In unserem Format „Tipp um Tipp“ laden wir euch ein, mit uns zu quizzen. Wir beschreiben Euch einmal pro Woche in 15 bis 20 Hinweisen ein Brettspiel. Wie schnell bekommt Ihr es heraus? Am Ende gibt es direkt die Auflösung.
Schreibt uns gerne, wie Euch das Quiz gefällt oder sagt einfach hallo.… [Weiterlesen]
STB ist zurück und bringt Verstärkung mit!
Endlich wieder Schreibtischblick! Unser beliebter Verlags-Podcast kehrt zurück – aber in neuem Gewand. Wie immer erfahrt ihr dort, was in den letzten Wochen bei Frosted Games passiert ist und was in nächster Zeit alles ansteht. So viel bleibt also gleich. Aber euch interessiert vermutlich mehr, was sich ändert.
Erstmal nehmen wir den Podcast nicht mehr live im YouTube-Stream auf. Da das Ganze nicht mehr live in einem Take passieren muss, können wir uns viel stärker auf die Inhalte fokussieren. Ihr werdet häufiger Gäste hören und redaktionelle Teile bekommen, die in einer Live-Aufnahme einfach nicht möglich waren.
Im aktuellen Podcast hört ihr z. B. ein Gespräch mit Korbi über seine redaktionelle Arbeit an Wuselige Wiesen und warum er so gut Spanisch spricht. Ben erklärt uns alles, was man über Schachtelgrößen wissen muss, und Hesy macht mit Sebastian (Solo-Manolo-Podcast) einen einstündigen Deep Dive zu Paper Tales. Ihr seht also: Da passiert eine ganze Menge.
Was ihr vielleicht vermissen werdet, sind Daten und Fakten zum aktuellen Stand unserer Spiele – und natürlich die Möglichkeit, live Fragen zu stellen. Aber keine Sorge! Dafür gibt es ein ganz neues Format: das WKW-Update mit Q&A.
Jeden zweiten Freitag um 12:00 Uhr streamt Ben live aus dem Studio, gibt euch kurz die harten Fakten zum Stand der aktuellen Titel und steht anschließend für Fragen zur Verfügung. So bekommt ihr im Wechsel jeden Freitag entweder einen Podcast oder ein Live-Update.
Wir hoffen, dass wir mit der Trennung dieser Formate alle Bedürfnisse noch besser abdecken und euch einen größeren Mehrwert bieten können.
Heute geht es direkt los mit dem neuen Podcast. Falls ihr ihn noch nicht abonniert habt, macht das am besten direkt hier:
Schreibtischblick Podcast
Das erste WKW-Update mit Q&A gibt es dann live am 6. März um 12:00 Uhr auf unserem YouTube-Kanal:
Youtube-Kanal
Der Beitrag Schreibtischblick ist zurück! erschien zuerst auf Frosted Games.
Auf unserer Update-Seite zu The Elder Scrolls hat sich diese Woche wieder etwas getan.
https://frostedgames.de/tes_wkw/
Gazettere und Tutorialheft sind redaktionell fertig. Allerdings muss an ein paar Stellen noch mal was am Layout bearbeitet werden. Anfang nächster Woche sollte das alles dann in das finalen Proofreading gehen.
Sollte da alles korrekt laufen, planen wir mit einer finalen Abgabe zeitnah nach dem Chinese New Year.
Wir geben euch weiterhin wöchentlich ein Update zum Fortschritt.
Der Beitrag The Elder Scrolls Update 27.2.26 erschien zuerst auf Frosted Games.
Das Warten hat endlich ein Ende!
Unser Spieleklassiker „Ein solches Ding!“ ist wieder erhältlich – und auch „Wie ich die Welt sehe“ präsentiert sich im neuen kompakten Design. Ihr wollt noch mehr Herausforderung?
Dann schnappt euch direkt „Wie ich die Welt sehe – Stufe 2“ und legt noch eine Schwierigkeitsstufe drauf! Jetzt entdecken und losspielen!
Two weeks ago, we’ve looked at the first period of Soviet liberalization under Nikita Khrushchev from the 1950s on. While these reforms ended the era of Stalinist totalitarianism, they petered out when Khrushchev lost interest in them and was eventually overthrown and replaced by the more conservative Leonid Brezhnev. It would take another generation until a new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, would undertake another broad reform program. These reforms – like last time, in the realms of domestic, foreign, and economic policy – are the subject of this article. Of course, you’ll also find a few board games in it!
The Soviet Union’s political landscape had ossified under Brezhnev. This stagnation (or, if you want to phrase it more positively, hyperstability) also ruled out any experiments after Brezhnev’s death in 1982, and so the Politburo selected his loyal lieutenant Yuri Andropov. Unfortunately, Andropov was already 68 and severely ill then. He died in 1984, to be succeeded by another Brezhnevite stalwart, Konstantin Chernenko, who was similarly afflicted and even older (72 at his accession). Chernenko died in 1985. The rapid succession of aging Soviet leaders is poignantly captured in the contemporary joke: Margaret Thatcher calls Ronald Reagan: “It’s a pity you didn’t come to the funeral of the Soviet general secretary. Marvelous. A great spectacle. I’m totally going again next year.”
