7 Feb 2026. We had a playtesting session at Nasi Kandar Apollo on a Saturday afternoon. I didn't manage to take photos of every game played, not even every game that I played. I did a rough playtest of one idea I came up with just the day before. I wanted to make a simple card game that can be played on a road trip, needing no table. Everyone has a stack of 5 cards. They are ordered. The highest
Remember the Reach with your Halo: Flashpoint rules & reference!
As mentioned in yesterday’s video, I’ve updated my Halo: Flashpoint rules & reference to encompass the two new expansions, Rise of the Banished and Feet First Into Hell! But if you were quick and immediately downloaded it, check again, because I discovered a keyword was missing and have updated it again to v2.1. Enjoy!
Nobody asks to be a hero, it just sometimes turns out that way.
Peter unboxes two new expansions for Halo: Flashpoint by Mantic Games!
It’s great to see more stuff coming out for Mantic’s Halo: Flashpoint game, and I’m especially happy to see more aliens on the battlefield. Check out the new stuff – Rise of the Banished and Feet First Into Hell!
Making high quality tabletop gaming content at the EOG takes time and money. Please consider becoming a Patreon supporter or making a donation so I can continue this work! Thankyou!
As the geopolitical environment becomes more tumultuous, the use of digital and analogue games by professionals to understand, model, and prepare for the future is coming to prominence. Professional wargaming is having its moment in the sun.
I moved into the world of professional game design having been the head of development at a hobby board game publisher. My first professional role was helping with the development and production of Battlegroup Wargame System (BGWS). The game was commissioned by the British Army to encourage the development of a wargaming mentality in the organisation.
While there are plenty of commercial wargames that cover tactical level combat, few are interested in capturing elements that precede a real life engagement: planning based on mission objectives, force capacity, tasking against specific time lines and geographic boundaries, and map work. That’s why they are not used for training by the army.
BGWS is interested in that. I believed that a commercial audience would be too. So I began work on transforming BGWS - an umpire led-game specifically designed for military professionals - into what was to become Battlegroup Clash: Baltics. A professional wargame, designed for a commercial audience. A game you can read about on BGG.
Step 1 - What To Keep The two essential elements from BGWS I wanted to port to Battlegroup Clash: Baltics were the use of grid-based, real world maps, and the requirement to plan your operations before the game begins.
To my knowledge, no land-based tactical commercial wargame uses real world maps. Very few give much focus on operational planning, at least not how modern armed forces actually do it.
Step 2 - What To Drop BGWS requires both an umpire and an understanding of military concepts and approaches that is beyond most civilians. It uses off-the-shelf 1:10,000 mapping, and off board cards to track lots of information on the units in play.
User playtest by British Army junior officers of Battlegroup Wargame System, the game that inspired Battlegroup Clash: Baltics.
To make it playable beyond the classroom, these features needed amending, and the game overall needed streamlining.
A first major decision was to move away from maps that require judgement to understand and parse. I commissioned the creation of bespoke maps, created by computer-aided design. These are real world, based on satellite imagery of Estonia, but with overlaid borders to identify key terrain types.
Map B from Battlegroup Clash: Baltics. The game uses 1:10,000 maps developed from satellite imagery from Estonia, with grid lines overlaid.
A second major decision was to move the stats for each unit onto its counter, rather than having them on a separate sheet. This significantly eases game play at a lower play count; everything is in front of the player on the map.
Battlegroup Clash: Baltics moves all the necessary information about the unit onto the counter (right). BGWS uses separate force cards for this instead of its counters (left).
A third major decision related to narrative. I wanted to move away from a generic ‘blue’ versus ‘red’ approach to the real world. The presence of a British Army Battlegroup in Estonia made that an obvious choice, and the game became NATO versus Russia in a hypothetical invasion by the latter of Estonia.
Step 3 - What To Add Emphasising the present day narrative, and in keeping with my desire to create something that stood out from other tactical wargames, I decided to concentrate a lot of the design for Battlegroup Clash: Baltics on drones and electronic warfare.
The war in Ukraine has shown the degree to which drone warfare has changed the battlefield. Electronic warfare has been around for longer, but its intersection with drones and cyber attacks makes it now almost as important as kinetic effects on the battlefield.
In the game, every action that would generate some kind of radio or electronic transmission has the potential to be intercepted by the enemy. Intercepted transmissions can be used to target units for direct or indirect fires. Each side also gains access to Electronic Warfare Chits, that can be used on the battlefield for a variety of effects such as jamming your opponent’s recon drones.
This is important as reconnaissance drones, called UAS, completely transform the battlefield in the game, providing virtually unlimited line of sight for indirect fire. Another type of kamikaze drone, known as a first person video drone (FPV), can be used to directly attack enemy units, providing a more accurate, if less powerful, alternative to mortars and artillery.
UAS effect. In the game a UAS gives unlimited line of sight to the four adjacent grid squares.
Testing the Game I wanted my playtesting team to combine folks with experience in both professional as well as commercial wargaming, and through a combination of persistence and good luck I was able to get both.
Prototype counters used in a play test.
While Tabletop Simulator played a crucial role in the development and testing process, I learnt from my time as a hobby game developer that digital is not a substitute for a physical prototype, so I had physical copies made and tested them both at home, at my local club and at conventions.
Testing the two-mapper scenario at PunchedCON in Coventry, UK.
Making the Game Independent of the tariffs saga, I made a decision very early on that I wouldn’t get the game printed in China. China is funding Russia’s war in Ukraine, so it didn’t make sense to me to pay a Chinese company to make the game. Instead I chose EFKO in the Czech Republic. The price is higher than the Chinese alternative, but I can sleep easier with my choice.
The box cover
Selling the Game Battlegroup Clash: Baltics is self-published, in the sense that I am releasing via my own company. I have sufficient experience of the board game industry to be able to do this, rather than having to use another publisher to release the game. This approach also allowed me to get the game to market very quickly.
I considered using crowdfunding as the vehicle for selling the game, but I was concerned that the concept might not fly with customers from a professional background. Furthermore, I didn’t need funding to develop the game, just to print it, and decided that a simple pre-order system via the Sapper Studio website, which I use for my game development consultancy business, would suffice.
I decided to make use of professional channels as well as traditional board game media to promote the game. This involved posting on LinkedIn and via the Fight Club Discord server, as well as hobby channels and events such as SD Histcon and Armchair Dragoons.
