Battles of the American Revolution Tri-Pack II: Monmouth, Germantown and Newtown is the second compilation of earlier releases from GMT Games’ Battles of the American Revolution Series. These are tactical level battles at the regimental level with a map scale of approximately 200 yd/hex. We played Germantown and shot the following video review to share our thoughts on the game.
A few months ago, I started a new feature on the blog called Discussion Thread where I plan to pose a question or a share a situation and seek your input and comments on the issue to gain greater understanding and to encourage thoughtful feedback. The response to the first post about In-Game Retribution was positive and there were a lot comments and opinions shared followed by a not so successful post on Zones of Control. I now wanted to do another post in the series and focus on the all too common problem that non-wargamers have with the word Wargame and misinterpreting or misunderstanding what it actually is.
The most common misconception about a board wargame is that it is simply a casual, luck-based mainstream game such as the likes of Risk or Monopoly, that cheapens or treats lightly the historical period covered and those who participated in the event and who fought and gave their lives. Conversely, some people hold that wargames are an inaccessible, dry academic simulation meant only for hardcore military personnel or history professors. Many non-wargamers assume that “wargame” simply means moving plastic armies around a world map and rolling dice to conquer territories. But in reality, traditional board wargames, such as hex and counter games, prioritize historical operational mechanics, logistics, supply lines and terrain modeling over casual social dice-rolling. They also do a credible job at attempting to recreate the outcomes of these battles by ensuring that various elements are accurate including terrain features, weather, commanders and the make-up and skill of troops involved. Finally wargames are a serious matter. No one who plays them takes them lightly nor do they not consider the history covered.
So the reason for me writing this post came from something that I experienced last weekend while attending the Gaming the American Revolution Camden 250 Event in Camden, South Carolina. At this event, which was sponsored by GMT Games, about 100 gamers showed up to play games on the American Revolutionary War from GMT Games including titles such as Washington’s War, Liberty or Death, the upcoming announced Common Sense and the various games from the Battles of the American Revolution Series. As a part of the convention, which was held at the Revolutionary War Visitor Center at Camden, there was a 4-hour tour set up that took participants to see the Camden battlefield, located about 8 miles out of the city limits, and the Hobkirk’s Hill battlefield located in Camden. This tour was expertly lead by the South Carolina Battlefield Preservation Trust Executive Director Rick Wise who was very knowledgeable and entertaining to listen to. You could really feel his passion for the American Revolution as well as the role that these battles in South Carolina and the Southern Theater held in the wider war and the eventual surrender of Lord Charles Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown, Virginia.
The Kershaw-Cornwallis House at Camden, South Carolina.
But, when he spoke on a few different occasions he brought up the fact that we were wargamers and that we were gathered to “play” games. This statement is not incorrect as we are all wargamers and were there to play games together. He also said that we needed to understand and keep in mind that there were soldiers who fought, bled and died to win independence and establish the great American nation. I felt like he was really preaching to the choir here with this group as everyone was there for the gaming and the recognition of the history tied to that gaming. Also many attendees were former military and had also served. Finally, I think almost every one in attendance participated not only in his 4-hour guided tour, but also walked the grounds of the Camden Visitors Center to take a look at the redoubt there as well as the Kershaw-Cornwallis House that was used by Lord Charles Cornwallis and Lord Francis Rawdon as an active HQ during the occupation of Camden from 1780-1781. In addition, many attendees came to South Carolina early to visit other battlefields in the area such as Cowpens, King’s Mountain, Waxhaws and Eutaw Springs. I bring this up because of Rick’s tone, and I am not sure that it was valid or necessary in speaking to this crowd, was assuming that as wargamers we were trivializing or taking lightly the gravity of the history involved in the games we were playing. I know that he was not trying to offend or belittle us and our focus but simply wanted to drive home his point of the sacrifices that were made and that we were playing out in a game with dice.
A recreation of a British redoubt found on the Revolutionary War Visitor Center at Camden grounds.
Well, I want to point out a few things about these wargames. They are not trivial but are focused on the actual historical details of the period and the battles involved. Wargames are built upon a few stalwart truths…the people who participated and the terrain upon which they fought and died. These are both hallmarks of every single wargame that I have ever played. The designers take these battles seriously and do hours upon hours of research and investigation to make sure that they have the details correct. For example, with the Orders of Battle or OOB’s, they find the names of each formation, typically named after their commanding officer, and in smaller scale games the names of actual soldiers who were there. These details are listed on the counters and have an impact in the game play itself. But, sometimes the names don’t have an impact and are just added to bring the battle to the view of the players and to hammer home the human element. The designers want players to understand who was involved, how they fit into the larger battle, who their leaders were and even adding in small historical details to make the game grounded in the history. The Battles of the American Revolution Series does this exceptionally well.
A picture of the setup for the Battle of Cowpens from GMT Games, which is the first entry in the Small Battles of the American Revolution Series.
The detail about the makeup of the soldiers involved, as well as their relative strengths and weaknesses, are on full display and are central to us as wargamers gaining insight into the conditions under which they fought, the issues that they would have experienced and the challenges that their commanders would have dealt with in directing their efforts. I like that one of the more interesting parts that is included in this makeup typically is a unit’s morale or their willingness to continue fighting in the face of mounting casualties and fatigue. Numbers are typically assigned for things like morale by designers after reading the histories and taking into account the performance and standing of these troops. More veteran troops typically have higher morale than green or relatively less experienced troops. These factors and attributes are all based on the history and are typically designed as a simulation of the event, or at least as the most realistic and plausible recreation of the event that can be made. And that is the appeal. Understanding the situation from the participants point of view and seeing how it turned out and why. I have played dozens upon dozens of wargames and have always thought about the soldiers and their sacrifice. How did they do what was done? Where did their bravery come from in the face of overwhelming odds? How could they have possibly held up to the better trained and better equipped professional armies of the British? For me, the soldiers are the reason that I play these games. And I assume the same for many of you.
An example of the named counters, based on historical formations, found in the Battles of the American Revolution Series.
I understand why the average person doesn’t understand wargaming and I get that the word “game” is found in what we do. To the average person, the word game is associated with lighter fare such as Risk, Trouble or Sorry, which are games where you can laugh and joke about things and focus on having a good time and experience with your family and friends. But wargames are more than that…they are a look into the past. A look that includes the gory details, the challenges and the difficulties….and they are made as an homage to the past. Just as books are written to commemorate and outline the details of these battles, wargames are made to serve a similar purpose. To teach, to instruct, to challenge and to test the meddle of players to see if they can meet or exceed historical outcomes or even flip the script and turn history upside down with a totally different outcome. And they are made to be enjoyable but in a different way to the games I mentioned earlier. I love playing games with friends, being with them for hours upon hours, getting to know them, better understanding them and better understanding the history. I would deign to say that I even enjoy playing wargames and do have a good time with them. But I always do keep in mind the history and the soldiers and their sacrifice.
What are your thoughts on this topic? Did I miss the mark in my response? Am I being too sensitive? Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I will come up with a few more of these posts to share and I hope to see lots of comments and reaction.
The August 2026 Monthly Debrief Video, which is the 8th episode in Season 6 of this series, saw us discussing American Revolution Wargames. As you may know, I really enjoy the history of the American Revolutionary War. I have read dozens of histories on the subject, with my favorite being Robert Leckie’s George Washington’s War: The Saga of the American Revolution, and it never ceases to amaze me how a group of ragtag rebels were able to best an entire global Empire in open rebellion. The reason for that was the patriots resolve and their ability to run away when outmatched to fight another day when they had a better advantage and not necessarily because they were better armed, or drilled or disciplined. I think that their desire to truly be free was the main difference but that is up for speculation. I love the games on this subject and have played nearly 20 and I was surprised at the number when we had this discussion.