Another quasi-contemporary (1986) satirical take on the Soviet gerontocracy is Kremlin (Urs Hostettler, Fata Morgana): Players support the various Politburo members in the hopes of advancing those they have influence with to the top jobs, but many a hopeful candidate will die of stress and old age before realizing their ambitions.
After Chernenko’s death, even the most conservative Politburo members saw the need for a different tack: They elected Mikhail Gorbachev as their new leader in 1985, a real baby at age 54. Gorbachev’s reformist leanings were well-known, but he proceeded cautiously in his first year. As with Khrushchev, the big programmatic changes were first announced at a Party Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev’s first slogan for his reforms was glasnost (openness). That included sweeping changes to Soviet citizens’ freedom of expression: Gorbachev encouraged the Soviet press to scrutinize politics instead of simply parroting the party line. Dissidents were released from prison. Even non-state-sponsored demonstrations were allowed – a powerful tool to express malcontent with the government. Of course, these reforms undermined the power base of the Communist Party – but Gorbachev hoped that he could steer the ship of state in the new environment and might even benefit from a freer populace.
Even more radical were Gorbachev’s institutional reforms, usually referred to as perestroika (restructuring): The Communist Party’s monopoly on power was cut off by establishing the Congress of People’s Deputies as an independent parliament, and while the first elections in 1989 were not fully free, it was the first time that Soviet citizens could select from several candidates in a contested election. Gorbachev himself chose to base his power no longer on his role as General Secretary of the Communist Party, and instead was elected President of the Soviet Union by the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1990.
This nascent democratization drive – eventually rather envisioned than enacted – makes for the most powerful card in the last phase (1985—1991) of the Cold-War-in-a-nutshell which is Twilight Squabble (David J. Mortimer, AEG): It’s a bit of speculation on the internal and external legitimacy and attractiveness a more democratic Soviet Union could have enjoyed.
Speaking of external legitimacy and attractiveness: Gorbachev’s policies (and he himself) would prove immensely popular in the West… after he had weathered the initial suspicion. Gorbachev began to advocate for a return to détente soon after he assumed office, but US president Ronald Reagan assumed this to be a Soviet ploy. Only after Gorbachev had met Reagan at the 1986 Reykjavík summit did the president believe Gorbachev’s intentions to be genuine.
In the following years, the two of them agreed on far-reaching mutual disarmament, most notably the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Gorbachev’s immutable advocacy for arms reduction is reflected in Wir sind das Volk! – 2+2 (Richard Sivel/Peer Sylvester, Histogame) as his event card cannot be used for the arms race.
Besides the lofty realms of nuclear arms reduction, Gorbachev also had more grounded problems to deal with: The Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up the failing pro-Soviet government there and had been embroiled since then in a costly and futile counter-insurgency. As the Soviet military could not present Gorbachev with a convincing roadmap on how to win the war, he decided to pull the Soviet forces out in 1988. By that time, the unsuccessful war had undermined the Soviet government’s legitimacy which had rested on its status as a military superpower, exacerbated by the new avenues of political expression open to disaffected citizens – the mothers of Soviet soldiers who fought (or had died) in Afghanistan were among the first to form associations, to pressure the government, and to protest.
In that sense, it is surprising that the withdrawal from Afghanistan can still net the Communist player points in 1989 (Jason Matthews/Ted Torgerson, GMT Games) – but the general principle holds true: The later the Soviets withdraw, the more their failure in Afghanistan becomes an asset to the opponents of Communist power.
Finally, Soviet power was the rock on which the Communist governments in Eastern Europe rested. Whenever they had been challenged – most importantly in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 – Soviet tanks had quashed the dissent. This limited sovereignty within the Eastern bloc had been the central tenet of Soviet foreign policy, after 1968 named the Brezhnev Doctrine. Gorbachev adopted a new approach: He would not militarily intervene in Eastern Europe anymore. Instead, the countries of the Warsaw Pact were free to “do it their way” – thus humorously called the Sinatra Doctrine.
Finally, Gorbachev’s reform agenda of perestroika also aimed to transform the Soviet economy. All Soviet leaders had engaged in some kind of economic reforms, so Gorbachev’s activity did not seem very surprising… until observers inside and outside of the Soviet Union realized how radically it would change the tenets of the Soviet economy, traditionally based on central planning, large state-owned companies, and very limited contacts with the outside world.
First, Gorbachev gave the state-owned companies much more leeway over what to produce and how to set prices. These market incentives were supposed to improve efficiency, but clashed with the existing structures.
Undeterred, Gorbachev went a step further and loosened the restriction on private enterprises. More Soviet citizens could start their own store or workshop and offer goods and services at their own responsibility.
Then, Gorbachev allowed for joint ventures with Western companies (provided the Soviet part owned a majority share), and even let them set up dependencies in the Soviet Union – the famous first McDonald’s restaurant in the Soviet Union opened in January 1990.
Gorbachev’s daring move to end hostilities with the West was an unqualified success. In late 1989, he and US president George H.W. Bush could merrily declare together that the Cold War was over.
The consequences of Gorbachev’s foreign policy reverberated through the Eastern Bloc: The allied Communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe were swept away in 1989.
The Perestroika and Glasnost event in Wir sind das Volk! – 2+2 neatly shows the way in which Gorbachev’s reforms put stress on the system: On the one hand, it increases Soviet dominance and makes socialism more attractive (lower two icons). However, it also increases unrest in East Germany (fist icons).
