Normale Ansicht

My Favorite Wargame Cards – A Look at Individual Cards from My Favorite Games – Card #73: Russian Leader Tsar Alexander I from Congress of Vienna from GMT Games

Von: Grant
15. April 2026 um 14:00

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.

#73: Russian Leader Tsar Alexander I from Congress of Vienna from GMT Games

Congress of Vienna from GMT Games is a diplomatic card driven wargame based on Churchill and is the 4th game in the Great Statesmen Series. The game is set during the years of 1813-1814 and sees players take on the role of the main characters of the struggle between the Napoleonic Empire and the coalition of Russia, Austria, and Great Britain with their Prussian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Swedish allies. Congress of Vienna has two different but related phases including the conference table where players first debate over the control of issues germane to the factions and the period of the war and second these issues are then used on the battlefield to recruit units, attack and take overall command of battles. The players will be playing cards from their hands to “debate” over the various issues that were placed on the table, which include all types of things such as Military Operations, Recruitment, who will lead the combined Coalition forces (Generalissimo), Future of French Government, British Financial Aid, Liberalism vs. Absolutism, Austrian Neutrality and several other issues, and then later the players will use their accumulated Resources gained from the issues to enact action on the Military Map and do things like mobilize troops, place Military Support Markers and the ultimately to conduct warfare.

The game relies on cards and cards can be used to negotiate, i.e. move an issue to your National Track. Cards can provide a particular issue with positive and negative DRM’s depending on which nation plays them and can also be traded with another player during the Diplomacy Phase. Certain cards are better than others for debating an issue moved by another player; and finally, if they are saved for the War Phase, staff cards can be used to modify dice rolling in battles. These are very versatile cards and the players will have to learn them and their benefits in order to be effective at the game.

In this entry, we are going to take a look at the Russian Leader Tsar Alexander I card. The fist thing that you may notice about this Leader Card is that is that it has no benefit for military operations, meaning that Tsar Alexander is watching the war from the sidelines and not directly involved like Napoleon, but does have a potential negative effect if used on certain Issues. But his power lies in the ability to utilize his 7 value to influence issues significantly on the Negotiating table. Particularly, Tsar Alexander I is an ardent believer in the philosophy of Absolutism and wants to retain his crown as the leader of Russia. This concept is played out in the game between the great powers of the time, including Russia and Austria for Absolutism, and the more democratic players including Britain and France for Liberalism. On the board appears this Liberalism/Absolutism Track, which provides the players an opportunity to debate over the Liberalism/Absolutism Issue and gain various advantages and Victory Points from the track. On this Liberalism/Absolutism Track, Europe’s post-war governing philosophy is fought over. This is a double track in green and red with a common At Start area for the use of 2 pawns. Tracks for Liberalism (red: Britain/France) and Absolutism (green: Russia/Austria) each have four boxes and an assigned total Victory Point amount. In order to score the VP from this track though, the player scoring must have their philosophical leaning portion of the track occupying a space at least 1 box ahead of their opponent. Also, if they want to score the maximum Victory Points listed at the top, they have to occupy the top box and their opponent cannot occupy theirs. For the Russia player, this should be a huge part of their strategy as 5VP is nothing to sneeze at in this game. But, in order to do that they will most likely have to try to go first and use Tsar Alexander and his 7 value to try and move that Issue up the track to end under their control. If an Issue every reaches a Track’s Seat, meaning the 7th space, or more after any declared debate is calculated in, then that Issue is considered to be secured and can no longer be moved through negotiation during future rounds. This reminds me a bit of the way that I always plan to use Joseph Stalin in Churchill, to go first and then bring the hammer down on the A-Bomb Research Issue. Getting control of this Absolutism/Liberalism Issue at least 4 times is very important for the Russian player and they will need to utilize this ability as much as possible. But remember that there is a penalty called the “Meddling Tsar” Rule where if Tsar Alexander is used for the negotiation of the British Financial Aid, Liberalism/Absolutism or the Generalissimo Issues, it will inflict a -2 DRM on all battles involving 1 or more Russian units during the upcoming War Phase. This is quite a cost and the player should carefully consider if and when they use the ability throughout the game. If the turn is expected to contain little to no combat for Russian units, then it is safe to use but if France is being aggressive and pushing on Poland and Prussia you might want to consider not going after the Liberalism/Absolutism Issue this turn and instead focus on Recruitment and Military Operation Issues.

The other part of this ability is that if Tsar Alexander I is used to move the Liberalism/Absolutism Issue then Napoleon cannot be used to Debate that movement. I would say that this is not an issue though as typically the France player will be using Napoleon on the battlefield for his DRM abilities.

I also like the historical and personality connection between this card and the game. At the top of the card you will notice that if you use Tsar Alexander I to negotiate the Peace Congress, Future Government of France, Bavaria or Poland Issues, that you will gain a -2 on his value bringing it from a 7 down to a 5. I think that this ability really highlights the philosophy and view of the Tsar regarding the time. He doesn’t believe that France should get to continue to exist as a main player in the power structure of the time and definitely doesn’t want to see France become more democratic. But, he also has a feeling that Bavaria and Poland are Russian vassals and should not be allowed to be turned to any other side’s allegiance. If he has to be used in this manner to defend or negotiate these issues I feel like the -2 Value penalty really shows that leaning in his thinking and probably causes him to be more brunt and less diplomatic thereby losing some of his influence in the court of opinion. Ultimately, Tsar Alexander I thought that monarchy is a noble and viable alternative to the crude and materialistic mob mentality of republicanism and the abilities of his Leader Card definitely cement that view.