The success of the game in terms of generating pre-orders very much exceeded my expectations. I had several hundred pre-orders within the first few months, meaning I could opt for a larger print run than I had anticipated. Now the game is out for general release, and it’s time to see if my customers agree that I have been able to create a professional wargame for a commercial audience.
You can purchase a copy of Battlegroup Clash directly from Sapper Studio via this link https://www.sapperstudio.com/battlegr. Alternatively check your with FLGS in your country that you know stock a good wargame selection.
Popcorn is a game about running your own cineplex. You buy screening rights for movies, you attract cinema-goers and you upgrade your cinema halls to provide great movie experiences. You have to keep your list of movies fresh, taking down movies before customers completely dry up and showing new movies to attract customers. While scoring points (points are called popcorn here), you need to
I recently talked to a publisher friend about something they had never encountered before: They were completely caught up at work. In fact, they were well ahead of schedule but their coworkers were not, so they wanted to resist their instinct to simply create another game, at least for a while.
Being completely caught up at work is a luxury that some of us may never experience, but perhaps you can relate to brief times when you’ve completed all time-sensitive tasks. After filling every spare moment with Vantage for nearly 8 years, I had that feeling when it was complete. I suddenly went from feeling perpetually behind to having an ample amount of time.
So today I thought I’d brainstorm a few ways to spend extra hours or even days when you’re caught up on work, particularly in creative roles. I’d love to hear what you do in these rare situations.
Serve customers: When in doubt, I ask myself, “What could I do right now to serve our customers?” This can be private or public. For example, I could email some of our most frequent customers to thank them for their support. I could hang out in any online community for our games, or search for our games on Instagram to comment on the posts instead of just liking them. Or I could make a video (recorded or live) to help people learn one of our games.
Research and learn: There’s more knowledge in the world than I can ever possibly know. I can spend extra time studying game design (from books, podcasts, articles, YouTube, etc) or even playing games (tabletop and digital). In fact, I so rarely play digital games because I always feel like I should be working, but I learn something about game design every time I do.
Support existing products: As fun as it is to release something new, most of the games we sell are reprints. Among many different ways of supporting existing products is to share special challenges or variants (like Vantage’s recent Valentine’s-themed custom cards). I can even revisit older rulebooks with a fresh, unrushed perspective. Also, even if I’m ahead of schedule, it never hurts to playtest a prototype again.
Create content: If there’s a topic on my mind that might add value to people or start a conversation, I can write an article about it, record a podcast, or film a video. It doesn’t need to be a commitment to creating regular content–it’s perfectly fine to create a singular post on a topic.
Attend an event: I rarely travel to conventions or even attend events at local game stores/cafes. Perhaps that’s just my introversion, but part of it is the other work I always feel I should be doing. But if I have extra time, there are plenty of places I could go–near and far–to play games and meet people outside of my social circle.
Make something just for fun: Sometimes I give myself permission to brainstorm a game (and even prototype it) just for fun, and I’m almost always glad I did. The lack of pressure to create something publishable is incredibly freeing.
Help someone else: I’ve heard that one of the best things for our mental health is to help someone else. Whether it’s a coworker, a friend in the industry, or a new creator, there’s always someone out there who might be looking for a little time, feedback, or words of encouragement.
Connect with someone locally: I typically take a 30-minute lunch break at my home office, then it’s back to work! I hardly ever go out to lunch, but there are lots of people–friends and peers–in the area that I could be more intentional about sharing lunch with from time to time.
Be good to yourself: There’s no rule saying that an absence of work needs to instantly be filled by more work. I can go for a walk, take care of a personal task I’ve delayed, treat myself to a movie, etc.
Start the next project: I’m putting this last because despite my inclination to always be creating something new, we don’t always need to make more games. Especially when we already have plenty of games in the pipeline and when adding something new could put a burden on already-busy coworkers. That said, it’s nice to start on a new game without any time pressure.
Hey Everyone! Thank you so much for the warm welcome on my first post last week. :meeple:
Today I wanted to bring attention to Board Game Arena. Many of us enjoy playing games online, and BGA is one of the key websites for doing that. I am still amazed at the number of games they are implementing each year. There are over 1200 games ready to be played at your fingertips.
Currently, there is 1 week left to vote for the 2025 BGA Awards. The BGA Awards were first introduced in January 2024 for games from 2023, and they have continued each year since.
[ImageID=9395798 medium rep]
You can view the whole article here, but below is a snip-it of how they select which games are nominated.
We have selected the most popular games released on BGA in 2025 and divided them into several categories to reflect the richness of games on the platform:
Best Casual Game: Perfect for quick, lighthearted fun and friendly competition.
Best Regular Game: Games that strike the perfect balance between strategic depth and satisfying complexity.
Best Expert Game: For those who thrive on challenging strategies and enjoy conquering intricate puzzles.
Best 2-player Game: Face-to-face duels that bring an extra level of intensity.
Best Brain Teaser: For those who love to give their brain a workout and solve challenges.
To participate, you will first have to play each of the nominated games in the category you want to vote for. Once you play each game from a category, you can cast your vote here.
I remember the first time I saw The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. I was a teen, sitting in front of a small CRT in a small living room. I was wholly unaware of what the next three hours of my life would entail. I hadn’t yet learned to trust my dad. And while…
The Soviet Union was one of the great dictatorships of the 20th century. It applied an immense amount of coercion on its own citizens as well as many of its neighboring countries. Yet the almost seventy years between the Soviet Union’s founding from the ashes of the Russian Civil War in 1922 and its fragmentation into 15 nation-states in 1991 are no monolith of unfreedom. There were two distinct periods of liberalization around a generation apart from each other – one that began under General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s, and one that began under General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s. Let’s look at them, beginning with Khrushchev’s thaw, in terms of domestic, foreign, and economic policy. The post on Gorbachev’s reforms will follow in two weeks. As always, there will be board games along the way.
Freedom of Thought, Speech, and Political Expression
Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union curtailed its citizens’ expression dramatically. Historiography has recounted Stalin’s reign of terror in detail, yet the best-known expression of the totalitarian control to which the Soviet Union aspired from the 1930s on is George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984: Its one-party state does not only control citizens’ access to information (they are being exposed to constant propaganda and expected to keep up with its frequently changing, often contradictory contents), but demands active participation in the daily reconstruction of the system, ranging from institutionalized “two-minute hate” against political enemies to unlimited devotion to the “Big Brother” at the top of the pyramid.