Within the Soviet Union, the political freedoms granted allowed citizens to demand more freedoms. These centrifugal effects became particularly visible as most of the non-Russian republics soon had nationalist independence movements which began to eat away the Soviet Union from its ethnic fringes. Gorbachev responded by proposing a looser federation between the Soviet Republics.
The political reforms also had negative interaction with the economic reforms: On the one hand, the flurry of changes created new inefficiencies; on the other, the increased freedom of the press highlighted economic problems no matter if they were new or had existed for centuries. As Soviet economic performance thus both objectively worsened and also became more obvious to the average citizen, Gorbachev’s legitimacy eroded.
Hardliners within the Communist Party couped against Gorbachev in August 1991 to prevent the loose federation between the Soviet Republics. A coup might also spell the end for the player in the solo game Gorbachev: The Fall of Communism (R. Ben Madison, White Dog Games). It’s a States of Siege game with a twist: Whenever the marker on any of the five paths (four of which refer to various ethno-national groups in the Soviet Union, the fifth represents the Communist Party) reaches the center, the game is not lost immediately, but a coup is staged: If Gorbachev has enough elite support to weather it, he goes on to fight another day.
In history, that was not the case: While the coup failed, it made Gorbachev a lame duck. The supporters of reforms turned away from him and toward his erstwhile ally Boris Yeltsin (who had cut a much more dashing figure during the coup), and away from the Soviet Union and toward their respective ethno-national identities. Gorbachev resigned as president and the Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991.
Kremlin (Urs Hostettler, Fata Morgana)
Twilight Struggle (Ananda Gupta/Jason Matthews, GMT Games)
Twilight Squabble (David J. Mortimer, AEG)
Wir sind das Volk! – 2+2 (Richard Sivel/Peer Sylvester, Histogame)
1989 (Jason Matthews/Ted Torgerson, GMT Games)
Gorbachev: The Fall of Communism (R. Ben Madison, White Dog Games)
The most influential work on Gorbachev’s time in office and his policies remains Brown, Archie: The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996.
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.
For the age of hyperstability before Gorbachev (and the discussion if it was an age of stability or stagnation), see the essays (in German, but with English abstracts) in: Belge, Boris/Deuerlein, Martin (eds.): Goldenes Zeitalter der Stagnation? Perspektiven auf die sowjetische Ordnung der Brežnev-Ära, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2014.
On the transformative last third of the 20th century in Russian history, see Kotkin, Stephen: Armageddon Averted. The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001.
On the end of the Cold War, see Dockrill, Saki Ruth: The End of the Cold War Era. The Transformation of the Global Security Order, Hodder, London 2005.
For the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, see Braithwaite, Rodric: Afgantsy. The Russians in Afghanistan, 1979—1989, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011.
Ein kleines Deckbau-Spiel aus dem Hause Kosmos zum mittelgroßen Preis. Die eigene Erfahrung zeigt: Ein Spiel, das nicht bei jedem gut ankommt (aber einigen schon).
In unserem Format „Tipp um Tipp“ laden wir euch ein, mit uns zu quizzen. Wir beschreiben Euch einmal pro Woche in 15 bis 20 Hinweisen ein Brettspiel. Wie schnell bekommt Ihr es heraus? Am Ende gibt es direkt die Auflösung.
Schreibt uns gerne, wie Euch das Quiz gefällt oder sagt einfach hallo.… [Weiterlesen]
Alle Turnierdaten im Überblick:
Turniertag: Sonntag, 22.02.2026
Austragungsort: Saal der Ev. Gemeinde, Schlossallee 8, 40229 Düsseldorf
Startgebühr: 8 EUR
Anmeldung zum Turnier: ab 10:00 Uhr
Turnierbeginn: 11:00 Uhr
Wir wünschen euch viel Spaß!
In unserem Format „Tipp um Tipp“ laden wir euch ein, mit uns zu quizzen. Wir beschreiben Euch einmal pro Woche in 15 bis 20 Hinweisen ein Brettspiel. Wie schnell bekommt Ihr es heraus? Am Ende gibt es direkt die Auflösung.
Schreibt uns gerne, wie Euch das Quiz gefällt oder sagt einfach hallo.… [Weiterlesen]
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Twilight Struggle (Ananda Gupta/Jason Matthews, GMT Games)
Wir sind das Volk: 2+2 (Richard Sivél/Peer Sylvester, Histogame)
Days of Ire (Katalin Nimmerfroh/Dávid Turczi/Mihály Vincze, Cloud Island)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Twilight Struggle (Ananda Gupta/Jason Matthews, GMT Games)
Wir sind das Volk: 2+2 (Richard Sivél/Peer Sylvester, Histogame)
Days of Ire (Katalin Nimmerfroh/Dávid Turczi/Mihály Vincze, Cloud Island)
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.
In unserem Format „Tipp um Tipp“ laden wir euch ein, mit uns zu quizzen. Wir beschreiben Euch einmal pro Woche in 15 bis 20 Hinweisen ein Brettspiel. Wie schnell bekommt Ihr es heraus? Am Ende gibt es direkt die Auflösung.
