I am nearing the end of my time here at WBC and I’m starting to get a bit sad. I have tomorrow but I will be leaving 1 day early on Saturday and just am not ready for it to be over. I have had a great time, played a lot of games, 13 by my count, and also seen old friends and made new ones. I have also done 6 videos but have had some technical difficulties with the camera as the batteries keep prematurely dying even though they have been fully charged. Bit I have made great memories and I am happy with that.
Today, we got in a full 6-player game of the excellent Imperial Elegy from VUCA Simulations. Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 is a card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games. Grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 unique major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
The game is somewhat of a sandbox style game as you have so many options and choices about what to do during the course of the game. Obviously, your faction has some direction about what you should be doing but really it is up the player to spend their resources how they will to accomplish their ultimate goals and score Victory Points. I truly love that aspect about this game and as we played we saw that sandbox and the asymmetry between the various factions. Particularly at the start, each country has some specific goals that they have drawn from the National Goals Deck that are a source of Victory Points, in fact a major source of Victory Points, and players will need to prioritize these cards and decide which ones to attempt to go after from the start. With only 7 turns, they will have to make progress on these National Goals if they have any hope of actually achieving them.
I have now played 3 times and very much like the grand scale of the game. It is a tad long, todays game took us about 11 hours to play, and I am starting to have concerns with the ability of France and Germany to team up and dominate the game and the Great War. I played as France today and did fairly well scoring 9 VP’s from my National Goals and doing really well in Africa and Asia with colonies as well as breaking into Mexico. I was getting 8 cards near the end of the game because I had done well in my colonial keys and my stability. This gave me lots of options with my cards and I also built up a sizeable army with 5 full Armies on the board and 5 reserve armies with 5 squadrons on the high seas and several naval bases in the east, Africa and the Mediterranean.
I think the game is a tad bit long. This is because players have at least 5-7 cards each and the Battles are very long and are their own little sideshow with a war budget and multiple movements and attacks allowed. I like the game. Love it in fact but am beginning to think it is just going to be hard to get to the table often. Here I Stand is similar in scope and scale and uses the same system but can be played in 6-9 hours versus 10-14 hours for IE.
In the end, France, Germany and the Ottomans were teamed in the Triple Entente while UK and Russia formed the Triple Alliance even though Austria and Italy were left out in the cold. The TE won the game as they just had too much muscle. I look forward to the next time I can play but it might be a while.
I was then able to watch a few minutes of play of the new upcoming Here I Stand Series game called TheNight Watch: European Global Conflicts 1618-1648 from GMT Games, which focuses on the Thirty Years War. Just a prototype of the game but it looks epic and those playing seemed to enjoy it!
I was able to then go down to the vendor hall and bought quite a few games including The Alamo from Art of Wargames (solitaire), Sails at War from B2M Games, Year of the Rat Vietnam 1972 Deluxe Edition from Decision Games, Fortress of Oblivion from White Dog Games (solitaire), Le Conqueste from White Dog Games (solitaire), Model’s Counterattack from Dissimula Edizioni, On To Berlin from Multi-Man Publishing and Strike Counter Strike from Multi-Man Publishing. I was gifted a new copy of Assault Red Horizon ‘41 Revised Edition from Assault Games. Lots of great stuff to explore over the next several months.
I then met up with Bob Tkach designer of the upcoming Above the Trenches: The Fokker Scourge 1915-1917 from Flying Pig Games coming to Kickstarter this fall. This is a 2-player aerial dogfighting wargame that combines tactical, operational, and strategic elements of World War I air combat on the Western Front into a fast playing and fun game. The game focuses on the early years of WWI aerial warfare and the German-versus-British air battles.
The players will have to deal with the strategic board that has sector based objectives that will provide Victory Points and then place out their air units on the operational board where they will focus on height and positioning of observation balloons and fighters to protect them and finally will duel using cards on the innovative and very interesting combat wheel system for tactical positioning.
The players will draw a hand of technology cards, maneuver cards, speed cards and ace cards that all have numbers and some written events and will then play them to move the plane counter around the wheel and its various areas to take shots with front or rear based guns, avoid contact by maneuvering out of harms way and then starting over until one side or the other wins.
This game is not just about the dogfighting but players will be faced with the management of their squadrons, taking out of service planes to upgrade and repair them, give training to pilots to learn new skills and also to build new and upgraded planes.
A very fun and exciting game. As I was playing, I could really fell the excitement and tension building and very much loved what this one was trying to do. After playing, I was able to shoot a 30 minute video with the designer Bob and his developer Rich and I could feel their passion for the subject and the game.
After finishing up, I then met up with Uwe Wallentin from Sound of Drums to get a look at their upcoming lineup of games which includes many great looking titles such as Neither King Nor God Expanded Edition,No Retreat! The Russian Front Designer’s Edition, Battles of Napoleon Volume II: QUATRE BRAS 1815 / WARTENBURG 1813, Iron Cross Army Group North and Iron Cross Kharkov.
Uwe is a great guy and Sound of Drums is doing a great job of designing playable games with fantastic graphic design and artwork. I very much enjoyed our chat and we did a 30 minute video that’ll be up later on the channel.
That was it and I landed in bed around 10:30pm and need to get some rest for our final day tomorrow where we are playing Here I Stand from GMT Games.
We’ve been assessing the merits of political leaders in (more or less) democratic countries on this blog for a few years now. Today, we’re looking at the longest-serving chancellor of the Weimar Republic, Germany’s first attempt at parliamentary government – Wilhelm Marx. And which game could be more appropriate for him than Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx)?
If you want to read more ratings of historical leaders like this, I strongly recommend you subscribe to the blog – all new posts in your inbox right when they go live!
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.
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?
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?
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.
Early Life: The Catholic Man of Duty
Wilhelm Marx was born in 1863 in Cologne, then a part of the Rhine Province of the Kingdom of Prussia, soon to be part of the united Germany. No one could have foreseen in his boyhood that he would rise to the chancellorship – he was the son of a mere schoolteacher, and a part of the Catholic minority which was always suspected of possibly disloyalty by the Protestant Prussian state. The young Wilhelm Marx was one of many who set out to prove that he could be just as patriotic as any Protestant: He studied law and entered public service. His Catholic faith, however, would always be the guiding star in his life.
He was first elected to the Prussian parliament in 1899 on the ticket of the Catholic Zentrum (Center) party – one of the four player factions in Weimar. By the time Marx was elected, he had been active for nine years in the Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland (People’s Association for Catholic Germany), an organization dedicated to improving the social conditions especially of the poorer Catholics. Social and cultural issues, especially the expansion of Catholic schooling, would remain close to his heart: In 1910, he founded the Katholische Schulorganisation (Catholic School Organization), a grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to the matter.
The same year, he was elected to the German parliament – his first electoral success on the national level after two campaigns in hopeless districts with very few organized Catholics which he had only undertaken out of duty to the party. In parliament as well as in his electoral campaigns, he aimed to form an alliance with the Protestant bourgeois parties against the burgeoning SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany), the second player faction of Weimar. However, this strategy failed when cross-confessional bourgeois solidarity eroded in the more confrontational cultural climate from 1911 on.
World War and Revolution
These divisions faded into the background with the beginning of World War I. Despite the pre-eminence of military and diplomatic action then, Marx’s political activity remained limited to domestic issues. From his papers, we cannot discern if he even formed an opinion on many of the pressing issues in those other realms (say, unrestricted u-boat warfare). He did, however, change his mind about cooperation with the SPD, with whom the Zentrum (and the liberal parties) partnered from 1917 on in their quest to place the imperial government on a more parliamentary basis.
The revolution of 1918/1919 took Marx by surprise. Once more, he placed his powers at the disposal of his party, and was elected to both the Prussian and the German constitutional assemblies. The National Assembly in Weimar developed a constitution which included many long-held dreams of his, as the Catholic church, Catholic associations, and individual Catholics finally had their rights guaranteed. The short period of cooperation with the Social Democrats (and, to a lesser degree, the progressive liberals of the DDP (Deutsche Demokratische Partei, German Democratic Party) had achieved what years of negotiation with the Protestant conservatives of the Empire had not. This early alliance between Zentrum and SPD is the starting point of any Weimar game.
Yet the new German republic was unpopular with the numerous conservative, monarchist Zentrum members, and cooperation with the Social Democrats doubly so. Marx thus spent much of his political energy advocating for the constitution among his fellow Catholics.
At the time, Marx considered leaving politics altogether in favor of focusing on social work: From 1919 to 1921, he acted as director for the Volksverein (but proved unsuited to implement the sweeping changes necessary to improve the Volksverein’s faltering popularity in the Catholic milieu).
Yet once more duty called: As many of the old Zentrum parliamentary leaders died, Marx was one of the most experienced politicians his party could field. And his conciliatory, even-handed manner was just what the Zentrum needed when the party was so deeply divided against itself on the question of supporting the republic or restoring the monarchy as well as if to cooperate with the Social Democrats or the Protestant nationalists of the DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei, German Nationalist People’s Party), the third Weimar player faction.
Marx was thus called on to hold the diverging wings together: He was elected head of the parliamentary group of the Zentrum and then also party chairman in late 1921. As the Zentrum’s governing partner SPD merged with the more left-leaning USPD (Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany), Marx advanced a closer cooperation with the two liberal parties DDP (in government) and DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei, German People’s Party, in opposition) – the two minor parties which the Zentrum can control in Weimar. Yet Chancellor Joseph Wirth’s attempt to entice the DVP into a government of all democratic parties (a Grand Coalition) failed in late 1922. As a consequence, the SPD left the government as well. The parliamentary basis for the government shrunk.
The following year, Germany was shaken by the French occupation of the Ruhr which exacerbated the already galloping inflation. Under these circumstances, the Grand Coalition of all democratic parties became reality, led by DVP chancellor Gustav Stresemann. While it tackled these huge tasks rather successfully, the government could not maintain its internal cohesion: The right wing of the DVP (under its parliamentary leader Ernst Scholz) wanted to use the crisis to abolish the eight-hour workday and expand the government to the right by including the DNVP. The SPD refused and left the government. Marx’s conciliating manner helped with bringing both of them back to the negotiating table and a new Grand Coalition was formed.
This one was even shorter-lived: When federal forces broke up the socialist state governments of Saxony and Bavaria, but (doubting the loyalty of the army) refused to act against the right-wing coup in Bavaria, the SPD once more went into opposition. Without a parliamentary majority, Stresemann was soon unseated as chancellor. As the SPD’s appetite for government responsibility was sated, a bourgeois minority cabinet would be formed. That would be straight-up impossible in Weimar – unlike left-wing or right-wing coalitions, the Weimar Coalition (with SPD and Zentrum as the player factions and the DDP as a minor party which is always attached to one of the two) cannot refuse to govern, and so SPD and Zentrum are often stuck with each other if they want it or not. Historically, the SPD was not quite as keen on governing as the party is in Weimar.
To get anything done without a parliamentary majority would require special skills at winning friends and not making enemies. Marx, the skilled mediator, was just the right man for the time. He was elected chancellor on November 30, 1923. The weighty issues facing him were Bavaria’s continued insurrection, the implementation of the measures against hyperinflation, and an agreement with the Allies on the reparations issue which had set off the entire crisis of 1923.
A full hand of cards, leading the government (chancellor token in the top left), both liberal minor parties aligned (bottom right) – a comfortable situation for the Zentrum in Weimar, but not so much in history.
The First and Second Chancellorships
Marx’s cabinet nominations sent a signal to Bavaria that he was willing to improve the relationship between the fractious state and the Reich: He made the Bavarian Eduard Hamm (DDP) Minister for the Economy, and, for the first time in the history of the republic, included a member of the BVP (Bayerische Volkspartei, Bavarian People’s Party) whose more radical members had been behind the coup in Bavaria (Erich Emminger as Minister of Justice). His discreet negotiations with the Bavarian coupists would come to fruition in spring 1924: They resigned and opened the way for parliamentary government again. Bavaria, however, would retain some special privileges and be exempt from federal oversight.
The BVP had played an ambiguous role in the anti-republican insurrection in Bavaria. While the party cooperated with the Zentrum in national politics, its leader Gustav von Kahr had also been behind the coup of September 1923. This playtest version of the “Bayerische Volkspartei” card strengthens the Zentrum in parliament, but also allows the DNVP to recruit a dissolved unit – the latter effect was removed in the final version of the game.
Both the reparations negotiations with the Allies and the massive financial and economic reform package which would solidify the end of inflation required Marx to gather parliamentary support far beyond his minority coalition’s meager base. As there were constitutional changes involved (for example, in merging the various state railway companies into a federal railway), he even needed a two-thirds majority. Marx’s parliamentary skills and his reputation as an honest broker who would not abuse his power came together in securing an Enabling Act which would allow his government to gain the respective legislative powers despite their parliamentary minority. Equipped with such power, Marx set out to do the necessary, but unpopular steps forward. The cuts to public expenses which were to flank the currency reform massively reduced the number and salary of public employees and all but expropriated most pensioners.
The bitter taste of Marx’s domestic reforms was lessened by the negotiations with the Allies. Not even France had the stomach to force another confrontation after the chaos of 1923. They were thus inclined to negotiate a payment schedule which suited both sides. American bankers were to provide the loans with which Germany would cover a large part of the payments.
The electorate, however, was unimpressed. In the May 1924 parliamentary elections, Marx’s Zentrum held firm, but his DDP and DVP partners collapsed, as did the SPD. The right-wing parties were triumphant. Yet with no viable alternative to the bourgeois minority coalition, Marx was soon confirmed for his second chancellorship.
In the second tenure, he concluded the negotiations with the Allies. The final agreement would become known as the Dawes Plan after the chief Allied negotiator, American banker Charles G. Dawes. Once more, Marx needed a broad parliamentary majority. In addition to his government coalition, the SPD was sure to support the plan. The DNVP publicly railed against the Dawes Plan (which confirmed the infamous war guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles), but DNVP chairman Oskar Hergt offered his support in return for policy concessions and the DNVP’s inclusion in government. Otherwise, he threatened that the Dawes Plan would fail in parliament. Marx, however, knew that the DNVP was internally divided on the matter and that a large number of DNVP members of parliament either saw the necessity of the plan for German economic revival or at least did not want to take the blame for the failure. Thus, he called the parliamentary vote without giving in to Hergt’s demands. The motion passed, as most DNVP members abstained.
Marx’s policy successes had not broadened his parliamentary base. As he kept refusing the DNVP’s inclusion in government in favor of a more centrist approach, new elections were called for December 1924. These did not change the parliamentary balance of power much. Marx resigned and was succeeded by Hans Luther, who formed a technocratic government based on the centrist and right-wing parties including the DNVP.
Parliament includes a lot of Zentrum members… but not enough for a majority.
Prussian Intermezzo, Presidential Election
Marx could not enjoy being relieved of his duties for long. When the Prussian DVP, as much a loose cannon as its federal counterpart, forced the end of the Grand Coalition in Prussia, Germany’s largest state, and demanded a right-wing government including the DNVP like in the Reich, Marx was called on to solve the government crisis. He was elected Prussian Prime Minister with the votes of the Weimar Coalition (SPD, Zentrum, DDP) on February 18, 1925, yet just two days after was toppled when renegades in his own party refused to support him in a parliamentary vote of confidence. Marx resigned, his appetite for politics lessened and his trust in the party damaged.
