion is now available for the low, low, low, low price of $35.
4. Pax Romana & Genesis Dual Pack Reprint Edition from GMT Games
I very much love these Deluxe Edition Multi-Packs from GMT Games. They are an insane value with multiple games included in the same box, typically with new components, updated rules and sometimes additional scenarios. A newly announced pack is the Pax Romana & Genesis Dual Pack, which contains 2 classic Ancients games in Pax Romana and Genesis designed by Richard Berg.
From the game page, we read the following:
GMT is proud to bring back into print Richard Berg’s Pax system games, Pax Romana and Genesis in a dual pack format. This printing of Pax Romana will be identical to the 2nd edition published in 2015 with all known errata incorporated along with additional editing where necessary to improve clarity. Similarly, this printing of Genesis will be identical to the 1st edition with the exception that Kingdom Displays will be enlarged to 8 ½ “ x 11”. All known errata will be addressed with additional editing where necessary to improve clarity. The games will share a back-printed mounted map and come in a 3” box.
Components
Pax Romana
One 22″ x 34″ back printed full-color mounted map board shared with Genesis
Three full-color die-cut counter sheets (1/2” counters, 280 counters per sheet)
One smaller full-color die-cut counter sheet (5/8” counters)
One smaller full-color die-cut counter sheet (round counters)
55 Event Cards
Four 8 ½ ” x11″ Player Mats
Two 11” x 17” Player Aid Cards (four sets of the two PACs)
Rule Book
Play Book
Two six-sided dice
Genesis
One 22″ x 34″ back printed full-color mounted map board shared with Pax Romana
Three full-color die-cut counter sheets (840 1/2” counters)
55 Event Cards
Two 11” x 17” Player Aid Cards (five sets of the two PACs)
Five 8 ½” x 11” Kingdom Display Cards
Rule Book
Play Book
Two six-sided dice
Pax Romana
How did Rome get to be Rome? Why did the Glory That Was Greece fade? What stopped Carthage from making an empire of the Mediterranean? Could the Seleucids really have conquered the western world?
These are a few of the questions you can explore in Pax Romana, designed for play by all levels of gamers, from the competition-oriented, one sitting players to the Let’s Recreate History on a grand scale afficionados.
Pax Romana covers the Europe from 300 BC through the end of the 1st century BC, when control of the Mediterranean was in a state of flux with four possible empires. And it does so with a scale and system that is filled with decision-making tension but also highly accessible and easy to play. The emphasis is on strategic operations, from raising armies to colonizing outlying areas, to fighting barbarian incursions, to maintaining political stability at home.
Pax uses a unique marker-oriented play sequence that provides surprise and opportunity, plus a deck of unusual cards that provide the historical background of events and calamities within which the players must operate. Each turn represents 25 years, with the movement of forces and the shifting of power occurring at a proportionately very large scale. Combat takes place throughout the game, but they, too, represent ongoing conflict as much as individual battles. But even here, subtleties are built-in: force composition matters – armies overbalanced by cheap light infantry suffer penalties, while cavalry can single-handedly make the difference between winning and losing – and knowing when and where to make a stand and when to withdraw to safer places can literally decide the fate of a power for an entire generation. And at this scale, of course, the best-laid plans frequently go awry.
Most important for gamers, though, is the wide variety of scenarios Pax provides, from fast-playing, one-sitting two-player games to vivid recreations of the entire era with four players. The game works well with 2, 3 or 4 players, and is designed to be playable solitaire for those interested in the historical view it provides. Scenarios range from The Punic Wars, through the Eastern Med conflicts between the Greeks and the Seleucids, all the way up to the entire 10 turn game, covering 300 years of history. In addition, there are two versions of Pax: the Standard Game, designed for fast play, and the Advanced version, which adds in much tangential history and allows for a more introspective examination of the era.
Genesis
Genesis is a campaign-level game covering the turbulent Late Bronze Age in the Middle East, where kingdoms rose and fell while establishing many of the systems and ways of life that underwrite Western Civilization. Much like its ancestor game, Pax Romana, Genesis is a game that provides the players with the historical dramatis personae and allows them to forge their own empires. It also has a great emphasis on the control of the important trade routes and commercial centers and the building of the spectacular monuments these civilizations left for posterity and wonder.
All the “high”-points of this era are included: lots of gods that have major effect on play (Astarte, Baal, Dagon, Marduk, et al), the rise of chariot warfare … peasants, slaves, and a host of historical kings: Thutmose, Akhenaten, Suppiluliuma, Mullatawi, Tushratta, Hammurabi, Agum III, Shalmaneser, Shamsi-Adad , and many more. . . even Sargon the Great (the world’s first great conqueror (2270-2215 BCE) … along with Sea Peoples, independent kingdoms (Canaanites, Arzawans) and pirates, and guys with great beards (see below):
There are several two-player scenarios for short-time play, an introductory scenario to get you into the system (featuring Sargon), and the big, 5-player multi, included all the major players – Egypt, The Hittites, the Mitanni, Assyria and Babylon – more color than a Crayola Factory and more fun chrome than a ‘57 Chevy. The main scenario can also be played with 3 or 4 players.
Of course, there are the cards (the game is not card-driven but card-augmented), such as:
The Begat Effect: Independent Expansion (2): The card player may move a Peasant unit from a friendly City space to any unoccupied independent City space within 4 spaces of where that Peasant starts. This card may be held in Hand until played.
Baal (2): It’s Time to Pay Baal … and all those priests running those temples. For every Monument he has in a Home Kingdom City, the card player must pay 2$. If he cannot pay, the player must remove the Monuments that he cannot pay for.
The Akhenaten Effect: If you are Egypt and your Pharaoh/King is Akhenaten, you do not pay anything; you simply remove all Monuments in your Home Kingdom cities. This card must be played when drawn.
5. Enemy Coast Ahead: The Dambuster Raid Mounted Map from GMT Games
One of my complaints about wargames is that that boards that you play the games on are paper. These are generally flimsy, have severe folds on them that disfigure the beauty of the boards and also are a bitch to get to lay flat without having humps in them that act as steep terrain and make it hard for me to line up my units. Now, once again, I want to say that I generally am ok with paper maps for multi-map hex and counter wargames where having a nice thick mounted map, or in the case of many maps, is infeasible for storage purposes. But, when the game is a different kind of game, such as Waro (Euro focused wargame), I very much like having a solid mounted mapboard. One of the offerings this month is a step in the right direction to fix a great game with a new Mounted Map for Enemy Coast Ahead.
From the game page, we read the following:
Based on positive feedback to our mounted mapboard releases, we are continuing to offer mounted maps for several of our most popular games as P500 items.