Schreibt uns gerne, wie Euch das Quiz gefällt oder sagt einfach hallo.… [Weiterlesen]
Die Supermassiven Computer (SMC) haben die Führung übernommen. In Deckers kämpfen wir in einer dystopischen Cyberpunk-Zukunft gegen diese Übermacht. Solo oder Kooperativ versuchen wir durch einen einzigartigen Deckbaummechanismus gegen die SMCs anzukämpfen und unsere Ziele zu erreichen. Wie wir uns im Hacker-Kampf schlagen, erzählen wir euch in dieser Folge.… [Weiterlesen]
You love board games. You probably also like music. Let’s combine the two into an immersive playlist for Imperial Struggle (Ananda Gupta/Jason Matthews, GMT Games). Have it gently play in the background during your next session of Imperial Struggle for the full period immersion!
First things first: Here’s the playlist!
Before we dive into the content of the playlist, some general observations:
Now, what awaits you in the playlist?
Imperial Struggle begins after the age of the great confessional wars in Europe, but religion still played an important role in people’s lives, from the lowliest peasants all the way up to kings. Their week culminated in a Sunday service and their year was interspersed with religious events. Composers wrote pieces specifically for a religious holiday (like Bach’s “Christmas Oratorio” from which #2 is taken), or were dedicated to comprehensive religious teaching (like Händel’s “Messiah”, premiering on Easter 1742 in Dublin, from which #3 is taken).
The Baroque saw music as universal. Religious and secular followed the same conventions, and thus the same composers wrote pieces for the church and for worldly courts, like Baroque grandmaster Johann Sebastian Bach (Toccata and Fugue in D minor, #4 and Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, #6) or Georg Friedrich Händel (Sarabande from Suite No. 11, #5). The classical (in the narrower sense) music from the mid-18th century on left this universal view behind. Composers now focused on either one or the other, with most of them following the more fashionable and more lucrative secular path.
Some composed for a court whose lavish entertainments always required music (like the 1773 wedding of the French prince Charles Philippe, the later king Charles X, for which François Francœur arranged the music from which #9 is taken – thus the title Symphonie du Festin Royal (Symphony of the Royal Feast)). Others became freelance musicians (like Mozart, who could (for some years) live of the proceeds of his concerts and operas, #10-12).
Not everyone went to a church where the latest compositions were played on Sundays, and of course most people were far removed from attending any court festivities, let alone royal weddings. But people made and listened to music. The easiest, most affordable way to do so was to sing. The 18th century is rich with folk songs, some originally written at the time (like Frère Jacques (“Brother James”), #15 or “Ye Jacobites by Name”, #16), others older, but first put down to paper at the time (Au Claire De La Lune (“By the Light of the Moon”, #13, and Over the Hills, and Far Away (#14)).
We’ve heard in #16 already how political events seeped into popular songs. Others were written specifically to rouse patriotic feeling, an emotion which came into its own in the 18th century: “Rule, Britannia” (#17) expressed confidence and pride in the Royal Navy to protect British freedoms, “The British Grenadiers” (#18) praised the courage of their counterpart by land.
That these songs could be re-interpreted and turned against their original intent shows “Free America” (#19), written in 1770, which uses the same tune as “The British Grenadiers”, but its lyrics extol America’s freedom (which turned out to be freedom from Britain).
Finally, national anthems also came first into existence in the 18th century: Brits sang “God Save the King/Queen” (#22 – I took the liberty of choosing a not-quite-traditional version). France only got its first anthem (La Marseillaise, #23) with the French Revolution which bookends Imperial Struggle… at least until Ananda Gupta and Jason Matthews get around to do a Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars expansion!
Thanks to Jason for suggesting songs #5, #14, and #21!
If you like immersive playlists, I’ve done one for Weimar: The Fight for Democracy (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx)!
If you want to dive a bit deeper into the times of Imperial Struggle, here’s a book recommendation.
And if you’re looking for strategic direction in Imperial Struggle, I’ve also got you covered.
What’s your favorite song from this playlist? Let me know in the comments!
You love board games. You probably also like music. Let’s combine the two into an immersive playlist for Imperial Struggle (Ananda Gupta/Jason Matthews, GMT Games). Have it gently play in the background during your next session of Imperial Struggle for the full period immersion!
First things first: Here’s the playlist!
Before we dive into the content of the playlist, some general observations:
Now, what awaits you in the playlist?
Imperial Struggle begins after the age of the great confessional wars in Europe, but religion still played an important role in people’s lives, from the lowliest peasants all the way up to kings. Their week culminated in a Sunday service and their year was interspersed with religious events. Composers wrote pieces specifically for a religious holiday (like Bach’s “Christmas Oratorio” from which #2 is taken), or were dedicated to comprehensive religious teaching (like Händel’s “Messiah”, premiering on Easter 1742 in Dublin, from which #3 is taken).
The Baroque saw music as universal. Religious and secular followed the same conventions, and thus the same composers wrote pieces for the church and for worldly courts, like Baroque grandmaster Johann Sebastian Bach (Toccata and Fugue in D minor, #4 and Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, #6) or Georg Friedrich Händel (Sarabande from Suite No. 11, #5). The classical (in the narrower sense) music from the mid-18th century on left this universal view behind. Composers now focused on either one or the other, with most of them following the more fashionable and more lucrative secular path.