Still, Marx was one of the few Zentrum politicians who were well-known and had a good enough reputation to field in national elections. When President Friedrich Ebert (SPD) died, he was thus the natural candidate for the next presidential elections. The death of Ebert is a turning point in many Weimar games: The office allows its holder to play one card per round for two uses instead of just one. So, it is in essence a one-card bonus. As you normally only hold five cards, this is a huge boon. The presidential elections will thus be hotly contested and usually also serve as a check on who seems to be in the lead and must be reined in… sometimes in surprising coalitions.
In the first round, Marx gained 14% of the vote, the third-best showing after Duisburg mayor Karl Jarres (DVP, 39%) and the new Prussian prime minister Otto Braun (SPD, 29%). Now the coalition-building began. The SPD withdrew Braun, knowing that bourgeois voters almost never supported a working-class candidate in runoff elections. Instead, Marx was nominated as the joint candidate of the Weimar Coalition parties (People’s Bloc). Together, their candidates had received 49% of the vote in the first round. The right-leaning parties knew that Jarres, a man with no national standing, stood no chance in the second round. However, it was legal to field a candidate in the second round who had not stood in the first. They produced the old imperial field marshal Paul von Hindenburg – the “Victor of Tannenberg”.
Now the bickering for support in the second round begins! Unlike in history, parties in Weimar may support candidates which are ideologically opposed to them (usually to prevent a runaway leader or as part of a bigger political deal).
Marx might have been a more attractive candidate for centrist and bourgeois voters than Braun, but he still failed to attract votes beyond the Weimar Coalition. Conservative Protestants did not vote for him, and even his more conservative Catholic brothers and sisters in faith deserted him in favor of Hindenburg. Despite their Catholic fundament and Bavarian particularism, the BVP supported the Protestant Prussian marshal. Hindenburg was elected on April 26, 1925, with 48% of the vote (Marx carried 45%).
The Third and Fourth Chancellorships
The centrifugal forces within the Zentrum intensified. The party’s right wing blamed the defeat at the presidential election on Marx’s refusal as chancellor to form a coalition with the DNVP. The existing coalition under Luther fell apart when the DNVP refused to consider an agreement with the Allies which would confirm the post-Versailles borders in Western Europe. In December 1925, Luther formed a bourgeois minority coalition supported by Zentrum, DVP, DDP, and BVP in which Marx headed both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry for the Occupied Territories.
The next inevitable call of duty came when Chancellor Luther resigned in May 1926. When the Zentrum once more turned to Marx to fill the post, he wrote to his wife, “Now they’ve found their idiot again”. Like the first two times, Marx’s cabinet based on Zentrum, DVP, DDP, and BVP had no parliamentary majority, so he had to look for outside support. While the SPD bumbled in the Princes’ Expropriation campaign, it could be relied upon to continue the foreign policy of rapprochement with the Allies, and thus Marx was able to negotiate the admittance of Germany into the League of Nations in 1926 – in Weimar, one of the most difficult, but also most valuable foreign policy successes of a government.
Marx’s government was toppled by a vote of no confidence over the military’s secret cooperation with the Soviet Union in February 1927. By now, the right wing of the Zentrum was clearly ascendant, and the party pushed for a coalition with the DNVP. Marx opposed the notion, but felt compelled to give in to his party’s wishes. Thus, his fourth cabinet included DNVP ministers for the first time – no fewer than four of them. Despite this new right-wing bent, the new government implemented a major piece of social security with the introduction of unemployment insurance.
Marx’s special ability in Weimar allows him to swap two issues on the debate track: He might, for example, bring the attractive Unemployment Insurance issue to the Zentrum area of the track – and instead give the SPD the Stab in the Back issue which would have them face the dilemma between either weakening their own position or strengthening the DNVP.
However, infighting increased both in the Zentrum (between its republican and its conservative wings) and the government coalition at large. Marx attempted to pacify the former by pushing for legislation which would please both by appealing to their shared Catholicism – and which was dear to his own heart: A federal school law should codify the equality of confessional schools (with religious instruction only in the corresponding faith) with “simultaneous schools” (with both Protestant and Catholic religious instruction on offer). While that improved cohesion in the Zentrum, it put a strain on the coalition: The liberal parties DVP and DDP opposed the measure. Marx was unable to find a compromise. As the coalition disintegrated and the Zentrum’s right-wing gained ever more traction, the subsequent electoral defeat of May 1928 was almost a relief for Marx. A new Grand Coalition, led by chancellor Hermann Müller (SPD), was formed.
After Politics
After the election, Marx withdrew from politics. His centrist course was abandoned by his ever more right-leaning party which ended the Grand Coalition in 1930, operated a minority cabinet without parliamentary support strictly via presidential emergency decrees, and finally even voted in favor of the Enabling Act of 1933 which transferred the legislative power on the freshly elected Nazi government.
Marx himself limited his public activities to umbrella organization of Catholic student associations which he chaired. When the organization was to be Nazified in 1933, he let himself be pushed aside without a fight.
Marx’s old acquaintances shunned him after the Nazi takeover, as nobody wanted to be perceived to be close to an exponent of the democratic system. He lived a private life on very limited means and was fortunate to be left alone by the Nazis. When the post-war political system was formed in Germany, Marx joined the CDU (Christlich-Demokratische Union, Christian Democratic Union), the new cross-confessional Christian party. Soon after, Wilhelm Marx died on August 5, 1946.
Weimar Germany’s longest-serving chancellor is today all but forgotten.
The Rating
Foreign Policy
Marx’s foreign policy was neither original – Hermann Müller had outlined it as foreign minister and chancellor in the early 1920s – nor entirely his own – Gustav Stresemann, who served as foreign minister in all of Marx’s cabinets, carried out a good deal of it. It was, however, successful, as both the Dawes Plan and the admittance to the League of Nations show. Sometimes, the soft-spoken, conciliatory Marx also enjoyed advantages over the brash Stresemann – tough talk would not have finalized the Dawes Plan.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Domestic Policy
Marx had been reared to champion the cause of Catholic cultural equality from his early years on. His tragedy is that most of the disadvantages Catholics faced in the Protestant German Empire were removed by the Weimar Constitution, and those which remained – for example, that Catholic civil servants were less likely to be promoted – had no simple legislative solutions. Yet such solutions Marx kept pursuing, as with his ill-fated school law (despite the fact that 85% of Catholic schoolchildren already attended Catholic confessional schools). This practical non-issue has not even made it into the Weimar game – neither as an event card nor as a debate issue. Marx squandered political capital in the pursuit of an object which was neither useful nor attainable.
Rating: 1 out of 5.
Economic Policy
The ambitious anti-inflation reforms of 1923 and 1924 had been initiated by Stresemann, a friend of decisive action. Yet their actual implementation fell to the more measured Marx – probably a lucky stroke. Neither of them attempted to curtail the social effects of the reforms, and thus many pensioners and former as well as current civil servants fell into poverty, often alienating them from the republic.
Similarly, the introduction of unemployment insurance was a great step forward for social security – but it was underfunded in the relatively prosperous years of the beginning, and when unemployment and thus costs exploded after the crash of 1929, the system proved to be both a burden on the national budget and insufficient to alleviate the hardship of the many.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Vision
Marx was content to be placed wherever his party or the country needed him and do what he thought was required of him. He did not shape politics as much as answer to calls of duty.
Rating: 1 out of 5.
Pragmatism
Considerable parliamentary skill and his negotiation as an honest broker allowed Marx to gain him the majorities for his Enabling Act (1923) as well as the ratification of the Dawes Plan (1924). His mastery in that mere year contrasts unfavorably with his constant inability (despite his best attentions and efforts) to control the direction of his party (or at least keep the renegades under control), most markedly in the Prussian fiasco of 1925. His willingness to go along with any situation and answer any call of duty weakened his negotiating power, and forced him to repeatedly carry out political operations with whose premises he did not agree.
Marx was personally incorruptible. He managed to be both a committed party man, but govern with all of his country in mind. However, the Enabling Act set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of the constitution.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Overall
In his first and second chancellorship, Wilhelm Marx rose to the challenge of implementing the solutions to the great crisis of the republic. In his later tenures, he performed markedly worse despite the much-improved situation. His biggest successes are holding the course in foreign and economic policy in 1924, his biggest failure his inability to develop and implement a long-term plan for his party and the republic.
How would you rate Marx? 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).
The only full-length biography of Marx is Hehl, Ulrich von Wilhelm Marx: 1863—1946.Eine politische Biographie [Wilhelm Marx: 1863—1946. A Political Biography], Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, Mainz 1987. Its somewhat dry style is made up for by its detailed, source-rich research.
For the broader context, see: Herbert, Ulrich: A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
I know it is now June….I am usually done with this post by mid-March but this year we had a bunch of great games that came out in November and December and we just had to get several of them to the table before we shut 2025 down. Our opportunity to do so with full tables as there were several multi-player games in that bunch, was during Buckeye Game Fest in mid-March where we played lots of great games including Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 from Legion Wargames, Cross Bronx Expressway from GMT Games and Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations to name just a few. And now, with those final games getting played, comes the impossible task of distilling an entire year’s worth of gaming down to a list of the 10 games that we most enjoyed. I hate doing this. I love writing about, thinking about and sharing my experiences about the games we have played but hate having to make somewhat objective choices about which is better and which games should even be considered for the list. The first comment I would have is that not all games are the same. Not the same scale, the same play time, the same mechanically or even historically. Each game is unique and in my opinion, all games have something objectively good about them. Secondly, we didn’t get around to playing some of the new releases in 2025. I say some but we actually didn’t play a lot of the new releases and did the best that we could to play as many as possible. So we might leave off a game that you thought was very good and deserving and it probably is but we either didn’t get around to playing it or it just didn’t hit with us. But, in the end, I have to make this list and this is my best effort at doing just that!
In 2025, we played 33 unique titles from 22 different publishers. Some were operational, strategic or tactical scale and in the list this year I didn’t include any solitaire games. Some used counters. Some used cards. Some used wooden bits and some used miniatures. Some were only card games with no other components and some were cooperative. At the end of the day, in 2025 we played a lot of games! And here I present to you my list of the Top 10 Wargames of 2025!
10. China’s War: 1937-1941 from GMT Games
This is a game that I have been awaiting for a long, long time. Really since it was announced nearly 7 years ago in 2019. Yes you read that right…2019! And I am happy to report that the wait was definitely worth it as the game feels fresh and is a very worthy addition to the COIN Series. China’s War: 1937-1941 from GMT Games, which is volume 13 in the well respected and venerable COIN Series, examines the first five years of the 2nd Sino-Japanese conflict, when China stood alone against the whole of the Japanese Empire. Each player takes on the role of 1 of 4 Factions seeking to attack or defend the Republic of China including the aggressive and powerful Japanese, the harried Government represented by the Guomindang party, the rebellious Chinese Communist Party, or the unruly and fractious Warlords who are obedient when convenient but have their eye on gaining state power. Using military, political, and economic actions and exploiting various events, players will build and maneuver forces to influence or control the population, extract resources, or otherwise achieve their Faction’s goals and victory conditions. As with all COIN Series games that are Card Assisted rather than Card Driven Games, the deck of cards will regulate turn order, inject historical events into the game with major benefits or consequences, cause victory checks and other in game processes.
China’s War feels like a classic COIN Series game but in my opinion has 3 insurgent style factions against the powerful Japanese who don’t really act like the large Government factions in previous entries in the series. The focus really centers on the control of the Lines of Communication or LoC’s on the game board, which was a very refreshing approach that created some really interesting interplay and caused me to think differently about how I would go about achieving my Victory Conditions.
We find that Brian Train’s designs are just fantastic. I think that sometimes they can be a bit opaque, meaning that their true genius cannot be seen with just a few plays but will be unlocked over 4 or 5 plays as we have found with A Distant Plain, which has continually moved up on my list of favorite COIN Series games with each play that now numbers around 5. But China’s War was just special. It is totally unique as to its take on insurgency within the COIN Series, is really frenetic and active and gives the feeling of classic COIN while really turning things a bit upside down with the way the powerful faction works in the Japanese as they really only care about maintaining and cleaning off their Lines of Communication. In fact, they are so unique that they are the faction that will place Terror on the board, which is typically reserved for the insurgent factions to sway Support and Opposition.
We very much enjoyed the game and had a good time with it. We had a newer COIN Series player and they seemed to take to the game quickly and understood what it was that they were supposed to be doing. With that being said, with only the 1 play, I am sure that there are lots of things that we didn’t experience and will be able to discover those in future gaming opportunities. Suffice it to say that we can’t wait to play the game again and I am planning to bring this one along with me to the World Boardgaming Championships at the end of July.
We recently shot a First Impression/review video and you can watch that at the following link:
9. Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations
This spring, while attending Buckeye Game Fest in Columbus, Ohio, we were able to coordinate a 6-player game of Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations. Imperial Elegy is a card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games. Grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 unique major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
Imperial Elegy is a fantastically themed game that takes place over 7 turns, with each of the turns representing approximately a decade. If the Great War breaks out due to the World Tension Track reaching a certain level, the game can be extended by an additional 6 shorter turns. A turn in the game consists of player impulses that is driven by the play of action cards for their Command Points or for the printed events. Players will use CP and events to take actions like colonize, conduct diplomacy with minor nations, fight wars, as well as hinder their opponents by playing events that take away their actions or resources. A turn will end once all players have consecutively passed or when all players run out of cards.
The game is somewhat of a sandbox style game as you have so many options and choices about what to do during the course of the game. Obviously, your faction has some direction about what you should be doing but really it is up the player to spend their resources how they will to accomplish their ultimate goals and score Victory Points. I truly love that aspect about this game and as we played we saw that sandbox and the asymmetry between the various factions. Particularly at the start, each country has some specific goals that they have drawn from the National Goals Deck that are a source of Victory Points, in fact a major source of Victory Points, and players will need to prioritize these cards and decide which ones to attempt to go after from the start. With only 7 turns, they will have to make progress on these National Goals if they have any hope of actually achieving them.
Each of the represented nations in the game have their own special player board that contains various tracks that keep various information readily available to the players. Here is a look at the German player board. I very much enjoyed that they have gone to a great deal of effort to make these player boards and also that they gave each of the nation’s Stability, which decides whether various actions like war can be taken or if there are various positive or negative modifiers, the available Manpower that will determine how many armies can be built, Industry that tells how many action pointed you will have to spend during war to maneuver units, attack and replace losses. The focus of the game is about the control of territories both in Europe as well as colonies abroad and there is an automatic victory if a certain target number is met, in the case of Germany 15.
As we played, I started to realize that the key focus of the overall world stability and things like the Domestic Stability Tracks, which are focused of both the internal and external pressures faced by the powers. I really very much liked this thematic inclusion as no one wants to start a major global conflagration and there are steps that players have to take to skirt the inevitable troubles that result in their own actions and how they are seen by the other players in the game. But in our limited play, I never really felt threatened by this concept. Either our group was super skilled at avoiding the inevitable increase in tension or due to our short play we didn’t really experience some of the events that would have tipped this over the edge. I think that we say small increases in our full turn play but nothing that seemed unmanageable and we actually had an event that lowered it so it never became an issue. The game is about spending your resources wisely, in the form of your cards and your aspects like Stability, and to use your cards to do the events that could increase tension didn’t seem to be in our best interest, at least not in the 1st decade of the game. But maybe that will come later.