We are now offering a 22 x 34″ mounted map for Jerry White’s Enemy Coast Ahead: The Dambusters Raid. This is intended to ship separately along with the game’s 2nd printing. But note that it will work with either 1st or 2nd printing, so this will work just fine for those of you who want to get a mounted map for your original game. Enjoy!
6. In the Desert 1940–1943: WW2 in North Africa from Dissimula Edizioni Currently on Kickstarter
Several years ago, Sergio Schiavi broke onto the scene with his new company called Dissimula Edizioni with their first Kickstarter called Radetsky’s March: The Hundred Hours Campaign and that game was then followed a few years later by From Salerno to Rome: World War II – The Italian Campaign, 1943-1944 and their third game called Give Us Victories: The Chancellorsville Campaign. They also have a line of smaller, simpler games that started with 1943-1945 from a few years ago that dealt with the war for Italy during WWII. That game was fantastic and they have now worked on the 2nd entry in that series called In the Desert 1940–1943: WW2 in North Africa that is currently on Kickstarter.
From the game page, we read the following:
Between 1940 and 1943, North Africa was the theater of a war fought between the Axis forces and the British Commonwealth; numerically limited armies faced each other in a long sequence of offensives, retreats, and counterattacks. The clashes often took place in the desert, where mobility and the ability to maintain supply lines were as decisive as the strength of the weapons.
Behind the front loomed Malta, a strategic British base and a constant threat to the vital supplies heading toward Tripoli…
The game system used in In the Desert 1940–1943: WW2 in North Africa is derived from 1943–1945, but features significant differences. The game lasts eight turns, during which players alternate their operations by spending Supply Points (SP). Each activation requires careful decisions: commit your forces immediately or preserve them for later operations? Supply is essential: without a clear line to their own bases, units risk remaining engaged and vulnerable. Meanwhile, control of Malta constantly threatens Axis supplies. Special events allow players to alter the situation on the battlefield, recover forces, strengthen attacks, or create new strategic opportunities.
As of October 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $5,461 toward its $3,643 funding goal with 156 backers. The campaign will conclude on Wednesday, October 7th at 4:25am EDT.
7. Napoléon 1870: The Collapse of the Second French Empire from Shakos Currently on Kickstarter
I do love a good Napoleonics wargame and The Conquerors Series from Shakos is really very good as we have played a few games over the years. They have a new volume in that series on Kickstarter that is designed by a tandem of great designers in Brian Asklev (Baltic Empires from GMT Games and 1812: Napoleon’s Fateful March from VUCA Simulations) and Fred Serval (A Gest of Robin Hood and Red Flag Over Paris from GMT Games as well as A Very Civil Whist from PHALANX) called Napoléon 1870: The Collapse of the Second French Empire from Shakos. This game is set in a different period but uses the same system to tell the story of the collapse of the Second French Empire during the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870’s.
From the game page, we read the following:
In 1870, Napoleon III’s Second Empire was on the brink of collapse. After hastily declaring war on Bismarck’s Prussia, the French armies were overwhelmed and surrounded at Metz.
This is your opportunity to write something different.
Napoléon 1870 is the fourth instalment in the Napoleon Series, a series devoted to the great strategists of history. Following on from Napoléon 1806, Napoléon 1807 and Napoléon 1815, Napoléon 1870 brings its own unique challenges to this well-tried and highly acclaimed campaign system.
In Napoléon 1870, two players, assume the role of Napoleon III or Bismarck, making the key decisions that will shape the fate of Europe. In the role of Napoleon, will you manage to escape the trap set by your opponent and avoid being trapped in Metz, or, like Bismarck, will you succeed in taking the French armies by surprise and outflanking them? A variety of scenarios, lasting from 40 minutes to 2 hours and a half, will allow you to rewrite the battles along the borders right up to the final assault on Metz.
Napoléon 1870 is aimed at both seasoned grognards as well as enthusiastic young conscripts keen to understand how history is made. Thanks to a set of simple rules that remain faithful to historical reality, all the key aspects of the campaigns of the Napoleonic era are recreated so that players can engage with them. As events unfold, there will be scope for both subtle bluffing and the brutal use of overwhelming force.
Napoléon 1870 follows the rules of the Napoleon Series (also referred to as the Conquest Series) created by Denis Sauvage, but two designers wellknown to the general public have teamed up to produce this new installment:
• Fred Serval, a specialist in the Second Empire and author of Red Flag over Paris and A Gest of Robin Hood from GMT Games.
• Brian Asklev, an expert in Napoleonic strategy and operations, author of 1812: Napoleon’s Fateful March from VUCA Simulations.
As of October 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $32,894 toward its $17,079 funding goal with 294 backers. The campaign will conclude on Tuesday, October 13th at 2:00pm EDT.
8. Band of Brothers BLACK BULL: British 11th Armoured Division Bull from Worthington Publishing Currently on Kickstarter
There are some series out there that people really love and enjoy playing. This love leads to the series selling well and then expanding as the market is able to continue supporting the games. Band of Brothers from Worthington Publishing is such a series. A tactical level squad based game set in World War II, the series has expanded into several different theaters and has multiple stand-alone expansions. Recently, I saw news that there would be a new volume coming to Kickstarter called Black Bull, which focuses on the exploits of the British 11th Armoured Division during World War II.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Band of Brothers Series returns to Europe with BLACK BULL: British 11th Armoured Division, a new standalone game focusing on one of the British Army’s best-known armoured formations of World War II.
The British 11th Armoured Division was formed in 1941 and adopted the distinctive Charging Bull as its divisional emblem.
The game includes 14 scenarios following the 11th Armoured Division through its campaign in Northwest Europe.
The scenarios put the British player in command of the infantry, tanks and supporting weapons of the Black Bull against German forces in a variety of tactical situations.
As of October 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $19,020 toward its $500 funding goal with 267 backers. The campaign will conclude on Saturday, October 10th at 4:00pm EDT.
9. Aces of Aces: Handy Rotary & Flying Machines Deluxe Editions from Mr. B Games Currently on Kickstarter
A classic reborn is how I would classify the newest edition of Ace of Aces. With very unique mechanics trying to provide the experience of dueling it out with an enemy biplane over the fields of World War I, Ace of Aces is now making a comeback with the Powerhouse Series rebirth all the way from 1981. The newest edition include a look at 2 games in Aces of Aces: Handy Rotary & Flying Machines Deluxe Editions.
From the game page, we read the following:
We’re back with two more Ace of Aces books! We are giving our deluxe treatment to two more books, Ace of Aces: Flying Machines and Ace of Aces: Handy Rotary. We promised these during our Powerhouse Series Kickstarter campaign, and we’re excited to bring them to you now. Just as with our Ace of Aces: Powerhouse Deluxe Edition, these will both be redone in full color with the same slipcase design as the Powerhouse edition.