The Soviet equivalent to the “Big Brother,” of course, was Stalin who was exalted in an official cult of personality as a wise and infallible leader, working tirelessly for the security and well-being of the Soviet Union. Whatever went wrong on the Soviet Union’s inexorable march of progress was the fault of an inept underling or a shadowy enemy.
When Stalin died, his lieutenants fought briefly, but viciously over his succession. Nikita Khrushchev emerged victorious. Khrushchev had been as loyal to Stalin as his chief rivals and immediatly used Stalinist methods to depose Lavrentiy Beria, the powerful Minister of Internal Affairs (and thus chief of the domestic security services). Beria was charged with treason, put through a mock trial, and executed.
Khrushchev’s skillful power politics could also swing the other way, though. He prepared a report on Stalin’s crimes which he delivered to a stunned audience at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956. For four hours, Khrushchev detailed Stalin’s party purges, his deportation of whole peoples deemed unloyal, and, most of all, how Stalin had established a cult of personality in which he was almost worshipped like a god.
Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization drive did not stop at mere proclamations. The late 1950s and early 1960s saw a lessening of censorship: Alexander Solzhenitsyn was allowed to publish his Gulag novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch.
There were limits, however: Criticism of Stalin’s Gulags was one thing, criticism of the October Revolution another. Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago was not published in the USSR. When Pasternak won the Nobel Prize in literature for it, he and his family were threatened by agents of the state. Cowed, Pasternak did not travel to Stockholm to accept the prize.
Still, Khrushchev’s pivot represented an important turn in the state’s relationship with violence. While Soviet citizens were still routinely surveilled and subjected to coercion, it was neither with the overwhelming force of Stalinism nor with its unpredictability. The age of escalating purges, in which the accusers of today would be the accused of tomorrow was over.
Peaceful Coexistence and Khrushchev’s Many Other Schemes
Khrushchev’s 1956 speech was meant to remain secret, known only to its direct recipients and the allied Communist governments in Eastern Europe, but a member of the Polish Communist party smuggled a copy abroad via the Israeli embassy in Warsaw. From there, it soon gained wide circulation, and while Khrushchev had intended it to be a domestic power play only (it delegitimized his rivals Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov), he now also reaped benefits abroad: The post-Stalinist Soviet Union was naturally a more attractive ally and role model for both the socialist movements in Europe and the decolonizing and freshly independent nations in Africa and Asia.
This unintended benefit is the focus of the foreign-policy heavy Twilight Struggle‘s De-Stalinization card: The Soviet player may move up to four points of influence around on the globe. That may seem like a zero-sum game – after all, the influence is not added, but only moved. But the Soviet Union typically has a lot of spare influence in Eastern Europe after the first one or two turns, and De-Stalinization is the earliest and best way to gain access to faraway continents, chiefly South America (and, to a lesser degree, Africa).
Even before Khrushchev’s speech was leaked, his approach to foreign policy markedly differed from Stalin’s last years. When the relationship with the Soviet Union’s erstwhile allies had deteriorated after the end of World War II, Stalin had adopted a confrontational stance based on the assumption that the world was split in two hostile camps. Khrushchev, on the other hand, approached the western powers under the new motto of peaceful coexistence. Socialism and capitalism could both inhabit the same world. Of course, Khrushchev as a convinced Communist believed that his system would eventually triumph. Until then, peaceful coexistence would not only foster peace, but also make socialism more attractive, and free up resources for economic development and consumer goods (more on that below).
The economic (factory icon) and especially ideological (socialist – man with flat cap icon) bonuses are nice, but what sets the Peaceful Coexistence event in Wir sind das Volk! – 2+2 (Richard Sivél/Peer Sylvester, Histogame) apart is the ability to advance peace (dove icon) – indispensable when the world is sliding toward nuclear war!
Khrushchev was always better at initiating things than at seeing them through. Peaceful coexistence gave way to other projects – be that the support of nationalist movements in the global south or a re-newed competition with the West over Central Europe. And while Khrushchev thought that the Soviet Union and the western powers could live next to one another, that tolerance did not extend to heterodox socialist ideas within his own sphere of influence: When the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party announced to withdraw the country from the Warsaw Pact and hold free elections, Khrushchev had the reform movement quashed by Soviet tanks.
The Soviet economy under Stalin had been tuned to increase heavy industrial output to achieve a fast industrialization on the one hand and provide the basis for the country’s military security. This approach was validated by the country’s survival of the Nazi invasion and its eventual military victory in 1945. The proponents of this economic policy which usually went together with ideological mobilization and a confrontational foreign policy were called to adhere to politika. Yet after Stalin’s death, the rival faction of tekhnika gained ground: Its advocates favored a less aggressive foreign policy, less ideological mobilization, and, most of all, more market elements in the economy which would then produce more consumer goods.
Khrushchev positioned himself in the middle: Heavy industry would have priority (the Soviet Union was in a nuclear arms race with the United States whose economy was around three times as large as the Soviet, after all), but more attention would be given to consumer goods than before. Soviet citizens enjoyed a limited amount of prosperity with radios, washing machines, and sometimes even cars. Khrushchev saw this also as an instrument in the systemic competition of the Cold War: Material comfort and personal lifestyles would influence people’s allegiances as much as military strength or ideological treatises.
Khrushchev’s confidence in that regard led him to agree with the United States on mutual national exhibitions which would showcase their respective country to the citizens of the other. The confidence, however, was not quite justified: The Soviet exhibition in New York aroused curiosity, but the American one in Moscow was positively overrun. It also produced one of the iconic pictures of the Cold War with Nikita Khrushchev and US Vice President Richard Nixon debating the merits of their respective systems surrounded by American household appliances – the “Kitchen Debate.”
Some Soviet citizens might have dreamed of living in America, but their personal lifestyles already became more akin to those of Americans under Khrushchev. Even more important than the new consumer goods were their living conditions: Housing in big Soviet cities had been dominated by kommunalkas – large apartments from pre-revolutionary times which had been split to accommodate several families, each living in a single room and sharing the kitchen and bathroom with the others. These crammed living spaces afforded their inhabitants no privacy whatsoever. Only the elites of Stalin’s Soviet Union had apartments to themselves. Khrushchev started an ambitious housing program based on prefabricated, concrete-paneled apartment buildings which allowed millions of Soviet citizens to move into an apartment just for their own family for the first time.