8. An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 from Bellica Third Generation
Earlier this year, I was able to host Francisco Ronco at my home to play a few games together. One of the games we played was published by his company Bellica Third Generation and was called An Impossible War. An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 is a block wargame that recreates the First Carlist War in the North of Spain which was a civil war between the Carlists who supported the succession of the late king’s brother Carlos de Borbón and the progressive and centralist supporters of the regent Maria Christina acting for Isabella II of Spain who were referred to as the Liberals. The game uses blocks representing units but also includes counters and uses cards.
An Impossible War is a fantastic design that attempts to capture the historical aspects of this titanic struggle for the throne of Spain in the mid 19th century. Historically, the Carlist forces who were defenders of traditional monarchy, regional privileges, and the Catholic Church, were a minority faction fighting an overwhelmingly larger, richer liberal government. The uprising phase reflects how the Carlists compensated for this disparity by forcing the Liberal government to fight on multiple fronts and suffer from logistical nightmares across hostile terrain. The Carlist Uprising Phase, and the use of its auxiliary Rest of Spain regional map, forces some really tough dilemmas on the Liberal player. They must attempt to divide their forces between the main Game Map and the Rest of Spain Map to prevent the opposition Carlist forces from overwhelming the home territory in the north. It serves as a vital strategic balancing act for the Liberal player that cannot be ignored and must be dealt with systematically and somewhat evenly. Too much focus on the Rest of Spain Map and the situation on the Game Map will quickly snowball and they will lose control. Focus on the situation on the Game Map and the protection of Cities and Towns and the Carlist Expeditions will gain momentum and turn the countryside red. While the primary war centers on the rugged terrain of northern Spain (Navarre and the Basque Provinces), the uprising mechanic abstractly models scattered insurgencies across the rest of the country. And as you know, insurgencies can be very unpredictable and difficult to contain. You stamp out one area only to see a fire start in another. The Liberal player must divert troops and supply resources to the secondary map to quell these localized rebellions and hunt down Carlist expeditions originating from the north. And, the important thing for the Carlist player and the expansion of the uprisings and the success of their expeditions is the possible generation of generation of Prestige and Victory Points, which is really crucial to their path to victory.
I very much enjoyed the asymmetry between the Carlist and Liberal forces in the game. It made for a very interesting tactical challenge for both sides as they have to play to their strengths and not get too overly concerned with the numbers. The Carlists will be much more mobile in their defense and look to exploit every gap in a supply line to move around and stay away from the numerically superior Liberal forces, whereas the Liberal player will have to move more methodically to take outlying towns and settlements to be able to shore up their lines and create less opportunities for end arounds by the Carlists. The disparity in the forces was a very interesting choice by the designer David Gómez Relloso and I am sure is reflective of the historical reality of the First Carlist War.
I very much enjoyed An Impossible War, even though I played just a few turns of a smaller scenario with Francisco Ronco. He was a master at the game, as obviously as the publisher and a playtester he is intimately familiar with the rules and strategies, and I learned a lot from him about how the game should be played. I am looking forward to future plays as the game is just very good and has some interesting aspects that create a very tense and interesting game of maneuver and strategy. The Game Map is very well done, from an aesthetic perspective as well as functionally, and the board makes playing the game easier.
I also was able to shoot a fairly short video summary of my game play with Francisco Ronco who is the owner of Bellica Third Generation and you can watch that at the following link:
Also I have embarked on a series of written Action Point post highlighting the various aspects of the game. Those published to date are as follows:
If you are interested in An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838, you can purchase a copy for 120,00 € ($139.08 in US Dollars) from the Bellica Third Generation website at the following link: https://bellica3g.com/en/product/una-guerra-imposible/
7. Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition from Decision Games
If you like classic wargames, and by that I mean simple I Go You Go Hex and Counter games from the 70’s and 80’s, then you are going to love Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition, which is a new updated version of 2 classic quadrigames from SPI covering several key battles from the American Civil War. Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition consists of the original eight games from the SPI Blue & Gray I & II Quadrigames but with massively upgraded components and counters and some better written rules. The key battles depicted are among the most important of the American Civil War and include Shiloh, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga and The Battle of the Wilderness.
The Deluxe Edition part of the title is really just a few changes including a mounted board that is really gorgeous and pretty sturdy. The counters have been slightly enlarged and there are a few additional optional rules including things like night turns, fatigue, leader casualties. There also were some optional unit counters that could be used but overall this was an artist and layout reissue of the game with some other nice additions such as period fonts and a very solid choice of colors for the maps and the counters as they really compliment each other well. But the game is really extremely playable meaning that is doesn’t take long to pick up the rules and the system is very standard fair. The game mechanics used are based on the Borodino/Napoleon at Waterloo system and frankly are very easy to grock and to get into. I did very much like the back and forth of the scenarios as the players will tend to clash over control of certain key areas that have defensible terrain and that are only approachable from a few areas. But the game does have a few concerns for me such as generally no fog of war and no difficulty in activating any and all of your stacks. But that is what the system is and it will truly appeal to those that are looking for that nostalgic feeling from their childhoods.
But it plays well, fast and is solid and any good solid wargame is good with me.
6. Fighting Formations: US 29th Infantry Division from GMT Games
One of my favorite tactical systems of all time is Combat Commander designed by the late Chad Jensen. I had yet to play his other tactical combined-arms series called Fighting Formations until the newest release came out in 2025 called Fighting Formations: US 29th Infantry Division. Fighting Formations is intended to be an ongoing series of wargames covering WWII tactical combined-arms combat at the platoon and squad levels. Each game in the series will feature a distinct combat unit, highlighting battles in which that unit participated as well as its particular order of battle and fighting characteristics. In this second volume of Fighting Formations, GMT features the US 29th Infantry Division—“Blue and Gray”—as it fought from just after D-Day in June of 1944 to the end of the year.
The core mechanics from the original Fighting Formations remain unchanged in this volume. The difference from the original game is in the way the units will fight. The different costs on the matrix place an emphasis on certain actions and assets for the 29th ID that were different than the others games way of approaching a battle. This game is far from Combat Commander though as it uses cards but they are not the engine of the game. The game also has a very interesting and unique activation system where each of the orders cost a different amount of Initiative and tuns into and impulse-type back and forth where the various Orders carry with them a certain cost in Initiative. The game has a pool of 40 Initiative that is spent to give these orders and then to activate units for those orders. At the end of every order, the player with the most Initiative is able to give the next order. In response, the opponent can also spend Initiative to conduct both Opportunity Fire or Reactive Fire which keeps the game very dynamic and fluid. Just a really great way to approach this and if you have played Downfall from GMT Games you will notice similarities with the system.
The game also tells a great narrative of the differences between the US and German troops as the 29th had access to more battlefield support than their German counterparts and the card deck is tailored to that experience as well. The US player in the new game has access to more cards and at lower initiative costs, bringing artillery and air support to the forefront in a way that we have not seen before.
We did a RAW video after our 1st play and you can watch that at the following link:
The Rock of Chickamauga is the 2nd entry in the Black Swan Series from Flying Pig Games designed by Hermann Luttmann and follows closely on the heels of A Most Fearful Sacrifice. Using the same game system, which is based on the well received Blind Sword Series, The Rock of Chickamauga covers the entire Battle of Chickamauga, fought from September 18th through the 20th, 1863 in northern Georgia. The Union Army of the Cumberland, under William Rosecrans, is driving south from Chattanooga, hoping to envelop and trap Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee. But Bragg anticipates the maneuver, pulls back and then counterattacks the overextended Union forces. They meet along Chickamauga Creek, nicknamed the “River of Death”, in an epic struggle.
The Black Swan Series uses a card-draw activation system that functions similarly to a traditional chit-pull system. This system is a core mechanic for introducing uncertainty, friction, and the fog of war into the gameplay. The cards themselves contain specific game information and orders, which streamlines play and reduces the need to look up rules or charts, saving time compared to traditional chit-pull systems.
I also very much liked how the confusion and true fog of war that existed at the battlefield was included in the game play. Not only do to the commanders’ lack precise information about their opponent but also the physical nature of the battlefield. Both sides basically went into battle stumbling and bumbling through the woods, searching out what they thought was the enemy’s flank and actually being way off in their assumptions. The woods themselves were so uniquely characteristic in that they were mostly thickly grouped with little undergrowth (being cleared by the local farmers and millers), but still displaying significant canopies. This canopy functioned like a tropical jungle “roof” and trapped smoke and dust within it. To add to that, there had been little rain in the area and the trails, lanes, and roads were exceedingly dry and produced clouds of dust. My main concern therefore was replicating all that confusion and ignorance of the location of opposing forces and thankfully, that’s what the entire Blind Swords/Black Swan System is modeled to reflect. Therefore, I just doubled-down on the inherent “chaos” elements of the core system and made those factors even more prevalent.
I also love how the system models the units and their fighting prowess referred to as Cohesion. The Cohesion Rating of a unit is essentially a catch-all for its morale, training and experience and includes what the unit’s intangible fighting qualities are, other than just sheer number of men. It is probably the most important aspect of the game engine as it is the key element that will determine how well a unit will fight – and survive – during the battle. It is used throughout the game to measure a unit’s ability to fight and endure on the battlefield. The CR will fluctuate during the entire game, and it will do so often. Units that are Shaken or Battleworn will have their CR suffer. Units can also raise their CR temporarily through the use of various events or by providing them with Unit Support. A low CR makes units more vulnerable and increases their risk during a Break Test, which will cause them to leave the game if they fail. You have to focus on this aspect or you will be unable to consistently move your attacks forward.
Just such a great system and I love Hermann’s attention to the historical details and the way he tells these ACW stories. I love this Black Swan Series and look forward to future volumes.
4. BCS Inflection Point: The Battle for Kalach and the Battle of Chir from Multi-Man Publishing
Over the past couple years, we have played a few venerated and respected series games from Multi-Man Publishing for the first time that frankly I had initially turned my nose up at for various reasons. These reasons were not really anything important or truly about the design or mechanics but included things like price, graphic design, style and somewhat because of the complexity and reputation of complexity of those systems. These series included first the Standard Combat Series (SCS) with our first game being Rostov ’41 and now the Battalion Combat Series (BCS) with our first game being Arracourt and since we have played several other volumes including Brazen Chariots and Baptism by Fire. I must admit here that I am actually embarrassed that I hadn’t played those series and readily admit that I just discounted and dismissed them out of hand. I am so very glad that we repented of our stubbornness and found this system because it really is very, very good at what it is trying to teach and demonstrate about warfare at this scale.
One of the best parts about this new volume in the series is that it is actually 2 games in the same box. One game which is smaller, with fewer counters and formations and that uses a smaller version of the board included in the game and one that is the full campaign with more counters and formations, a larger board and is much more involved. Overall, I would say that the BCS is a fairly straightforward series even for someone who is a beginner and has less experience with the BCS system like me. I think that I thought they were designing Arracourt as the entry to the series, and I still think that is the case, but this volume has some of the same flexibility and approachability that some of the larger titles don’t necessarily have. I feel that players can cut their teeth on this one using the smaller scenario while getting comfortable with the rules and system before you attempt the larger scenarior or even other larger games in the series. I also feel that the game requires somewhat of a paradigm shift before playing. What I mean by that is really two fold.
First, I really feel that usually these big hex and counter wargames are set in their combat methods, namely focused on odds based Combat Results Tables and counting up combat factors to get the perfect odds, and require a bit of calculation. But BCS doesn’t use a traditional CRT but breaks the combat down into more of a collection of DRM’s based on many factors.
Second, the game also has very low counter density, with the scenario we played having about 40 counters per side on the map at any given time, and stacking limits are just 2 combat units with other counters also allowed such as support units or HQ’s. There are not enough counters here to create the long contiguous line or wall of units that are typical in some of the larger systems, which lends this one to a bit more maneuvering of units to get into good position while using terrain to attempt to isolate and cut off units from supply or to prevent the enemy from doing the same to your units. This created somewhat of a back and forth dance for us that kept my focus and attention and was really quite entertaining. Supply is important to the system but not as focused on it as say the Operational Combat Series (OCS). The players must manage their HQ’s and their combat trains to keep their units in full supply and this becomes somewhat of a different type of dance that sees players cautiously keeping their units in a loose perimeter to prevent a freak breakthrough or run around to get to the back of the formations to take out supply sources and cut off units. I really liked the scale and feeling of this BCS system and had a very good time in trying to learn and understand it and also trying to figure out the best strategies to engage.
The counters included in BCS Inflection Point are dual sided but the back side is not to show a reduced unit as is normal with these wargames. The front side is the unit’s move side while the back side is its deployed side. Each of these stances is very important and must be used by each player to get the most out of their units and to take it to their opponent.
We also did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:
If you are interested in BCS Inflection Point: The Battle for Kalach and the Battle of Chir, you can order a copy for $112.00 from the Multi-Man Publishing website at the following link: https://mmpgamers.com/inflection-point-p-418
3. Close Quarter Battles: Waterloo from Lock ‘n Load Publishing
Close Quarter Battles: Waterloo was such a surprise of the year for us. It is a tactical level wargame that is truly intense and chaotic that attempts to, and does a fantastic job of accomplishing, the brutal, up-close engagements of Napoleonic warfare. The game puts players in command of elite British, French, or Prussian forces as they fight for control of key battlefield positions. The designer has chosen to center on the two strongpoints of the battle of Waterloo including the La Haye Sainte farm and the Hougoumont Farm. First off, the game is just gorgeous and the maps are stunning. In fact, they are so good that I am going to highlight them in an upcoming entry on the blog in the Beautiful Boards of Wargaming Series. But, the Waterloo battles here are skirmishes around and for the taking of these two farms. The game uses a grand tactical system that works to attempt to to simulate the interactions between infantry skirmishers of small groups, artillery sections and cavalry in a fortified area. This leads to the game being uber violent and bloody as assaults are common but difficult particularly for the attackers who will have to scale formidable walls and then take on the awaiting crack troops inside. Officers and generals are very important to the battle as they will influence the battlefield with their command range and other attributes to add DRM’s to the troops by issuing orders, rallying troops, and trying their best to maintain discipline.
I really like this one as it is really a game. Meaning that the rules are simple yet impactful and the game provides each of the players with a deck of cards that act as events to provide bonuses, allow for greater movement distance or to perform heroic acts. They also provide the chance to attack and eliminate leaders with sniper fire to cause even further chaos and blood.
We did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:
2. All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859 from Legion Wargames
We very much enjoy the Blind Swords Series originally designed by Hermann Luttmann. We love it for its chaos, unpredictability and for is crunchy combat system. This past year, a new designer Bryan Armor took up the call and took this Blind Swords System and put it into action in the Second Italian War of Independence. All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859 simulates the decisive battle of the Second Italian War of Independence at the Brigade-level, with some additional Regimental-size and smaller detachments included.
And the other part that is so good about this system and the game itself is the activation chit pull system. The chit pull mechanic also very much aids in solitaire play, as does variable activation rules and reinforcement tables but it really makes for a lot of uncertainty about how and what units will activate. No battle is in your full control and this system really reinforces that truth about the battlefield.