Also, as usual, we covered the games we played in August as well as the games we plan to play in September and had a short discussion of our plans to attend the Gaming the American Revolution Camden 250 Event in Camden, South Carolina sponsored by GMT Games.
We will remind you here that we are fortunate to be continuing our relationship with Noble Knight Games as the sponsor for our Monthly Debrief Video series. In case you don’t know, Noble Knight Games specializes in hard to find games but also carry all the new releases. But what makes them truly unique is that you can find some of the rarest games, long out of print games, hand made games, imported games from overseas, etc. Thanks to them for their sponsorship and we hope that you will consider them first when looking for the games we cover.
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#96: Henry Knox Continental Artillery Commander from Washington’s War from GMT Games
Washington’s War is a war game, make no mistake about that. But, it is virtually impossible to win the game by focusing only on the field of battle. For that to happen, the Patriots need to completely drive the British forces out of the 13 colonies or the British need to wipe the American forces off the map. Both are extremely difficult and I would be surprised if any more than 1 out of 30 games ended in such a way. Rather, the ultimate goal of the game is to have political control of the colonies. If at the end of the game the Patriots control 7 colonies, while holding the British to control of less than 5, they win. If not, the British win. Simple as that. So, you can see that battle is not the main goal but control is. And more importantly political control.
I really like this about the design and feel that the real core of the American Revolution was the groundswell of patriotism and the desire to live free from the shackles of an overseas monarch who cared little for the American way of life. This desire led great men of the time to sacrifice themselves, their livelihood and their families to further the true cause of liberty and build a truly free and democratic nation where individual liberty and freedom was prioritized over anything else. And yes, I realize that this nation was not perfect, not without contradiction but the concept of liberty helped to form a country that would lead to the ultimate freedom of all people.
Washington’s War is a Card Driven Game, and as such, relies on cards to provide to players the actions needed to play the game. The cards contain OPS Points which can be used to drive various actions, including such things as activating leaders, who in turn will then move with forces to attack, and also contain written text in the form of events. These events can be played only by the side they are intended for and if drawn and played by the opposing side, they can only be thrown away while granting a few possible actions, such as placing or removing Political Control markers.
In Washington’s War, the Strategy Card Deck contains several different type of cards of which one is Battle Cards. Battle Cards are special event cards that provide a powerful +2 Die Roll Modifier (DRM) during combat and allow the user to draw a replacement card at the end of the turn. All of the Battle Cards offer a +2 DRM but each of them are tied to a different historical character or event. In this instance, the card’s effects reflect the work of Henry Knox who was a prominent Continental Artillery Commander during the Revolutionary War. There are only 9 total Battle Cards in the 110-card deck with the Patriot side having 5 cards, while the British side only has 4. I also want to point out that when these cards are used, they allow the using player to draw a replacement card at the end of the active player’s turn, keeping your hand size strong and not forcing you to sacrifice a card. And due to the fact that they swing combat odds significantly and also replace themselves with a draw, they are heavily prized and typically are saved in a player’s hand for those critical campaign-deciding clashes.
Henry Knox was an American military officer, politician, bookseller, and a Founding Father of the United States. Knox, born in Boston, became a senior general of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, serving as chief of artillery in all of George Washington’s campaigns. Following the war, he oversaw the War Department under the Articles of Confederation from 1785 to 1789. Washington appointed him the nation’s first Secretary of War, a position which he held from 1789 to 1794. He is well known today as the eponym of Fort Knox in Kentucky.
During the siege of Boston, the idea arose that cannon recently captured at the fall of forts Ticonderoga and Crown Point in upstate New York could have a decisive impact on its outcome. Knox is generally credited with suggesting the prospect to Washington, who placed him in charge of an expedition to retrieve them even though Knox’s commission as an officer had not yet arrived. Reaching Ticonderoga on December 5, 1775, Knox commenced what came to be known as the “noble train of artillery”, hauling 60 tons of cannon and other armaments by horse-drawn and ox-drawn sleds across some 300 miles of ice-covered rivers and snow-draped Berkshire Mountains to the Boston siege camps.
The region was lightly populated and Knox had to overcome difficulties hiring personnel and draft animals. On several occasions, cannon crashed through the ice on river crossings, but the detail’s men were always able to recover them. In the end, what Knox had expected to take just two weeks actually took more than six, and he was finally able to report the arrival of the weapons train to Washington on January 27, 1776. Historian Victor Brooks writes that this was “one of the most stupendous feats of logistics” of the entire war, and Knox’s effort is commemorated by a series of plaques marking the Henry Knox Trail in New York and Massachusetts.
The cannon were immediately deployed to fortify the Dorchester Heights recently taken by Washington. The battery’s position over Boston harbor led the British to evacuate Boston for Halifax, Nova Scotia. With the siege ended, Knox undertook the improvement of defenses in Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York in anticipation of a possible British assault. In New York he became friends with Alexander Hamilton, commander of the local artillery. He also established a close friendship with Massachusetts general Benjamin Lincoln.
A team of oxen hauls captured artillery toward Boston as part of the 1775-76 “Noble train of artillery”.
Here is a link to our full video review of the game:
Day 4 was our site visiting day and we planned out an all day trip that would take us to 4 different American Revolution battlefield sites including Waxhaws (Buford’s Massacre), King’s Mountain, Cowpens and Musgrove Mill.
But first we visited the Battle of Waxhaws also known as Buford’s Massacre in Lancaster, South Carolina. The Battle of Waxhaws took place on May 29, 1780. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton overtook Colonel Abraham Buford’s regiment of 350 Virginian Continental troopsas they were attempting to relieve Charleston. The battle was short lived and saw over 113 Patriot soldiers killed in a brief but brutal engagement after a breakdown in surrender communications as the Patriot soldiers were attempting to give up under a white flag and the British bayoneted and sabred many of them earning Tarleton the infamous nickname “Bloody Ban”.
The site was very clean and well done with lots of landscaping and hardscape features and they had a sign board showing the timeline of improvements over time. The central ficus is the mass grave of the men who were killed there.
I very much enjoyed the various interpretive signage and especially those showing the battle lines and disposition of troops as it helps me to place the event on the site and better understand how it unfolded.
The mass grave memorial was very well done and has been improved over the years to its present day condition. The mass grave is marked by a large 10-foot tall white marble obelisk marker originally erected in 1860 and later replaced in 1955.
We then made our way to King’s Mountain and very much enjoyed this site which commemorates a Patriot victory over the British on October 7, 1780. The battle was fought on a very rocky ridge in western South Carolina, near the North Carolina border.Around 900 Patriot frontier militiamen known as the “Overmountain Men” were against an equivalent force of Loyalist militia led by British Major Patrick Ferguson.The battle lasted only65 minutes.
The Patriot forces consisted of frontier militia from the Carolinas, Virginia and Georgia who had tracked Ferguson’s Loyalist force to their camp on the protected high ground. The Patriots used their hunting skills and knowledge of the terrain to surround the hill and while moving up the rocky slope, Patriot riflemen picked off the exposed Loyalists.
A painting hanging in the visitor center of the battle.
The Patriots had fewer than 100 casualties (around 28 milled and 90 wounded)while the Loyalists incurred over 1,000 total casualties, including roughly 240 killed or wounded and more than 600 captured.
The Loyalist leader Major Ferguson was shot and killed after trying to lead a desperate charge and the remaining Loyalist forces quickly surrendered.
A monument to Major Ferguson.
