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.
Wer kennt es nicht: Ein bestimmter Song läuft im Radio oder auf einer Party, und sofort schießen Erinnerungen im Kopf hoch – doch in welchem Jahr kam der Hit eigentlich heraus? Mit PLAY – The Music Party Game bringt Kosmos
Are you searching for something to watch in the doldrum days of summer reruns? Do you find yourself endlessly scrolling through the options on multiple streaming services looking for something that catches your eye? Do you then settle on a show that you’ve seen a hundred times already when the scrolling gets to be too […]
Three years ago, I have inaugurated a new irregular series on my blog assessing the merits of UK prime ministers (illustrated through the lens of a single board game each). The rating system seemed robust enough to apply it to other countries/leaders (at least if they are more or less democratic). Thus, we branched out to American presidents and German chancellors. Today’s subject is the rare German president with political power – Paul von Hindenburg, the second and last president of the Weimar Republic. And which game could be more appropriate for him than Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx)?
The Rating System
Some caveats ahead: The presidents will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as president.
Now, to the system itself: There are three policy field categories (foreign, domestic, and economic policy) and three more general ones (vision, pragmatism, integrity). A president can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the president is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the president increase German influence in the world and the security of Germans at home? Did the president wield German power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected?
Domestic policy: Did the president increase the liberty of Germans to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the president promote domestic security and shape the framework for fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the president facilitate the prosperity and economic security of Germans (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the president’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the president have an idea of what Germany and Europe (the latter counting for more in times of German influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the president’s policies steer Germany (and, if applicable, Europe) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the president succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the president manage the support from parliament, society, the administration, the media?
Integrity: Did the president understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the president respect the boundaries of the office?
Note: If you have read my UK prime minister or US president ratings, you will remember that I rated them on the global impacts of their vision as well. As the rating system is only really applicable to democratic leaders and no democratic German leader ever had the chance to conduct a truly global policy, I only assess their vision on national and European grounds.
In all other ratings (UK prime ministers, US presidents, German chancellors) the subject’s life after holding the office is also assessed (for they are still seen as ex-office holders, but as a secondary consideration). This does not apply here, as – spoiler! – both Weimar Republic presidents died in office.
Hindenburg’s Life
Paul von Beneckendorff und Hindenburg was born in 1847, when Prussia was still an absolute monarchy. Like most men in his family, he opted for a military career and had his baptism of fire in Prussia’s wars of unification: He fought at Königgrätz (Sadowa) against the Austrians at age 18, at Sedan against the French three years later. The socialist Paris Commune which had been formed against both the Prussian siege of Paris and the liberal French government filled him with a horror of civil war and revolution which would influence him all his life. Back from the wars, Hindenburg enjoyed a successful career as an officer, culminating in his promotion to (full) general in 1905. In the forty years between the victory over France in 1871 and his retirement (aged 63) in 1911 he would not fight another war.
Hindenburg was recalled into active service shortly after the outbreak of World War I and placed at the head of the 8th Army, the only German force dealing with Russia’s invasion of East Prussia. At the advice of his energetic chief of staff Erich Ludendorff, Hindenburg opted for a daring counter-attack which annihilated one of the two Russian invasion armies. The actual execution of the plan was left to Ludendorff. Hindenburg’s main contribution was to remain steadfast when Ludendorff wanted to abandon the plan in the middle of the operation during one of his nervous fits – a pattern which would become characteristic for the rest of the war. Hindenburg and Ludendorff had won the most significant German victory of the early weeks of the war, and they had done so on German soil. The fundament for the myth of Hindenburg was in place.
While Hindenburg, now the commander-in-chief of the German forces on the Eastern Front, had suddenly become the most admired and revered German, the ambitious Ludendorff also urged him to demand greater influence over the course of the entire war. That embroiled the duo Hindenburg-Ludendorff in a continued rivalry with the OHL (Oberste Heeresleitung, Supreme Army Command) under Erich von Falkenhayn. Hindenburg, brought up with the values of a Prussian officer, was now routinely insubordinate to his military superior Falkenhayn, until Emperor Wilhelm II sacked Falkenhayn in August 1916 and replaced him with Hindenburg. Of course, it was once more Ludendorff, who (now as First Quartermaster General) pulled the strings.
Hindenburg and Ludendorff widely sidelined the emperor and ran Germany as a quasi-military dictatorship. However, their double role of political and military decision-makers did not come with increased effectiveness: What the politicians Hindenburg and Ludendorff demanded (a victorious peace, vast annexations, a German hegemony over Europe), the generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff could not deliver. And while the military leadership of the German armies remained strong, the political decisions lacked judgment – unlimited submarine warfare drew the United States into the conflict on the Allied side in 1917; the mishandling of relations with post-revolutionary Russia tied down German forces in the east. Hindenburg and Ludendorff gambled on a last offensive in the west in 1918 – and lost. The reserves were spent now. As the Allied armies pressed forward in a counter-offensive, making peace seemed like the best option to Germany’s military dictators.