As with foreign policy, Khrushchev started more economic reform projects than he saw through. The ambitious “Virgin Lands” campaign which aimed at alleviating Soviet food shortages by cultivating vast swathes of Siberia and northern Kazakhstan petered out after a few years. His scheme to introduce an Iowa-style corn belt fared even worse, discrediting both corn and Khrushchev in the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev’s Ouster
The economic starts and shifts of Khrushchev’s tenure undermined his position, as did his foreign policy unpredictability ranging from arms control to confronting the United States over Cuba. Most damaging to him, however, were his constant shuffles in the Communist Party. Disaffected cadres who feared they might lose their offices overthrew Khrushchev in October 1964. They installed the less fickle Leonid Brezhnev as new General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The conservative Brezhnev would tone down some of Khrushchev’s domestic reforms, resulting in a more restricted cultural and literary climate, but stuck with Khrushchev’s economic reforms and conducted foreign policy along the lines of détente with the West.
Not everything about Khrushchev was as cuddly as this bear which he received when visiting an East German electronics factory, but his rule made the Soviet Union a better place to live and furthered its international power and prestige. Image from Wir sind das Volk! – 2+2.
In the end, Khrushchev himself was one of the beneficiaries of the liberalization he had pushed: Unlike the victims of the purges of the 1930s (or even Beria), he was not subjected to a mock trial and executed. Instead, he officially resigned for health reasons and was allowed to live out his days at a comfortable dacha in the countryside.
The authoritative biography remains Taubman, William: Khrushchev. The Man and His Era, Norton, New York City, NY 2004.
A magisterial mosaic of Soviet social, economic, and cultural life is Schlögel, Karl: The Soviet Century. Archaeology of a Lost World, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 2023.
On the suppression of the Hungarian revolution and its impact on Soviet and western foreign policy, see Békés, Csaba: The 1956 Hungarian Revolution and World Politics, (Cold War International History Project Working Paper No. 16), Washington, D.C. 1996.
On the politika/tekhnika split, see Priestland, David: Cold War Mobilization and Domestic Politics: the Soviet Union, in: Leffler, Melvyn P./Westad, Odd Arne (eds.): The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Volume I. Origins, 5th edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, pp. 442-463.
The Soviet Union was one of the great dictatorships of the 20th century. It applied an immense amount of coercion on its own citizens as well as many of its neighboring countries. Yet the almost seventy years between the Soviet Union’s founding from the ashes of the Russian Civil War in 1922 and its fragmentation into 15 nation-states in 1991 are no monolith of unfreedom. There were two distinct periods of liberalization around a generation apart from each other – one that began under First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s, and one that began under General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s. Let’s look at them, beginning with Khrushchev’s thaw, in terms of domestic, foreign, and economic policy. The post on Gorbachev’s reforms will follow in two weeks. As always, there will be board games along the way.
Freedom of Thought, Speech, and Political Expression
Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union curtailed its citizens’ expression dramatically. Historiography has recounted Stalin’s reign of terror in detail, yet the best-known expression of the totalitarian control to which the Soviet Union aspired from the 1930s on is George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984: Its one-party state does not only control citizens’ access to information (they are being exposed to constant propaganda and expected to keep up with its frequently changing, often contradictory contents), but demands active participation in the daily reconstruction of the system, ranging from institutionalized “two-minute hate” against political enemies to unlimited devotion to the “Big Brother” at the top of the pyramid.
The Soviet equivalent to the “Big Brother,” of course, was Stalin who was exalted in an official cult of personality as a wise and infallible leader, working tirelessly for the security and well-being of the Soviet Union. Whatever went wrong on the Soviet Union’s inexorable march of progress was the fault of an inept underling or a shadowy enemy.
When Stalin died, his lieutenants fought briefly, but viciously over his succession. Nikita Khrushchev emerged victorious. Khrushchev had been as loyal to Stalin as his chief rivals and immediatly used Stalinist methods to depose Lavrentiy Beria, the powerful Minister of Internal Affairs (and thus chief of the domestic security services). Beria was charged with treason, put through a mock trial, and executed.
Khrushchev’s skillful power politics could also swing the other way, though. He prepared a report on Stalin’s crimes which he delivered to a stunned audience at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956. For four hours, Khrushchev detailed Stalin’s party purges, his deportation of whole peoples deemed unloyal, and, most of all, how Stalin had established a cult of personality in which he was almost worshipped like a god.
Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization drive did not stop at mere proclamations. The late 1950s and early 1960s saw a lessening of censorship: Alexander Solzhenitsyn was allowed to publish his Gulag novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch.
There were limits, however: Criticism of Stalin’s Gulags was one thing, criticism of the October Revolution another. Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago was not published in the USSR. When Pasternak won the Nobel Prize in literature for it, he and his family were threatened by agents of the state. Cowed, Pasternak did not travel to Stockholm to accept the prize.
Still, Khrushchev’s pivot represented an important turn in the state’s relationship with violence. While Soviet citizens were still routinely surveilled and subjected to coercion, it was neither with the overwhelming force of Stalinism nor with its unpredictability. The age of escalating purges, in which the accusers of today would be the accused of tomorrow was over.
Peaceful Coexistence and Khrushchev’s Many Other Schemes
Khrushchev’s 1956 speech was meant to remain secret, known only to its direct recipients and the allied Communist governments in Eastern Europe, but a member of the Polish Communist party smuggled a copy abroad via the Israeli embassy in Warsaw. From there, it soon gained wide circulation, and while Khrushchev had intended it to be a domestic power play only (it delegitimized his rivals Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov), he now also reaped benefits abroad: The post-Stalinist Soviet Union was naturally a more attractive ally and role model for both the socialist movements in Europe and the decolonizing and freshly independent nations in Africa and Asia.
This unintended benefit is the focus of the foreign-policy heavy Twilight Struggle‘s De-Stalinization card: The Soviet player may move up to four points of influence around on the globe. That may seem like a zero-sum game – after all, the influence is not added, but only moved. But the Soviet Union typically has a lot of spare influence in Eastern Europe after the first one or two turns, and De-Stalinization is the earliest and best way to gain access to faraway continents, chiefly South America (and, to a lesser degree, Africa).
Even before Khrushchev’s speech was leaked, his approach to foreign policy markedly differed from Stalin’s last years. When the relationship with the Soviet Union’s erstwhile allies had deteriorated after the end of World War II, Stalin had adopted a confrontational stance based on the assumption that the world was split in two hostile camps. Khrushchev, on the other hand, approached the western powers under the new motto of peaceful coexistence. Socialism and capitalism could both inhabit the same world. Of course, Khrushchev as a convinced Communist believed that his system would eventually triumph. Until then, peaceful coexistence would not only foster peace, but also make socialism more attractive, and free up resources for economic development and consumer goods (more on that below).