One of the best parts is the morale system. Each corps has an associated Corps Morale marker on the Morale Track. Each Corps Morale marker will be reduced by one when they activate including movement and fire attacks but also when Leaders take casualties or break tests are failed. This can all lead to the corps becoming demoralized which means they will be unable to offensively move and attack and will be relegated to a defensive posture. So you really have to make good choices about what units and when they will activate. You cannot just wholesale activate each formation every turn but must look at their status to decide how best to manage this aspect that was a very interesting and nice addition to an all ready proven and very good system. This means that units are also prone to attrition and need to be covered or supported by artillery fire. They can be used most effectively if massed at certain points. The chits also effected the corps’ stance switching between aggressive or defensive and this is a choice that must be made with a full understanding of a plan of attack.
Just a very solid and playable game that felt like a big wargame that played fairly quickly and easily and didn’t get bogged down too much.
We did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:
If you are interested in All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859, you can order a copy for $58.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_AAB.html
1. Congress of Vienna from GMT Games
I am a big fan of the Great Statesman Series from GMT Games and several of its volumes including Churchill and Pericles are among my favorite wargames. But Congress of Vienna is a really great game, probably the best of the bunch, and has matured the system laid out by its found Mark Herman. Congress of Vienna has two different but related phases including the conference table where players first debate over the control of issues germane to the factions and the period of the war and second these issues are then used on the battlefield to recruit units, attack and take overall command of battles. The players will be playing cards from their hands to “debate” over the various issues that were placed on the table, which include all types of things such as Military Operations, Recruitment, who will lead the combined Coalition forces (Generalissimo), Future of French Government, British Financial Aid, Liberalism vs. Absolutism, Austrian Neutrality and several other issues, and then later the players will use their accumulated Resources gained from the issues to enact action on the Military Map and do things like mobilize troops, place Military Support Markers and the ultimately to conduct warfare.
The interesting thing about this mechanic is that sometimes the other players will win your issues by having them rest on their side of the conference table at the conclusion of the phase. In this case, the winning player will gain control of that issue and then will get the opportunity to choose where the issues will be placed on the Military Map, but the owner of the issue will still pay for it and must do where the placement is telling them to do, such as attack on a certain front. There also is a small area on the board where the Russian player must turn their effort to fight in Asia. This action has no real in game effect or benefit other than causing Russia to lose the choice of what they wanted to do in favor of doing something else. This can be a great tactic for the French player, or even for other Coalition players to spoil the plans of the Russian player and possibly box them out of gaining VP for military victories on various tracks.
The game relies on cards and cards can be used to negotiate, i.e. move an issue to your National Track. Cards can provide a particular issue with positive and negative DRM’s depending on which nation plays them and can also be traded with another player during the Diplomacy Phase. Certain cards are better than others for debating an issue moved by another player; and finally, if they are saved for the War Phase, staff cards can be used to modify dice rolling in battles. These are very versatile cards and the players will have to learn them and their benefits in order to be effective at the game.
But even though the game relies on cards and has an important Diplomacy Phase, without a doubt CoV is a wargame with DRM’s for units and military leaders, terrain, military support, a Casualties Table, retreat and advancing after battle, etc. However, both Phases are inversely related and if players use their Character Cards in the form of generals and military leaders for the Diplomacy Phase you will not have them available for the Military Phase. If you do not win enough issues during the Diplomacy Phase, you will not have recruiting or military operations where they are most important to your power.
I would say that the game is very involved and will take a few plays to really get comfortable with. I don’t want anyone to take this to mean that the game is overly complex and difficult to play. That is not the case. It is a very approachable system and game once you get the basics down through the play of a few turns. I would also say that there is a ton of differences and asymmetry with the nations and learning all of them well and understanding their tactics will take some time. But that is a good thing in my opinion and means that there is depth to the game and replayabilty is huge. And in my opinion, this was the best game that I played from 2025. Just fantastic!
Each year I feel compelled to tack on some games to this list just because they were so very interesting or dealt with unique settings that I feel they are worthy of mentioning. While they didn’t make the Top 10 list, they are each good games in their own right.
Alliance: Multi-Player Napoleonic Wargame from Columbia Games
All in all, we had a great time with Alliance. I think that we felt that the game was solid, with some great mechanics such as the card play and the block combat system, but was just missing some things. I would like to see what the community comes up with as far as variants and other changes over the next year. But the game delivers on its promise of a sandbox strategic level Napoleonic wargame with a focus on alliance building and maintenance. There is a lot to like and we plan to play this one again.
We also did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:
If you are interested in Alliance: Multi-Player Napoleonic Wargame, you can order a copy for $99.98 from the Columbia Games website at the following link: https://secure.columbiagames.com/products/3221
Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 from Legion Wargames
Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 is a COIN Series adjacent game designed by Clint Warren-Davey and Benjamin Feine and is an alternate history game, but the story that is presented is entirely plausible. Werwolf was a real underground guerrilla group, comprised of SS and Hitler Youth members. It was intended to lead an insurgency against the invading Allies and Soviets when it became clear that Germany was losing the war in a conventional sense in the mid-1940’s. They did in fact have a few successes and American intelligence officer Frank Manuel said that the Werwolves were prepared “to strike down the isolated soldier in his jeep, the MP on patrol, the fool who goes a-courting after dark, the Yankee braggart who takes a back road.” The game allows players to take on the role of the occupying Soviets and Western Allies along with this Werwolf insurgency and the Edelweiss insurgency.
This game was very good and frankly was a breath of fresh air in the COIN Series or COIN Series adjacent arena. This game was very kinetic and each faction had a ton of combat and had to engage each other to accomplish their goals. The cards were fantastic and the additions to the system such as Research Tokens, Heavy Weapons in the form of leftover tanks, Wunder-waffen and the Cold War Tension Track, were really fresh and well integrated into the game play. I loved the game and would play it again in a heart beat!
If you are interested in Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948, you can order a copy for $106.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_WER.html
Verdun from Dragon Dawn Productions
Verdun is a card game that is focused on the famous siege of Verdun during World War I. As player’s hands dwindle down as they play 2 cards per round but only draw 1, players will also have to play cards that help the other side, timing it strategically to minimize their own casualties. The teams alternate being the Attacker, and each card played leads to more and more deaths. You are fighting over positive victory points from trying to win several positions through over the top attacks that are worth a set amount of VP but that are hidden from view until they are taken so you never know if you are going for the high VP area or the low ones until you blow the whistle to initiate the attack.
A game of Verdun lasts about 16 rounds as players start with 12 cards, which they then play in a series of 12 tricks. When you win the trick, you gain the VP for the position but the winner will lose their lowest valued cards while the loser will lose their highest value cards to the dead pile representing mounting casualties. Low cards have fewer skulls on them representing deaths while higher cards have more. So even in victory you will be accumulating negative VP’s and this is one of the key aspects of the game…managing those deaths! Just like the high command.
In the end, the player with the highest score will win and this number will be very low or can even be negative. In our play of the game, my French defeated Alexander’s Germans by a final score of 3 VP to -14 VP. What a great little trick taking game! The really interesting part about the late game is that your hand has dwindled to being full of your worst cards as you have most likely used the good cards earlier to win tricks or cause losses to your opponent. The last few card plays just seem brutal and you are just hoping to not have to take a lot of skulls. This felt very fruitless and mimics the despair of commanders as they had to issue orders that they knew were not going to result in any positive gains but only the loss of life.
We did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:
Drop Zone: Southern France from Worthington Publishing
Drop Zone: Southern France is a company-level wargame covering the Allied airborne assault that spearheaded Operation Dragoon, which was the invasion of Southern France or the Second D-Day on August 15, 1944. The history behind this operation is really very interesting as early on the morning of D-Day, the allied First Airborne Task Force (1st ABTF) parachuted a dozen miles behind the Riviera landing beaches to seize key towns and road junctions, to prevent the German occupation forces from counter-attacking the amphibious landing, and to facilitate the advance of Allied forces. The 4:00 AM parachute drop was badly scattered due to an unexpected dense fog bank that blanketed the battlefield. Drop Zone: Southern France covers the first two days of this airborne operation in six game turns, when the American and British paratroopers and glider-men fought surrounded and alone, supported only by French resistance bands. This game is very good and is just a solid wargame.
This game is surprisingly good and we had a great time playing it! There are just so many interesting elements to consider including the various operations, objectives and paths to take for the Allies to attempt to capture their objectives as planned. We found the game to be imminently playable and were very pleased with the strategy and planning required to do well. This one is a winner and I would recommend it highly as an introductory wargame that plays in 90-120 minutes but gives some real meat to chew on.
We did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:
Chicago ’68 pits revolutionary spectacle against civil order at the Democratic National Convention riots of 1968. Players take the role of either the Establishment, consisting of the Chicago PD and Mayor Daley, or the Demonstrators, including the Yippies and MOBE, and is a fast-paced game of street battles and political maneuvers.
Each side plays from two asymmetric decks of action cards. The Establishment positions tactical forces and police platoons to co-ordinate mass arrests while working the convention floor. The Demonstrators, on the other hand, can pivot from direct clashes to radical street theater; their tactics can be reactive and unpredictable, allowing for wild cat-and-mouse chases and mischief-making across the tear-gassed avenues of downtown Chicago.
This game is an area control/area influence game that uses cards to take a predetermined set of actions that can be upgraded and replayed with better actions as the game progresses. Each player will fight for control of the delegates to the convention as well as exposure to the nation through the media. Just a very well designed game that was a ton of fun to play.
There I am finally done. My list of the Top 10 Wargames published in 2025. I had fun playing them and putting this list together as I got to revisit each of the games and think about why they were included on this list.
Please let me know what your top games of the year were and what you think of my choices and what games you would have placed on such a list.
Hermann Luttmann is a great designer and I just love his solitaire takes on historical battles. His newest design is a solitaire game called A Hell So Terrible: Verdun 1916 from GMT Games that focuses on the German assault on the city of Verdun in 1916 during World War I. Keep in mind that Hermann is a very creative designer and uses lots of very interesting and chaotic design elements to create a very interesting and satisfying gaming experience. Also, most of his games are just that, with very engaging gameplay and a lot of the unknown that will hit you in the face from time to time! I just love his games. We reached out to Hermann and as always he was more than willing to share more about the design.
*Keep in mind that the design is still undergoing playtesting and development and that any details or component pictures shared in this interview are for prototype purposes and will definitely change prior to final publication as they enter the art department.
Grant: Hermann welcome back to the blog. What is your upcoming game A Hell So Terrible about?
Hermann: Thanks so much for having me back again! This is getting to be a bad habit. A Hell So Terrible is currently on the GMT P500 list and covers the German assault on Verdun during World War I. The offensive was launched on Feb. 21, 1916, and its ultimate goal was, as Chief of Staff Erich von Falkenhayn infamously stated, to “bleed France white”. This design sets up the solitaire player commanding the German army at Verdun. The player must push the various German Corps forward along nine different tracks across three main sectors, all of which converge on the city of Verdun and its last ring of fortresses. But the player only has a limited amount of time to close the noose around Verdun, as at the start of July, the Allies will be launching their huge offensive along the Somme River and vital German resources will need to be diverted to defend that front. So, this game design combines a little bit of push-your-luck with a little bit of tower-offense (reverse States of Siege, if you will), and a dab of historically-weighted chaos, to give you a nice flavorful stew of military simulation and game play fun.
Grant: What is the meaning of the title? What did you hope to convey about the game to the players?
Hermann: We actually went through a number of different titles, and I had this one neat quote I found:
“Humanity is mad! It must be mad to do what it is doing. What a massacre! What scenes of horror and carnage! I cannot find words to translate my impressions. Hell cannot be so terrible. Men are mad!”— Second Lieutenant Alfred Joubaire in his diary during the Battle of Verdun (May 23, 1916).
The BBC also used a version of this quote for the Verdun chapter of their special Great War TV series – “Hell Cannot Be So Terrible”. Gene Billingsley came up with the final, truncated version for the game’s title. I take great pride in my game’s titles, and this is no exception. I want the titles to be poetic, artistic, and memorable and thus are usually portions of famous quotes, book chapter titles, etc. By doing so, the title has a meaning and conveys to the player a hint of what the game is about. In this case, as you may surmise, it is supposed to be a bit depressing and gloomy, preparing the player for a difficult Great War grind. The player will experience, in abstract and harmless form of course, the tough slog and frustrating pace of a WWI offensive against an entrenched enemy.
Grant: I see that you described it as a “tower offense” game. What does this mean?
Hermann: This clever twist on the “tower defense” label was created by the game’s developer, Marco Poutre, and I just love it. A tower defense game traditionally means that a player is located in the relative center of the game board, and they are required to defend that center from a foe advancing from multiple directions. Lose the center and lose the game. A Hell So Terrible flips that dynamic around 180 degrees. You are the approaching German attacker moving along multiple axes of advance and the French enemy “bot” is the central defender, trying desperately to keep you away from Verdun.
A prototype copy of the board with counters. Not final art.
Grant: Furthermore, the player takes on the role of the attacker. How did this change your design focus?
Hermann: Primarily, the game design must provide the player with strategies of offense and exploitation, rather than that of defense and blocking. The game’s mechanics are structured to offer ways and means for the Germans to conduct actions against the enemy, rather than offer just reactions to enemy moves. You are the instigator and thus drive the action with your play. But that’s not to say that the French “bot” sits idly by…it will counterattack and it will generally do that in the spot which least suits you and your plans.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
Hermann: Well, as you may or may not know, World War I has always been a primary interest of mine. It is just so rich with gaming opportunities because there are so many interesting fighting fronts featuring many different armies. The war is loaded with fairly obscure yet fascinating battles and campaigns and making them each “gameable” is a real challenge. Designing a playable game out of trench warfare was one of my earliest self-inflicted gaming challenges and that all lead directly to the In Magnificent Style push-your-luck style system, which has now come full circle to A Forlorn Hope from Wharf Rat Games (which actually does cover trench warfare). In the A Hell So Terrible game design, that aspect of pushing your troops ”against the wind” of enemy fire (but at an operational scale now) seemed to fit really well with what a game about Verdun should simulate.
Grant: What is your ultimate design goal with the game?
Hermann: Simply, to provide the player with as much angst and anxiety as possible! This operation is perfect for the push-your-luck and tower offense approach. The player is placed under a severe time constraint, so the requirement to not only keep moving forward (even when it seems unwise to do so) but also the need to harbor the few resources you have available in the game (more on that later) is a perfect combination of game play juggling. The player must pick the best spots to attack, when to attack, and with what expenditure of assets. And to keep all these moving parts in a playable, accessible format that doesn’t overstay its welcome is the design goal.
Grant: What from trench warfare during WWI and the numerous attacks on Verdun was most important to model?
Hermann: Well, there are quite a few factors that I really wanted to get into the design to make it feel right. Obviously, the French defensive positions are deep, layered, and unpredictable. There are multiple chains of trenches, forts, and terrain features that must be overcome. How do you, as the attacking Germans, go about penetrating these defenses and inflicting as many casualties as you can on the defending French? Well….planning, logistics, bombardment, flanking, reconnaissance, and determination are the tools to overcome those traditional WWI obstacles. Using a design-for-effect principle, there are simple mechanics built into the game that allow the player access to each of those tools, but at the same time, they are not always available and certainly aren’t limitless.
The player must assess each phase of the game and play it to their best ability, utilizing these historic tools to pry loose the French defenses. So, all these factors are important to model to get the best full experience of attacking in WWI.