They applied to US President Woodrow Wilson for peace – in the hope that a lenient peace based on the Fourteen Points could be obtained. Wilson, however, remained firm: On the one hand, he insisted on parliamentary government for Germany (and thus the end of the OHL dictatorship); on the other, the territorial losses and military restrictions to be applied to Germany seemed dishonorable to Hindenburg and Ludendorff. One way or the other, their desire to remain responsible for the country waned – they complained in bitter terms how they had been “stabbed in the back” by a non-supportive home front. In the end, Ludendorff resigned, but Hindenburg stayed on as the head of the OHL – but complemented with a chancellor whose power base was the German parliament. Their attempt to save the German monarchy with an orderly transition out of the war was quickly swept away by the revolting masses in the revolution of November 1918.
Now Hindenburg showed remarkable pragmatism. While the revolution was made by the Social Democrats, pariahs under the monarchy to which Hindenburg was so attached, his dislike for them was outweighed by his horror of civil war. Together with Ludendorff’s successor, general Wilhelm Groener, he placed the German army at the disposal of the new government led by Social Democrat Friedrich Ebert… with the understanding that it would be used to quell any Bolshevik unrest. The (Majority) Social Democrats thus were able to complement their political dominance over the more left-leaning Independent Social Democrats with the hard power of the army and usher in a parliamentary republic.
The pact between Ebert and Groener allowed them to put down socialist revolutionaries. Note that the game event (which is a SPD card) could also be used against a right wing uprising!
As with Ludendorff, Hindenburg let Groener fill the active role in their partnership while providing the myth surrounding his person. Groener and he made sure that the army, still spread out from France to Ukraine, returned in an orderly fashion. When the Treaty of Versailles was offered to the German government, Hindenburg personally understood that there was no alternative to it – Germany could not have renewed the war with the Allies. As he felt the Treaty was humiliating, though, he left it to Groener to advise the government to accept.
The “stab-in-the-back myth” contributed to the re-legitimation of the German right wing after World War I.
Once the Treaty was signed, Hindenburg retired to private life, but remained immensely popular, a beacon of the anti-republican Germany. When he stated at the parliamentary committee of inquiry dealing with the end of the war that the German army, “undefeated in the field” had been “stabbed in the back,” (by whom exactly, he did not specify – listeners felt free to fill in the blank with their preferred choice of enemy, usually “the Jews” or “the Socialists”) it gave the myth a quasi-official sanctioning.
His relationship with the German right, however, was rather complicated. Hindenburg was close with some members of the DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei – German National People’s Party), but never became a party member. He did join the ideologically similarly inclined Stahlhelm (Steel Helmet) association of former soldiers, though. He condemned both major right-wing coup attempts of the early Weimar Republic – reluctantly in the case of Kapp and Lüttwitz, forcefully in the case of his former partner Ludendorff with the upstart demagogue Adolf Hitler.
When president Friedrich Ebert died in 1925, lesser men had to fill his shoes. None of the various candidates running in the first round of the presidential election came close to a majority by themselves. Coalition building was the order of the day now. The pillars of the republican order (Social Democrats, (Catholic) Center, and left-leaning Liberals) would put the Center candidate Wilhelm Marx forward as a joint candidate. While the right-leaning Liberal candidate Karl Jarres had received the most votes in the first round, the parties of the right feared that he would not be able to stand against a united republican camp. The constitution, however, allowed for candidates to be entered in the second round who had not been running in the first. And which candidate would, on merit of his personality, have a better chance than the old war hero, the victor of Tannenberg?
Hindenburg electrified a certain part of the electorate. Others criticized his closeness to the old monarchy (Hindenburg had sought approval from the exiled Wilhelm II before running, but denied this), his lack of experience with parliamentary politics, and his age (he was 77 already, and would be 84 by the end of his term). Hindenburg was elected in the second round with a plurality of the votes.
Hindenburg has the best chances to be elected president in Weimar – and will give the slow-starting DNVP a great boost when in office.
The election of a Reichspräsident is one of the turning points in a game of Weimar: The winner receives the very powerful Reichspräsident card which allows the player to use one of their cards twice every turn. As you only hold five cards each turn, being president thus guarantees you to be 20% more effective! In the game, Hindenburg acts as the candidate for the DNVP (which is an amalgam of various nationalist groups extending beyond the DNVP proper). His chances to win are typically pretty good, as the DNVP has many opportunities to place more party bases early in the game… and, as the DNVP typically does not score a lot of points in the early game, other players might also be more likely to cast their votes for Hindenburg in the second round of the election.