This one took me by surprise as the Loyalists had the high ground and superior positioning but were unable to overcome the Patriots. Just very interesting! The defeat halted the British invasion of North Carolina and forced General Charles Cornwallis to retreat from his forward positions.
Looking down from the ridge you can see the brutally steep and difficult terrain the Patriots maneuvered across.
We then made it over to Cowpens which was the battlefield that I was most interested in seeing especially since we just had played the game and were somewhat familiar with the situation.
The Battle of Cowpens occurred on January 17, 1781 near the town of Cowpens, South Carolina. A Patriot army of nearly 2,000 regulars and militia under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan defeated a force of about 1,000 British and Loyalist troops commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Banastre Tarleton and was the worst defeat suffered by the British in North America during the conflict following the 1777 Saratoga campaign.
After playing Small BoAR Cowpens, I was anxious to see the battlefield and the terrain to see how it compared. The setup of the units was spot on to what was shown at the site and I was guard to see that.
There were 3 lines of Patriot forces including skirmishes at the front, maim Continentals in the center and reserve cavalry in the back.
Then there was the actual terrain with the barren pines being somewhat present but most importantly the elevation change that would have obscured the Patriot trap.
There also was the cane break terrain that was found at the edges of the battlefield and that was pretty cool to see as it is very thick and darned near impassable.
Cane break at the edges of the battlefield.
A very enjoyable experience and we were able to walk the entire site in about an hour.
The final site we visited was the small battle at Musgrove Mill. Here Patriot forces outmaneuvered a larger Loyalist force and setup an ambush to even the odds. On the morning of August 19, 1780 mounted Patriots arrived near Musgrove Mill, the key to the local grain supply and the site of a Tory outpost. The Patriot force consisted of Georgians under Colonel Elijah Clarke, South Carolinians under Colonel James Williams and a group of “Over Mountain Men” from present-day Tennessee commanded by Colonel Isaac Shelby.
The Patriots revealed their presence when several of their scouts clashed with a Loyalist patrol. Two Rebels were wounded in the brief clash. Falling back, the Patriots encountered a friendly farmer who informed them that, contrary to their initial intelligence, the Tory garrison had been reinforced and now consisted of 500 men.
Outnumbered, and having lost the element of surprise, the Patriots formed up on a ridge top overlooking the road to Musgrove Mill and threw up a make-shift breastwork. A small detachment under the command of Captain Shadrach Inman was dispatched to lure the enemy into an ambush.
We walked the trail that followed the action ending in what was called an Indian hill where the Patriots drew in the Loyalists and waited to fire until they were within 30 yards to devastating effect. They could wait because of the elevation of the hill and the thick trees they were hiding behind.
Although the battle only lasted for an hour, the Loyalists suffered heavy casualties while the Patriots’ losses were fairly light. Before they could follow up on their success, however, the Patriot commanders learned of Horatio Gates’s defeat at Camdenand decided to disperse their forces. The Battle of Musgrove Mill signaled that resistance to British rule had not been snuffed out.
That was it. We did a ton of stuff in just 4 days including playing 4 games, visiting a total of 6 battlefields, shooting 4 videos and enjoying our time with other wargamers. It was a great convention and my thanks go out to all those that made this possible including Mark Miklos, Gene Billingsley and GMT Games as well as the good folks of the Camden Visitor Center and the South Carolina Battlefield Preservation Trust.
What a great time we have had at this convention! 2 fulls day of gaming in a fantastic historical setting here in Camden, South Carolina. But it hasn’t just been gaming though. Today started with a 3+ hour tour of the Camden battlefield and a demonstration at the Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill as well.
Rick Wise who is the Executive Director of the South Carolina Battlefield Preservation Trust gave us a 90 minute tour and discussion on the battle fought at Camden on August 16, 1780. The Patriots led by Horatio Gates and Baron DeKalb fielded about 4,000 muskets versus around 2,200 British soldiers led by Lord Charles Cornwallis and Lord Rowdon. The battle resulted in a major British victory with Cornwallis’ force suffering just over 300 casualties while Gates’ suffered almost 2,000.
Rick had a British Brown Bess musket and a French Charleville musket used by the Patriots that we were able to see fitted with bayonets and wielded by 2 lucky volunteers. These would have been truly terrifying to stand against and when wielded by trained soldiers were deadly weapons.
He also shared with us that archaeologists discovered the skeletal remains of 14 soldiers at the battlefield alongside period artifacts like musket balls and buttons.
Forensic and artifact analysis identified 12 Continental soldiers from Maryland and Delaware, one North Carolina Loyalist militia member (who was also Native American), and one British soldier from the 71st Regiment of Foot (Fraser’s Highlanders). They also were able to reveal that some of the Continental soldiers were teenagers, including two young men aged 16 to 19. It was truly sobering to see their unmarked grave and to find out that several were so young. Honor and bravery as well as the desire for freedom knows no age and these soldiers truly gave their lives for a cause they believed in.
There also was a nice monument to the sacrifice of de Kalb who commanded the American right wing during the engagement leading the premier units of the Delawareans and Marylanders. When the left and center of the American line disintegrated, de Kalb’s force had to beat a retreat before becoming completely surrounded. During this juncture of the fighting, the Baron’s horse was shot out from under him and he was thrown to the ground. Before he could gain his feet, he was hit with three musket balls and bayoneted multiple times by approaching British soldiers. The wounds would prove to be mortal.
Captured shortly thereafter by the British, the wounded general was picked up by General Lord Charles Cornwallis on his way to the rear. The British general, upon seeing de Kalb said the following: “I am sorry, sir, to see you, not sorry that you are vanquished, but sorry to see you so badly wounded.” Showing respect to the Baron though, Cornwallis reportedly, oversaw the dressing of the German’s wounds by his own surgeons. de Kalb would die 3 days later of his wounds.
We then made our way to the site of the Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill and were instructed by a US Army artillery officer on the use of Continental cannon. I was lucky to be chosen to act as the rammer or spongeman and very much enjoyed the activity where we trained to load and fire the cannon in under 15 seconds.
Here is a video of the firing of a musket but you will have to wait for the cannon video to come out on the YouTube Channel.
Such a great experience and I was very glad we took the time to participate in the tour. We then returned to the gaming area and setup BoAR Newtown from GMT Games.
I have wanted to play this for a while now as it is a unique and specialized entry to the BoAR Series. Newtown feels quite different from standard BoAR titles mainly because it replaces traditional line-infantry tactics with combat rules for the Indians that are very different.
The Movement and Activation System simulates the decentralized, individual nature of Indian warfare, where small war parties act on their own initiative rather than rigid command structures which is represented with a chit pull mechanic. In the chit pull cup are each of the Indian formations along with a single combat chit. When formations are pulled they can move and if the combat chit is pulled only those formations that have already moved and are adjacent to Patriot units may then attack. Formations pulled after this bit can move but cannot fight. This was very chaotic and created some task challenges for Alexander.
The Indians are lined up behind fortifications at the start of the game and will await the approaching Patriot troops from the protection of these improvements.
The game also includes Opportunity cards that adds a layer of hand management and tactical unpredictabilityas the cards act as one-off events or provide bonuses. The game also includes custom rules for Indian honor, ferocity, evasion and their specific resolve when facing artillery fire and have a chance to break. Just a very interesting game and I am glad that we played it.
To end the evening we got the chance to sit down with designer Bruno Sinigaglio and play his new game called Small BoAR The Battle of Cowpens.