One other critical thing I wanted to model is the unknown. What I mean is, the French defenses were mostly hidden and they were deep. Though the player can see the French units on the game board, their strengths are unknown until engaged and even the effect of your artillery bombardments is unknown until you actually have units enter those spaces. This is a huge aspect to WWI trench warfare – you are just never sure what the enemy is doing nor what kind of shape they are in. This fog of war really creates a high level of tension and requires the player to try their luck sometimes, even when it might not seem advisable. And the game will constantly be changing the state and makeup of the French defenses, including allowing them to hit back at unexpected times with counterattacks. All these aspects of WWI warfare are critical to include to give the proper experience, and they are all found in this game.
Grant: What sources did you consult about the details of the history? What one must read source would you recommend?
Hermann: The Price of Glory by Alistair Horne is my “must read” source.
Verdun 1916: They Shall Not Pass from Osprey Publishing.
Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War from Oxford University Press by Paul Jankowski.
And in addition to published books, I reviewed various online articles and video documentaries.
Grant: What other games did you draw inspiration from?
Hermann: Honestly, none. I know you guys have covered a number of the other Verdun games and I know that there are some really good ones. But A Hell So Terrible is, I feel, a unique wargame approach to this campaign and as such, I don’t like to be influenced by other games when I begin a design. That goes for most of my other designs as well, by the way. Again, that’s not to say that other game designs aren’t great games – most are. But I don’t want to allow myself to be subconsciously swayed one way or the other by another designer’s approach, unless I’m actually using an operating system as my core engine (like States of Siege, for example). That’s not to say that I won’t read the background and historical information that is contained in other games or read the associated historical articles in a game magazine. But for the most part, I do not consult other games to get design ideas.
Grant: What are the Activation dice and how do they work?
Hermann: One of the driving inspirations for this game’s design approach was the idea of using an activation dice mechanic in a wargame. This is a relatively new game mechanic, at least in my experience, and I first encountered it in the Claustrophobia game series. I’ve come to appreciate the fact that it is an almost perfect blend of randomization and player decision making, all in one simple mechanic. You roll a bunch of dice – the random part – and you must then assign those dice to particular tasks – the decision part. My twist on that concept is that I marry that idea with the ability to change the kind of dice you roll and then apply the entire push-your-luck concept on top of that. There are two types of dice – Movement and Casualty – and after all dice are rolled, one of each is assigned to an activated unit. This will tell you how far a unit can move and how many casualties it will suffer just from moving (i.e., representing the constant enemy “wall of fire”).
Grant: How has the dice activation streamlined the game? Why does this work so well?
Hermann: The dice activation system not only tells you how you can move your units but also resolves the persistent enemy fire without needing the player to resolve a dozen separate combats. There are two categories of activation dice – Movement and Casualty. The Movement dice come in two types – Advance (green dice) and Infiltration (black dice) while the Casualty dice also come in two types – Friction (orange dice) and Suppression (red dice).
The Advance die allows normal movement results and is the default movement die unless the player opts to spend Command Points to upgrade one or more of these dice to Infiltration dice. The Infiltration dice represent the deployment of Stosstruppen, highly skilled and specially equipped assault troops, and as such these dice allow more movement. Because Command Points are a limited resource, the player must make that critical decision whether to spend those points to get the more efficient Infiltration dice.
The Friction die is assigned to a unit to represent the amount of enemy fire it is receiving and it is the default die unless the assigned unit has its Support marker (representing the supply trains and supporting local artillery) nearby. If the marker is with or adjacent to the activated unit, the player may automatically substitute the Suppression die for the Friction die. The Suppression die represents the tactical artillery (present with the Support marker) bombarding the enemy and thus suppressing the enemy troops and their defensive fire. The problem is that Support markers are hard to move and rarely are able to keep pace with their associated German unit.
Thus, the player is left with some interesting command decisions, even though a unit’s movement and vulnerability is randomly determined by a simple die roll.
Grant: What time pressure is felt by the player?
Hermann: Like all game designs that have any kind of push-your-luck aspect to them, time has to be of the essence. If there is no time pressure, there is no reason to push and take chances. In this game, each turn is half-a-month and the player must accomplish the German goals by the end of the 10th Game Turn, which is the end of June, 1916. The Somme offensive starts at the beginning of July and this marks the point where the Germans must have achieved a victory at Verdun in order to compromise that offensive. The player will find that it is a long slog to capture the ring of French fortresses and get to the outskirts of Verdun in time. So, they will be compelled to push hard and take risks to get to the inner sanctum before the end of the game.
Grant: What type of experience does this create? What are the toughest decisions forced on the players?
Hermann: The experience will hopefully be, as I said before, one of anxiety and fun all mixed into one package! And despite the random events and numerous dice rolls, there is a parade of tactical and strategic decision-making the player must navigate each and every turn. Just to list the toughest and most critical…
Which Activation dice do you assign to which unit?
In what order do you activate the units? This matters because you can maneuver your units to create flank attack benefits.
How do you spend your limited Command Points?
Where do you place your Bombardment and Big Bertha markers?
How far do you push your combat units forward before you have to slow them down to allow the Support markers to catch up?
Do I spend precious time to do a Reconnaissance before attacking?
Grant: How does the solitaire bot for the French function? How does the AI prioritize its decisions?
Hermann: The French bot works mostly through the Event Cards, though as stated before the French firepower is also inherent in the Casualty dice effect. The events are almost all based on things that actually happened or could have happened during the Battle of Verdun and though they won’t occur in exactly the same order chronologically, many are weighted to have different effects depending on the month in which the card is drawn. The French are always tenaciously defending, but the cards dictate when reinforcements arrive, the deployment of fighter aces, the bombarding of German units, the appearance of random patrols, and the launching of counterattacks. And the location of many of those counterattacks is often influenced by how much progress German units are making on their tracks… r in other words, how close they are to Verdun itself.
Grant: What is the flow of the game?
Hermann: Each Game Turn begins with the draw of an Event Card and this card can affect any position or area across the game board. The player determines if they receive any additional Command Points and then resolve a dogfight procedure to determine which side has Air Superiority this turn. Then the player conducts any desired Artillery Bombardment, placing such markers face down on French units. The player selects which of three sectors to activate – left, center, or right. Before activating units in each sector, another Event Card is drawn and often, its effects apply just to the chosen sector (but not always). Units of the chosen sector move and fight until all are Spent for the turn. Then another eligible sector is chosen, another Event Card is drawn, and its units move and fight until Spent. Once all units on the map are Spent, the player calculates any Victory Points earned, and resets for the next turn.
Grant: What are the Events that start a turn? What are some examples of these events?
Hermann: The Event Card that is drawn to start the turn (during the Initial Event Phase) is the same as the others – they all come from the same deck. But this first card may affect the game differently. If it does, it will say so right at the top of the card. So, for example, the “Shell Shock & Attrition” card is especially devastating if drawn as the Initial Event. If drawn at the start of a Sector activation, it requires the German units of that Sector (only) to each take an immediate Morale Test (which could result in their becoming Spent before they even get to activate). If this card is drawn during the Initial Event Phase, it affects all the German units on the game map and every unit must take an immediate Morale Test!
Grant: How are Command Points used? How are they earned?
Hermann: Command Points (CP) are the currency with which the player can do some really cool bonus actions or get gameplay benefits. Using CP to the best of your ability is a key to winning the game. The player gets 15 CP to start the game and then earns some more each turn, but fewer and fewer as the game progresses. This is an abstract way to simulate the breakdown of communications between German headquarters and the troops, as well as reflecting the degrading of confidence in the operation, especially by Crown Prince Wilhelm himself. Certain Event Cards also grant additional CP. Command Points are used throughout the game to do a number of special actions, including purchasing Infiltration dice, re-rolling combat dice, replacing losses, using Attack Momentum (see below), redeploying units, etc. All powerful tools when used at the right moment in the game.
Grant: What is the need for the dogfighting step? How does this play out?
Hermann: The Dogfight Step is a part of the Air Campaign Phase, which just generally reflects what is happening in the skies above the Verdun battlefield.
The Dogfight is a simple competitive dice roll, with the side who has Dogfight Advantage at the time (as listed on the Turn Record Track) getting to roll two dice and use the higher roll. The winner gets to bump the Air Superiority marker one box in their direction. Who has Air Superiority at any point in the game can affect some events, but most importantly for the player, if the Germans have Air Superiority, they have more Bombardment and Big Bertha markers available to use in the turn (simulating that the German Drachen – balloons – are free to fly to observe and guide artillery fire). Again, a simple thematic mechanic that reflects a complex issue.
Grant: How does heavy bombardment work?
Hermann: During the Heavy Artillery Bombardment Phase, the player deploys a certain number of Bombardment and/or Big Bertha markers onto the game map. At the very start of the game, there is a special step called the Trommelfeuer Step which allows the player to place 20 Bombardment and 5 Big Bertha markers around the map. This is to simulate the massive preliminary barrage the Germans conducted before the assault. During all the other game turns, the player gains a certain number of Bombardment Points, based on where the Air Superiority marker is located. Bombardment Points are spent to purchase Bombardment and Big Bertha markers to place face down on French units or into the special Voie Sacree (Sacred Way) area, which was the logistical lifeline for the French forces. The markers each have variable effects on their back sides, ranging from no effect to utter destruction. But these markers are randomized and the player does not know what effect applies to the targeted French units until a German unit enters their space for combat or the player takes the time to conduct a Reconnaissance action to reveal and apply the marker immediately. A Big Bertha marker placed in the Voie Sacree area can interdict that area and delay French supplies and reinforcements, which is enacted by nerfing certain Event Cards.
Grant: What is the layout of the board?
Hermann: The boards shows the entire area around the Verdun fortress complex. There are nine movement tracks and each track has a dedicated German unit and Support marker. Each of these tracks are made up of a series of eight spaces. Most spaces have a terrain feature associated with them – clear, forest, hills, fortress, or trench. There are also a number of landmark spaces that have special game effects (ex: Fort Douaumont). The tracks are also divided into three Sectors, each representing a major segment of the German army attack zone. The left Sector has only two tracks, the center Sector is the main attack zone with four tracks, and the right Sector has three tracks and is the left bank of the Meuse River, which was manned by the Bavarian Corps. Every German unit starts in its own trench area and must move up the track toward Verdun, encountering and hoping to defeat French units along the way.
A prototype copy of the board. Not final art.
Grant: What dangers are present for the advancing Germans?
Hermann: My goodness…there’s a myriad of dangers for the German player. The French can not only offer a stubborn defense of their trenches and forts, causing you casualties and loss of time, but they can also bombard your units and whittle them down from afar. Logistical considerations are numerous, as the player needs to carefully use the Command Points in the right spots and must have the Support markers keep a steady pace to support their associated German fighting units. The air war has to be won consistently to maximize artillery bombardment. The player is going to be severely curtailed by Event Cards and coping with those while also taking advantage of the few good Event Cards is essential. Finally, the most dangerous factor of all is the passing of time. The player only has ten turns to accomplish a lot and every minute lost during those ten turns can make all the difference between victory and defeat.
Grant: How does Fog of War work? Why was this important to include?
Hermann: Well, as with most of my games, I love dabbling with the three F’s of War…the Fog of War, the Friction of War, and the Fortunes of War. And this design has all those elements in it. The player of course has to deal with the uncertainty of the Activation dice rolls and the unknown of the combat dice rolls (see below). Along with that, the Event Cards are always throwing a new, unexpected wrench into the works. In fact, the player does not even know definitively how effective their artillery bombardment has been! On top of all that, French units are deployed face down and their exact strengths are not revealed until contact is made or until the player spends time to scout out the units with the Reconnaissance action. These are all important elements to include in the game because these are exactly the same challenges the German army and its commanders had to face at Verdun. And as with all games that lean on the historically-weighted chaos theory of design, having this level of Fog of War in a game design not only makes it more realistic, but it makes it a more fun game as well.
Grant: How does combat and losses work?
Hermann: Combat in this game is pretty straightforward. Each side in a combat totals up their SP and rolls a D10 which is added to their SP to get a Combat Score. The French get an extra die to roll (using the higher result) and/or additions to their Combat Score if located in certain terrain. The German units can get re-rolls and/or an extra die if they are using an Infiltration die for their activation, or spend a Command Point, or have a flanking unit. Some Event Cards can affect combat as well. Each side gets a total Combat Score and inflicts Hits on the opponent based on that score…the higher the score, the more casualties are inflicted. This yields interesting combat results as both units scoring high means huge casualties for both sides, regardless of who wins. Then the side with the higher score wins the combat, and the opponent must retreat. The actual difference in scores can affect units differently. For example, if a German unit wins a combat by only one point, it will hold the position as the winner but it will become Spent, meaning it is done for the turn! Too many of these kinds of wins can spell doom for the German player. A large margin win will allow the German unit to choose pursuing the enemy and continuing forward or consolidating and bringing its Support marker up one space. Tough choices!
Grant: What is the concept of Attack Momentum?
Hermann: Ah, that’s my sly little “gamey” mechanic for this design. I wanted to add another twist to the Activation dice assignment mechanic that also acts as a mitigation against bad luck – or in this case, technically a mitigation for good luck. So, the idea is that if the player assigns two good Activation dice to a unit, instead of having to re-roll those dice the next Game Turn, the player can instead spend a Command Point and keep those dice with that unit but must count down each die by one number. So, for example, if you assign a “6” Movement die and a “5” Casualty die for a unit, you could spend a CP and activate that unit again with a “5” Movement die and a “4” Casualty die (assuming the unit was not Spent during its first activation). So, good dice stay with the unit, but lose their potency over time. Historically, this simulates a commander seeing a unit performing well and then directing assets and leadership to that unit to exploit their superior performance.
Grant: How do you model German Command Efficiency?
Hermann: Well, in games where there is significant dice rolling, I do like to use the “doubles = something special” mechanic, because you know that the odds will produce a certain number of doubles rolls during the course of the game. As such, I like to make something special happen when they are rolled that the player can exploit, and in this game the use of a doubles Activation dice roll is actually more in the control of the player because the doubles can be “created”. What do I mean? For example, if you are rolling Activation dice for the right Sector (three tracks, so three German units), you’ll roll a total of six dice – three Movement dice (Advance and/or Infiltration) and three Casualty dice (Friction and/or Suppression). This creates a pool of dice results from which you will assign two dice per German unit – one Movement and one Casualty die for each. Thus, if you have two matching dice, you can grab those two and create a doubles result for that unit. An assigned doubles result triggers German Command Efficiency and it allows you some options for activating that unit. You have one of three options you can apply – increase the Movement result by one type (ex: change the result from Move 1 to Move 2); reduce the strength point loss from the Casualty die by one; or move the unit’s Support marker up one space. The chosen benefit is applied, along with the normal dice roll results, when the unit is activated. Again, a simple bonus to reflect the superior abilities of the German officer corps.
Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?
Hermann: I’m hoping that the game creates an intense gaming experience. One in which the player can exercise tactical and strategic options in an effort to carry out a particular plan, but coupled with the excitement of the unexpected challenges by – and sometimes, assistance from – the Gods of War. This should be a gaming experience of tough decisions and of taking calculated risks. And ultimately, I think this will inevitably come down to a nail biting ending.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Hermann: I’m really proud of the fact that I think I got almost every crucial element of simulating the early stages of the Battle of Verdun down to workable and accessible mechanics. The game’s core mechanics and use of historically-based Event Cards drives a narrative that draws the player directly into this era and into the drama of this particular battle. To be able to do that and still keep the game accessible and easily playable is, for me, the ultimate goal and I think A Hell So Terrible achieves that goal.