Early in his term, Hindenburg surprised many of his critics: Despite his background, he kept within the confines of the republican constitution (and declared publicly that he did not seek a return to monarchy), despite his inexperience, he immediately found a role in the political process (for example, it was his stern intervention that brought the quarrelling parties to form a government in 1926), and despite his age, he did not seem to lack vigor.
Hindenburg even showed his trademark pragmatism: When Hans von Seeckt, the chief of the German army, invited a Prussian prince to an army exercise, Hindenburg promptly sacked him to avoid tensions with the Allies. And when the Social Democrats won the 1928 parliamentary elections and formed a “grand coalition” government with the Center and the Liberals, Hindenburg worked well with them.
Yet his old networks persisted, and in the eyes of the monarchists, the military men, the aristocratic magnates of the old Prussia, it was clear that the Social Democrats, no, the whole parliamentary system needed to go. As Hindenburg grew older and relied more on his advisers (chief of them his son Oskar and Kurt von Schleicher from the Army Ministry), his attachment to the parliamentary, constitutional system lessened. When the Social Democratic Chancellor Hermann Müller opposed an agricultural aid package from which the aristocratic magnates would benefit most, Hindenburg decided it was time for a change in government. Together with Oskar and Schleicher, he sounded out the parties on the political right to form a minority government which would not act through parliament, but through presidential emergency decrees. They were intrigued.
The last Weimar Republic government which had a parliamentary majority broke apart in 1930 – ostensibly over a rather minor disagreement regarding the budget for unemployment insurance (by then, Germany was in the throes of the Great Depression). The schemers behind the scenes quickly put up a new minority government led by Heinrich Brüning from the right wing of the Center. Brüning would spend the next two ears trying to combat the crisis with a deflationary policy exacerbating the economic woes of the country. The Social Democrats opposed Brüning and, when he couldn’t get a majority for his budget, forced new elections in September 1930. Neither they nor the government succeeded at the polls, though – instead, the Nazi Party leaped from a fringe group to the second-strongest force in parliament (behind the Social Democrats). Brüning continued his minority government based on presidential executive orders.
Hindenburg and Schleicher regarded the Brüning experiment with ever less enthusiasm, and sought to push the government to the right – but they could not find the partners for such an enterprise yet: The DNVP refused to join the government coalition, and Hindenburg dismissed the Nazi Party because of his assessment of Hitler as too vulgar (understandable) and socialist (confusing his positions with those of the “national revolutionaries” in the Nazi Party). Hindenburg even gave in to Brüning’s and Groener’s (now Army Minister) pressure to outlaw the SS and SA Nazi paramilitary forces to stop the ever-increasing political violence in the streets.
After the seven years of his first term ended, Hindenburg, now aged 84, stood for re-election 1932. His main opponent would be Hitler. The parties who had supported Marx in his failed bid of 1925 had no candidate who could match the charisma of the other two – and so the left-leaning and centrist democratic parties rallied around Hindenburg. One would suppose that this would ensure a blowout victory – yet most of Hindenburg’s old supporters on the political right, concentrated in the rural, Protestant areas of Germany, defected to Hitler. Hindenburg won 53% of the vote in the second round and remained president.
Schleicher then pushed for a new, entirely non-parliamentary government, and when Brüning proposed a plan to settle derelict agricultural land in the east with the unemployed (to the detriment of the aristocratic owners), Hindenburg agreed that it was time for change. He dismissed Brüning, and, advised by Schleicher, appointed Franz von Papen (no party affiliation) chancellor. Papen was to govern with a cabinet of aristocrats which had no parliamentary basis whatsoever – the Cabinet of Barons.
Papen and Schleicher both courted the Nazis, but disagreed on the methods: Schleicher wanted to split the Nazis by allying with its “national revolutionary” wing; Papen (supported by Hindenburg) lifted the ban on SS and SA, ostensibly to decrease political tensions. The opposite happened: Nazi paramilitaries started a riot with Communist supporters in the working-class Hamburg suburb of Altona in which several people were killed. The fear of political violence provided a pretext for forceful government action: When there was no government majority after the state elections in Prussia, Hindenburg authorized Papen by executive order to depose the acting state government of the democratic parties (an open breach of the constitution).