The aim of the Small BoAR design concept is to include small and critical battles that otherwise do not fit the scale of the Battles of the American Revolution (BoAR) system designed by Mark Miklos. This new system was designed by Bruno Sinigaglio working closely with Mark Miklos to preserve the continuity and popularity of the original system. It feels very familiar to the original but takes the scale in a new direction. From 25 yard hexes vs 200 yards in BoAR, the scale change gives players the chance to try new tactics with rifle and musket fire as these are now up to 8 hexes range for rifles and 3 hexes for muskets while artillery is now up to 24 hexes.
The game also highlights the importance of cavalry and their tactics as their proper use on the battlefield can lead to devastating results.
We had a great time with this one and while we only played 5 full turns there is more to explore and we can’t wait to get our hands on a copy. We have been told it should be releasing in mid to late October.
That was it for today and we are now finished with the gaming portion of the trip. Tomorrow we are going to leave early and travel to 3 battlefields in the area on our way to Columbia and the airport in Buford’s Massacre in the Waxhaws, King’s Mountain and Cowpens.
Day 2 dawned early with a morning gathering at the Camden Revolutionary War Visitor Center to receive instruction on the days events and schedule. As you can see in the picture below, there were about 50 gamers who showed up early to get a good start on the gaming.
We entered the gaming hall and I was very surprised as it was very nice and cozy and felt roomy with lots of tables setup to choose from. We chose a corner in the back and began setting up to play Battles of the American Revolution Oriskany from the American Revolution Tri-Pack #2 from GMT Games.
There were a lot of different games being played including BoAR, Washington’s War, Liberty or Death and Common Sense as well as a BoAR Eutaw Springs tournament going on.
Bill Simoni and designer Trevor Bender playing in the Eutaw Springs tournament.
A demo of the upcoming Common Sense by designer Sam London.
Washington’s War.
Liberty or Death.
We decided to play the historical scenario for Oriskany which is a 6-turn game focusing on the August 6, 1777 ambush as General Nicholas Herkimer’s relief column is trying to make their way up the Military Road to Fort Stanwix.
The game starts with the British player having to set up their units in an ambush that has to be connecting contiguous units adjacent to the Patriots and they get an Ambush marker placed on them which will grant a 1 column shift to their attack if they can successfully make the ambush roll.
Alexander didn’t roll well so several of his units were detected and lost their element of surprise. You can see that 3 of his units lost their Ambush markers and this would prove to be a boon to the Patriots.
We spent the next 3-4 turns beating ourselves as our planned attacks were not working well and we basically rolled poorly and did damage to ourselves. Very odd but it was fun. But the best part of the system is the Tactics cards that create a bluff type of mind game.
The Tactics cards options are split into tiers with the 4 basic tactics always eligible to be chosen whereas advanced maneuvers require a commanding leader present and sometimes specific adjacent vacant hexes to execute. Common tactical choices include attacking in echelon, turning flanks, frontal assaults or attempting to withdraw. I very much enjoy this aspect because it adds a psychological tension that castes players to anticipate and bluff. Just a really neat addition to the game.
In the end, Alexander’s British and Indian allies ended up killing 2 of my leaders and also reduced 3 of my units and I was unable to advance the relief column to the point needed. He won the scenario with 4 VP to my zero. We had fun and I am glad we had a chance to play this one.
A leaderless rabble was defeated.
We then got in a game of Liberty or Death which is my 2nd favorite volume in the COIN Series.
I played as the Indians and Alexander took the French. I worked on building Villages and then started Plundering the Patriots of their resources. Meanwhile the French did a great job of getting into the war early by the end of 1777 and then worked well with the Patriots to attack the British in New York and New York City driving them out of both. This put a great deal of pressure on the Indians as I had to continually Raid into these areas trying to keep their level of Opposition low.
In the end, Alexander’s French earned victory at the end of 1779 (5th deck) with the finals scores being French -5, Indians (Grant) -10, Patriots (Shane) -10 and British (Mark) -15.
I saw something I have not seen before as my Indians got skipped multiple times on my turns due to Brilliant Stroke cards, Winter Quarters and some inopportune passing. Just weird that I lost 3-4 turns and also got into a cycle of only getting Limited Commands due to the eligibility on cards.
We next took a few minutes to walk around the grounds at the Camden site. My favorite part was the redoubt.
The British redoubt.
I was very interested in the ditch in front of the redoubt wall and its formidable defense as sharpened wooden stakes called fraises are placed horizontally projecting straight out from the earthen parapet. Their primary purpose was to prevent attacking infantry from climbing up the exterior wall.
We had a long discussion about how effective these would have been as infantry would have to run this gauntlet to get at the defenders all the while taking rifle fire and cannon fire. Just diabolical really.
Once inside there are several protected covered areas for storage of arms and supplies as well as to offer some additional protection to defenders.
Just a really cool experience being able to get inside this fortification and experience the history.
We ended the night with a group dinner at a local brewery. We sat with our friend Bill Simoni and Mike from My Own Worst Enemy.
Tomorrow we are taking part in a 3+ hour guided tour of the Camden battlefield as well as nearby Hobkirk’s Hill. We are then going to play a few games including BoAR Newtown and possibly the new Small BoAR Cowpens.
What a long day! Made up mostly of travel but I’m exhausted. We left my house this morning at 8:30am via an Uber to the airport where we made it through security and to our gate for a 10:15am flight from Indianapolis to Chicago where we transferred over with a 2-hour layover to a 1:30pm flight to Columbia, South Carolina.
We landed in Columbia at 4:30pm, grabbed our luggage and picked up our rental car to make the 35 minute drive to Camden, South Carolina on I-20.
We checked into the hotel and made our way over to the Camden Revolutionary War Visitor Center for the opening social event where we gathered with about 60 fellow wargamers who have all made the effort to travel here to play games over their weekend and also to tour the historic sites in and around Camden. If you didn’t know, Camden was pivotal to the story of the Southern Campaign during the American Revolutionary War with two battles fought within 6 miles of each other, bracketing the British occupation of the town. The Battle of Camden in 1780 was a decisive British victory that crushed the American Southern Army and brought disgrace to American General Horatio Gates. The Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill in 1781 was a British tactical victory that proved to be a strategic defeat.
Lord Charles Cornwallis’ Headquarters in Camden during the British occupation.
The British redoubt at Camden that has been restored.
We were able to catch up with lots of viewers of our videos and friends we have known for a long time as well as several designers, including Sam London and Justin Fassino. I also got a chance to chat with Gene Billingsley from GMT Games for about 30 minutes on a number of topics including gaming, publishing games, life and the event. I want to say that I took this opportunity to beg Gene to see about making a Deluxe Edition of Here I Stand as they have done with other games such as Combat Commander and For the People with new updated art, components and boards. He was not spilling any beans on the subject and wouldn’t give me an indication if it was either in the works or planned fur the future. Bummer but I made my pitch.
We then had a fantastic introduction on the event and the commemoration of America’s 250th Anniversary from Battles of the American Revolution Series designer Mark Miklos and Gene Billingsley. There were a lot of very touching and patriotic words spoken by these 2 and I truly felt great pride in our nation and the experiment that created it and has kept us strong these past 250 years.
We then were treated to a live artillery firing by local volunteers of a period 1-pounder and it was quite impressive. When it was fired, it was past sunset and quite dark and the explosion was quite impressive and very loud.
Here are 2 videos we took of the firing with one being in real speed and the other in slow motion.
That was our evening and I’m very excited for tomorrow as there is an opening ceremony at 8:30am followed by open gaming. Alexander and I will be playing Oriskany, which is a bonus game included in Newtown from the American Revolution Tri-Pack #2, followed by a 4-player game of Liberty or Death. The evening will conclude with a group dinner.