The economic (factory icon) and especially ideological (socialist – man with flat cap icon) bonuses are nice, but what sets the Peaceful Coexistence event in Wir sind das Volk! – 2+2 (Richard Sivél/Peer Sylvester, Histogame) apart is the ability to advance peace (dove icon) – indispensable when the world is sliding toward nuclear war!
Khrushchev was always better at initiating things than at seeing them through. Peaceful coexistence gave way to other projects – be that the support of nationalist movements in the global south or a re-newed competition with the West over Central Europe. And while Khrushchev thought that the Soviet Union and the western powers could live next to one another, that tolerance did not extend to heterodox socialist ideas within his own sphere of influence: When the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party announced to withdraw the country from the Warsaw Pact and hold free elections, Khrushchev had the reform movement quashed by Soviet tanks.
The Soviet economy under Stalin had been tuned to increase heavy industrial output to achieve a fast industrialization on the one hand and provide the basis for the country’s military security. This approach was validated by the country’s survival of the Nazi invasion and its eventual military victory in 1945. The proponents of this economic policy which usually went together with ideological mobilization and a confrontational foreign policy were called to adhere to politika. Yet after Stalin’s death, the rival faction of tekhnika gained ground: Its advocates favored a less aggressive foreign policy, less ideological mobilization, and, most of all, more market elements in the economy which would then produce more consumer goods.
Khrushchev positioned himself in the middle: Heavy industry would have priority (the Soviet Union was in a nuclear arms race with the United States whose economy was around three times as large as the Soviet, after all), but more attention would be given to consumer goods than before. Soviet citizens enjoyed a limited amount of prosperity with radios, washing machines, and sometimes even cars. Khrushchev saw this also as an instrument in the systemic competition of the Cold War: Material comfort and personal lifestyles would influence people’s allegiances as much as military strength or ideological treatises.
Khrushchev’s confidence in that regard led him to agree with the United States on mutual national exhibitions which would showcase their respective country to the citizens of the other. The confidence, however, was not quite justified: The Soviet exhibition in New York aroused curiosity, but the American one in Moscow was positively overrun. It also produced one of the iconic pictures of the Cold War with Nikita Khrushchev and US Vice President Richard Nixon debating the merits of their respective systems surrounded by American household appliances – the “Kitchen Debate.”
Some Soviet citizens might have dreamed of living in America, but their personal lifestyles already became more akin to those of Americans under Khrushchev. Even more important than the new consumer goods were their living conditions: Housing in big Soviet cities had been dominated by kommunalkas – large apartments from pre-revolutionary times which had been split to accommodate several families, each living in a single room and sharing the kitchen and bathroom with the others. These crammed living spaces afforded their inhabitants no privacy whatsoever. Only the elites of Stalin’s Soviet Union had apartments to themselves. Khrushchev started an ambitious housing program based on prefabricated, concrete-paneled apartment buildings which allowed millions of Soviet citizens to move into an apartment just for their own family for the first time.
As with foreign policy, Khrushchev started more economic reform projects than he saw through. The ambitious “Virgin Lands” campaign which aimed at alleviating Soviet food shortages by cultivating vast swathes of Siberia and northern Kazakhstan petered out after a few years. His scheme to introduce an Iowa-style corn belt fared even worse, discrediting both corn and Khrushchev in the Soviet Union.
Khrushchev’s Ouster
The economic starts and shifts of Khrushchev’s tenure undermined his position, as did his foreign policy unpredictability ranging from arms control to confronting the United States over Cuba. Most damaging to him, however, were his constant shuffles in the Communist Party. Disaffected cadres who feared they might lose their offices overthrew Khrushchev in October 1964. They installed the less fickle Leonid Brezhnev as new First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (an office soon to be re-named to General Secretary, like under Stalin). The conservative Brezhnev would tone down some of Khrushchev’s domestic reforms, resulting in a more restricted cultural and literary climate, but stuck with Khrushchev’s economic reforms and conducted foreign policy along the lines of détente with the West.
Not everything about Khrushchev was as cuddly as this bear which he received when visiting an East German electronics factory, but his rule made the Soviet Union a better place to live and furthered its international power and prestige. Image from Wir sind das Volk! – 2+2.
In the end, Khrushchev himself was one of the beneficiaries of the liberalization he had pushed: Unlike the victims of the purges of the 1930s (or even Beria), he was not subjected to a mock trial and executed. Instead, he officially resigned for health reasons and was allowed to live out his days at a comfortable dacha in the countryside.
The authoritative biography remains Taubman, William: Khrushchev. The Man and His Era, Norton, New York City, NY 2004.
A magisterial mosaic of Soviet social, economic, and cultural life is Schlögel, Karl: The Soviet Century. Archaeology of a Lost World, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 2023.
On the suppression of the Hungarian revolution and its impact on Soviet and western foreign policy, see Békés, Csaba: The 1956 Hungarian Revolution and World Politics, (Cold War International History Project Working Paper No. 16), Washington, D.C. 1996.
On the politika/tekhnika split, see Priestland, David: Cold War Mobilization and Domestic Politics: the Soviet Union, in: Leffler, Melvyn P./Westad, Odd Arne (eds.): The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Volume I. Origins, 5th edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013, pp. 442-463.
The Museum Spark The whole story of Abbates traces back to a single weekend outing: a perfectly ordinary visit to museum M in Leuven, Belgium. Museums usually inspire me to admiration, contemplation, and maybe jealousy when confronted with artists who clearly have a greater talent than I do. Yet, halfway through the galleries, it was the museum gift shop that lodged the fateful splinter in my brain. Among books and postcards sat a board game derived from one of the museum’s artworks. That’s when my wife, who works at Bornem Abbey, turned to me and said, almost mischievously, “Wouldn’t it be great if we used Bornem Abbey as our own board game?”
At first, it was just a thought experiment. But museums have a way of making ideas feel serious, as though monks, curators, and old medieval books are silently nodding in approval. By the time we were back home, the little notion had become a not-so-little itch; this could actually work. The abbey is practically begging to become cardboard: artifacts, stained glass, libraries, abbots, architecture, history, the works. And there’s something magical about transforming physical cultural heritage into a playful, interactive medium… a kind of preservation-through-play.