Papen, however, had maneuvered himself into a dead end. His attempt of governing detached from parliament ignored the political will of the German people: Some of them might prefer the Nazis, others the Social Democrats, the Communists, or the Center – but barely anyone supported Papen, as the parliamentary election of November 1932 showed. Hindenburg sounded out all parties from the Nazis to the Liberals (but not the Social Democrats or the Communists), but failed to find a workable government.
Another solution had to be found. Schleicher convinced Hindenburg to sack Papen and took over as chancellor himself. His attempt to form a cross-ideological front of the army, the trade unions, and the “national revolutionary” Nazis made the established elites uneasy. Papen took his revenge by agreeing with Hitler on a coalition government – headed by Hitler, but with only a few Nazi ministers. Papen convinced Hindenburg that this was the way to tame the Nazis: Use their popular support while demystifying them as they got bogged down in the minutiae of government. On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg swore Hitler in as chancellor.
In Weimar, Nazi parliamentary rule would end the game – with all players losing. Hindenburg, playing with people of flesh and blood, rather than with wooden meeples, also seemed defeated after the Nazi takeover. He ceased resistance to Hitler and stood by him at the old church of the Potsdam Garrison in a symbolic merger of the old and the new national movement. In the meantime, the Nazis dismantled the democratic order. Paul von Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934. No new president was elected. Instead, Hitler acted as joint head of state and government – Führer und Reichskanzler.
The Rating
Foreign Policy
Hindenburg generally supported the government position on foreign policy, which aimed at shedding the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty and re-admittance of Germany as a fully equal great power. He did misjudge at times how to achieve these goals – for example, he thought that the League of Nations would put additional shackles on Germany (unlike foreign minister Stresemann, who realized the League’s potential to adjudicate conflicts which were before handled directly between Germany and the Allies).
Hindenburg was not particularly interested in domestic policy and left it largely to the chancellors and their ministers. Whenever he did get involved, however, it was to detriment of the freedom of the German people: His initial refusal to outlaw SS and SA contributed to the rise of political violence, as did his speedy cancellation of the ban after only three months. The subsequent Strike on Prussia was the most obscene breach of the constitution before the Nazis dismantled it altogether – without encountering resistance from Hindenburg, whose credibility with the military, administrative, and business elites might have prevented their walkover.
Once more, Hindenburg largely went along with the policies of his chancellors. In the case of Brüning’s attempt to combat the recession with the tightening of spending, that was catastrophic. Whenever Hindenburg attempted to leave his own mark, it was in favor propping up the failing system of East Elbian agriculture in a lucrative way for the old aristocratic elites.
What did Hindenburg eventually want? – He favored monarchy over republic, but did not seek a return to it in office. He swore an oath to the constitution, but treated it ever more casually the longer he ruled. His preferences for governing with, against, or beside parliament shifted according to his chancellors and advisors. He attempted to include or exclude the Nazis at times, and eventually was swallowed by them.
Hindenburg started strong in this regard: He was instrumental in the formation of governments and got along well with parties as different as the Social Democrats and the German National People’s Party. He also got his way in the change of governments from 1930 on (even though a good deal of this was conceived rather by his son and Schleicher). Yet these tactical strokes did not lead to strategic gains, and in the end, Hindenburg outmaneuvered himself with the Nazi-led coalition government.
Hindenburg attached great importance to be regarded as above the parties, as a representative of all Germans. Yet in practice, he played favorites, most notably in his economic policy which was shaped by his close connection with the East Elbian agricultural magnates. Hindenburg could also be petty, as when he refused to visit the Rhineland and Westphalia in 1930 because the Stahlhelm had been outlawed there for their breaches of the Versailles Treaty. On a grander scale, Hindenburg tested the limits of the constitution from 1930 on with his various non-parliamentary governments… and in the end, attacked the constitution frontally in the Strike on Prussia.
Overall: Hindenburg played a complex role in the Weimar Republic. While his age and his tendency to let others plot the course of action excuse him from some of the blame, he crucially contributed to the extension of the economic woes and political violence which engulfed the republic, and directly aided the steady erosion of parliamentary rule from 1930 on. Hindenburg enters the list at the very bottom.
How would you rate Hindenburg? Let me know in the comments!
Further Reading
Hindenburg has found surprisingly little attention in recent English-language scholarship. The standard scholarly biography in German is Pyta, Wolfram: Hindenburg. Herrschaft zwischen Hohenzollern und Hitler [Hindenburg. Rule between the Hohenzollern and Hitler], Siedler, Munich 2007.
A shorter, more accessible treatment is Rauscher, Walter: Hindenburg. Feldmarschall und Reichspräsident [Hindenburg. Field Marshal and Reich President], Ueberreuter, Vienna 1997.