The Ace of Aces family of games uses two books to simulate a duel in the skies between two fighters in World War I. Using Alfred Leonardi’s innovative matrix system, players choose maneuvers in their book. Each maneuver leads to a page in the book that matches the first-person perspective of the pilot. Players maneuver to line up their planes so they can unload their guns on their opponent. Take too many shots, and you go down in flames!
Each of the Ace of Aces sets includes two books; these are the dogfighting books, as well as a rulebook and chart book, all in a beautiful slipcase! The slipcase also has an extra drawer to store dice and chips.
We’ve updated all the interior graphics with all new artwork. All in full color! These aren’t the final pages, but they are pretty close
As of October 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $162,075 toward its $50,000 funding goal with 1,335 backers. The campaign will conclude on Thursday, October 8th at 6:00pm EDT.
10. Afrika Korps 41 from Trafalgar Editions Currently on Kickstarter
Who doesn’t love a good North Africa wargame? No one says me and I am excited to share with you this new upcoming game called Afrika Korps 41 from Trafalgar Editions. The game is currently on Kickstarter and really looks to be pretty good.
From the game page, we read the following:
The North African desert, 1941. The armored columns of Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the British 8th Army clash in a brutal war of movement for strategic control of the Mediterranean theater.
Afrika Korps 41 puts you in supreme command of this legendary campaign. Featuring an intuitive, deeply challenging, and highly immersive gameplay system, it delivers the true grit and tactical depth of historical conflict—without the dense complexity of traditional wargames.
There are several games that recreate the North Africa campaign in World War II, but Afrika Korps 41 offers a unique experience thanks to its balance between accessibility and strategic depth.
Simple Rules, complex decisions – Unlike other denser wargames, here the rules are easy to learn, but mastering the game requires planing and efficient resource management
Area-based system – Forget about hexes. Movement and territorial control are resolved intuitively with clearly defined strategic areas.
Innovative combat chart – We’ve designed a combat resolution system that moves away from the traditional, offering dynamic and realistic results without relying on complex tables.
Clean map with integrated aids – Key information is incorporated directly onto the game board, facilitating quick reference and speeding up gameplay.
Three difficulty levels – From an introductory mode ideal for new players to advanced levels that will challenge even the most experienced.
Flexible experience – You can play the full campaign or choose between three historical scenarios of 30-40 minutes, in addition to the option of starting the campaign from different key moments of the conflict.
Solo mode – Perfect for those who want to enjoy the game without needing an opponent.
Larger counters (17 mm) – Greater comfort and visibility on the battlefield.
Afrika Korps 41 is designed to offer an immersive, strategic, and dynamic experience, with innovative mechanics that differentiate it from other games about the same campaign.
And the game comes designed with a fully functioning solitaire game mode for those that either prefer to play solitaire or have difficulty finding opponents.
Afrika Korps 41 features an advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) system designed to deliver the full gameplay experience in solo play, allowing you to command either side (the Axis or the Allies). Both the full campaign and individual scenarios are completely playable without a human opponent, ensuring a tactical challenge that is as tense as it is dynamic.
Forget predictable automation. Our AI makes strategic decisions based on the actual, real-time context of the board. By evaluating the map situation and vital objectives, the system dynamically shifts between two core mentalities:
Offensive Posture (Attacker Mode): The AI aggressively seeks to breach your lines, pushes relentlessly toward strategic objectives, and exploits every single tactical blunder you make.
Defensive Posture (Defender Mode): The enemy digs in smartly, focusing on consolidating key positions, containing your advances, and efficiently deploying their reinforcements.
Infinite Replayability: Thanks to this adaptive behavior, no two solo games will ever play the same. The system immerses you in a war of attrition where your ability to counter the AI’s unpredictable maneuvers is your only path to victory.
As of October 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $12,704 toward its $7,932 funding goal with 151 backers. The campaign will conclude on Friday, October 16th at 6:00am EDT.
New Release
1. Colossus Stumbled: The Second Battle at Kharkov, May 12-23rd, 1942 from Three Crown Games
Three Crown Games is a great little company and their games really cover some great historical topics and also look the part as they are well produced, even though they are poly bag and not boxed games and are just plain desirable. This month, I noticed that they were shipping one of their new games called Colossus Stumbled: The Second Battle at Kharkov, May 12-23rd, 1942 and I very much wanted to share it with you.
From the game page, we read the following:
Colossus Stumbled is the title of the game that handles the first 12 intensive days of the second Battle of Kharkov (nowadays Kharkiv), 12 to 23, May 1942. On 12 May 1942, Soviet forces launched an offensive against the German 6th Army from a salient established during the winter counter-offensive. After a promising start, the offensive was stopped on 15 May by massive airstrikes and the Axis started their counter-offensive ‘Operation Fredericus’, in the region around Kharkov. Its objective was to eliminate the Izium bridgehead over Seversky Donets or the “Barvenkovo bulge” which was one of the Soviet offensive’s staging areas.
If you are interested in Colossus Stumbled: The Second Battle at Kharkov, May 12-23rd, 1942, you can order a copy for 49,50 € ($57.30 in US Dollars) from the Three Crown Games website at the following link: https://www.threecrownsgames.com/product-page/colossus-sumbled
2. Medieval Command: Battle of Varna, 1444 Print & Play from Solo Wargame
Martin Melbardis began his design career with Campaign: Fall Blau from Catastrophe Games. This was a very interesting little dice chucking solitaire game on Operation Barbarossa during WWII. Since that time, he has started his own independent wargame company called Solo Wargame and has designed 10 different and very interesting roll and write wargames on a plethora of subjects including World War I (Trench Tactics), World War II (Operation Barbarossa, Lone Wolf: U-Boat Command and War in the Pacific), Napoleonic Wars (Siege Works) and Ancient Rome (Rome Must Fall). His newest game called Medieval Command: Battle of Varna, 1444 starts a new series and is focused on the Crusade Battle of Varna and looks really interesting.
From the game page, we read the following:
On the fog-shrouded morning of 10 November 1444, the fate of southeastern Christendom hangs by a fraying thread as your heavily outnumbered Crusader army stands before the terrifying mass of Sultan Murad II’s Ottoman host near the Black Sea port of Varna. You are outnumbered nearly two to one; however, your heavy cavalry advantage can make the difference. Medieval Command: Battle of Varna 1444 is a solo Print & Play wargame that simulates the epic last ditch crusade attempt to free the Balkans from Ottoman rule. As the solo player, you play the role of Crusader, while the BOT handles your opponent, the Ottomans. You must master a tight dice-drafting system where GREEN dice power Ottoman attacks and Crusader defenses, while WHITE dice fuel your own offensives. Because you cannot win a war of attrition against these odds, your only hope is to tactically bank your dice to unleash devastating Boosted Actions like a thunderous, multi-die cavalry charge to smash the elite Janissary Wall before your lines crumble and the young King Władysław III is slain in the mud.