Some composed for a court whose lavish entertainments always required music (like the 1773 wedding of the French prince Charles Philippe, the later king Charles X, for which François Francœur arranged the music from which #9 is taken – thus the title Symphonie du Festin Royal (Symphony of the Royal Feast)). Others became freelance musicians (like Mozart, who could (for some years) live of the proceeds of his concerts and operas, #10-12).
Not everyone went to a church where the latest compositions were played on Sundays, and of course most people were far removed from attending any court festivities, let alone royal weddings. But people made and listened to music. The easiest, most affordable way to do so was to sing. The 18th century is rich with folk songs, some originally written at the time (like Frère Jacques (“Brother James”), #15 or “Ye Jacobites by Name”, #16), others older, but first put down to paper at the time (Au Claire De La Lune (“By the Light of the Moon”, #13, and Over the Hills, and Far Away (#14)).
We’ve heard in #16 already how political events seeped into popular songs. Others were written specifically to rouse patriotic feeling, an emotion which came into its own in the 18th century: “Rule, Britannia” (#17) expressed confidence and pride in the Royal Navy to protect British freedoms, “The British Grenadiers” (#18) praised the courage of their counterpart by land.
That these songs could be re-interpreted and turned against their original intent shows “Free America” (#19), written in 1770, which uses the same tune as “The British Grenadiers”, but its lyrics extol America’s freedom (which turned out to be freedom from Britain).
Finally, national anthems also came first into existence in the 18th century: Brits sang “God Save the King/Queen” (#22 – I took the liberty of choosing a not-quite-traditional version). France only got its first anthem (La Marseillaise, #23) with the French Revolution which bookends Imperial Struggle… at least until Ananda Gupta and Jason Matthews get around to do a Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars expansion!
Thanks to Jason for suggesting songs #5, #14, and #21!
If you like immersive playlists, I’ve done one for Weimar: The Fight for Democracy (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx)!
If you want to dive a bit deeper into the times of Imperial Struggle, here’s a book recommendation.
And if you’re looking for strategic direction in Imperial Struggle, I’ve also got you covered.
What’s your favorite song from this playlist? Let me know in the comments!
Ich mag Spiele von Space Cowboys und Dewan ist ihr neuestes Werk. Wir haben es angespielt und sagen unsere Meinung. Inzwischen habe ich es auch mehrfach noch gespielt und die Meinung hat sich gefestigt.
Happy new year, everybody! I hope it will bring you much joy. I also hope it will bring you board games (which is basically the same thing). The question is, however: Which games? – Here are a few 2026 releases which look most intriguing to me. Long-time readers of this blog will notice that this year’s list is a bit longer than usual – there are just so many fascinating games scheduled for release this year!
As always, don’t take this as a shopping list (neither for you nor for me). Your taste in games and your discretion how many new games you want to chase decide what will end up in your shelf (and, hopefully, on your table)!
After that reminder, on to the games. As all of them are set in human history, they are ordered from most ancient to most recent.
1-3 players, up to 90 minutes
Once the greatest Roman politician-generals outgrew to confines of the republican power-sharing agreement, the Republic was bound to fall. Yet it was not predestined that it would fall to Caesar. In fact, two of his associates/rivals, Pompey and Crassus, might as well have taken the diadem… if they had played their cards better.
Triumvir casts its players as the three mightiest power brokers of the last years of the Roman Republic. They will attempt to parlay their wealth, popularity, and military force into political success (in an adaptation of the negotiation mechanic from Engelstein’s and Herman’s previous cooperation Versailles 1919). Whoever settles the issues in the senate in their favor and deals best with the challenges in the rebellious provinces is poised to become the First Man in Rome…forever.
You can still pre-order Triumvir at the P500 price of $60.00 (regular price: $101.00). Release is expected for March.
4 players, 60-120 minutes
I have a fondness for the early modern period, this time when so many old certainties in Europe were shattered by revolutionary new developments – from the printing press over the discovery of America to the Reformation.
Neither King Nor God focuses on the struggle over military, religious, and commercial supremacy in Western Europe, with the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Kings of England and France as the four protagonists. The players will send their courtiers to the big cities of Europe. These courtiers range from merchants over generals to assassins, each with their own action, forming a neat stack in each city. Once all courtiers are placed, each city’s courtier stack is resolved top to bottom – so, the last courtier placed is the first one to resolve! There are a lot of tactical considerations involved in which courtier you’d like to trigger early or late, and as they are placed face-down, also a good deal of bluffing.
I had the opportunity to play Neither King Nor God at last year’s SPIEL in Essen. Our Holy Roman Emperor attempted to spread Protestantism in Germany and waged war against the Pope for control of Venice, while France and England expanded their commercial networks on the continent and clashed over Normandy. Everyone had a great time!
The limited pilot edition of Neither King Nor God can be ordered for € 69.00 and will be shipping in mid- or late January. Sound of Drums aims to have the full epic edition ready for SPIEL in October 2026.
2 players, 150-180 minutes
The European revolutions of 1848/49 are generally considered failures. After all, the ancient régimes had returned to power everywhere but in France, and even there the Second Republic was soon overthrown by Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Yet for months it looked like all of Europe could shed the old order in favor of liberalism, nation-states, and maybe even – gasp! – democracy. And even when the revolutionaries were defeated, they had changed the way the game was played: From then on, politics was conducted in public, with parliaments, parties, and newspapers, and the forces of liberalism and nationalism had to be taken into consideration by even the most conservative of monarchical governments.