Grant: What other designs are you working on?
Hermann: My, my… t’s a busy year for sure! Here we go:
They March Against Us: Leipzig 1813: This is the first game in the Bonaparte’s Sword Series, which will essentially be Napoleonic Blind Swords. Roger and Richard at Revolution Games are playtesting it right now and so far, so good. It should be available this year.
A Forlorn Hope: This game is Wharf Rat Games’ first published design and just finished a very successful crowdfunding campaign. We’re now working on getting it all finished up and designing the stretch goals that were achieved. This one is going to be a real beauty and I can’t wait until people actually get to play it.
Dawn of the Zeds: Designer Edition: Yes, Dawn of the Zeds is back and this is the newly redesigned version of the classic. I’ve updated the mechanics, especially the combat system. It will have the traditional map layout and characters of the previous three editions, but I’ve also added a ton of new stuff as well. This is published by Blue Panther and I think (hope) will be a huge hit.
A Primitive Madness: Antietam 1862: The third Black Swan Series game by Flying Pig Games will indeed cover the Battle of Antietam. This one will be a bit different, as the scale has changed to accommodate the smaller battlefield. This will have the same huge maps and elite production of the other games.
At Any Cost: Metz 1870: This game will be republished by Hexasim sometime this year. I am reviewing the original game and probably updating a chunk of mechanics to allow the game to play more smoothly and quickly. And it will have all new artwork.
Kill All Fermitians!: A republication of an older game (Volters Lead the Way!), this is going to be published by Flying Pig Games as a deluxe push-your-luck science fiction game. The new artwork with this one is amazing!
Nemto: A big, multiplayer, cooperative science fiction wargame that will be published by Nuts Publishing. This is going through all original artwork right now and even some professional background story telling to add to the game. It tells the story of human mercenary companies sent to an alien planet to lay claim to its powerful natural element – pinnaclium.
More Brains!: Have you ever wanted to play as a zombie? Of course you have! Well, here’s your chance. Another new company, Jackl Games (run by Randy Lein from Legion Wargames) is going to publish this multiplayer game that I co-designed with Ryan Heilman. Each player controls a team of Alpha Zeds, zombies who are accumulating brain power and with each new brain, a new skill. Very different and very fun.
Thanks so much to Grant and Alex for allowing me to write about A Hell So Terrible! I hope gamers enjoy it. All the best! Hermann
As always it was a pleasure speaking with you Hermann. I am very excited about this one as it sounds very interesting and is a gaming subject that I have a great interest in as you mentioned. I am looking forward to our next opportunity to meet up and play some games!
John Poniske is a prolific designer and we have enjoyed several of his games including Revolution Road from Compass Games, Plains Indian Wars from GMT Games, Bleeding Kansas from Decision Games, Hearts and Minds from Worthington Games and Maori Wars: The New Zealand Land Wars 1845-1872 from Legion Wargames. We also own several of his designs but have not had a chance to get them tabled yet including King Philip’s War from Multi-Man Publishing and Pontiac’s War: Frontier Rebellion, 1763-66 from Compass Games. We have done several interviews with John over the years and I always enjoy this thoughts on the subjects that he decides to cover. In this entry in the Best 3 Games with…Series, I take a look at 3 of John’s designs that have spoken to me.
3. Maori Wars: The New Zealand Land Wars, 1845-1872 from Legion Wargames
Maori Wars: The New Zealand Land Wars, 1845-1872 from Legion Wargames is a game that uses as a background the uprisings that took place between 1845 and 1872 due to British colonial incursions into native Maori lands on the North Island of New Zealand. The ensuing conflict over a period covering nearly 30 years involved the destruction of a number of Maori villages, Pas, which are fortified villages that featured intricate trench-works and some colonial settlements. The war introduced the British to a very skilled and strategic combatant who used a strategy of ambushes and bush raiding to catch off guard and frustrate the professional British ranks. The hallmark of the game is that it is highly playable by featuring low counter density, a play time of under two hours for most of the scenarios and easy to understand rules.
Playing as the British, players will have to deal with swinging tribal loyalty and will need to master the rivers and seas to move their more powerful troops and gunboats around while the Maori player will be focused on bush-raiding, which allows the Maori to move units temporarily off the board and out of harms way, but then to later bring them back in a more favorable strategic location of their choosing. The asymmetry in the fighting styles is really very good and I like the way it factors into account the history.
Maori Wars is a great game with some really beautiful art, not only on the board but also on the counters. The game is a slugfest between the mighty British and their Queenite allies against the inhabitants of the island in the various Maori tribes that resisted their colonial oppressors. The tribes have lots of tricks up their sleeves and use the land and their knowledge of it to great advantage as they conduct bush raids regularly and are very difficult to bring to decisive battle.
Here is a look at our unboxing video for Maori Wars: The New Zealand Land Wars, 1845-1872 :
We also did a video review and you can watch that at the following link:
2. Bleeding Kansas from Decision Games
Bleeding Kansas is a very well designed 2-player game that deals with the violence and politics of pre-statehood Kansas from 1854-1861. The game focuses on the tensions between pro-slave and abolitionist parties and their attempts to win over emigrants to Kansas to their cause and thereby influence the outcome of elections to move the state toward their leaning on the issue of slavery. The game has four elections that players will fight over trying to have the most influence in Kansas counties to score victory points. At its heart, the game is an area control game that has splashes of election dynamics that feels very Euro-like as it uses cubes to represent forces.
The core mechanism in the game is the cards. Each of these cards is tied to an historical event, important person or other factor involved in the conflict and allows players to choose their actions for that immediate turn. The game proceeds as players alternate the play of one of the cards from their hand to take various actions from symbols that appear on the cards. These symbols provide actions such as influencing new settlers to the region to join their side in the conflict, build up forces for the coming battle, take control of counties by moving these forces around or displacing those of your opponent, attacking the opposition, burning down their population centers, enticing settlers to migrate to their areas or request intervention from the Federal Garrison stationed at Leavenworth. The cards carry out the plans of players and create a historical narrative of the conflict.
The game really is pretty simple mechanically but don’t let the game’s simplicity fool you. This is a knock down drag out bare knuckle fight for supremacy in the Kansas Territory and will test you’re meddle as you fight back and forth undoing what your opponent has just done. The game boils down to staying the course and playing your cards smartly to gain the upper hand in elections. You have to be able to judge where control stands as you play each card and you have to plan as scoring elections can really sneak up on you if you are not paying attention.
Here is a look at our unboxing video so you can get a good look at the components:
Here is a look at our video review of the game:
Here also are links to a series of Action Points on the various aspects of the game:
1. Devil Dogs: Belleau Wood 1918 from Worthington Publishing
Devil Dogs: Belleau Wood 1918 is an easy to learn, fast-playing card-driven game for 2 players. The play map covers the historical French battlefield geography and the 300 counters and markers represent the historical units and incidents involved along with chits that determine initiative and order choice. The game is unique in that it captures the tension and high rate of casualties without ever casting a single die, relying more on planning and issuing orders as the active or reactive player. Each side will have a 30 card deck that is faction specific.
I love Multi-Use Cards in a game and this one uses faction specific decks that can be used in several different ways. The combat system is also quite unique as hits are not calculated by a die roll and reference to a CRT but by the combat strength of the units attacking determined by the play of a card and then in what terrain the targets are hiding. The best element of the game though was having to play a card to each sector on the map without knowing what your opponent will play and then seeing how you did. Really interactive and interesting game and this one was a big hit with both of us! Although the rules were a bit challenging in their format and presentation but nothing that we couldn’t handle after a few turns into the game.
Here is a link to our video review of the game:
There you have it. My Best 3 Games with…Designer John Poniske! He has done so many good games and the narrative and historical immersion of all of them are top notch.
As I have done with my Top 10 Wargames of each year list I am going to do the same with the Top 10 Solitaire Wargames/Games that I played that were published in 2025. I played a total of 17 new published solo games in 2025 so take this list with a grain of salt as I didn’t play all the titles released in 2025 nor even all of the games that I purchased this past year. The games that I played include the following:
Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII from Solo Game of the Month
Iwo Jima 1945 from Worthington Publishing
The Pursuit of John Wilkes Booth from Blue Panther
Operation Dragoon Travel Game from Worthington Publishing
Crusaders: The Siege of Acre 1291 from Art of Wargames and Blue Panther
SPQR: The Battle of Alesia 52 BC from Art of Wargames and Blue Panther
Siege Works: A Napoleonic Siege Roll & Write from Solo Wargame
War In The Pacific: A WW2 Roll & Write from Solo Wargame
Fields of Fire Deluxe 2nd Edition from GMT Games
Europe at War 1940 Solitaire from Worthington Publishing
Shogun Solitaire from Worthington Publishing
Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs Fascist Italy 1935-1937 from White Dog Games
Empire of Grass from White Dog Games
Onoda from Salt & Pepper Games
Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth from Neva Game Press
La Der de Ders – The War to End War from Hexasim
Thermopylae: Last Stand from Solo Wargame
I have really grown to love my solo wargaming and it is partly because there are plenty of well designed and engaging games out there that continue to feed my curiosity and hunger for a tough challenge. Here I present to you my list of the Top 10 Solitaire Wargames of 2025!
10. Crusaders: The Siege of Acre 1291 from Art of Wargames and Blue Panther
A new solitaire game is always welcome on my table…and if that game is about the Crusades, even better! Earlier this year, Blue Panther released a new game designed by Joe Fernandez called Crusaders: The Siege of Acre 1291. The game is what I would call a lite dice-chucker with some very interesting aspects of a siege baked into the game. There are tracks on the board that track the condition of the outer wall, inner wall and accursed tower and the Crusader Knights, including Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights, inside the city of Acre have to defend against the Mamluk siege for 13 turns.
The game has a random event that kicks off each turn that will do damage to the city walls, kill knights and advance the Mamluk miners who are attempting to tunnel under the walls. There is just one event that if rolled can do a loss to the attackers but this occurs only on a roll of 3 on a 10-sided die.
The rules are very simple clocking in at 5 pages and are easy to understand and once read the game can be played only from the excellent player aid. I very much enjoyed the Deus Vult actions that are special actions that can be used to do things like repair a wall, reverse a Mamluk mining action or sally out of the city to offensively attack the besieging units. But, these actions can be nullified if certain conditions occur so you should use them while you have them and not wait too long or they might disappear.
I feel like this game really scratches that quick playing, easy to get into but intense and difficult game itch. The Crusaders have an uphill battle for sure as they really don’t have as many options or choices as I would like to see but what is there makes sense, is full of historical flavor and plays well. I have not been that successful with the game, meaning that I haven’t won very often, but despite that I still want to come back play after play and that should tell you something about the game and what it is. If your dice luck is really bad, this one can snowball quickly ending in a catastrophic defeat. I think that the other real attractive part of the game is that it is quick to set up, has good rules and plays quickly. This one will not blow your socks off but it is good for what it is and it comes in a small box that is very portable. In fact, I played it first while attending a work conference.
Staying in the small, travel sized wargame department is Shogun Solitaire from Worthington Publishing. I say wargame, but it is probably more of a strategy card game with a war theme being set in the period of the Sengoku Jidai. Shogun Solitaire is a card based dedicated solitaire game where the player is leading a coalition of four clans to unite feudal Japan. These clans are one of 4 different colors in the game including green (Hōjō), purple (Takeda), red (Katō) and blue (Amago). Each of the clans must secure 3 objectives within their territory to achieve unification under a single Shogun including the port, village and castle of that region. To accomplish this, you’ll need to deploy armies in the form of cards in strategic combinations to gain control of those objectives. These cards are built up in the players tableau and you must get a run of 3 same colored cards (not the same type of soldiers although you cannot play 2 of the same soldiers consecutively) played in order to win the next objective. But, there are Enemy cards colored black or gray that represent assassins, Ronin and raids. There are also neutral Envoy cards that are bronze colored that act as dead space in your tableau and represent the court responsibilities and diplomacy of the Shogun with allied clans and if you ever build up too many of them in the area you will have to take a breath and wipe the slate clean by sending them home.
The really great part of this game is that each of the different types of cards have different special abilities and you must deploy them properly in order to gain the greatest advantage before the 102 card deck runs out. There are six types of Shogun cards that represent the available forces that can be deployed to seize objectives. Samurai can protect and will cancel enemy cards before they can do damage. The Ninjas allow the player to search the top 4 cards of the deck and then reorder them in order to finish a run of the same color cards before bad things can happen. And one of the most important cards is that of the Leaders which act as a wild card that can be played like any Shogun card of its color. I found that trying to utilize these cards to their highest effect was very fun and tense and I found myself really trying to utilize each ability at the right time.
This game is fast playing, playing in 20-30 minutes, and is very fun. But it can be very luck dependent as when you draw bad cards a few hands in a row, there is not much that you can do and the game begins to pound you down and it can come to an end very quickly. But, this game is very good and well designed for what it is; a lite, card based, quick playing travel sized game that is also very beautifully produced with gorgeous period art, thick cards and a fantastic board that flips over to show a
A look at a very lucky win! Notice the back of the board turned over the reveal the beautiful art!
A few years ago, Worthington Publishing published their first game in the Island Fight Series called Tarawa 1943. That game was awesome and was truly difficult to win, as it should be. Now, they have published the 2nd volume in the series called Iwo Jima 1945 that covers the only island assault during the Pacific war that the attacking US forces would suffer worse casualties than the Japanese defenders. On February 19, 1945 the USMC would land 30,000 marines on the island against a Japanese defensive force that numbered roughly 21,000 Japanese soldiers. Facing a Japanese commander who had learned valuable lessons from the losses on other Japanese islands, the USMC would eventually land over 70,000 marines and suffer over 25,000 casualties during the 36 day campaign.
In this solitaire game, the player takes on the role of the USMC commander leading the invasion of Iwo Jima. The game system, driven by cards, will simulate the strategies of the Japanese defenders, often referred to as the Japanese AI, adding a layer of historical authenticity to your gaming experience. If you have played Tarawa 1943, you will be familiar with the system.
Iwo Jima’s play deck is larger than that of Tarawa’s, which provides a bit of breathing room in the game but doesn’t necessarily change the difficulty appreciably. There are also added mountain positions on the island where the attacking USMC will roll 1 less attack dice making it very challenging to overtake several of the key positions and that will need the player to use special cards to assist. The USMC player is allowed to play any number of the cards from their hand during their turn as opposed to just 3 from the previous entry in the series. The other rules are almost all the same, and you can begin playing with just a brief read of them.
I have played this one about 10 times and have not even come close to winning. It is tough and the way the dice system for combat works it is truly difficult for the Marines to score hits quickly enough to make significant progress, which is how it should be. But, the game is fun, tactically challenging as you have to manage your Cohesion as well as decide when to deploy and replace front line troops with fresh troops and plays pretty quickly. I have never had a bad play of this system and very much look forward to other entries in the series.
I am always on the lookout for an interesting and different type of historical game. And when that game is solitaire and allows the player to experience and gain insight into the life of a tragic figure then I am very interested. A few years ago, I came across this very interesting looking solitaire game designed by Francisco Gradaille called Onoda from Salt & Pepper Games. Onoda follows the tragic life of Hiroo Onoda who was a Japanese soldier who wouldn’t believe that Japan had lost World War II and stayed at his post on the island of Lubang in the Philippines from 1945-1974 when he finally surrendered after a visit from his commanding officer. I have played this one several times and can say the game is very interesting, educational and also gives the player an opportunity to learn and gain insight into the life of this person who is remembered as an insane criminal and a story of tragedy.