Here is a link to a playthrough video from the designer:
3. Thirty Years of Misery: The Thirty Years War 1618-1648 from VUCA Simulations
A couple of years ago, I came across a new designer named Brian Asklev and have done interviews with him covering Baltic Empires from GMT Games and 1812 – Napoleon’s Fateful March from VUCA Simulations. Brian is a pretty sharp designer and I very much like his approach to design as well as the choices in designs that he is doing. His new game is called Thirty Years of Misery: The Thirty Years War 1618-1648. The cover art is amazing, the topic looks great and the approach that he is taking seems to be very novel.
From the game page, we read the following:
Between 1618 and 1648, Europe was consumed by one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in its history. What began as a rebellion in Bohemia soon engulfed the Holy Roman Empire and drew nearly every major European power into a struggle over religion, dynastic ambition, and political supremacy. Millions perished as armies marched across Central Europe, cities were besieged, alliances shifted, and entire regions were devastated.
Thirty Years of Misery places you in command of the major powers that shaped this conflict. Lead the Imperial Habsburgs, the Catholic League, Sweden, or France as you fight to reshape Germany through military campaigns, religious influence, political maneuvering, and strategic diplomacy.
Victory requires more than battlefield success. You must secure electorates, protect your heartlands, influence the religious landscape of the Empire, and achieve your faction’s unique historical ambitions before peace is finally negotiated at Westphalia. Rather than recreating individual battles, Thirty Years of Misery captures the entire strategic conflict across three decades of war.
Every campaign combines:
Military operations
Religious conflict
Political objectives
Coalition warfare
Historical events
Dynamic diplomacy
Each round features a randomized turn order, ensuring that no two campaigns unfold the same way. Players must continually adapt to changing circumstances, unexpected interventions, and opportunities created by both allies and enemies.
4. The Far Seas: German Cruiser Operations at the Onset of WWI from VUCA Simulations
Another new order game from VUCA Simulations this month is The Far Seas: German Cruiser Operations at the Onset of WWI and I am always in for a naval focused wargame. I have not played that many and frankly not that many of the ones that I have played are that good but this one does look intriguing. I have also always been interested in the German efforts to solidify their place around the globe navally and with the founding of colonies in Africa and the South Pacific. So this one looks to fill that niche and looks to be really very interesting.
From the game page, we read the following:
At the outbreak of World War I, eight German cruisers were scattered across the globe—isolated, outnumbered, and cut off from home. What followed was a daring campaign of commerce raiding, evasion, and naval warfare that forced the British Empire to divert vast resources in pursuit.
The Far Seas puts you in command of this asymmetric naval struggle.
Take control of the German raiders or the Allied fleets in a tense operational-level game of hidden movement, search, and decisive engagements.
German player: Plan secretly, strike where the enemy is weak, raid merchant shipping, disrupt supply lines, and attempt the long journey home.
Allied player: Coordinate a superior fleet, protect trade routes, and hunt down elusive cruisers across the world’s oceans.
Every decision matters—overextend, and you risk destruction; hesitate, and the enemy slips away.
The system is built for fast turns, high tension, and meaningful choices:
Hidden movement and intelligence gaps create constant uncertainty
Elegant search and encounter mechanics lead to dynamic engagements
Combat resolves quickly but carries lasting consequences
Modular rules allow you to scale complexity to your preference
The core experience is accessible, yet layered with strategic depth for experienced players.
Beyond the core system, the game integrates historical realities that shaped naval warfare in 1914:
Coaling constraints force long-term planning
Convoy systems create high-risk, high-reward targets
Colonial operations add strategic pressure points
Special events introduce uncertainty and narrative moments
These elements enhance realism while preserving smooth gameplay.
If you are interested in The Far Seas: German Cruiser Operations at the Onset of WWI, you can order a copy for $99.99 from the VUCA Simulations website at the following link: https://vucasimulations.com/products/the-far-seas
5. In Fours to Heaven: The Invasion of Poland 1939 from VUCA Simulations
Last year, while trolling the interwebs, I came upon the In Development section of the VUCA Simulations website and saw a very interesting looking operational level wargame on the German invasion of Poland in 1939 to kickoff World War II called In Fours to Heaven. The subject caught my eye, the title caught my eye and the cover caught my eye and I am very much interested in this one. I know that this campaign is seen as very one sided and that the outcome was predetermined as there was really no way for the Polish army to stand against the might of the German war machine but this one takes a look at the situation and makes it a gameable effort.
From the game page, we read the following:
In Fours to Heaven places you at the operational command level of the German invasion of Poland in 1939—a campaign often considered decided, yet far more complex, chaotic, and uncertain than history suggests.
Will you execute a lightning campaign—or struggle against friction, supply, and coordination breakdowns? Will you delay the inevitable—or collapse under pressure?
This is not a scripted retelling. It is a dynamic operational simulation of the Polish Campaign—driven by uncertainty, command limitations, and morale.
The German player must achieve rapid operational success before time, logistics, and resistance slow the advance.
The Polish player fights a desperate but intelligent campaign of delay, coordination, and survival—where morale becomes a decisive factor.
As usual, thanks so much for reading along and sticking with me this month as I navigated through the many websites and game pages looking for new and interesting games to share.
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.
#96: Henry Knox Continental Artillery Commander from Washington’s War from GMT Games
Washington’s War is a war game, make no mistake about that. But, it is virtually impossible to win the game by focusing only on the field of battle. For that to happen, the Patriots need to completely drive the British forces out of the 13 colonies or the British need to wipe the American forces off the map. Both are extremely difficult and I would be surprised if any more than 1 out of 30 games ended in such a way. Rather, the ultimate goal of the game is to have political control of the colonies. If at the end of the game the Patriots control 7 colonies, while holding the British to control of less than 5, they win. If not, the British win. Simple as that. So, you can see that battle is not the main goal but control is. And more importantly political control.
I really like this about the design and feel that the real core of the American Revolution was the groundswell of patriotism and the desire to live free from the shackles of an overseas monarch who cared little for the American way of life. This desire led great men of the time to sacrifice themselves, their livelihood and their families to further the true cause of liberty and build a truly free and democratic nation where individual liberty and freedom was prioritized over anything else. And yes, I realize that this nation was not perfect, not without contradiction but the concept of liberty helped to form a country that would lead to the ultimate freedom of all people.