Tiles, Heraldry, Cards, Grids, and the First Meeple The first draft was tile-based because of course it was: tile-layers are the early evolutionary stage of most Euro designs. I imagined players building a stylized abbey using square tiles, connecting rooms via coats of arms of abbots printed along the edges. It wasn’t terrible. It was even charming in that “this should probably be sold next to puzzles and tea towels” kind of way.
But testing quickly revealed its limits: calm, pleasant, and almost entirely devoid of tension. It was the board game equivalent of a monk humming a lullaby in Gregorian chant.
I felt the abbey deserved more verve, not chaos, but interaction. I wanted something where players would look up, watch each other, second-guess each other, and occasionally mutter mild insults under their breath.
Shifting from tiles to cards unlocked new design space. The game transformed into a 4×4 grid of cards on the table, with a solitary meeple marching around like a tiny abbot conducting inspections, moved by the roll of a die. Activating a row or column allowed players to claim a card from it. A neat mechanism with just enough positional tension to matter, especially as every row and column also had their own effect that would benefit the winner of that round. But who got to claim first? Enter the first appearance of bidding cards numbered 1–13. Simple, but competitive. A touch of interaction, without turning into a knife fight.
Already players were comparing intentions: “You want that stained-glass? Or are you bluffing?” The game was learning to talk socially.
Shrinking the Abbey and Growing the Puzzle The next breakthrough came by shrinking the central 4×4 grid into a tighter 3×3. That small reduction made everything more deliberate as fewer spaces meant fewer choices and more pressure. Adding in a personal player tableau on which you would place the cards you won was another needed layer of gameplay. Now players didn’t just acquire cards, they needed to store them in their personal tableau. Rows and columns formed gentle patterns and scoring lines.
Then I mirrored the central meeple onto each personal tableau. Your own meeple determined where newly drafted cards could be placed. No longer could players lazily optimize. The game began to tease, challenge, restrict. And when games tease, players lean in.
With three cards per side around the 3×3 grid, there were three opportunities per round to bid. Initially, all bids were submitted blind and simultaneously. The idea worked logically; emotionally it felt bone-dry. Everyone revealed, shrugged, assigned cards, and moved on.
What finally clicked after several test sessions with the amazing team of Bornem Abbey was sequential - open bidding. Each bidding moment became a micro-auction: clockwise, highest card wins, ties forbidden. Suddenly players had agency in tempo. Adding an advantage to the lowest bid, made underbidding a tactic by itself. Seize the initiative next round and additionally force oneself into taking the blind from the draw pile; a form of gamble that often paid off in surprising ways.
The scoring system also matured around this time: three of a kind in a line scored 10, two scored 6, mismatches 3. It meshed beautifully with the abbey’s thematic triad: artifacts, stained glass, library books, and gave visitors a taste of actual abbey content without forcing it down their throats.
Beans, Beans, the Monastic Currency and Rules And then… beans. Yes, beans.
With rows of cards on your personal tableau now providing points, I added a central tableau, the abbey chapter room, on which you had a score track for… negative points. Tying this in with the cards proved to be a fresh new mechanic, another layer in the game. Low bidding cards gained white beans (up to four), indicating how far the central meeple marched on this track. High values bore fewer or none.
Efficient for winning auctions, disastrous for bean logistics.
Meanwhile collected cards bestowed black beans, advancing the personal meeple. And at game’s end, the distance between central and personal meeples produced negative points, resulting in a monastic bean-based tug-of-war.
Mechanically it added tempo management, shared-race pressure, and a new layer of tension. Thematically it became a playful abstraction of the actual voting system in abbeys. More importantly, playtesters kept talking about beans afterward. When players talk about a mechanism after the table is packed up, design is doing its job.
The cards proved to be even more of a treasure vault for new mechanics. Every abbey needs rules, so ours gained one: St. Benedict’s. It rewarded players for sequencing bids cleverly: 1–7 first, 8–13 second, then even, then odd. Do it right and you earned a glorious 14-value card, worth a victory point at the end. It nudged players toward intentionality without being prescriptive. It also supplied flavor as monks love order, after all. Now everything clicks and the different mechanics just click.
Feedback Thus armed, we marched to the Spel convention in Antwerp in November 2024 with five professionally printed prototypes. The booth was lively, feedback plentiful, and best of all, genuine strangers smiled while playing. This cannot be overstated: strangers are the ultimate calibrators of fun. Friends lie. Family lies. Colleagues lie because they must see you at lunch. Only random convention-goers express truth.
People praised the tension and pace, but they also nudged the weak spots: scoring was a little too predetermined, patterns a bit too solvable, and the Rule of St. Benedict too predictable after repeat plays. All fair. All fixable.
Back in our “war room,” scoring underwent surgery. Fixed 10/6/3 lines melted away and three starting revealed cards determined scoring values: 3/2/1 points per card for the three types. Instantly every game became a different economic ecosystem.
Mission cards entered next with spatial objectives promising five points for pattern completion and halving negative bean-distance if fully satisfied. They gave structure, identity, and long-term ambition to players’ tableaus.
The Rule of St. Benedict became modular via two double-sided guides per player, offering unique sequences and higher replay value. Suddenly players had strategic identities instead of purely tactical reactions.
The prototype now felt alive and, importantly, replayable.
A Deadline, a Printer, and Several Sleepless Months Then came the twist worthy of a thriller; the city of Bornem joined forces with the abbey to help fund a first run on the condition that the game launch by April 2025. When this condition was agreed, it was January. We still needed to finalize rules, translate gameplay into precise language, prep InDesign files, negotiate printing, and manufacture on time without resorting to cargo ships that behave like slow, unpredictable sea turtles.
We selected Fabryka Kart: European, reliable, communicative, and they delivered with clock-like precision. Rulebooks printed, components boxed, meeples lacquered, games shrink-wrapped. In April, copies stood proudly for sale at the abbey. All this done at the end with many sleepless nights, working and editing, typing and designing.
Nineteen months all-in-all from spark to shelf.
Pontifex Games Begins & Closing Reflections The funniest part of the whole odyssey is that the game was meant to be a one-off cultural project. Instead, it became the cornerstone of a publishing house: Pontifex Games. As of writing, we already have our second game, Sacra Maioritas out, an expansion for Abbates and our third release, Via Peregrina, slated for February 2026. Apparently once you’ve printed one game, it’s difficult to stop. Monastic vices take many forms…
In retrospect, designing for a real institution, with its own history, identity, and a tourism footprint, shaped countless design decisions. It demanded theme without theatrics, elegance without sterility, accessibility without boredom. And it revealed how physical sites and cultural spaces can find new life in cardboard.