During 6 rounds of variable duration, the player has to obtain a number of resources represented by rice that will allow them to finish the round without suffering penalties, such as reduced health and morale. In each round, the player will have to undertake a series of missions, earning honor points for accomplishing them. During the game, the player will get to experience some of the events that the real-life Onoda had during his stay in Lubang as well as some of the tragedies. The missions includes things like sabotaging key infrastructure, gathering equipment and other useful items all the while trying to evade detection and capture. But the game goes deeper than that as the crux of the game is the management of morale and the level of insanity in the mind of the soldier due to paranoia, death of comrades or illness.
During these missions, the player will have to draw tokens from a draw bag that represent the level of alarm that is present on the island due to his shenanigans. Each time that a player has to perform a check to accomplish a mission or to avoid danger from the random events, the player must take a Resource/Resolution token from the bag and check its number side against the relevant level of alarm or paranoia in the are where the operation is being undertaken. These Checks are successfully passed when the token’s number is higher than the Alarm or Paranoia level so keeping these low and also moving around the island stealthily will spread out the alarm level and keep Onoda safer and more able to accomplish these missions. Failure will lead to negative effects and lost opportunities as the game has only 6 turns.
I very much enjoyed this game and also loved it because it made me think about this tragic “hero” and his motivations and life those 30 years on the island. What commitment he must have had as well as derangement and you have to respect that or at least give it some thought. Just a great little narrative generator with some very gamey mechanics that create an interesting experience.
6. Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs Fascist Italy 1935-1937 from White Dog Games
I have really enjoyed my plays of several games designed by R. Ben Madison. He has a knack for including elements of the history into the gameplay while placing the events into the framework of his chosen system, which is usually the States of Siege Series…but not always. His newest offering called Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs. Fascist Italy 1935-1937 from White Dog Games uses the States of Siege Series System and delves into pre-WWII conflict in Africa.
First off, this game is very challenging, as is to be expected as the Ethiopians are desperately outmanned and outgunned by the Fascists as they invaded to take over the oil rich area for their own purposes and I have not done well at it at all in my few plays. I normally would have played it a few more times before adding to the list but I just had such a good experience with it and the history that I felt that I needed to add it to the list. It uses the States of Siege Series but in a bit of a different layout as there are not tracks per se but there are paths that lead through various regions of the country of Ethiopia as they converge on the capital of Addis Ababa.
The game is chit pull and the chits that are pulled give instructions about the actions of the AI Italians as they move on each path. The player will also gain a number of action points that can be used to take actions such as attacking to drive back the invaders. I very much like the concept of support of the Fascist invasion as they have the ability to place their support focused bases on the map as they advance and this leads to the player no longer being able to drive them back to beyond that point so the pressure really ratchets up as the game goes along.
As is the case generally with these games, Black Skin Black Shirt is an easy-to-play, straightforward solitaire game that creates a very interesting historical narrative about how the conflict plays out. There are really lots of tough choices and the game is about the management of your resources and assets, such as your Ras warlords who can go out and make devastating ambush attacks but can also be killed in action and removed from the game, The game forces the player to take charge of the defenses, by calling up troops and marshalling resources as well as attempting to call on the League of Nations for aid and support.
Here is a link to my unboxing video:
If you are interested in Black Skin Black Shirt: Ethiopia vs Fascist Italy 1935-1937, you can order a copy for $56.00 from the White Dog Games website at the following link: https://www.whitedoggames.com/ethiopia
5. The Pursuit of John Wilkes Booth from Blue Panther
A few years ago, while attending the WBC, I had the chance to meet Wes Crawford who was demoing his upcoming game Engine Thieves. He was a very nice guy and his game was pretty interesting as well. Since that time, he has another game that has been released designed in partnership with Ryan Heilman in The Pursuit of John Wilkes Booth published by Blue Panther. I had a chance to play the game solitaire (with Wes overseeing the game and giving me guidance and pointers) at WBC in 2024 and have since played the game on my own several times and had a really great time with it. Great little solo game with several other modes where the player uses resources like police and detectives to search for clues in the hunt for Lincoln’s assassin after the events at Ford’s Theater on the evening of April 14, 1865. Definitely not a subject that has been gamed before and it is really refreshing to be able to experience this history in an interesting and engaging game. There really is a lot to like with the way that clues are found and chits are blindly drawn to verify clues from a bag. There is also a great little movement mechanic with police and detectives to try to acquire more clues.
I know that this is not a traditional wargame but the topic is just so very interesting and the variety of modes you can play in is also very cool. I think that this one is a game that will stay in my collection for years to come and I think that you will enjoy the chit pull, use of your special Stanton Cards that give special events or actions and the way that the movement, searching and raiding works when you find Booth.
4. Siege Works: A Napoleonic Siege Roll & Write from Solo Wargame
Until a year or so ago, I had literally never heard of the concept of a Roll & Write game. But, I started seeing these things pop up on Kickstarter from a new company called Solo Wargame and I was immediately intrigued as the topics for the games were so interesting and varied that I thought that there just might be something worth looking into. Since that time, I have played 2 of these Roll & Write games from Solo Wargame and really found that Siege Works: A Napoleonic Siege Roll & Write was my favorite. I say my favorite because who doesn’t like a siege game and a game set during the Napoleonic Wars is always fun!
Roll & Write Games are typically small and portable games, some are even Print ‘n Play games like Siege Works, that involve the player rolling dice and then marking the results on sheets of paper or sometimes erasable boards. These markings can mean several different things including goals being met, pre-requisites being completed or enemies defeated. The genesis or archetype for these Roll & Write Games is Yahtzee, where players roll a handful of dice looking for various combinations of results to mark off on their sheet that then score points in the end. But recently that game genre has started to include a bit more player agency and choice about how they go about reaching goals including dice selection from those that are rolled, choosing results that are needed at the time but may be less than optimal in the long run and in completing certain goals that will open the door for additional future beneficial options for the player. Don’t get me wrong. A Roll & Write Game is very simple and is not a traditional style of wargame with hexes, counters and Combat Results Tables. But the game tells a story of a siege and how it works. So I was initially skeptical about this form of game and just had to give it a try to see what it was about. I have actually played 2 of them and found them to be lite, fun and interesting. And Siege Works is a solitaire Roll & Write Game so I have played it by myself on my gaming table and had a good time with them.
The biggest plus to the game is the simple rules, easy setup and fast onboarding with learning and being able to get the game played. You can play this easily with a simple read of the rules and a bit of review of the Game Sheet before playing. The sequence of play is very good and easy to follow as well and I found that the game is pretty intuitive. My only issue with the rules was that I found that they sometimes needed just a few more words or an additional sentence for clarity. But this is combated somewhat by the fact that the rules contain a lot of good play examples for the different actions in the game.
3. La Der de Ders – The War to End War from Hexasim
La Der des Ders – The War to End War from Hexasim is a 1-2 player slightly abstracted strategic level look at World War I. The game allows the players to relive the First World War at a strategic level, with each player controlling one of the 2 sides either the Entente, consisting of France, England, Russia, Serbia and other minor nations or the Central Powers including Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and a few minors. La Der des Ders can also be played solo, with a dedicated solitaire bot called “Athena” who utilizes special Cornflower Cards to make decisions about what technologies to invest in, where to undertake offensives and how to utilize limited resources and reinforcements. Each turn, players gain an amount of Resource Points dependent on what nations are in the war, which they can allocate to different areas to guide their overall strategy. Victory is achieved by launching offensives that drain the morale of enemy nations, forcing them out of the conflict through collapse.
One of the best parts of La Der de Ders, and typically the best part of any strategic level wargame, is the Technology Phase and the player’s ability to spend their limited resources on various types of technologies to improve their performance on the battlefield and in the economic war. But, keep in mind that there is a risk here as resources are limited and you have to pay to develop these technologies and there is no guarantee of success as it is up to a dice roll, albeit a modified one at that. Each of the players has their own Technology Tree board that is used to track their technological progress over the course of the game. There are a total of 6 different Technologies that can be researched including Attack, Defence, Artillery, Aviation, Naval, and Air Raid.
The process of taking Offensives is really pretty simple as players take turns to activate one of their sectors that has not yet been activated this turn. The sector chosen will then be activated and must launch an Offensive against an adjacent enemy sector. There is a cost to the launching of Offensives though as the player will have to pay the appropriate cost by first choosing the size of their Offensive, which in game turns means the number of dice they will pay to roll in the Offensive. The size of the Offensive must be at least 1 and can be up to the current Operational Value of the attacking sector. The player launching the offensive then spends as many Resource Points as the size of the Offensive. Dice rolling is fun and the real key here is how to plan for an prioritize your chosen Offensives as you cannot just do one each turn or you will risk collapse and will be unable to do other things such as invest in technology development.
Victory in the game is well done and I very much like the concept of only calculating the value for those countries who have not Collapsed and who are still in the war when the end game is triggered. We all know that it is easier to negotiate a peace that is favorable to your side when you are still a threat and if too many nations of either side have collapsed then their Prestige Points will reflect this as those countries won’t contribute to the final value. And I also like the simplicity of the scoring system. If certain key countries like France and Germany surrender, then that equates to a victory for the side causing the surrender and if the game continues to grind on through the final turn, then there is this calculation that is really pretty simple and gives importance to each goal with a different value that can be earned. Just a solid method for determining victory that makes sense and fits with the historical aspect of the outcome of the Great War.
The Athena bot is the solitaire mode of the game and it is not just tacked on but is very well done and creates an interesting and challenging game. It is a really well designed system that removes most of the work by the player when playing solitaire. There will be times when you have to make a decision, such as the priority of how Offensives occur from the non-player side, but these decisions are easy and the hard work is done by the simple flipping of a card. I do want to point out one final thing. The sequence of play differs slightly from the 2-player game as it rearranges when the Athena bot does a few of the steps during the Spend Resource Points Phase as shown below. The human player will start by doing their Reinforcements first followed by their Technology investment. Athena will then go and do their Technology investment first followed by Reinforcements. Both players will then move into the Offensive Phase and the player with initiative as shown on the turn track will take the first Offensive of the turn.
I wrote a series of Action Point posts on the game and you can read those at the following links:
Neva Game Press (formerly Neva Wargames) is a new publisher who appeared on the scene 2 years ago. When I started seeing their posts on Twitter and Facebook, I was immediately impressed with their interesting topic choices for their upcoming games as well as the fact that they are trying to make small footprint wargames that pack a punch. And the art is also very appealing and brings an aesthetically pleasing and attractive look to their games! Recently, they released their first game called Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth which is a solitaire look at the amphibious invasion of the island of Iwo Jima in 1945 during the end of WWII.
Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth is the first game in their Neva Skirmish Line and it is a hex and counter wargame with some interesting mechanics for combat and a combination of secondary mechanics to keep the game fresh and replayable. This solitaire game lets you play as the U.S. Marines during Operation Detachment. It offers a challenge for both intermediate and experienced wargamers and is really very, very good. I have only played the game 1 time all the way through but as the year is getting away from me already I had to finish up and decided that this was a very good experience deserving of the position on this list. I hope to play again very soon and put together some video content to share more about the game.
One of the things that I really liked was the focus on the hidden Japanese units that play a significant role in the game. Collecting intelligence for the U.S. as they move up the beaches and onto the mainland ensures more strategic planning and greater success of attacks. Additionally, hidden units, combined with a randomized initial Japanese unit setup, enhance the game’s fog of war and replayability. No play will be the same and I think that is a good way to design a solitaire game. U.S. intelligence has some information about potential Japanese defenses, but it is important to verify on the map that there are actual units at those locations. Additionally, more information about those units should be gathered by revealing them to see their actual composition and plan a better attack. Units can be revealed through successful bombardment, combat or reconnaissance. Making a better attack means that the player has access to different type of weapons and attacking a tank unit with a heavy weapon will give modifiers that will not be gained if the asset is not present.
If you attack a hidden unit or if a hidden unit is supporting the attacked Japanese unit, you will draw Intelligence Chits that provide information about the unit and their combat support value. While attacking hidden units can be risky in certain situations, it is essential to continue advancing to achieve timely victory. Understanding when to attack hidden units or gather intelligence through reconnaissance actions is crucial for success and one of the better parts of the game.
Combat is varied and there is a lot of choice about how to go about attacking the defenders. A unit can engage in combat through Direct Attack, Indirect Attack, or a combination of both. In a Direct Attack (with a maximum of 2 U.S. units adjacent to the target), the combat factor value of these units is utilized. For an Indirect Attack (with a maximum of 3 U.S. units if conditions are met), the units’ combat support type and value are used to participate in the combat. Units involved in a Direct Attack may also be used for Indirect Attacks as needed. The next step of combat involves comparing the combat ratio to determine the appropriate table column for checking the die result. Die Roll Modifiers must then be determined, based on factors such as the type of Japanese defense units, which could include Trenches, Pillboxes, or Caves, the comparison between the combat support from the U.S. player and the Japanese side, and terrain effects. The combat is very crunchy and fairly involved and I will definitely classify this one as a good hex and counter wargame experience.
I need to get this one back to the table soon but this is a keeper and I cannot wait to play again.
1. Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII from Best with 1
I love a new and interesting way to tell the story of a key battle and I found a very interesting one called Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII from Best with 1 earlier this year. This is a solitaire only game and for each game the player will draw four objectives from a possible 12 that you must survive and capture before time runs out. On your turn, the player will roll special dice and then spend those to take actions such as movement, attack and take special actions from different unit action cards that will be set up in a square from from 1 to 10. The numbers coincide with the dice of the attacking Japanese and as the player moves through the rondel they will be able to activate and use their different soldiers to attack the Japanese defenders or use their special abilities to gain tokens that can be used for rerolls or healing of wounds
I think that the best part of the game is the concept of resource management as you have to use the dice appropriately to move and fight and also to manage your troops as you can upgrade certain cards as you pass the midway point of the round as well as when special actions are granted via the special resource chits. Upgrading units is very important as this will unlock things like heavy weapons in the form of bazookas, a Sherman tank and planes to be able to take out the Japanese armor units defending the island. The game is about efficiency of movement and doing the most with what you have. The dice determine what you can and can’t do and movement is optional as you don’t have to move unless you feel it is advantageous. But remember, that you have to defeat the defenders and the various objectives to be able to advance to your final objective and sitting in one space too long is not advisable.
The different units have various functions including attack, such as the Rifleman, Machine Gun Team and Sniper but also have secondary functions to remove the fog of war, heal your damaged units or gain additional resources. The Japanese defenders are well hidden and also have various defenses such as pill boxes and caves that will require the player to defeat these before moving to attack the units located inside.
In the end the game is about defeating the Japanese defenders while doing so in a set amount of revolutions around the rondel setup. This can be as few as 2 times around or as many as 4 and knowing when to use your resources to reroll your dice, as you either didn’t get the run of consecutive numbers you were looking for or just need a specific number, you will run out of resources quickly and you must plan them out as best you can to win the game. This one is really fun and I have played it about a dozen times winning about 70% of the time. The game plays in about an hour and the action is fast and furious and you are immediately beset by the staunch Japanese defenders and must act quickly.