If you have been following our blog for a while now, you know of my affinity for the history of the American Revolutionary War. I am a proud American, believe deeply in the principles of our land and the Constitution that governs it and am grateful to God every single day that our country was successful in our fight for its freedom in order to create a better society and to assist all peoples with protecting their “unalienable rights” endowed by a Creator, which include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I enjoy playing wargames on the American Revolutionary War and very much enjoy learning about the history and its key battles. There are many out there that feel the same as I do and they have designed lots of these type of games and with 2026 being our 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, there are events that are planned to celebrate it.
One of which is an event put on by GMT Games and Mark Miklos called Gaming the American Revolution – Camden 250 being held in Camden, South Carolina September 24-27th. The event includes 3 days of gaming centered on American Revolutionary Wargames produced and published by GMT Games but also includes several events, gatherings and historic tours of the Camden Battlefield.
We are attending and at the time of the posting of this are already on a flight on our way to Columbia, South Carolina via a short stop in Chicago, Illinois. We are very much looking forward to the event and have plans to play at least 2 games from the Battles of the American Revolution Tri-Pack II including Newtown and Oriskany, as well as any other opportunity that presents itself. We also are going to participate in the various tours of the Camden Revolutionary War Visitor Center and nearby battlefield and also plan to drive to a few others sites on our way home to the airport namely Waxhaws and Cowpens.
At the end of each day, I will be putting together a short summary of what we did that day at the convention. I would like to keep this to just a few paragraphs with several pictures to give you an idea of the games we played that day, people we talked with and other activities we participated in. We will still work on doing multiple videos as well that will be released on the YouTube Channel over the next few months but this written coverage will supplement the videos. This summary will most likely not be posted until near midnight EST each night so you might be checking it out the next morning which is fine.
Finally, if you are at the event please feel free to find us and say hello. I believe that we are very friendly and accessible and love to make connections with our fans and followers. In fact, we have TPA buttons and stickers to give away so just ask. We also would like to take a picture with you so we can document it in our writings.
Please check back each day for a summary of the days exploits. Thanks for following along.
Because this is a wargaming blog, I am going to share below some of our content we have made regarding AmRev War games for your review:
Battles of the American Revolution Tri-Pack II: Monmouth, Germantown and Newtown is the second compilation of earlier releases from GMT Games’ Battles of the American Revolution Series. These are tactical level battles at the regimental level with a map scale of approximately 200 yd/hex.
Additions to the original releases include:
maps are hard-mounted
packaged in a GMT “deep box”, which is a 3″ box
rules and player aids printed in color
all replacement counters that have been issued since the games’ original releases
a new one page matrix-style play aid to assist the First Nations player in Newtown
Joel Toppen’s Solitaire Tactics Card play aid
a significantly upgraded Germantown rulebook addressing errata and ambiguities
In November 2024, while attending the SDHistCon, we sat down with designer Sam London to play his upcoming game called Common Sense (it was originally called Absolved from All Allegiance), which was announced on GMT Games P500 last year. The game is an American Revolutionary War Strategic Level game that uses trick taking and is a struggle over the Will to Fight Track that measures the level of commitment by both sides to the fight. We recently reached out to Sam to get some more details to share about the design and he was very glad to oblige our request.
*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: Sam welcome back to the blog. How are your other announced game projects coming along?
Sam: Thanks for having me back! Things are going well. I am hands off on Firefight Tactical at this point. All of the content art is complete and we are just working on things like rulebook layouts. I am very much looking forward to getting it out the door and into people’s hands. Microverse has most of the art complete. I am doing a few tweaks to the bot still to get it to a point I am happy with it, but in truth it is not tracking far behind Firefight Tactical. They both have been wonderful experiences from a development and production stand point and I cannot speak highly enough of the various teams I have worked with at GMT on these games.
Grant: How have you changed as a designer over the past few years?
Sam: This is an awesome question and I am grateful to be asked it as it forced me to do some introspection. To explain I will have to make some references to film making. As I have stated previously I have been designing games for a couple of decades at this point and only started trying to get my designs out there after Covid. The truth is that while this gave me lots of opportunities to refine my design chops, it was ultimately just me learning in a bubble. Coming into the hobby as a designer rather than a gamer, I fancied myself as a sort of auteur designer. For those not familiar with the term in the context of film making, this is an approach to creative endeavor where everything is made to conform precisely to one person’s specific vision. After getting to work with so many fantastic people, decidedly outside of my bubble, I have taken a bit of a 180. While I still own the ultimate vision, I now recognize that the odds that I understand the optimal route to get to that destination are unlikely, and that pretending I do will often result in an inferior game. This isn’t to say that I am going to incorporate every bit of feedback I receive into my designs. It does mean that I am more able to recognize weaknesses in my designs as conceived and solicit feedback from others to get around my blind spots.
Grant: What specific lessons have you learned about design?
Sam: The big one would be about systems pruning. Most people, myself included, understand academically that design complexity for complexity’s sake is not good. Putting that principle into practice, especially retroactively, is far more challenging. Every mechanism in the game has to serve the player’s enjoyment without making the cost of entry too daunting. This can often mean cutting mechanisms that I am particularly passionate about, but for which I am the sole audience (or close to it). This is especially difficult for me because I consider myself a systems designer, and I virtually always approach the mechanics of a design first.
Grant: What is your newest project Common Sense about?
Sam: Common Sense: An American Revolution, 1775-1783 is a card driven strategic level wargame covering the American Revolution. It attempts to offer a comprehensive view of the conflict, all the way from the battlefield to the halls of the Continental Congress and British Parliament.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
Sam: I always knew I would want to do an American Revolution game. The problem was that I needed a system that would fit my thesis of the conflict. A few years back I was working on a Barbarossa game and every step of the way I was thinking I would rather do that system in the American Revolution. The more passionate I became about that, the more I started to flesh out the system in ways that didn’t make sense for Barbarossa. Eventually that game ended up in the trash bin and Common Sense got my attention instead. I think the American Revolution is such a fascinating subject because it’s a real David and Goliath story. I of course am keenly aware that in reality it was more of David vs Goliath while Goliath is arm wrestling another giant while also trying to solve a Rubik’s cube, but there is still a lot of inherent heroic optimism to that history. Also, everyone loves a good underdog story.
Grant: What is your design goal with the game?
Sam: My design goal for the system was to see how much personality I could give to the belligerents without making their asymmetries require too much rules overhead. We have all played asymmetrical games where you feel like after you read your rulebook you need to read the other player’s rulebook to have a comprehensive understanding of the game. Here, while there are some mechanisms that are specific to each side, the asymmetry is more in terms of each player’s strategic concerns rather than their tools to execute upon them. All of these relate back to this unifying concept of “resolve” which is an abstraction that allows us to relate the varying strategic concerns into a single mechanism.
Grant: How did you focus on creating asymmetry on each side? What are some basic examples of these differences?
Sam: As noted above, I viewed each side in terms of what was unique about their concerns and what was unique about their tools to address them. For the British as an example, they are tremendously constrained by supply. It isn’t just a supply line (though it is that too), it’s a currency they spend to move and battle with units. Obviously historically supply was a concern for the Colonials as well, but it did not hamstring them to the same degree, so the Colonials don’t have to worry about it at all. What’s more, this opens up strategic opportunities for the Colonial player to attack the British in other areas to force the British player to split their limited resources. An example for the Colonial player is Attrition Combat. Each time the Colonials battle in a space they control on their turn, they have the option to resolve Attrition Combat, in which they cede control of that space to the British but as a result can resolve the battle without risking return fire. At the beginning of the game this must be used strategically and sparingly, but as certain key personalities in the Colonial Deck, from George Washington to Francis Marion enter play it becomes far more powerful.