Despite the impact of the revolutions, barely any games have covered them. Jules Félisaz’s 1848 seeks to rectify that in an ambitious manner, covering the political, military, intellectual, and social dimensions of the revolutions in all of Europe. Félisaz relies on a mix of tried-and-true CDG mechanics – the “mandatory opponent events” from Twilight Struggle, the spatial layout of societal groups from 1989, and the escalation through decks from Paths of Glory, adding its own twists where appropriate (for example, overlapping scoring regions based on nationality (German, Polish, Italian…) and empire (Russian, Prussian, Austrian).
You can still pre-order 1848 at the P500 price of $46.00 (regular price: $72.00). Release is expected for March.
1-3 players, 30-45 minutes
Let us not say there are only wargames on this list. Look, here’s a peace game!
Making peace is generally a complex business, and so it was in the case of the Russo-Japanese War (1904/05): The Japanese, emboldened by their military success on land and sea, demanded a large financial indemnity as well as the cession of Sakhalin. The Russian tsar refused to consider either. Yet with revolution rampant in Russia and the Japanese government close to financial collapse, both sides needed to end the war. Their delegates at the US-mediated peace conference of Portsmouth had to figure out how to balance peace, national interest, and saving face.
In the classic two-player mode, the opponent players represent the delegates of Japan and Russia at Portsmouth who negotiate over Japan’s demands. Their hands of cards represent diplomatic approaches – listening or emphasizing, acquiescing or threatening. More aggressive stances are more likely to carry the day on any given issue, but the more lopsided a round of negotiations is, the more tensions will rise on the side of the loser. If they are pushed too hard, they will resort to war – and the other side will bear the blame for not being ready to compromise.
Other player counts see US president Theodore Roosevelt join as either as a third player or the solo role. In either case, Roosevelt is an “honest broker” whose goal it is to find an equitable resolution to the conflict.
Peace 1905 awaits its Kickstarter campaign in the second quarter of 2026. The game will be released in late 2026.
1-4 players, 120-180 minutes
Hammer and sickle are, of course, the symbols of communism. Yet ideology aside, they speak of the material basis of modern societies – the food that everyone needs to eat, and the industrial production that is required for everything from building houses to waging war.
This economy underlies Hammer and Sickle, a multiplayer treatment of the Russian Civil War after the October Revolution: The industrial cities (mostly in the north and west of the collapsing Russian empire), marked by hammers, produce Firepower – provided that their workers are fed with Food (from the sickle-marked rural provinces in the south). Otherwise, the workers start to rebel.
The result is a delicate balance between Food and Firepower, exacerbated by the factions’ asymmetries: The Bolsheviks, for example, have easy access to a lot of hammers, but might find themselves short of sickles; but the opposite might be true for the White Army operating from the south. In addition to the game’s (loose) two alliances of Revolutionaries (Bolsheviks and Anarchists) and Counter-Revolutionaries (White Army and New Nations), new alignments might develop…
Alex Knight has shown his ability to turn a complex political-military struggle into a compelling board game with the Spanish Civil War in the intriguing Land and Freedom. I’m sure he’ll do the same with Hammer and Sickle.
You can pre-order Hammer and Sickle at the P500 price of $62.00 (regular price: $97.00). Release is expected not before the third quarter of 2026… which might turn into 2027, but I wanted to include the game here anyway because it just seems so fascinating.
1-2 players, 20-40 minutes
Matthias Cramer has got the range. He has designed great epics like Weimar: The Fight for Democracy, but he is also a master of the short form. His Watergate is a knife fight in a phone booth… and Lenin’s Legacy promises to be cut from the same cloth.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was the dominant figure of the new Bolshevik government of Russia, but his health started to fail him soon after the October Revolution. Behind the scenes, his lieutenants jockeyed for position to succeed him – and the two likeliest candidates were Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. While they differed in their politics – Trotsky wanted to advance the “world revolution”, Stalin advocated for “socialism in one country” – and their power bases – Trotsky was the creator of the Red Army, Stalin controlled the Communist Party – they had one thing in common: Their drive to take power.
Lenin’s Legacy lets its players fill their shoes and struggle over the army, the party, and the regions and politicians of the Soviet Union in a card-driven game with a twist: Almost all cards are selected from an open market. The players hold only one card each… but they can gamble on playing the opponent’s card (without knowing what it is)!
You can still pre-order Lenin’s Legacy at the P500 price of $37.00 (regular price: $59.00). Release is expected for March.
1-2 players, 30-45 minutes
Many of the games in this post are very zoomed-out, grand strategic affairs. The counters you push move armies, the cards you play shake nations. Yet there is also something very charming about games operating on the micro level, and you get exactly that with Night Witches.
You are on the Eastern Front of World War II, serving in the all-women 588th Night Bomber Regiment of the Soviet Air Forces. You have no more than two biplanes at your command in every mission… and they are old, slow, and vulnerable. Still, your goal is to harass the invading German forces with these low-flying, hard-to-detect, and hard-to-engage craft every night, do damage as much damage as you can (or, at least, wear the enemy out with constant nocturnal attacks), and make it back safe.
You can play each mission separately or in a ten-mission campaign which allows you to carry over upgrades, and either solo or as a two-player cooperative effort.