If I learned anything, it’s that creativity also thrives on constraints: theme, deadlines, and funding all played their part. And through all of it, the game stayed fun. Which, in the end, is the only reason to make one.
In Miams (I think it means yummy in French) you roll five dice and try to get combinations which will score you points. Normally you get one reroll, and you get to choose which dice to reroll. Throughout the game you gain abilities which let you manipulate the dice and do other things which help you score points. The game ends when anyone reaches 50 points.
The die faces
Rising Cultures is Capstone’s first collaboration with German publisher HUCH! (Trajan, Rajas of Ganges, etc.) and features elegant civilization building gameplay in a compact footprint. The game comes with four unique civilizations, each with their own playstyle and unique deck of cards. Play 2 games at the same time with one box!
▪️ Aquaria is another new release available in the Capstone catalog after partnering with the small Czech publisher Delicious Games.
In Aquaria, your friends have challenged your claim of expertise at creating a thriving aquarium. They suggest a little competition to see who can build the best aquarium ecosystem from scratch. You accept!
Strategize to acquire the exotic species for your aquarium, maintaining good oxygen levels as you go. Each species has unique needs, but offers distinct benefits to your ecosystem. Take a deep dive into the encyclopedia to gain an edge with what you find! Design a harmonious habitat and curate your aquatic collection to surpass your opponents. Can you turn a bare tank into a vibrant, self-sustaining, biodiverse ecosystem to bolster your claims? The captivating challenges of Aquaria await!
▪️ Speaking of Tomáš Holek, he has yet another new game just released from Capstone titled Pondscape.
Pondscape is a strategic card game for 2-4 players, lasting around 30 minutes. In this game, players create their own vibrant pond by carefully placing cards featuring various frog species and pond environments while collecting different insect types.
The core mechanisms involve grid building and card management, with pond construction as a spatial puzzle. In each round, players choose cards from a shared display and add one card to their pond, aiming to fulfill specific conditions set by different frog species to earn points, with larger groups of the same frog type yielding even greater rewards.
Angel’s Share is an economic game where shrewd investors vie to profit from the aged whiskey market. Players strategically manage their resources and predict price fluctuations to succeed. This game of speculation and payout rewards those with the sharpest investment instincts, where the goal is to buy low and sell high for maximum returns.
Renowned, world-famous distilleries are your playground. Each year, players age their whiskey barrels, navigate events, and manage upkeep costs to best maintain their stock. Hold on to your assets wisely, as other players may try to compromise the price of formerly valuable whiskey while raising the price of their own holdings. Prudent management of your whiskey is crucial, as everyone is out for themselves in Angel’s Share.
This new expansion introduces a new module that has players going on a treasure hunt, where players need to collect the most treasure. Of course, that is just one small portion of the expansion; there is added content with epic monsters you have to deal with, new improvement cards, and a new solo experience.
In the early 2000s, I had the privilege of connecting with a NASA scientist who would change the course of my career. She posed a simple but powerful challenge: How do we share all the amazing work happening on the International Space Station in a way that actually excites the general public?
My answer was immediate — games.
With her support, I started down a path that would eventually lead to the successful Kickstarter of 4 Years to Mars. But like any real space program, the road wasn’t paved with yellow bricks. It was littered with asteroids, craters, and — oh yes — funding and budget issues.
History and Design (Feel free to skip ahead to Gameplay if you'd like)
4 Years to Mars began life as a humble paper prototype for a NASA outreach mobile game called To the Moon and Beyond. My lab had already launched two successful mobile games, and this would be our third—and, in my opinion, the most challenging.
NASA periodically publishes a document called Benefits for Humanity. In its most common form, it’s a dense, 25+ page technical report filled with fascinating information about how NASA research benefits life on Earth and advances exploration. Unfortunately, it’s not exactly light reading and many people find it intimidating.
The mission I accepted was clear: translate that information into something people could understand—and enjoy.
After many hours of brainstorming, we landed on the idea of a card game. Players would:
- Conduct research based on the real research in the document
- Fund technology projects that used that research based on the projects in the documents and in NASA Spinoffs
- Use the funded technology to build mission components.
From this, a paper prototype was born.
The first cards were printed on sticker paper and slapped onto old playing cards. The “board” consisted of images printed on cardstock. We cannibalized games from home to scavenge money, tokens, and components.
Once funding was approved, playtesting began with people from across the agency, and development of the mobile game followed. If you’re curious, To the Moon and Beyond is still playable—just search for it along with “NASA” on Google Play, Xbox, or the Apple App Store (Yes, there’s actually an Xbox version).
From Mobile to Tabletop
In 2021, after 37 years in government and extensive experience using gamification across projects, I decided it was time to venture out on my own. One lingering dream was to turn To the Moon and Beyond into a family-friendly board game—one that taught players about NASA while being genuinely fun.
I secured permission to create the game and use NASA imagery (with restrictions), recruited my son—fresh out of college with a game design degree—and launched my company, Game2Learn.
The design challenges were significant. The biggest? Transforming a single-player mobile game into a 1–6 player tabletop experience that worked both competitively and cooperatively.
Our first attempts failed spectacularly. Copying the mobile formula directly just didn’t work. We scrapped the “one research topic discounted one project” system and replaced it with broad research categories that discounted multiple projects. To increase player interaction, we added Sabotage cards. We also rebalanced the mission objectives to create a consistent mission track.
To the Moon and Back—the board game—was born.
Iteration, Evolution, and Failure (the Fun Kind)
Testing continued in 2022 with a rough prototype at Origins Game Fair. Feedback was honest and invaluable:
- The board was too big
- The artwork felt unfinished
- This is fun!
- And, frankly, Mars is sexier than the Moon
I hired an artist, regrouped, and rebranded the game as 5 Years to Mars.
Artwork required many iterations. I had a clear picture in my mind, but conveying that across the continent via zoom was harder than I thought. Thankfully, my amazing artist grew adept at reading my mind and we settled on a design that not only fit the genre, but allowed players to stack the project cards for easier point computation.
While the card design stabilized, the board continued to be a challenge. A large board with designated spaces worked great—but was far too expensive to manufacture. We explored multiple layouts, tracks, and even tried to recreate some of the parts building fun from the mobile game.
Eventually, we settled on a smaller fold-up board for 5 Years to Mars. In 2023, after Origins, we launched the Kickstarter.
And then… we canceled it.