For the broader context, see: Herbert, Ulrich: Herbert, Ulrich: A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
Some caveats ahead: The chancellors will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as chancellor, but includes their life after holding the office (in which they will still be regarded in the public eye as (ex-)chancellors).
Now, to the system itself: There are three policy field categories (foreign, domestic, and economic policy) and three more general ones (vision, pragmatism, integrity). A chancellor can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the chancellor is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the chancellor increase German influence in the world and the security of Germans at home? Did the chancellor wield German power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected (the latter counting for a greater deal in times of German power being great)?
Domestic policy: Did the chancellor increase the liberty of Germans to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the chancellor promote domestic security and shape the framework for fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the chancellor facilitate the prosperity and economic security of Germans (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the chancellor’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the chancellor have an idea of what Germany and Europe (the latter counting for more in times of German influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the chancellor’s policies steer Germany (and, if applicable, Europe) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the chancellor succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the chancellor manage the support from parliament, society, the administration, the media (the latter counting for more in more recent years)?
Integrity: Did the chancellor understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the chancellor respect the boundaries of the office?
Note: If you have read my UK prime minister or US president ratings, you will remember that I rated them on the global impacts of their vision as well. As the rating system is only really applicable to democratic leaders and no democratic German leader ever had the chance to conduct a truly global policy, I only assess their vision on national and European grounds.
Erhard’s Life
Ludwig Erhard was born on February 4, 1897. His parents owned a clothing store in Fürth, a city in the south of Germany. Erhard was initially destined to follow them in the business, but came back from World War I badly wounded and unable to stand for an extended period of time (as we would have had to as a store owner). He thus turned to academia and studied business. After graduating, he managed his parents’ store for a short time before it went bankrupt in 1928. Erhard then succeeded in following his academic aspirations and worked at various institutes and universities. Erhard was no supporter of the Nazi regime which took power in 1933, but conducted advisory research for them. In 1942, he failed in a bid to head his university’s institute for economics (losing to a member of the Nazi party) and was soon after forced out of the institute. He then set up his own one-man think tank, writing on how to re-build Germany’s economy after the war.
These studies – and Erhard’s relative distance from the Nazi regime – recommended him to the post-war authorities. After quick stints on the local and regional level, he was appointed Head of the Special Office for Money and Credit (and soon after Director of Economics) of the Anglo-American occupation zone in Germany. When he was informed by the Allied authorities of their decision to introduce a new currency (the Deutsche Mark) in the three western occupation zones, Erhard went ahead and also announced the lifting of price-fixing and production controls for most goods.
Economically speaking, the monetary reform and abolition of state control over the economy were not an immediate success. Prices shot up (while wages were still fixed) and unemployed quadrupled to 12%, thus, unrest (leading to a general strike) spread in West Germany. However, the abolition of price-fixing all but abolished the previously ubiquitous black markets. Erhard’s reputation thus was stellar, and the newly formed big-tent center-right party CDU (Christlich-Demokratische Union, Christian Democratic Union) invited Erhard to join forces with them. Erhard, who personally was more of a classical liberal than a conservative, joined with the intent of committing a large party to his ideas of free markets, and successfully ran for parliament on the CDU ticket in West Germany’s first national elections in 1949. Erhard then became Minister for the Economy in the new administration, a post he would hold for the next fourteen years.
Early in Erhard’s tenure, economic success blossomed: The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 re-committed the American economy to war production – and West Germany seized the opportunity to produce the civilian goods not made in America anymore. The West German economy boomed. Unemployment fell. Wages rose. Exports grew manifold. And Erhard, who steadfastly (but not always successfully) defended his liberal economic principles against any attempts to introduce more state intervention, became the lucky charm of the German “economic miracle”.
Erhard’s corresponding popularity made him a natural contender for the succession of West Germany’s first chancellor Konrad Adenauer. When Adenauer finally resigned in 1963 (aged 87), the CDU and its allies in government elected Erhard as the new chancellor. Erhard, never a politician’s politician, refrained from domestic initiatives. His foreign policy was based on the attempt to align West Germany closer with the United States and Great Britain at the expense of the cordial Franco-German relationship his predecessor had built. Erhard won a resounding electoral victory in 1965, but his relationship with his own party remained frail. When a mild recession hit West Germany and the budget was threatened by Erhard’s earlier commitment to payments to the United States and Britain to make up for the spending of their troops stationed in Germany (the “offset arrangement”), his government broke down (1966). Erhard was forced to resign. The new government which was based on the CDU and the long-time oppositional Social Democrats elected Kurt Georg Kiesinger as his successor. Erhard retired to a quiet life, but remained a member of parliament until his death on May 5, 1977.