Grant: How does the game use trick taking? Why was this a good choice for your vision of the game?
Sam: I am actually trying to get away from that term, as I think it causes people to think that Common Sense is a lighter game than it is. It invokes pithy card games rather than sweeping strategic affairs played out on a map. The final rulebook will likely make no reference to standard trick taking terms. I chose it as a core mechanism though for a variety of reasons. One I will cover in a future question, but the other reason is because I became very interested in the question of card balance. If I have a card driven game with a variety of card effects, and I want them to vary in their power, they have to be balanced in some way. The most common way this is handled in game design is to make them have a proportionate cost to play using some in-game currency. I was more interested in making the powerful cards more difficult to play. In fact, I wanted to take a step beyond that and say that not only are they more difficult to play, but they are never guaranteed. This gave me a simple way to inject far more personality into the cards and make some have a tangible weight to them when they manage to enter play. “Ha ha, I play King George. You’re in trouble now.” Trick taking was a natural fit for this as the rules overhead for it is comparatively light and the cards come with their own intrinsic value based on the ease with which they can be used to win tricks.
Grant: What is the makeup of the cards? Can you share a few examples with us and explain their use?
Sam: Each year players will begin their turn with a ten card hand. They can perform a strategic mulligan of up to 5 cards each year. This is not in case a player got a “bad hand” but rather so they can try to postpone getting cards that do not fit their strategic objectives at the start of the year. The year is then played out over a series of ten “clashes” in which the initiative player plays a card face up and then the other player does the same. The initiative player’s card sets the suit for the clash and the non-initiative player must follow the suit of that played card if able. Then the player who played the card with the higher initiative value (ties going to the non-initiative player) resolves their card.
In this example (all placeholder art at this point in the game’s development by the way), the Colonial player has initiative and plays the Artemis Ward card into the clash who is a 6 value of the Battle suit. The British player then plays Battle of Quebec into the clash which is a 7 value of the Battle suit. Battle of Quebec then resolves.
The British player immediately gains a supply (the orange wagon in the upper right corner). This is a special bonus effect present on some cards. The equivalent effect for the Colonials is to go up on the Continental Congress Track. They now have the option to cancel the resolution of the card to perform any one of their available actions. If they choose to continue to resolve the card they resolve its event first. Battle of Quebec’s event is of the type “special action,” which offers additional effects to the action on the card. In this case, if the Battle action is used to resolve a battle north of the Winter Line, the Colonial player must reroll all their successful hit dice once. The last piece is the yellow star under the Battle suit icon which indicates Battle has “advantage” over the Special suit. This means that if the non-initiative player does not have a card of the clash’s suit to play into the clash, any Battle card will always beat a Special card.
Grant: What different suits are included? What use does each have for players?
Sam: There are three common suits which are universals and one special suit which is player specific. The three common suits are March, Battle, and Recruit. March is used to move armies about the board, Battle is used to fight, and Recruit is used to get more units to fight with. There are asymmetries in how these resolve but the goals of their use are the same, which is why they are considered the common suits.
Grant: What is different about the Special Suit? How does it benefit players?
Sam: The Special suit is different for a couple of reasons. First all of the actions contained in the Special suit cards are unique to that player. The Colonial player can train their militia units into the Continental Army and negotiate with the French, eventually bringing in and performing actions with French pieces once they enter the conflict. The British player can recruit, move, fight, and raid with Native units and move and battle with the British navy. A lot of the flavor of the two sides are contained in the Special suit. The other thing that is different about the suit is that the Special suit allows you to resolve any combination of these actions. For example a Battle x 3 card allows you to resolve up to three Battle actions. A Colonial Special x 3 on the other hand will allow them to perform a mix of any 3 train and French actions which offers flexibility.
Grant: What is the purpose of the Resolve Track?
Sam: I mentioned the Resolve Track earlier when I was describing how most of the asymmetrical concerns of the players coalesce into a singular concept. The Resolve Track serves three purposes. Firstly, it is the game clock. While the game can end in the event that you completely resolve the year 1783, it will more commonly end when the British and Colonial Resolve markers cross. Each player’s Resolve marker starts on opposite ends of the track and moves towards the other end as they lose resolve. Once they cross, the year is completed and final scoring occurs.
Grant: How do players manipulate this track? What benefits or detriments does it provide to players?
Sam: This is where the other functions of the Resolve Track come in. The second purpose is that many of the points for determining final score and victory come from the Resolve Track. Finally, resolve has a tremendous impact on both sides’ ability to recruit new units, the Colonials in particular. This is another demonstration of the game’s asymmetries actually, as the Colonials are far more impacted by resolve loss both from a scoring perspective and a recruitment perspective than the British. In regards to how the track is manipulated, common track manipulations only cause a loss of resolve. There are several ways resolve is regained, but they are all due to specific card effects. The British primarily lose resolve by losing British Regulars in battle and by being overcommitted to the American conflict at the expense of their other global conflicts. They can also lose resolve by overusing Hessian mercenaries, who are good and reliable but cost money that parliament is loath to spend. The Colonials on the other hand will lose resolve mostly due to the British seizing control of colonies, Winter Attrition, and failure of the Continental Congress to offer a believable alternative as a governing power to the crown.
Grant: What is dynamic about the initiative system?
Sam: I said I would come back to this when I was describing why I went with trick taking as a core mechanism. Essentially, you are the active (initiative) player for as long as you continue to win subsequent clashes. For the duration the other player is what I would consider a “reactive” player. They still have choices to make of course, for example which card to play into clashes, whether to resolve combat as a siege or not in fortified spaces, how much supply to commit to a protracted battle, etc. The point however is that while by sheer odds you are guaranteed to eventually get your turns in, the duration of the runs of turns is strongly connected to the skill of the player and their familiarity with the game. This is very much a game where a player will become far better after repeated plays. The other cool thing about this is that the events on cards require skill and forethought to combo them together. You may have the thought that if cards A, B, and C resolve in order you will have all but won the game, only to lose the clash for card C and have to pivot. This dynamism does a lot to keep the game fresh and challenging rather than thinking “I have cards A, B, and C so I already know how I will play this out.”
Grant: What different unit types does each player have access to? How does each type benefit them?
Sam: Again pursuing asymmetry I wanted to give each unit type its own character. Each unit has a potency and a resilience but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Militia are able to pop up virtually anywhere and are able fire first in battles where they are the aggressor, but they are poorly trained and can’t leave where they are recruited unless they are picked up by an army. British navies can contribute to naval sieges and amphibious assaults while they are also required end points for British supply lines. French regulars are able to operate as a distinct force while also being able to launch coordinated actions with the Continental Army, offering them incredible command flexibility. British Field Artillery is powerful, but is unable to retreat quickly when the battle is lost, meaning it will be commandeered by the Colonials (and may exchange hands several times over the course of the war). There are also Continental Army, Native Warband, Hessian Mercenary, French Navy, Tory Loyalist, Colonial Artillery, and British Ranger units. Each has its own complement of traits to figure out how to employ them optimally.
Grant: How does combat work in the design?