We had reached over 50% of our goal, but something was still missing.
The Final Countdown: 4 Years to Mars
Determined to fix what was missing, I sought out mentors and publishers and connected with Sean Brown of Mr. B Games. With his guidance, and additional feedback from convention players, I made several crucial changes. The game was split into a Base game, an Events deck, and a Cutthroat deck which broadened the game's appeal. The game was rebalanced to remove a game year, which shortened the play time and aligned with what seemed to be the industry standard length.
In addition to broadening the game’s appeal, the modular approach reduced the funding goal since the Events deck and Cutthroat deck could be made into stretch goals for the campaign.
In 2024, the game successfully funded on Kickstarter, and I was able to include the Events deck and the Cutthroat deck with my funding.
After manufacturing hiccups and tariff nightmares, 4 Years to Mars became a reality.
Game Play Synopsis
4 Years to Mars is a card-based game for one to six players that can be played competitively or cooperatively. The game is played over four rounds, called Program Years. These represent the four years you have to complete your program. To succeed, you must complete eight Mission Objectives by accumulating 6 points in each objective.
During the first Program Year, you will fund Research cards. Research cards represent topics you are researching in one of your four bays on the International Space Station. Your Research cards reduce the cost of Projects that you will fund in order to advance your Mission Objectives.
In the second through fourth Program Years, players can purchase Project cards as well as Research and Action cards. Project cards provide advances in your Mission Objectives as well as income for the next year of your program. Projects are categorized based on what benefits they provide in Scientific discoveries, helping life on Earth, advancing space Exploration, or inspiring youth through STEM programs. When combined into sets, these benefit categories also advance your Mission Objectives.
At the end of a Program Year, players advance their Mission Objective tokens once per mission icon on their funded Projects. Mission Objective tokens are also advanced based on what sets are made with card categories. The first and second players to complete a Mission Objective receive an Award from the government. This reward can be used to augment the next year's budget or can be saved for end of game calculations in case of a tie.
After Mission Objectives have been advanced and Awards earned, players receive 20 Spucks (space bucks) from the government and any income their products have generated. The first player token then passes to the player with the smallest budget for the next year. The first person to complete all 8 mission objectives wins the game.
The game difficulty can be varied with the inclusion of Event cards or played more competitively with the inclusion of the Cutthroat cards. Rules are provided for solo play as well as cooperative play.
Conclusion
Even with its ups and downs, this has been a wonderful experience. I encourage everyone: If you have an idea, don't dream it, do it!
I typically run the game at Origins, so if you're around, stop by and say hi. I may even have a NASA sticker left to hand out.
Chu Han is a two player shedding game (or climbing game). You play multiple rounds, and you
win a round by playing all your cards before your opponent. You score points based on the
number of cards remaining in your opponent's hand. There are a few other ways
to score points. The game ends when someone exceeds 31 points.
Cards go from 1 to 9. There
Welcome to the Dungeon — A cute little push-your-luck filler, kind of like “Name that tune.” “Well, I can beat that dungeon that has five monsters!” “Six monsters” “Six monsters but I’ll leave my vorpal sword behind!” etc. Does not overstay its welcome, at least with three players. Not earth shattering, but I got it for $5, so sure. Indifferent.
Magical Athlete — I was sure I had played this before when it was announced, but it turns out that I was thinking of Monster Derby. This one reminds me of Mrs. Tao’s name for Strat-o-matic Baseball: “Bunco for Boys.” It’s an amusing way to spend rolling dice for 30 minutes. This one comes closer to overstaying its welcome. (But we played with six players). Great production values with “Kids Educational Cartoon” style coloring, drawing and meeples. I’m sure if you brought this out with chits it would lose ~3 BGG rating points, deservedly so. Indifferent.
Welcome to the Dungeon — A cute little push-your-luck filler, kind of like “Name that tune.” “Well, I can beat that dungeon that has five monsters!” “Six monsters” “Six monsters but I’ll leave my vorpal sword behind!” etc. Does not overstay its welcome, at least with three players. Not earth shattering, but I got it for $5, so sure. Indifferent.
Magical Athlete — I was sure I had played this before when it was announced, but it turns out that I was thinking of Monster Derby. This one reminds me of Mrs. Tao’s name for Strat-o-matic Baseball: “Bunco for Boys.” It’s an amusing way to spend rolling dice for 30 minutes. This one comes closer to overstaying its welcome. (But we played with six players). Great production values with “Kids Educational Cartoon” style coloring, drawing and meeples. I’m sure if you brought this out with chits it would lose ~3 BGG rating points, deservedly so. Indifferent.
Years ago I was wrong about pledge managers, and I’m still learning the full scope of my short-sightedness about them.
For the way we sell new products there’s only a few weeks at most between the launch date and shipping, so we don’t use pledge managers. But I noticed a surprising data point after the recent 5-day launch period for Wingspan Americas and Viticulture: Bordeaux.
Both products sold well on our webstore during that time: 20,260 copies of Wingspan Americas and 6,353 copies of Viticulture: Bordeaux. However, in terms of the 5-day revenue, these products comprised of only half of of webstore sales. The other half of revenue came from older products.
You read that correctly. Nearly for every dollar of a sparkly new product, customers spent another dollar on an older product. Perhaps this is to consolidate shipping (we offer $10 flat-rate shipping)? Or the new products provided a nice excuse to browse the webstore?
This is what I underestimated and misunderstood about pledge managers years ago when Backerkit originally created this extension of the campaign. My backer mentality was that I’m there for the new product–if I wanted a company’s older products, I would have already purchased them, right?
But that’s not the case. The pledge manager is just an optional, non-pushy service to customers. After all, everything is shipping from the same fulfillment centers. It’s an opportunity for discovery and shipping consolidation. And, in some cases, it’s a chance for a publisher to try to move slower-selling products.
This was also a reminder to me that having related products in stock (i.e., Wingspan and Viticulture products for the recent launch) is really important, and that requires planning at least 6 months in advance.
What do you think about this? Do you ever add products to your cart in pledge managers that you weren’t planning to buy? Are you typically happy with that choice?
***
Also check out Jet Bridge, a Shopify extension that can act similarly to a pledge manager for crowdfunders who use Shopify for ongoing sales. Ben Harkins at Floodgate shared this with me after I posted this article.
Anmelden
BoardGameGeek News | BoardGameGeek
/pic8596236.jpg)
/pic8555920.png)
/pic9384629.jpg)
/pic8370010.jpg)