The Rating
Foreign policy:
Erhard’s only field of ambition during his chancellorship – and also the area of his most obvious failure. His pivot away from France damaged the Franco-German relationship and European integration (which he, against his general economic principles, did not seek anyway). On the other hand, Erhard could not make good on his aim to improve German-American relationships – his professed dislike for France took any kind of lever out his hand, and his willingness to accede to American demands (like promising full payment in the offset arrangement) did not result in any favors in return from the United States (the key prize would have been if America had continued to seek a Multilateral Force with nuclear weapons – which would have resulted in Germany’s nuclear sharing).
Erhard did not start any domestic policy initiatives and ignored the growing societal pressures beyond his favorite topic of the economy. In the rare cases that such topics were forced onto him, Erhard, to his credit, deviated from the previous course of German policy which had been to largely ignore the Nazi crimes: When he found out that his Minister for Displaced Persons, Refugees, and War Victims had been an active Nazi party functionary, Erhard forced his resignation (in a striking difference to his predecessor Adenauer, who kept his Chief of Staff for ten years despite the man’s well-known involvement in drafting the Nazis’ laws prosecuting German Jews).
As German law knew a statute of limitation preventing criminal prosecution after twenty years, all Nazi crimes would have gone unpunished from 1965 on. Erhard was in the minority of government members who wanted to extend the period of prosecution. Parliament passed an extension with a mixed-party majority – Erhard, however, had nor been able to convince his own government colleagues and was not instrumental in securing this majority.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Economic policy:
Another policy field of Erhard inaction – this time, however, by design. Erhard’s liberal economic credo kept him from intervening in the economy. That was defensible in the narrow view – economic activity in the short term – but defective otherwise: Erhard knew (more than a year before the budgetary crisis of 1966) that the economic downswing lowered public revenue while his promises concerning the offset arrangement would raise expenses. Erhard thus brought the budgetary crisis, over which he’d fall, onto himself. In the longer term, Erhard’s torpedoing of European integration denied the German economy export markets and delayed the innovation stimulus of increased competition.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Vision:
Erhard’s overarching vision in life was to allow free individuals to pursue their ambitions in a market economy – but when he entered office, he felt the preconditions for that were already achieved (a debatable claim). Thus, his policy mostly consisted of staying the course. He did pitch a foreign policy plan to refuse the Soviet Union loans and then “buy” German reunification when the Soviet economy collapsed, but was met with (justified) bewilderment by both his domestic and foreign interlocutors. Domestically, his only contribution which went beyond the immediate needs was his idea of a “Formed-Up Society” in which both egoism and pluralism would be overcome – an idea that he brought up during the 1965 election campaign and did not return to afterward.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Pragmatism:
Likely Erhard’s weakest suit. While he did not attempt much, what he attempted usually fell flat because Erhard was unable to secure support for it (or because he wavered and dropped it in the face of resistance). He had lost his own party’s support for his foreign policy within his first year in office. Their support for his domestic activities (or, rather, the lack thereof) withered soon after. Particularly instructive is the aftermath of Erhard’s 1965 electoral victory: Erhard squandered this testament of his popularity with the voters within weeks. He had intended to downsize the cabinet (and thus to get rid of ministers appointed by his predecessor and unfriendly to him) but waited too long to begin that process. In the end, the parliamentary parties of the coalition partners CDU, its Bavarian sister party CSU, and the pro-business FDP prevailed in securing all the posts for ministers they wanted. Erhard was forced to accept a virtually unchanged cabinet. Only one year after his electoral victory, the remainder of his political capital was spent and he resigned.
Rating: 1 out of 5.
Integrity:
Erhard came into office planning to abolish his predecessor’s “democracy of favors” which was based on securing the support of powerful interest groups like the churches, the farmers’ associations, the employers’ associations, or the trade unions by passing legislation and channeling government funding in their favor. While Erhard was not above combatting European economic integration (against his liberal credo of open markets and the benefits of competition) to protect the German farmers from their French competitors, he doled out distinctly fewer favors than his predecessor. He also confined himself to the limits the constitution spelled out and did not attempt to shape the state offices to his liking (as Adenauer had done when he tried to move from the chancellorship into the presidency – but, of course, turning the presidency into the more important office). Finally, Erhard’s more collegial government style confirmed that Germany had moved beyond authoritarianism.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Erhard is the rare case of a politician not defined by the highest office he attained: He took the decisive action of his life as Director of Economics for the Bizone. He is best remembered by the public as Minister for the Economy. Looking at his chancellorship, it’s easy to see why: During this short period in office, Erhard did not attempt much, and what he attempted usually failed. His successors were left to respond to pressures resulting from the changing civil society and to repair the damage done to Franco-German relations (only achieved around ten years later). Erhard positions himself on the lower rungs of the leaders rated.