Sam: As I have alluded to, there are a variety of special combat resolutions possible like Attrition Combat, Sieges, Naval Bombardment, Raids, and Surprise Attacks. I will just be describing the standard battle procedure here though. Each unit has a number of dice they grant during battles. The British player will have to pay a supply for each unit they want to activate to gain dice this way. Players then roll all their dice simultaneously. Dice come in three flavors, red, white, and blue (see what I did there?). Red dice hit on 3 or better, blue on 4 or better, and white on 5 or better. No matter the die color, a 6 counts as 2 hits. The other player then takes as many dice as they have incoming hits (at this point color doesn’t matter) and rolls them. For each 6 they roll, they discard the lowest die among their rolled dice. They then go from their lowest rolled die to their highest, assigning dice to their units if possible. Each unit has a limited range of dice values they can be assigned which represents their morale. For example, the British and French Regulars are a professional army and so they can only be assigned 1s and 2’s. The Colonial Militia and Tory Loyalists on the other hand can be assigned anything from a 1 to a 4. After all dice have been assigned or there are no more rolled dice that can be assigned to any units legally, all units with a die assigned to them are eliminated. Then, if the resolving card grants additional Battle actions, the initiative player can choose to either resolve another round of battle in this space, or not, potentially beginning to resolve another battle in a different space. If no further battle rounds will occur in the current space, the total number of casualties is compared. If one side took fewer casualties and did not control the space, they gain control of the space. Then, if the side that took more casualties lost at least as many units as half the size of their army (stack), they are forced to retreat from the space.
Grant: What is the British Commitment Check? How does it work?
Sam: The British player uniquely tracks the number of clashes they win each year on their own “British Perception” Track. At the end of the year, they add their current level on this track to the number of British Regular and Navy units outside of the American Colonies available to fight the French and the Spanish. If this total is less than 10, they lose 1 level of resolve for each point of shortfall. This means that if they have run the table the entire year, they are free to overcommit to the colonies, thematically because the optics are good back home. If however they have a rough year, they may have to hold some forces back to avoid the war being cut short by Parliament because opinions have turned against it.
Grant: What is the Continental Congress Level? How does it work?
Sam: On average, every card in the Colonial deck is one initiative value lower than every card in the British deck. However, every card in the Recruit suit grants the Colonial players levels on the Continental Congress Track. Levels can be spent from the track as cards are played to increase the initiative value of the played card. The problem is that at the end of the year, the Colonial player is expected to have an ever increasing level on the Continental Congress track or they will lose resolve equal to the shortfall. This obligation is an even bigger potential headache for the Colonial player as the Continental Congress isn’t just a track on the board, it’s also a piece on the map. If the Continental Congress is forced to relocate (retreat) because their current space falls into British control, the Continental Congress levels reset to 0. Done later in the war this can be devastating to the Colonial player. Even worse, if the Continental Congress would have to retreat, but it has no valid place to do so since it is surrounded by British Controlled spaces, the Congress surrenders and the Colonial player loses the game outright with no points counted.
Grant: I have seen where you describe the game as a sandbox. What does this mean and how does it benefit the design?
Sam: I think this can best be demonstrated by the card I showed earlier, Battle of Quebec. Now of course, the Battle of Quebec occurred when Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold attempted to siege Quebec City on December 31, 1775. The Colonials suffered heavy losses and were soundly defeated by the elements as well as the British. Nowhere in that card does it specify that the battle needs to occur on a specific date, or at a specific location, just that it must be north of the Winter Line for the event to have an effect. There have been plenty of times in playtests where the card has been resolved in 1775 in Canada, but also many times where it hasn’t. This approach enables me to inject historicity into the game without shackling the player to recreate historical decisions. I think many historical gamers want experiences where they can recreate history, but they are not obligated to do so. Roughly paraphrasing what Gene Billingsley said about the game, “all the events are there, all the major players, and the outcomes, even though potentially very different from history, are entirely conceivable.” Put differently, it’s like the game hands you a toy box filled with American Revolution action figures to play with as you will. There will of course be some players who will miss some rigidity holding them to a more strictly historical course. However, I think this sandbox approach offers an opportunity to sink your teeth into the history and better appreciate the moving parts by seeing the different ways they could have fit together.
Grant: What are some general strategies for both sides?
Sam: From a general strategy perspective things are very historical. The British want a quick war. The fastest way to do this is to take the more valuable northern colonies which will tank the Colonial resolve and secure most of the significant strategic locations. By doing this they can force the Continental Army to suffer brutal winters away from the cities and put enough pressure on the Continental Congress that their resolve rapidly drains and they are forced to surrender. The Colonials want the opposite. They just want to hold out long enough using delaying tactics to organize a proper army, get the French into the war, and retake whatever key fortified locations they ceded to the British in the early war so they can force the British to the bargaining table.
Grant: What is the layout of the board?
Sam: Again, this map is placeholder art. The game uses point to point movement, with some spaces representing precise fortified locations and some representing large tracts of land (even entire colonies in some cases). Spaces are grouped into colonies that each have an associated hit to Colonial resolve if they are lost. There is also a British “in Europe” area and a number of tracks tied to the various game mechanics.
Grant: Why did you feel point to point movement was best?
Sam: The only two contenders here were point to point vs area based movement. Given the level of abstraction the system uses, any sort of hexed based representation was never an option. I decided to go with point to point because the game’s focus is really on the narrative more than anything else. An area based map would have forced me to have the visual importance of areas be at least somewhat to scale by the size of the colony. Instead by doing point to point I can give a colony as many spaces and fortifications as are thematically appropriate for the importance of that colony in the actual conflict.
Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?
Sam: The game is punchy. It is very competitive and intentionally so. You are only able to achieve so much on a given turn, and at the end of each turn you have another clash and a chance for your opponent to seize the initiative. The elation when the other player plays a card out and you realize you can beat it and put out Benjamin Franklin when you thought you weren’t going to get a turn for at least 2 more clashes is fantastic. It also plays very quickly for a game of its weight. Most games between players who know how to play will be under 2 hours.
Grant; What are you most pleased about with the design?
Sam: I would say three things. First, because it’s top of mind as I just finished it, the solo play. I knew how I wanted the solo to feel, but I wasn’t quite sure how I was going to make it happen mechanically. I will be putting out some videos soon showing how it works, but suffice it to say for the moment that I am very pleased with it. Second, every game I design, I design to create stories at the table. If it always tells the same story it isn’t memorable. If there are never any surprises it isn’t memorable. Common Sense succeeds in both of these areas to a tremendous degree. Each time I catch up with a player I have played Common Sense with before they are able to remind me of our whole game by invoking strange or exciting moments from our game a year ago like it happened yesterday. Finally, when I design a new game I generally try to think about what aspects of it are specific to the topic and which could be modified slightly to make it work for other topics. I have my own plans for a Vietnam War version of this system that I am very excited about. What surprised me though was how many great designers have been inspired by the system and want to do their own designs with it. At the moment I am only at liberty to say that Ananda Gupta wants to do a French Revolution game with the system, which is such an incredible honor since Twilight Struggle is the primary inspiration for it.
Grant: What other designs are you working on?
Sam: I am always working on something. I have a non-historical game I am working on that has been picked up but I cannot talk about it yet. I have a train game that I may be able to talk about more publicly soon and an American Civil War game that I will be debuting at HistCon North. Oh, and I have a Sengoku Jidai wargamer’s party game that I am tooling around with. There are more, but that’s enough of a teaser. Thanks for the interview!
Thank you Sam for your thoughts on your game and for the effort you have obviously put into it. Having played the game while attending SDHistCon ta few years ago, I can say that we had a great time with the game, felt all of the aspects you discussed and very much enjoyed the way cards were played, how the initiative kept with the winner and the various frustrations of the asymmetry of each of the sides. I think that this one will be a winner and I look forward to playing it further in the future!
For a bit more information, we posted a quick video interview with Sam while at SDHistCon and you can view that at the following link:
The overall blog statistics are pretty meaningless – both last year and this year are skewed by WordPress sending my Farewell 2024 – Historical Fiction! post out to a bajillion people (from Dec 26 to Jan 8), which makes it easily the most popular post of each year (providing more than a fourth of my total views this year). If you factor that out, 2025 has been a good year on the blog, but slightly behind the (organic) record of 2023.