Night Witches awaits its Kickstarter campaign in the second quarter of 2026. The game will be released in late 2026.
1-4 players, 60-480 minutes
This game has been long in the making. I’ve referenced it as ready for pre-order eight years ago, and have been intrigued by its premise since then. The Berlin Airlift was the largest airborne logistics operation ever, and for it to render the Berlin Blockade (on the ground) void, hundreds of planes had to arrive every day in Berlin with fuel, food, spare parts, and medical supplies, notwithstanding the limited infrastructure, the often rough weather, and every so often, Soviet interference.
This immense logistical task fell to the US Air Force and the Royal Air Force, each of which is represented by two “squadrons” (players) in the game. The players strive to contribute the most to the effort with their squadron, but their internal competition sometimes has to take the backseat when a joint effort is required to confront Soviet interference or keep the morale of the Berlin population up.
John Poniske’s original design has been taken on by Terry Simo. The Berlin Airlift is now ready for production. It can still be pre-ordered here at the reduced price of $55.00 (later MSRP estimated $75.00). Publication is expected for the third quarter of 2026.
And which 2026 games look most exciting to you? Let me know in the comments!
Happy new year, everybody! I hope it will bring you much joy. I also hope it will bring you board games (which is basically the same thing). The question is, however: Which games? – Here are a few 2026 releases which look most intriguing to me. Long-time readers of this blog will notice that this year’s list is a bit longer than usual – there are just so many fascinating games scheduled for release this year!
As always, don’t take this as a shopping list (neither for you nor for me). Your taste in games and your discretion how many new games you want to chase decide what will end up in your shelf (and, hopefully, on your table)!
After that reminder, on to the games. As all of them are set in human history, they are ordered from most ancient to most recent.
1-3 players, up to 90 minutes
Once the greatest Roman politician-generals outgrew to confines of the republican power-sharing agreement, the Republic was bound to fall. Yet it was not predestined that it would fall to Caesar. In fact, two of his associates/rivals, Pompey and Crassus, might as well have taken the diadem… if they had played their cards better.
Triumvir casts its players as the three mightiest power brokers of the last years of the Roman Republic. They will attempt to parlay their wealth, popularity, and military force into political success (in an adaptation of the negotiation mechanic from Engelstein’s and Herman’s previous cooperation Versailles 1919). Whoever settles the issues in the senate in their favor and deals best with the challenges in the rebellious provinces is poised to become the First Man in Rome…forever.
You can still pre-order Triumvir at the P500 price of $60.00 (regular price: $101.00). Release is expected for March.
4 players, 60-120 minutes
I have a fondness for the early modern period, this time when so many old certainties in Europe were shattered by revolutionary new developments – from the printing press over the discovery of America to the Reformation.
Neither King Nor God focuses on the struggle over military, religious, and commercial supremacy in Western Europe, with the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Kings of England and France as the four protagonists. The players will send their courtiers to the big cities of Europe. These courtiers range from merchants over generals to assassins, each with their own action, forming a neat stack in each city. Once all courtiers are placed, each city’s courtier stack is resolved top to bottom – so, the last courtier placed is the first one to resolve! There are a lot of tactical considerations involved in which courtier you’d like to trigger early or late, and as they are placed face-down, also a good deal of bluffing.
I had the opportunity to play Neither King Nor God at last year’s SPIEL in Essen. Our Holy Roman Emperor attempted to spread Protestantism in Germany and waged war against the Pope for control of Venice, while France and England expanded their commercial networks on the continent and clashed over Normandy. Everyone had a great time!
The limited pilot edition of Neither King Nor God can be ordered for € 69.00 and will be shipping in mid- or late January. Sound of Drums aims to have the full epic edition ready for SPIEL in October 2026.
2 players, 150-180 minutes
The European revolutions of 1848/49 are generally considered failures. After all, the ancient régimes had returned to power everywhere but in France, and even there the Second Republic was soon overthrown by Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Yet for months it looked like all of Europe could shed the old order in favor of liberalism, nation-states, and maybe even – gasp! – democracy. And even when the revolutionaries were defeated, they had changed the way the game was played: From then on, politics was conducted in public, with parliaments, parties, and newspapers, and the forces of liberalism and nationalism had to be taken into consideration by even the most conservative of monarchical governments.
Despite the impact of the revolutions, barely any games have covered them. Jules Félisaz’s 1848 seeks to rectify that in an ambitious manner, covering the political, military, intellectual, and social dimensions of the revolutions in all of Europe. Félisaz relies on a mix of tried-and-true CDG mechanics – the “mandatory opponent events” from Twilight Struggle, the spatial layout of societal groups from 1989, and the escalation through decks from Paths of Glory, adding its own twists where appropriate (for example, overlapping scoring regions based on nationality (German, Polish, Italian…) and empire (Russian, Prussian, Austrian).
You can still pre-order 1848 at the P500 price of $46.00 (regular price: $72.00). Release is expected for March.
1-3 players, 30-45 minutes
Let us not say there are only wargames on this list. Look, here’s a peace game!
Making peace is generally a complex business, and so it was in the case of the Russo-Japanese War (1904/05): The Japanese, emboldened by their military success on land and sea, demanded a large financial indemnity as well as the cession of Sakhalin. The Russian tsar refused to consider either. Yet with revolution rampant in Russia and the Japanese government close to financial collapse, both sides needed to end the war. Their delegates at the US-mediated peace conference of Portsmouth had to figure out how to balance peace, national interest, and saving face.