How would you rate Erhard? Let me know in the comments!
Further Reading
For short overview essays on all German chancellors from Bismarck on, see Sternburg, Wilhelm von: Die deutschen Kanzler. Von Bismarck bis Merkel[The German Chancellors. From Bismarck to Merkel], Aufbau-Verlag, Berlin 2006 (in German).
For a recent English-language biography (or, rather, a hagiography), see Mierzejewski, Alfred C.: Ludwig Erhard. A Biography, University of North Carolina press, Chapel Hill, NC 2005.
The standard, primary-source based, scholarly biography (which is a bit vitriolic, but generally sound in its judgment) is Hentschel, Volker: Ludwig Erhard. Ein Politikerleben [Ludwig Erhard. A Politician’s Life], Olzog, Munich 1996 (in German).
I’ve started a little irregular series called Prime Minister Ratings– assessing British prime ministers by a very general rating system and showcasing one board game in which the prime minister in question or the problems they faced feature. Our first contestant was Robert Walpole, the very first prime minister. Today, we move on to a 20th century heavyweight: Winston Churchill, the man who led Britain through World War II… and was elected prime minister for a second time six years after the war. Our accompanying board game is Churchill (Mark Herman, GMT Games).
Before we dive into Churchill’s life and the assessment of his policies, here’s…
The Rating System
Some caveats ahead: The prime ministers will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as prime minister, but includes their life after holding the office (in which they will still be regarded in the public eye as (ex-)PMs). And lastly, in the following, “Britain” serves as a shorthand for either Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland as applicable, “British” for the inhabitants of such.
Now, to the system itself: There are three policy field categories (foreign, domestic, and economic policy) and three more general ones (vision, pragmatism, integrity). A prime minister can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the prime minister is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the prime minister increase British influence in the world and the security of the British at home? Did the prime minister wield British power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected (the latter counting for a greater deal in times of British power being great)?
Domestic policy: Did the prime minister increase the liberty of the British to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the prime minister promote domestic security and shape the framework for equality before the law and fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the prime minister facilitate the prosperity and economic security of the British (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the prime minister’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the prime minister have an idea of what Britain and the world (the latter counting for more in times of British influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the prime minister’s policies steer Britain (and, if applicable, the world) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the prime minister succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the prime minister manage the support from Parliament, the Civil Service, the media, society (the latter two counting for more in more recent years)?
Integrity: Did the prime minister understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the prime minister respect the boundaries of the office?
Churchill’s Life
Winston Churchill (1874—1965) came from the English high aristocracy, but inherited a knack for populism from his father, a Tory politician. After formative years as an officer and war correspondent, Churchill turned himself to politics, being elected into Parliament in 1900 (as a Conservative) and joining the government (as a Liberal) in 1905. He held various government posts and was First Lord of the Admiralty when World War I broke out. Churchill resigned over the disastrous Gallipoli landings, but re-joined the government in 1917. While being regarded as a major political talent, Churchill seemed too fickle and unreliable for the highest of offices – for example due to his second change of party (back to the Conservatives) in 1924, after which he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Once out of office (in 1929), Churchill searched for new causes – and took up first opposition to Indian self-government and, from 1933, opposition to Nazi expansionism. Neither was a popular stance in the Conservative Party or the country as a whole. Churchill had much time for his second calling after politics – writing.
When Germany went to war with Britain in 1939, Churchill, the great Cassandra on Hitler’s aggression, was called back into government. Less than a year later, prime minister Neville Chamberlain resigned over the failure of the Norwegian operation, and on May 10, 1940, Churchill followed him as prime minister. On the same day, Germany invaded France. Churchill presided over a series of military disasters in his first weeks. In this difficult situation, he excelled at maintaining the fighting spirit of his government, Parliament, and the British people. Not only Hitler was surprised when Britain did not seek peace, but opted to fight alone against the Nazi war machine which controlled half of Europe. Churchill’s great speeches of the spring and summer 1940 – from “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” over “We shall fight on the beaches” and “This was their finest hour” to “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” chronicle his defiance.
Britain did not have to stand alone forever. In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Churchill disregarded his ardent anti-communism in cooperation with Stalin. Six months later, the United States entered the war on the allied side. Churchill was sure that this great alliance of Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States would emerge victorious. His task was now to drive forward the victory – and make sure that Britain, the least populous and productive of the three powers, was not relegated to second rank. For a long time, he succeeded. It was only after the D-Day landings in France in 1944 that Britain’s comparably small material contribution began to turn Britain into a junior partner. Churchill enjoyed great personal popularity for his role in the war, but in the parliamentary elections held two months after the German unconditional surrender, the British voters gave the Labour Party a majority.