The posts doing particularly well have been the usual suspects, that is, the Most Anticipated Historical Board Games post in January, and the evergreen strategy posts for several games published over the last year. It was nice to see that a few of my research-intensive posts in the American Revolution and the Wallenstein series also did well.
Most of my readers come from the United States (also skewed by the Historical Fiction anomaly, but not entirely), as well as other Anglophone (UK, Canada, Australia) or European (Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and France) countries. Especially the Dutch have made a leap up… maybe because of my post on the history of Amsterdam? Welkom, anyway.
New arrivals in the top 10 of the countries from which most views stem are Sweden and Poland in a joint Baltic effort.
If you compare views with population numbers, there are possibly no more loyal readers of this blog than the fine people of Ireland, closely followed by Hong Kong, whose views eclipse those of huge countries like Japan, Brazil, or India. The Irish have been devoted to history, board games, and history in board games for some years now, for which I am grateful. The Hongkongers are new in their excitement for the blog – welcome! If you are from Hong Kong, leave a comment below!
I can only speculate what brought people to this blog (but maybe you can enlighten me with a comment, especially if read this blog, but don’t comment often or ever). Here is, however, what I think was the finest which I published this year – as per usual, with six instead of three entries, and without crowning a winner. Let’s go!
Most of the history articles on this blog are about what people in the past did – the politicians, merchants, soldiers of times past. Yet I also like to dwell on what they thought, and thus I’m very happy to have written this post on the political philosophy of the American Revolution, its core value of liberty, and the promise and limitation of that idea. It was also an opportunity to engage with the still-compelling documents of the Revolution – Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence.
It’s been a wild year politically. Almost forgotten by now is the Great Tariff Rollercoaster of April 2025, in which the American federal government announced tariffs on imports from almost all other countries and then engaged in a flurry of raising, lowering, and holding off on them that made everyone’s head spin. By now, the 145% tariff on Chinese goods imported by US buyers is long gone, but at the time it seemed like an existential threat to US board game companies manufacturing their games in China (so, almost all of them), and given that the current US administration will still be in office for another three years, one worth revisiting.
This blog often gives me the opportunity to learn about new subjects. Wallenstein was one of them. I approached the post about his life with not more than a general knowledge about his role in the Thirty Years’ War… and then was sucked into a research rabbit hole in which I read over 2,000 pages about the guy. The result is a four-part series and the longest, most detailed board game assisted biography I have ever written about anyone.
…and this blog also allows me to re-visit topics and games with which I have engaged for years (and sometimes decades) now. Frederick II of Prussia is such a person, and Friedrich (Richard Sivél, Histogame) such a game. Reflecting on their insights on Frederick’s campaigns, the command and control exercised, and Frederick’s psychology was a delight.
Amsterdam is one of the iconic cities of the world. It is a symbol of art, commerce, and progress, and unique in its canal-structured urban layout. Unsurprisingly, these characteristics have also inspired board game designers. I have told Amsterdam’s 750-year history through the lens of the many board games set in Amsterdam – which gives a glimpse into what the city stands for in the popular imagination. As both this and my earlier Venice post were so much fun to write, I should do more city histories!
One of my brighter new ideas was to link historical board games to period music. Of course, that works particularly well from the 20th century on – the age of the music record. I started with an immersive playlist for your next game of Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx), full of everything that was hot at the time – from traditional songs to jazz, from movie tunes to workers’ songs. It will surely not remain the only such playlist.
And thus concludes the year 2025 on this blog. I hope you had as much fun reading it as I had writing.
I wish you all an excellent year 2026, full of joy, health, and success!
The overall blog statistics are pretty meaningless – both last year and this year are skewed by WordPress sending my Farewell 2024 – Historical Fiction! post out to a bajillion people (from Dec 26 to Jan 8), which makes it easily the most popular post of each year (providing more than a fourth of my total views this year). If you factor that out, 2025 has been a good year on the blog, but slightly behind the (organic) record of 2023.
The posts doing particularly well have been the usual suspects, that is, the Most Anticipated Historical Board Games post in January, and the evergreen strategy posts for several games published over the last year. It was nice to see that a few of my research-intensive posts in the American Revolution and the Wallenstein series also did well.
Most of my readers come from the United States (also skewed by the Historical Fiction anomaly, but not entirely), as well as other Anglophone (UK, Canada, Australia) or European (Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and France) countries. Especially the Dutch have made a leap up… maybe because of my post on the history of Amsterdam? Welkom, anyway.
New arrivals in the top 10 of the countries from which most views stem are Sweden and Poland in a joint Baltic effort.
If you compare views with population numbers, there are possibly no more loyal readers of this blog than the fine people of Ireland, closely followed by Hong Kong, whose views eclipse those of huge countries like Japan, Brazil, or India. The Irish have been devoted to history, board games, and history in board games for some years now, for which I am grateful. The Hongkongers are new in their excitement for the blog – welcome! If you are from Hong Kong, leave a comment below!
I can only speculate what brought people to this blog (but maybe you can enlighten me with a comment, especially if read this blog, but don’t comment often or ever). Here is, however, what I think was the finest which I published this year – as per usual, with six instead of three entries, and without crowning a winner. Let’s go!
Most of the history articles on this blog are about what people in the past did – the politicians, merchants, soldiers of times past. Yet I also like to dwell on what they thought, and thus I’m very happy to have written this post on the political philosophy of the American Revolution, its core value of liberty, and the promise and limitation of that idea. It was also an opportunity to engage with the still-compelling documents of the Revolution – Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence.
It’s been a wild year politically. Almost forgotten by now is the Great Tariff Rollercoaster of April 2025, in which the American federal government announced tariffs on imports from almost all other countries and then engaged in a flurry of raising, lowering, and holding off on them that made everyone’s head spin. By now, the 145% tariff on Chinese goods imported by US buyers is long gone, but at the time it seemed like an existential threat to US board game companies manufacturing their games in China (so, almost all of them), and given that the current US administration will still be in office for another three years, one worth revisiting.
This blog often gives me the opportunity to learn about new subjects. Wallenstein was one of them. I approached the post about his life with not more than a general knowledge about his role in the Thirty Years’ War… and then was sucked into a research rabbit hole in which I read over 2,000 pages about the guy. The result is a four-part series and the longest, most detailed board game assisted biography I have ever written about anyone.
…and this blog also allows me to re-visit topics and games with which I have engaged for years (and sometimes decades) now. Frederick II of Prussia is such a person, and Friedrich (Richard Sivél, Histogame) such a game. Reflecting on their insights on Frederick’s campaigns, the command and control exercised, and Frederick’s psychology was a delight.
Amsterdam is one of the iconic cities of the world. It is a symbol of art, commerce, and progress, and unique in its canal-structured urban layout. Unsurprisingly, these characteristics have also inspired board game designers. I have told Amsterdam’s 750-year history through the lens of the many board games set in Amsterdam – which gives a glimpse into what the city stands for in the popular imagination. As both this and my earlier Venice post were so much fun to write, I should do more city histories!
One of my brighter new ideas was to link historical board games to period music. Of course, that works particularly well from the 20th century on – the age of the music record. I started with an immersive playlist for your next game of Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx), full of everything that was hot at the time – from traditional songs to jazz, from movie tunes to workers’ songs. It will surely not remain the only such playlist.
And thus concludes the year 2025 on this blog. I hope you had as much fun reading it as I had writing.
I wish you all an excellent year 2026, full of joy, health, and success!
Anmelden