Here is a link to our unboxing video:
Here is a link to my playthrough video:
Here also is a link to my video review:
If you are interested in Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII, you can order a Print and Play copy from the Best with 1 website at the following link: https://bestwith1.com/product/okinawa-pnp/
There you have it. My list of the best solitaire wargames/games that I played in 2025! What a year. There were just so many great games but unfortunately only so much time. There were other games that I was unable to get played that I had acquired and I regret not getting to but there is only so much time.
What were your favorite solitaire wargames from 2025?
We’ve been assessing the merits of political leaders in (more or less) democratic countries on this blog for a few years now – UK prime ministers, US presidents, German chancellors. Today, we’re returning to German presidents, looking at Friedrich Ebert. 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.
In Ebert’s special case, I will not only assess his conduct as president, but also as chancellor before, as he held the post at a time when Germany did not have a head of state.
Ebert’s Life
From Saddler to Chancellor
Friedrich Ebert was born on February 4, 1871, as the son of a tailor. He learned the trade of a saddler and became involved with the workers’ movement during his journeyman years. In 1891, he settled down in Bremen, where he ran a pub while working for the trade union. Ebert’s political work in the trade union and the Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) assumed ever more importance. He was elected to the Bremen city council (1899) and became a full-time trade union secretary. In the following years, Ebert rose to national prominence: He was elected to the SPD national party committee (1905) and to the Reichstag, the national parliament of Germany (1912). One year later, he became one of the leading Social Democrats in Germany when he was elected co-chairman of the SPD.
The Social Democrats faced their crucible at the outbreak of World War I. Ebert successfully advocated supporting the government’s war efforts (instead of attempting to forge an international workers’ coalition against the war). In the later years of the war, more and more Social Democrats took up a strict anti-war stance, forming up as Independent Social Democrats (Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, USPD). Ebert maintained his previous stance and kept most of his allies within the party (now known as Majority Social Democrats (Mehrheitssozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, MSPD), yet tried to mediate between workers protesting and striking against the war and the government (notably during the January Strike of 1918).
When the military situation looked grim for Germany in fall 1918, de facto military dictator Erich von Ludendorff resigned and pushed for a new government to assume responsibility for the impending defeat. Ebert joined a parliamentary government and became its interim chancellor on the day that emperor William II was forced to abdicate. Two days later, Germany and the Allies agreed on the Armistice which ended the fighting on the Western Front.
Many socialists, especially from the USPD, now pressed for a full-scale political and social revolution based on the workers’ and soldiers’ councils sprouting up everywhere. Ebert, who abhorred the Russian Revolution, wanted to bring about gradual change which would transform Germany into a democracy by parliamentary means. The sweep of revolution brought MSPD and USPD together in an uneasy government alliance. The opposition between moderate and radical socialists provides the basis for the SPD and KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands – Communist Party of Germany) players’ relationship in Weimar (all forms of radical socialism are subsumed under the umbrella of the KPD (which was historically only founded in January 1919) in the game). The USPD is a minor party in the game which can be aligned with either SPD or KPD (starting in the latter’s camp) and which provides more gumption for actions in the street and sizable parliamentary bonuses in the early game.
The USPD gives additional seats in parliament in the first four rounds of the game as well as a bonus point in the reserve each round (on the board to the left of the card). If the SPD can wrest the party away from KPD control early, that usually results in a large democratic majority under SPD leadership.
In the heady first days of the revolution, MSPD co-chairman Philipp Scheidemann proclaimed the German Republic (Ebert had opposed it and wanted Germany to become a parliamentary monarchy). The new government also proclaimed wide-ranging individual liberties and promised sweeping economic and social reforms (ranging from the eight-hour work day over housing programs to social security) as well as democratic elections in which both men and women would have the right to vote – here Ebert and the USPD agreed in substance, yet not in process: The USPD regarded the consent of the workers’ and soldiers’ councils as enough legitimation; Ebert insisted to carry out the reforms through a parliamentary process. Ebert outfoxed the USPD by having the Reich Councils’ Congress agree to hold parliamentary elections at the earliest possible date.
While Ebert outmaneuvered his rivals on the left, he also secured his right flank. Millions of German soldiers streamed back from the frontlines after the armistice. They needed to be demobilized in an orderly fashion, and, most of all, the threat of a military coup against the nascent republic needed to be warded off. Ebert thus struck a bargain with the army’s conservative leadership: The army would not act against the republic. In return, the new government would forgo the democratization of army structures. The deal already paid off for Ebert by December 1918: When the conflict of the government with the left-leaning People’s Naval Division over outstanding pay and the choosing of its commander escalated, Ebert had the Division dissolved by armed force. The same fate awaited the singularly ill-prepared Spartacus Uprising of January 1919.
A revolution makes for strange bedfellows: Social Democrat Ebert is inspecting German troops in the illustration of the “Pact with the Old Powers” event card. The event is extremely powerful under the right circumstances. Note that the SPD player could also use it to suppress a right-wing insurgency!
When the National Assembly had been elected in January 1919, Ebert’s MSPD was by far the strongest party. Its allies, the Catholic Zentrum (Center), and the progressive-liberal DDP (Deutsche Demokratische Partei, German Democratic Party) also fared well at the ballot box. Due to the armed unrest in Berlin, the National Assembly was convened in the quiet provincial town of Weimar, thus providing the common name for the first German republic (and, consequently, also for the alliance of SPD, Zentrum, and DDP – the “Weimar Coalition”). The Assembly elected Ebert the first president on February 11, 1919.
The Parliamentary President
The National Assembly established wide-ranging rights for the president in the constitution. Yet Ebert interpreted these as powers to be used in emergencies. In his view, the president was a steward whose role was to guard the constitution and integrate the nation. Thus, Ebert only rarely got involved in the day-to-day business of the cabinet, now headed by Philipp Scheidemann – for example, when the Allies presented Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, Ebert remained publicly non-committal.
Even when the republic as such was threatened, the president was not always the first to respond: The right-wing power grab by Wolfgang Kapp and Walther von Lüttwitz was stopped by a general strike. While Ebert’s name appeared on the pamphlet calling for the strike, it is likely that he was in fact not involved in the move. Ebert’s main contribution to the failure of the coup was of a different kind: When the coup leaders occupied Berlin, the federal civil service refused to do their bidding. Even though most of the civil servants had been hired under the emperor and felt attached to the monarchy, they had come to respect Ebert and would not enable the coup against his lawful government.
The 1920 parliamentary elections dealt the (M)SPD and its allies a heavy blow. They lost their parliamentary majority. Ebert advocated for a “grand coalition” which would include not only the parties of the Weimar Coalition, but also the pro-business, national liberal DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei, German People’s Party). His counsel was not heeded. Instead, Zentrum and DDP formed a bourgeois minority government.
Ebert was the most imposing political figure of the early Weimar Republic. While his integrative approach did much to wed the more moderate workers to the Republic (they would remain its most steadfast defenders till the very end), his suppression of revolutionary activities also alienated the more radical workers… thus the “Red Emperor” event card (showing Ebert at his presidential desk) can cut both ways, placing either an SPD- or a KPD-aligned worker marker on the society track.
As the government had no parliamentary majority, the president might have assumed a greater role. Ebert, however, maintained his interpretation of the presidency as a stewardship, detached from party politics and the day-to-day decisions of the cabinet. In economic and social matters, Ebert retained his representative role, mediating at times in collective bargaining struggles. In foreign policy, the president’s constitutional role was larger, and while Ebert generally supported the general foreign policy of the bourgeois minority governments, he was left out of the actual decision-making. In the meantime, Ebert tirelessly lobbied for cooperation among all democratic parties. It took a plunge into catastrophe for the young republic to heed his counsel.
When Germany reduced the reparation payments to the Allies in January 1923, France occupied the industrial heartland on the Ruhr. The German government called on the workers of the Ruhr not to collaborate with the occupation force in extracting the reparations in kind (“passive resistance”). That required the government to pay out ersatz wages to millions of people, accelerating inflation to a ludicrous degree. By August 1923, prices compared to January had multiplied by 100 (!), and France was still occupying the Ruhr. With Ebert’s support, all democratic parties from the SPD to the DVP formed a grand coalition under chancellor Gustav Stresemann.
Stresemann ended the ruinous passive resistance. While economically sound, this blow to German national sentiment caused backlash: The Bavarian state government declared a state of emergency, aiming to build a new authoritarian system in Bavaria (equivalent to the establishment of a right-wing regime in Weimar) and then exporting it to the Reich as a whole. In response, SPD-KPD state governments formed in Saxony and Thuringia (both in the path for a “March on Berlin” from Munich).
Once more, Ebert suppressing a leftist challenge to the republic. The Reichsexekution placed Saxony and Thuringia under federal control.
Ebert used the constitutional emergency powers granted to the president to depose the Saxon and Thuringian state governments. Federal troops quelled the unrest there before any uprising had even materialized. Yet while the army would march against leftist challenges to the republic, it was notoriously unwilling to confront right-wing movements (as Ebert knew from the Kapp-Lüttwitz coup). Thus, while Ebert formally put the army’s commander Hans von Seeckt in charge of Bavaria, he did not order any concrete action. In the end, the authoritarian government of Bavaria was overthrown from the fringe of the right-wing movement – Germany’s erstwhile military dictator Ludendorff and an ambitious demagogue named Adolf Hitler took the key government players captive and called for a march on Berlin. It was stopped within its first kilometer by 130 policemen. After that, the authoritarian government collapsed. The republic had been saved.
Lots to deal with: The Weimar Republic was close to collapse in 1923 – in game terms, approaching its seventh threat marker in the Deutsches Reich box.
While the Weimar Republic stabilized, Ebert fought for the dignity of his office. He had been smeared by enemies of the republic from the beginning of his term. When Ebert had visited a beach town in 1919, a local photographer had snapped a picture of him in swimming trunks. The monarchists bought that picture and kept circulating it, often contrasting the half-naked president with one of the emperors of the old Germany in full regalia.
The nationalist DNVP begins the game as the weakest of the four parties. One strategy for them is to erode the democratic majority – for example, by attacking the SPD’s parliamentary standing with the President in Swimming Trunks event.
Ebert’s detractors also attacked his conduct. Most famously, they attacked him for his role in the January Strike in 1918. A court found those calling Ebert a “traitor to his country” for his participation in the strike guilty of defamation, but added that they were factually correct – symptomatic for the monarchist leanings of the Weimar courts, still staffed with jurists from the ancien régime. The court’s ruling was only overturned in 1931. Ebert would not live to see it. He had put off surgery for appendicitis due to the trial and died of the resulting peritonitis on February 28, 1925. He was only 53 years old.
Ebert’s death is a watershed moment in a Weimar game. As long as the Ebert token occupies the Reichspräsident spot, the presidency is neutral, and nobody gains any benefits from it. When Ebert dies, an election is held in which the parties’ popularity with the voters is measured. Each party fields a candidate. The two candidates with the most votes advance to the second round, in which the two parties whose candidates have been eliminated can pledge their votes to any of the remaining candidates. That is a crucial moment to make deals, to forge alliances, to exact promises in return for the votes, and, more often than not, to pivot away from an ally who has become too strong. (I have seen my Social Democratic candidate defeated by a very grand coalition of the other three parties – Nationalists, Conservatives, and Communists.) From then on, the party holding the presidency can play a card both for the event/actions and for a debate once per round, effectively giving the party one more party card (which, as you typically only draw three of them per round, is huge). This less restrained approach to the presidency reflects the presidential activism of Ebert’s successor Paul von Hindenburg.
Even though foreign policy was the area in which the president’s role was constitutionally confirmed, Ebert followed rather than led. While he – much like his head of government Philipp Scheidemann – personally found the terms of the Versailles Treaty unacceptable, he stayed on when Scheidemann resigned, displaying a keen sense of duty and order. Ebert supported the various governments in their unpopular, but necessary fulfilment of the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and their orientation toward the western powers. At times, he was entirely sidelined, as when chancellor Joseph Wirth and foreign minister Walther Rathenau forged the Treaty of Rapallo with the Soviet Union.
Ebert’s achievements in this realm lie during his tenure as chancellor. His Proclamation (Nov 12, 1918) ushered in an unprecedented era of personal liberty and social equity, exemplified in the commitment to freedom of the press and women’s suffrage. Ebert’s integration of the army into the new republic avoided a civil war. Later, his uneven use of force dealing with the uprisings of 1923 was pragmatically understandable, but failed to conciliate the political right with the republic or make the army more accountable to the political leadership.
The Proclamation of November 12, 1918 laid the foundation for the eight-hour work day, a milestone for the working population of Germany. An overlooked contribution of Ebert’s to economic development is his advocacy for the “grand coalition” – only this broad alliance could bring about the far-reaching currency reform which ended hyperinflation in 1923. That Ebert’s calls to alleviate the social hardships which came as a side effect to the currency reform went unheeded by the bourgeois minority government which followed the grand coalition is symptomatic for the limited power of the presidency in the realm of economic and social policy.
Ebert has often been criticized from the left as too cautious, not able or not willing to dream big. And indeed, in hindsight his thought and practice seems much less imaginative than his critics’ utopias of socialist republics based on grassroots councils. Yet in 1918, the thought of a liberal, parliamentary Germany – the realization of the dream of 1848 – was revolutionary, and, most importantly, it was achievable. Ebert helped to bring about the German democracy and guided it into calmer waters during his tenure.
Rating: 5 out of 5.
If Ebert (pictured in the background of the election poster) played Weimar, he’d select this agenda card every round.
Pragmatism
Ebert made it possible for the bourgeois politicians, the army, and the civil service to get along with a Social Democratic government. While this was an impressive feat in itself, his pleas for cooperation were often not heeded – neither from his own party nor from those he sought as allies. His natural inclination to compromise veils his deft handling of his political opponents: The USPD joined the provisional government on equal footing in November, yet ended up entirely outmaneuvered by January – its moderates falling in with Ebert’s call for elections as soon as possible, its radicals reduced to a singularly ill-advised attempt at armed uprising.
Ebert is the rare politician who, presented with the opportunity to make wide-reaching decisions with a free hand, refused it. His belief that a freely elected parliament must make the important choices guided him during the revolution. Later, Ebert understood himself as a steward of the republic, a president of all Germans, and was unwilling to use his office for the gain of particular individuals or groups. He used the wide-ranging emergency powers assigned to the president in the constitution only when presented with a grave crisis. His thoughtful wielding of power becomes ever more apparent in comparison with his successor’s liberal use of the emergency powers which contributed to the fall of the republic.
Friedrich Ebert took on the highest duty in tumultuous times. He wielded power responsibly, with the best of intentions, and remarkable success. His restraint and willingness to compromise were admirable in themselves, but sometimes emboldened the enemies of the republic he had helped to create.
How would you rate Ebert? Let me know in the comments!
Further Reading
For a short introduction to Ebert (and all other German chancellors in history), see: Sternburg, Wilhelm von (ed.): Die deutschen Kanzler. Von Bismarck bis Merkel [The German Chancellors. From Bismarck to Merkel], Aufbau, Berlin 2007, pp. 187—210 [in German].
The standard scholarly biography remains Mühlhausen, Walter: Friedrich Ebert. 1871—1925. Reichspräsident der Weimarer Republik [Friedrich Ebert. 1871—1925. Reichspräsident of the Weimar Republic], Dietz, Bonn 2007 [in German].
For the broader context, see: Herbert, Ulrich: A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
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.
Anmelden