Churchill was nominally the head of the opposition and made some memorable speeches warning of Soviet expansionism, but spent most of his time writing his war memoirs (like his other books, they turned into bestsellers). Labour enacted a series of ambitious domestic reforms (from the creation of the NHS to a housing program), but lost their majority in the 1951 elections – so Churchill returned to Downing Street No 10. By then, he was old and suffered from bad health, and domestic politics had never been too interesting to him. However, when Stalin died in 1953, Churchill hoped that a three-way summit between US president Eisenhower, the new leader in Moscow, and himself could resolve the nascent Cold War. His hope was in vain. He resigned in 1955 due to health reasons, but remained a member of parliament until a few weeks before his death in 1965.
The Rating
Foreign policy: Churchill’s focus of interest, and, as a wartime prime minister, the policy field in which the biggest challenges awaited him. He met them remarkably well. True, he did not increase British power and influence, but he staved off its likely demise by a negotiated peace with the Nazis, and held his own in league with the much larger powers of the United States and the Soviet Union for a long time. More importantly even, while it may have been these powers that eventually won the war, Churchill’s contribution in 1940 was to not lose it – and thus ensuring the liberty of hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Churchill’s wartime record is blemished by his less benevolent approach to the liberty of the peoples under British imperial rule which manifested itself in drawn-out colonial wars during his second premiership.
Domestic policy: Churchill’s main contribution was his unification of the country (and his own party, to begin with) to oppose Nazism – when isolationism, appeasement, and pacifism no matter the cost had been en vogue in the 1930s and still lingered early in the war. Also, the British government’s intrusion into the British people’s lives during the war was remarkably limited given the circumstances, and it can be argued that Churchill’s defense against Nazism was an enormous contribution to the British people’s life in liberty and democracy.
Economic policy: Tough to assess, as Churchill was never too interested in it and let his ministers run the show in these matters. The Labour members of his wartime government were able men, and letting them do their thing without hindrance is an achievement in itself (particularly for a leader as headstrong as Churchill). The British economy also was very efficiently mobilized for war production (and achieved a state of economic “total war” long before Germany’s). In Churchill’s second term, his major economic achievement was to accept and continue the sweeping economic and welfare reforms enacted by the Labour government from 1945 to 1951, even though they had been strongly opposed by the Conservatives when they had been in opposition. Churchill thus became a father of the post-war consensus.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Vision: Churchill’s great mission – the defeat of Nazi expansionism – was in itself not a long-term project. It ended with the Nazis’ unconditional surrender in 1945 – and so did Churchill’s premiership. He took to warning against Soviet expansionism and the hope to end it in a three-way summit between him, the American president, and the Soviet leader in his second term, but this proved futile.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Pragmatism: Churchill was one of only few government members who were committed to fighting on after the fall of France, but he carried his government, his party, and the country at large with him. His broadening of the government to include Labour and Liberal ministers ensured national unity as long as the war lasted. Once Germany was defeated, this unity was over – exactly how it had been designed to be in a competitive democracy. In terms of foreign policy, Churchill seized on the opportunity to cooperate with the Soviet Union and maintained this difficult partnership until the completion of its mission to defeat the Axis countries.
Integrity: As long as Churchill was a wartime prime minister, his conduct in office held up to high standards. Once Germany had surrendered and Churchill switched to election campaign mode, he was not quite as exemplary – alleging that Labour would want to install a “Gestapo” if elected, a smear as baseless as it was unworthy of a man who knew both Hitler and Attlee well enough to understand they stood at opposite ends of the political sphere. As a former prime minister, Churchill was given access to government files for his war memoirs – and used them to shape public opinion and gain another election victory.
Rating: 3 out of 5.
Overall: Churchill had great qualities and marked defects. Fortunately for him, Britain, and the world, he was called into office in a time that demanded just what he could offer – and probably no one else who stood ready for the task at hand. With 25 out of 30 stars, he jumps to the top group of leaders.
An excellent overview with portraits of all prime ministers is Leonard, Dick: A History of British Prime Ministers, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2014.
A good start on Churchill – and, despite the somewhat grandiose title, no hagiography – is Best, Geoffrey: Churchill. A Study in Greatness, Hambledon and London, London 2001.
Of course, Churchill’s own writings are of great interest to anyone reading on his times, especially his Nobel Prize for Literature-winning The Second World War, six volumes (also published as an abridged one-volume version), Cassell, London 1948—1953.
Anmelden