Washington’s War is a Card Driven Game, and as such, relies on cards to provide to players the actions needed to play the game. The cards contain OPS Points which can be used to drive various actions, including such things as activating leaders, who in turn will then move with forces to attack, and also contain written text in the form of events. These events can be played only by the side they are intended for and if drawn and played by the opposing side, they can only be thrown away while granting a few possible actions, such as placing or removing Political Control markers.
In Washington’s War, the Strategy Card Deck contains several different type of cards of which one is Battle Cards. Battle Cards are special event cards that provide a powerful +2 Die Roll Modifier (DRM) during combat and allow the user to draw a replacement card at the end of the turn. All of the Battle Cards offer a +2 DRM but each of them are tied to a different historical character or event. In this instance, the card’s effects reflect the work of Henry Knox who was a prominent Continental Artillery Commander during the Revolutionary War. There are only 9 total Battle Cards in the 110-card deck with the Patriot side having 5 cards, while the British side only has 4. I also want to point out that when these cards are used, they allow the using player to draw a replacement card at the end of the active player’s turn, keeping your hand size strong and not forcing you to sacrifice a card. And due to the fact that they swing combat odds significantly and also replace themselves with a draw, they are heavily prized and typically are saved in a player’s hand for those critical campaign-deciding clashes.
Henry Knox was an American military officer, politician, bookseller, and a Founding Father of the United States. Knox, born in Boston, became a senior general of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, serving as chief of artillery in all of George Washington’s campaigns. Following the war, he oversaw the War Department under the Articles of Confederation from 1785 to 1789. Washington appointed him the nation’s first Secretary of War, a position which he held from 1789 to 1794. He is well known today as the eponym of Fort Knox in Kentucky.
During the siege of Boston, the idea arose that cannon recently captured at the fall of forts Ticonderoga and Crown Point in upstate New York could have a decisive impact on its outcome. Knox is generally credited with suggesting the prospect to Washington, who placed him in charge of an expedition to retrieve them even though Knox’s commission as an officer had not yet arrived. Reaching Ticonderoga on December 5, 1775, Knox commenced what came to be known as the “noble train of artillery”, hauling 60 tons of cannon and other armaments by horse-drawn and ox-drawn sleds across some 300 miles of ice-covered rivers and snow-draped Berkshire Mountains to the Boston siege camps.
The region was lightly populated and Knox had to overcome difficulties hiring personnel and draft animals. On several occasions, cannon crashed through the ice on river crossings, but the detail’s men were always able to recover them. In the end, what Knox had expected to take just two weeks actually took more than six, and he was finally able to report the arrival of the weapons train to Washington on January 27, 1776. Historian Victor Brooks writes that this was “one of the most stupendous feats of logistics” of the entire war, and Knox’s effort is commemorated by a series of plaques marking the Henry Knox Trail in New York and Massachusetts.
The cannon were immediately deployed to fortify the Dorchester Heights recently taken by Washington. The battery’s position over Boston harbor led the British to evacuate Boston for Halifax, Nova Scotia. With the siege ended, Knox undertook the improvement of defenses in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York in anticipation of a possible British assault. In New York he became friends with Alexander Hamilton, commander of the local artillery. He also established a close friendship with Massachusetts general Benjamin Lincoln.
A team of oxen hauls captured artillery toward Boston as part of the 1775-76 “Noble train of artillery”.
Here is a link to our full video review of the game:
Day 4 was our site visiting day and we planned out an all day trip that would take us to 4 different American Revolution battlefield sites including Waxhaws (Buford’s Massacre), King’s Mountain, Cowpens and Musgrove Mill.
But first we visited the Battle of Waxhaws also known as Buford’s Massacre in Lancaster, South Carolina. The Battle of Waxhaws took place on May 29, 1780. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton overtook Colonel Abraham Buford’s regiment of 350 Virginian Continental troopsas they were attempting to relieve Charleston. The battle was short lived and saw over 113 Patriot soldiers killed in a brief but brutal engagement after a breakdown in surrender communications as the Patriot soldiers were attempting to give up under a white flag and the British bayoneted and sabred many of them earning Tarleton the infamous nickname “Bloody Ban”.
The site was very clean and well done with lots of landscaping and hardscape features and they had a sign board showing the timeline of improvements over time. The central ficus is the mass grave of the men who were killed there.
I very much enjoyed the various interpretive signage and especially those showing the battle lines and disposition of troops as it helps me to place the event on the site and better understand how it unfolded.
The mass grave memorial was very well done and has been improved over the years to its present day condition. The mass grave is marked by a large 10-foot tall white marble obelisk marker originally erected in 1860 and later replaced in 1955.
We then made our way to King’s Mountain and very much enjoyed this site which commemorates a Patriot victory over the British on October 7, 1780. The battle was fought on a very rocky ridge in western South Carolina, near the North Carolina border.Around 900 Patriot frontier militiamen known as the “Overmountain Men” were against an equivalent force of Loyalist militia led by British Major Patrick Ferguson.The battle lasted only65 minutes.
The Patriot forces consisted of frontier militia from the Carolinas, Virginia and Georgia who had tracked Ferguson’s Loyalist force to their camp on the protected high ground. The Patriots used their hunting skills and knowledge of the terrain to surround the hill and while moving up the rocky slope, Patriot riflemen picked off the exposed Loyalists.
A painting hanging in the visitor center of the battle.
The Patriots had fewer than 100 casualties (around 28 milled and 90 wounded)while the Loyalists incurred over 1,000 total casualties, including roughly 240 killed or wounded and more than 600 captured.
The Loyalist leader Major Ferguson was shot and killed after trying to lead a desperate charge and the remaining Loyalist forces quickly surrendered.
A monument to Major Ferguson.
This one took me by surprise as the Loyalists had the high ground and superior positioning but were unable to overcome the Patriots. Just very interesting! The defeat halted the British invasion of North Carolina and forced General Charles Cornwallis to retreat from his forward positions.
Looking down from the ridge you can see the brutally steep and difficult terrain the Patriots maneuvered across.
We then made it over to Cowpens which was the battlefield that I was most interested in seeing especially since we just had played the game and were somewhat familiar with the situation.
The Battle of Cowpens occurred on January 17, 1781 near the town of Cowpens, South Carolina. A Patriot army of nearly 2,000 regulars and militia under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan defeated a force of about 1,000 British and Loyalist troops commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Banastre Tarleton and was the worst defeat suffered by the British in North America during the conflict following the 1777 Saratoga campaign.
After playing Small BoAR Cowpens, I was anxious to see the battlefield and the terrain to see how it compared. The setup of the units was spot on to what was shown at the site and I was guard to see that.
There were 3 lines of Patriot forces including skirmishes at the front, maim Continentals in the center and reserve cavalry in the back.