In the classic two-player mode, the opponent players represent the delegates of Japan and Russia at Portsmouth who negotiate over Japan’s demands. Their hands of cards represent diplomatic approaches – listening or emphasizing, acquiescing or threatening. More aggressive stances are more likely to carry the day on any given issue, but the more lopsided a round of negotiations is, the more tensions will rise on the side of the loser. If they are pushed too hard, they will resort to war – and the other side will bear the blame for not being ready to compromise.
Other player counts see US president Theodore Roosevelt join as either as a third player or the solo role. In either case, Roosevelt is an “honest broker” whose goal it is to find an equitable resolution to the conflict.
Peace 1905 awaits its Kickstarter campaign in the second quarter of 2026. The game will be released in late 2026.
1-4 players, 120-180 minutes
Hammer and sickle are, of course, the symbols of communism. Yet ideology aside, they speak of the material basis of modern societies – the food that everyone needs to eat, and the industrial production that is required for everything from building houses to waging war.
This economy underlies Hammer and Sickle, a multiplayer treatment of the Russian Civil War after the October Revolution: The industrial cities (mostly in the north and west of the collapsing Russian empire), marked by hammers, produce Firepower – provided that their workers are fed with Food (from the sickle-marked rural provinces in the south). Otherwise, the workers start to rebel.
The result is a delicate balance between Food and Firepower, exacerbated by the factions’ asymmetries: The Bolsheviks, for example, have easy access to a lot of hammers, but might find themselves short of sickles; but the opposite might be true for the White Army operating from the south. In addition to the game’s (loose) two alliances of Revolutionaries (Bolsheviks and Anarchists) and Counter-Revolutionaries (White Army and New Nations), new alignments might develop…
Alex Knight has shown his ability to turn a complex political-military struggle into a compelling board game with the Spanish Civil War in the intriguing Land and Freedom. I’m sure he’ll do the same with Hammer and Sickle.
You can pre-order Hammer and Sickle at the P500 price of $62.00 (regular price: $97.00). Release is expected not before the third quarter of 2026… which might turn into 2027, but I wanted to include the game here anyway because it just seems so fascinating.
1-2 players, 20-40 minutes
Matthias Cramer has got the range. He has designed great epics like Weimar: The Fight for Democracy, but he is also a master of the short form. His Watergate is a knife fight in a phone booth… and Lenin’s Legacy promises to be cut from the same cloth.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was the dominant figure of the new Bolshevik government of Russia, but his health started to fail him soon after the October Revolution. Behind the scenes, his lieutenants jockeyed for position to succeed him – and the two likeliest candidates were Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. While they differed in their politics – Trotsky wanted to advance the “world revolution”, Stalin advocated for “socialism in one country” – and their power bases – Trotsky was the creator of the Red Army, Stalin controlled the Communist Party – they had one thing in common: Their drive to take power.
Lenin’s Legacy lets its players fill their shoes and struggle over the army, the party, and the regions and politicians of the Soviet Union in a card-driven game with a twist: Almost all cards are selected from an open market. The players hold only one card each… but they can gamble on playing the opponent’s card (without knowing what it is)!
You can still pre-order Lenin’s Legacy at the P500 price of $37.00 (regular price: $59.00). Release is expected for March.
1-2 players, 30-45 minutes
Many of the games in this post are very zoomed-out, grand strategic affairs. The counters you push move armies, the cards you play shake nations. Yet there is also something very charming about games operating on the micro level, and you get exactly that with Night Witches.
You are on the Eastern Front of World War II, serving in the all-women 588th Night Bomber Regiment of the Soviet Air Forces. You have no more than two biplanes at your command in every mission… and they are old, slow, and vulnerable. Still, your goal is to harass the invading German forces with these low-flying, hard-to-detect, and hard-to-engage craft every night, do damage as much damage as you can (or, at least, wear the enemy out with constant nocturnal attacks), and make it back safe.
You can play each mission separately or in a ten-mission campaign which allows you to carry over upgrades, and either solo or as a two-player cooperative effort.
Night Witches awaits its Kickstarter campaign in the second quarter of 2026. The game will be released in late 2026.
1-4 players, 60-480 minutes
This game has been long in the making. I’ve referenced it as ready for pre-order eight years ago, and have been intrigued by its premise since then. The Berlin Airlift was the largest airborne logistics operation ever, and for it to render the Berlin Blockade (on the ground) void, hundreds of planes had to arrive every day in Berlin with fuel, food, spare parts, and medical supplies, notwithstanding the limited infrastructure, the often rough weather, and every so often, Soviet interference.
This immense logistical task fell to the US Air Force and the Royal Air Force, each of which is represented by two “squadrons” (players) in the game. The players strive to contribute the most to the effort with their squadron, but their internal competition sometimes has to take the backseat when a joint effort is required to confront Soviet interference or keep the morale of the Berlin population up.
John Poniske’s original design has been taken on by Terry Simo. The Berlin Airlift is now ready for production. It can still be pre-ordered here at the reduced price of $55.00 (later MSRP estimated $75.00). Publication is expected for the third quarter of 2026.
And which 2026 games look most exciting to you? Let me know in the comments!
Anmelden