Then there was the actual terrain with the barren pines being somewhat present but most importantly the elevation change that would have obscured the Patriot trap.
There also was the cane break terrain that was found at the edges of the battlefield and that was pretty cool to see as it is very thick and darned near impassable.
Cane break at the edges of the battlefield.
A very enjoyable experience and we were able to walk the entire site in about an hour.
The final site we visited was the small battle at Musgrove Mill. Here Patriot forces outmaneuvered a larger Loyalist force and setup an ambush to even the odds. On the morning of August 19, 1780 mounted Patriots arrived near Musgrove Mill, the key to the local grain supply and the site of a Tory outpost. The Patriot force consisted of Georgians under Colonel Elijah Clarke, South Carolinians under Colonel James Williams and a group of “Over Mountain Men” from present-day Tennessee commanded by Colonel Isaac Shelby.
The Patriots revealed their presence when several of their scouts clashed with a Loyalist patrol. Two Rebels were wounded in the brief clash. Falling back, the Patriots encountered a friendly farmer who informed them that, contrary to their initial intelligence, the Tory garrison had been reinforced and now consisted of 500 men.
Outnumbered, and having lost the element of surprise, the Patriots formed up on a ridge top overlooking the road to Musgrove Mill and threw up a make-shift breastwork. A small detachment under the command of Captain Shadrach Inman was dispatched to lure the enemy into an ambush.
We walked the trail that followed the action ending in what was called an Indian hill where the Patriots drew in the Loyalists and waited to fire until they were within 30 yards to devastating effect. They could wait because of the elevation of the hill and the thick trees they were hiding behind.
Although the battle only lasted for an hour, the Loyalists suffered heavy casualties while the Patriots’ losses were fairly light. Before they could follow up on their success, however, the Patriot commanders learned of Horatio Gates’s defeat at Camdenand decided to disperse their forces. The Battle of Musgrove Mill signaled that resistance to British rule had not been snuffed out.
That was it. We did a ton of stuff in just 4 days including playing 4 games, visiting a total of 6 battlefields, shooting 4 videos and enjoying our time with other wargamers. It was a great convention and my thanks go out to all those that made this possible including Mark Miklos, Gene Billingsley and GMT Games as well as the good folks of the Camden Visitor Center and the South Carolina Battlefield Preservation Trust.
What a great time we have had at this convention! 2 fulls day of gaming in a fantastic historical setting here in Camden, South Carolina. But it hasn’t just been gaming though. Today started with a 3+ hour tour of the Camden battlefield and a demonstration at the Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill as well.
Rick Wise who is the Executive Director of the South Carolina Battlefield Preservation Trust gave us a 90 minute tour and discussion on the battle fought at Camden on August 16, 1780. The Patriots led by Horatio Gates and Baron DeKalb fielded about 4,000 muskets versus around 2,200 British soldiers led by Lord Charles Cornwallis and Lord Rowdon. The battle resulted in a major British victory with Cornwallis’ force suffering just over 300 casualties while Gates’ suffered almost 2,000.
Rick had a British Brown Bess musket and a French Charleville musket used by the Patriots that we were able to see fitted with bayonets and wielded by 2 lucky volunteers. These would have been truly terrifying to stand against and when wielded by trained soldiers were deadly weapons.
He also shared with us that archaeologists discovered the skeletal remains of 14 soldiers at the battlefield alongside period artifacts like musket balls and buttons.
Forensic and artifact analysis identified 12 Continental soldiers from Maryland and Delaware, one North Carolina Loyalist militia member (who was also Native American), and one British soldier from the 71st Regiment of Foot (Fraser’s Highlanders). They also were able to reveal that some of the Continental soldiers were teenagers, including two young men aged 16 to 19. It was truly sobering to see their unmarked grave and to find out that several were so young. Honor and bravery as well as the desire for freedom knows no age and these soldiers truly gave their lives for a cause they believed in.
There also was a nice monument to the sacrifice of de Kalb who commanded the American right wing during the engagement leading the premier units of the Delawareans and Marylanders. When the left and center of the American line disintegrated, de Kalb’s force had to beat a retreat before becoming completely surrounded. During this juncture of the fighting, the Baron’s horse was shot out from under him and he was thrown to the ground. Before he could gain his feet, he was hit with three musket balls and bayoneted multiple times by approaching British soldiers. The wounds would prove to be mortal.
Captured shortly thereafter by the British, the wounded general was picked up by General Lord Charles Cornwallis on his way to the rear. The British general, upon seeing de Kalb said the following: “I am sorry, sir, to see you, not sorry that you are vanquished, but sorry to see you so badly wounded.” Showing respect to the Baron though, Cornwallis reportedly, oversaw the dressing of the German’s wounds by his own surgeons. de Kalb would die 3 days later of his wounds.
We then made our way to the site of the Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill and were instructed by a US Army artillery officer on the use of Continental cannon. I was lucky to be chosen to act as the rammer or spongeman and very much enjoyed the activity where we trained to load and fire the cannon in under 15 seconds.
Here is a video of the firing of a musket but you will have to wait for the cannon video to come out on the YouTube Channel.
Such a great experience and I was very glad we took the time to participate in the tour. We then returned to the gaming area and setup BoAR Newtown from GMT Games.
I have wanted to play this for a while now as it is a unique and specialized entry to the BoAR Series. Newtown feels quite different from standard BoAR titles mainly because it replaces traditional line-infantry tactics with combat rules for the Indians that are very different.
The Movement and Activation System simulates the decentralized, individual nature of Indian warfare, where small war parties act on their own initiative rather than rigid command structures which is represented with a chit pull mechanic. In the chit pull cup are each of the Indian formations along with a single combat chit. When formations are pulled they can move and if the combat chit is pulled only those formations that have already moved and are adjacent to Patriot units may then attack. Formations pulled after this bit can move but cannot fight. This was very chaotic and created some task challenges for Alexander.
The Indians are lined up behind fortifications at the start of the game and will await the approaching Patriot troops from the protection of these improvements.
The game also includes Opportunity cards that adds a layer of hand management and tactical unpredictabilityas the cards act as one-off events or provide bonuses. The game also includes custom rules for Indian honor, ferocity, evasion and their specific resolve when facing artillery fire and have a chance to break. Just a very interesting game and I am glad that we played it.
To end the evening we got the chance to sit down with designer Bruno Sinigaglio and play his new game called Small BoAR The Battle of Cowpens.
The aim of the Small BoAR design concept is to include small and critical battles that otherwise do not fit the scale of the Battles of the American Revolution (BoAR) system designed by Mark Miklos. This new system was designed by Bruno Sinigaglio working closely with Mark Miklos to preserve the continuity and popularity of the original system. It feels very familiar to the original but takes the scale in a new direction. From 25 yard hexes vs 200 yards in BoAR, the scale change gives players the chance to try new tactics with rifle and musket fire as these are now up to 8 hexes range for rifles and 3 hexes for muskets while artillery is now up to 24 hexes.
The game also highlights the importance of cavalry and their tactics as their proper use on the battlefield can lead to devastating results.
We had a great time with this one and while we only played 5 full turns there is more to explore and we can’t wait to get our hands on a copy. We have been told it should be releasing in mid to late October.
That was it for today and we are now finished with the gaming portion of the trip. Tomorrow we are going to leave early and travel to 3 battlefields in the area on our way to Columbia and the airport in Buford’s Massacre in the Waxhaws, King’s Mountain and Cowpens.
Day 2 dawned early with a morning gathering at the Camden Revolutionary War Visitor Center to receive instruction on the days events and schedule. As you can see in the picture below, there were about 50 gamers who showed up early to get a good start on the gaming.
We entered the gaming hall and I was very surprised as it was very nice and cozy and felt roomy with lots of tables setup to choose from. We chose a corner in the back and began setting up to play Battles of the American Revolution Oriskany from the American Revolution Tri-Pack #2 from GMT Games.
There were a lot of different games being played including BoAR, Washington’s War, Liberty or Death and Common Sense as well as a BoAR Eutaw Springs tournament going on.
Bill Simoni and designer Trevor Bender playing in the Eutaw Springs tournament.
A demo of the upcoming Common Sense by designer Sam London.
Washington’s War.
Liberty or Death.
We decided to play the historical scenario for Oriskany which is a 6-turn game focusing on the August 6, 1777 ambush as General Nicholas Herkimer’s relief column is trying to make their way up the Military Road to Fort Stanwix.
The game starts with the British player having to set up their units in an ambush that has to be connecting contiguous units adjacent to the Patriots and they get an Ambush marker placed on them which will grant a 1 column shift to their attack if they can successfully make the ambush roll.
Alexander didn’t roll well so several of his units were detected and lost their element of surprise. You can see that 3 of his units lost their Ambush markers and this would prove to be a boon to the Patriots.
We spent the next 3-4 turns beating ourselves as our planned attacks were not working well and we basically rolled poorly and did damage to ourselves. Very odd but it was fun. But the best part of the system is the Tactics cards that create a bluff type of mind game.
The Tactics cards options are split into tiers with the 4 basic tactics always eligible to be chosen whereas advanced maneuvers require a commanding leader present and sometimes specific adjacent vacant hexes to execute. Common tactical choices include attacking in echelon, turning flanks, frontal assaults or attempting to withdraw. I very much enjoy this aspect because it adds a psychological tension that castes players to anticipate and bluff. Just a really neat addition to the game.
In the end, Alexander’s British and Indian allies ended up killing 2 of my leaders and also reduced 3 of my units and I was unable to advance the relief column to the point needed. He won the scenario with 4 VP to my zero. We had fun and I am glad we had a chance to play this one.
A leaderless rabble was defeated.
We then got in a game of Liberty or Death which is my 2nd favorite volume in the COIN Series.
I played as the Indians and Alexander took the French. I worked on building Villages and then started Plundering the Patriots of their resources. Meanwhile the French did a great job of getting into the war early by the end of 1777 and then worked well with the Patriots to attack the British in New York and New York City driving them out of both. This put a great deal of pressure on the Indians as I had to continually Raid into these areas trying to keep their level of Opposition low.
In the end, Alexander’s French earned victory at the end of 1779 (5th deck) with the finals scores being French -5, Indians (Grant) -10, Patriots (Shane) -10 and British (Mark) -15.
I saw something I have not seen before as my Indians got skipped multiple times on my turns due to Brilliant Stroke cards, Winter Quarters and some inopportune passing. Just weird that I lost 3-4 turns and also got into a cycle of only getting Limited Commands due to the eligibility on cards.
We next took a few minutes to walk around the grounds at the Camden site. My favorite part was the redoubt.
The British redoubt.
I was very interested in the ditch in front of the redoubt wall and its formidable defense as sharpened wooden stakes called fraises are placed horizontally projecting straight out from the earthen parapet. Their primary purpose was to prevent attacking infantry from climbing up the exterior wall.
We had a long discussion about how effective these would have been as infantry would have to run this gauntlet to get at the defenders all the while taking rifle fire and cannon fire. Just diabolical really.
Once inside there are several protected covered areas for storage of arms and supplies as well as to offer some additional protection to defenders.
Just a really cool experience being able to get inside this fortification and experience the history.
We ended the night with a group dinner at a local brewery. We sat with our friend Bill Simoni and Mike from My Own Worst Enemy.
Tomorrow we are taking part in a 3+ hour guided tour of the Camden battlefield as well as nearby Hobkirk’s Hill. We are then going to play a few games including BoAR Newtown and possibly the new Small BoAR Cowpens.
What a long day! Made up mostly of travel but I’m exhausted. We left my house this morning at 8:30am via an Uber to the airport where we made it through security and to our gate for a 10:15am flight from Indianapolis to Chicago where we transferred over with a 2-hour layover to a 1:30pm flight to Columbia, South Carolina.
We landed in Columbia at 4:30pm, grabbed our luggage and picked up our rental car to make the 35 minute drive to Camden, South Carolina on I-20.
We checked into the hotel and made our way over to the Camden Revolutionary War Visitor Center for the opening social event where we gathered with about 60 fellow wargamers who have all made the effort to travel here to play games over their weekend and also to tour the historic sites in and around Camden. If you didn’t know, Camden was pivotal to the story of the Southern Campaign during the American Revolutionary War with two battles fought within 6 miles of each other, bracketing the British occupation of the town. The Battle of Camden in 1780 was a decisive British victory that crushed the American Southern Army and brought disgrace to American General Horatio Gates. The Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill in 1781 was a British tactical victory that proved to be a strategic defeat.
Lord Charles Cornwallis’ Headquarters in Camden during the British occupation.
The British redoubt at Camden that has been restored.
We were able to catch up with lots of viewers of our videos and friends we have known for a long time as well as several designers, including Sam London and Justin Fassino. I also got a chance to chat with Gene Billingsley from GMT Games for about 30 minutes on a number of topics including gaming, publishing games, life and the event. I want to say that I took this opportunity to beg Gene to see about making a Deluxe Edition of Here I Stand as they have done with other games such as Combat Commander and For the People with new updated art, components and boards. He was not spilling any beans on the subject and wouldn’t give me an indication if it was either in the works or planned fur the future. Bummer but I made my pitch.
We then had a fantastic introduction on the event and the commemoration of America’s 250th Anniversary from Battles of the American Revolution Series designer Mark Miklos and Gene Billingsley. There were a lot of very touching and patriotic words spoken by these 2 and I truly felt great pride in our nation and the experiment that created it and has kept us strong these past 250 years.
We then were treated to a live artillery firing by local volunteers of a period 1-pounder and it was quite impressive. When it was fired, it was past sunset and quite dark and the explosion was quite impressive and very loud.
Here are 2 videos we took of the firing with one being in real speed and the other in slow motion.
That was our evening and I’m very excited for tomorrow as there is an opening ceremony at 8:30am followed by open gaming. Alexander and I will be playing Oriskany, which is a bonus game included in Newtown from the American Revolution Tri-Pack #2, followed by a 4-player game of Liberty or Death. The evening will conclude with a group dinner.
If you have been following our blog for a while now, you know of my affinity for the history of the American Revolutionary War. I am a proud American, believe deeply in the principles of our land and the Constitution that governs it and am grateful to God every single day that our country was successful in our fight for its freedom in order to create a better society and to assist all peoples with protecting their “unalienable rights” endowed by a Creator, which include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I enjoy playing wargames on the American Revolutionary War and very much enjoy learning about the history and its key battles. There are many out there that feel the same as I do and they have designed lots of these type of games and with 2026 being our 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, there are events that are planned to celebrate it.
One of which is an event put on by GMT Games and Mark Miklos called Gaming the American Revolution – Camden 250 being held in Camden, South Carolina September 24-27th. The event includes 3 days of gaming centered on American Revolutionary Wargames produced and published by GMT Games but also includes several events, gatherings and historic tours of the Camden Battlefield.
We are attending and at the time of the posting of this are already on a flight on our way to Columbia, South Carolina via a short stop in Chicago, Illinois. We are very much looking forward to the event and have plans to play at least 2 games from the Battles of the American Revolution Tri-Pack II including Newtown and Oriskany, as well as any other opportunity that presents itself. We also are going to participate in the various tours of the Camden Revolutionary War Visitor Center and nearby battlefield and also plan to drive to a few others sites on our way home to the airport namely Waxhaws and Cowpens.
At the end of each day, I will be putting together a short summary of what we did that day at the convention. I would like to keep this to just a few paragraphs with several pictures to give you an idea of the games we played that day, people we talked with and other activities we participated in. We will still work on doing multiple videos as well that will be released on the YouTube Channel over the next few months but this written coverage will supplement the videos. This summary will most likely not be posted until near midnight EST each night so you might be checking it out the next morning which is fine.
Finally, if you are at the event please feel free to find us and say hello. I believe that we are very friendly and accessible and love to make connections with our fans and followers. In fact, we have TPA buttons and stickers to give away so just ask. We also would like to take a picture with you so we can document it in our writings.
Please check back each day for a summary of the days exploits. Thanks for following along.
Because this is a wargaming blog, I am going to share below some of our content we have made regarding AmRev War games for your review:
Battles of the American Revolution Tri-Pack II: Monmouth, Germantown and Newtown is the second compilation of earlier releases from GMT Games’ Battles of the American Revolution Series. These are tactical level battles at the regimental level with a map scale of approximately 200 yd/hex.
Additions to the original releases include:
maps are hard-mounted
packaged in a GMT “deep box”, which is a 3″ box
rules and player aids printed in color
all replacement counters that have been issued since the games’ original releases
a new one page matrix-style play aid to assist the First Nations player in Newtown
Joel Toppen’s Solitaire Tactics Card play aid
a significantly upgraded Germantown rulebook addressing errata and ambiguities
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 #7: Ich Bin Ein Berliner
In the summer of 1963, the Berlin Wall had been in place for almost two years, the reality of a city split between east and west, between Soviet and Western influence, was impossible to deny. Politicians, military leaders, and the people living day-to-day in Berlin continued to argue about the lack of forceful response from the west, particularly the Americans, when the wall went up. Other than a modest buildup of US forces within and around the city, there had been precious little action to re-assure the people of Berlin that the west hadn’t abandoned them.
In June of that year, President Kennedy hoped to change that perception by personally visiting this western city in the center of Soviet-controlled East Germany. He received the reception and the reaction he was hoping for, driving through the city to crowds of cheering West Berliners, and giving his famous speech on the steps of the Rathhaus Shöneberg to a gathered crowd of over one hundred thousand. In a calculated risk, he referred to the city as West Berlin, officially acknowledging the split created by the wall. He introduced his “Fellow Americans” and at the mention of General Clay (Card #6), the crowd interrupted the speech for some heartfelt cheering for the man that saved their city during the Berlin Airlift. Kennedy’s famous line of solidarity, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” — I am a Berliner — came at the end of the speech and may have been a bit off-script.
So how would Kennedy’s speech affect a mission in Checkpoint Charlie? I’m going to answer that with a story.
I spend a lot of time at a wonderful coffee shop near my home, so much time that my iPhone has labeled the location as my “work.” The baristas there know me, and one day one of them asked me what I was working on. “Right now,” I said, I’m working on a board game about spies in Berlin in the 60’s.”
He laughed. “Have you met John?” He pointed to an older customer at one of the tables. “He was a spy in Berlin in the 60’s.” It was true.
Since then, I’ve had many conversations with John about his time in Berlin. He was Army Intelligence, keeping track of what was going on in the city. He was there when the wall went up. He interviewed the refugees that, for a time, still managed to find a way into West Berlin. And he was there during Kennedy’s speech.
I asked him about the speech and said that in the game it resulted in crowds (a Demonstrations marker) near Tempelhof. He shook his head. “Everywhere. Crowds everywhere. All over the city.”
I’m sorry to report that I’ve restrained the effects of this card and the speech for gameplay reasons, but I haven’t ignored John in every case. The Daily Military Train event (Card #9) exists solely because of his stories, and after removing the Refugees event (Card #13) from the game because I assumed the flow of refugees disappeared after the wall went up, I put it back in because John assured me that they were still coming – he had met and interviewed hundreds of them.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at the ongoing propaganda efforts from both sides of the Berlin Wall with Loudspeaker Wars.
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 Napoleonic Wars, 1805 – 1815, brings you a fast-paced, tension-filled, card-driven wargame using a point-to-point movement system that pushes the envelope in a new direction for this pivotal period of history. Having a simple-to-learn strategic system and short rulebook, The Napoleonic Wars, can be played in an evening as the cards and Diplomatic Track make for tough decision-making in the face of everchanging enemy threats.
Set in 1805 Europe, you must weigh the strategic dilemmas facing the two alliances in mortal conflict. Napoleon’s France enjoys a superb army, central position, superior leadership, and a useful, if not powerful, ally in Spain. However, she faces three foes.
Anmelden