After playing now a few times, I am here to say that Congress of Vienna is probably my favorite game in the Great Statesmen Series. I believe that this game has matured the system and made it something that is more than where it started. Congress of Vienna is very much more like a true wargame and was extremely interesting. We are still learning and need to keep playing this one but I did enjoy what it was that we were doing.

Alexander I, nicknamed “the Blessed”, was Emperor of Russia from 1801, the first King of Congress Poland from 1815, and the Grand Duke of Finland from 1809 to his death in 1825. He ruled Russia during the chaotic period of the Napoleonic Wars.

The eldest son of Emperor Paul I and Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg, Alexander succeeded to the throne after his father was murdered. As prince and during the early years of his reign, he often used liberal rhetoric but continued Russia’s absolutist policies in practice. In the first years of his reign, he initiated some minor social reforms and in 1803–04 major liberal educational reforms, such as building more universities. Alexander appointed Mikhail Speransky, the son of a village priest, as one of his closest advisors. The over-centralized Collegium ministries were abolished and replaced by the Committee of Ministers, State Council, and Supreme Court to improve the legal system. Plans were made, but never consummated, to set up a parliament and sign a constitution. In contrast to his westernizing predecessors such as Peter the Great, Alexander was a Russian nationalist and Slavophile who wanted Russia to develop on the basis of Russian rather than European culture.

In foreign policy, he changed Russia’s position towards France four times between 1804 and 1812, shifting among neutrality, opposition, and alliance. In 1805 he joined Britain in the War of the Third Coalition against Napoleon, but after suffering massive defeats at the battles of Austerlitz and Friedland, he switched sides and formed an alliance with Napoleon in the Treaty of Tilsit and joined Napoleon’s Continental System. He fought a small-scale naval war against Britain between 1807 and 1812 and took Finland from Sweden in 1809 after Sweden’s refusal to join the Continental System. Alexander and Napoleon hardly agreed, especially regarding Poland, and the alliance collapsed by 1810. Alexander’s greatest triumph came in 1812 when Napoleon’s invasion of Russia descended into a catastrophe for the French. As part of the winning coalition against Napoleon, he gained territory in Poland. He formed the Holy Alliance to suppress the revolutionary movements in Europe, which he saw as immoral threats to legitimate Christian monarchs.

During the second half of his reign, Alexander became increasingly arbitrary, reactionary, and fearful of plots against him; as a result, he ended many of the reforms he had made earlier on in his reign. He purged schools of foreign teachers, as education became more religiously driven as well as politically conservative. Speransky was replaced as advisor with the strict artillery inspector Aleksey Arakcheyev, who oversaw the creation of military settlements. Alexander died of typhus in December 1825 while on a trip to southern Russia. He left no legitimate children, as his two daughters died in childhood. Neither of his brothers wanted to become emperor. After a period of great confusion (that presaged the failed Decembrist revolt of liberal army officers in the weeks after his death), he was succeeded by his younger brother, Nicholas I.

We have done 2 videos on this game including the following RAW Video after out 1st play at Buckeye Game Fest in May 2025:

We then did the following full Review Video after our 2nd play at WBC last July:

In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Open Borders from 2024: An American Insurgency from Compass Games.

-Grant

My Favorite Wargame Cards – A Look at Individual Cards from My Favorite Games – Card #72: Commodus from The Wars of Marcus Aurelius: Rome 170-180CE from Hollandspiele

Von: Grant
07. April 2026 um 14:00

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.

#72: Commodus from The Wars of Marcus Aurelius: Rome 170-180CE from Hollandspiele

The Wars of Marcus Aurelius: Rome 170-180CE is a solitaire only game that uses cards similarly to a CDG to simulate the strategic level struggle of the Romans led by Marcus Aurelius to stave off the invasions of Germanic tribes and Sarmatian raiders as they encroach on Roman territory across the Danube River. That’s the history. And it is really well integrated. The game play is very fun, strategic, with lots of decision points about what to do and what cards to use, and it is really challenging.

In the game, the Roman player has a deck of Roman Cards that can be used for the printed events for various effects or that can be discarded to take any number of actions such as attack a Barbarian army or Off-Map Conflict enemy, advance the marker on the Imperium Track, add two Level 1 Forts to any eligible map spaces, flip one Level 1 Fort to a Level 2 Fort among several other actions. Sometimes the printed events in the game are just more powerful than discarding a card for just 1 action so you have to pay attention to this economy and make sure you get the most out of your cards. Now, keep in mind, sometimes discarding a good card whose ability is not right for the current situation you find yourself in is part of the game but you have to use these cards wisely to do well in the game.

The game uses two separate decks of cards including the Barbarian Deck (Green) and The Roman Deck (Red). Both of the decks are made up of 50 cards each but each have very different purposes. The Barbarian Deck is used to determine the actions of the invading Germanic tribes as well as events that effect the war effort including mutinies, plague and the will of the people. While the Roman Deck provides the resources and events that are used by the Roman player to mount a defense against the invasions and to fight back each of the different barbarian tribes. There are unique cards called Late War Cards in the deck that will be held out until the start of the 175CE turn at which time they will be mixed in with the cards to form a new Late War Deck. There are also special cards that are marked with an asterisk that if played for the event will be discarded from the game to form what is called a History Pile.

In this entry, we will focus on the Roman Card Commodus, which provides some opportunity to shore up your failing Imperium Points or even cancel an ongoing Mutiny of your troops on the board. In my first 5 or 6 plays of the game, the most common way that I lost was by allowing the Imperium Point Track to reach zero, which results in Marcus Aurelius being usurped and the player immediately losing the game. I was confounded and very frustrated about why I couldn’t prevent this from happening! I could see the end coming but struggled with keeping that Track above water. There are a few cards included in the Roman Deck that provide increases to the Imperium Track and I highly recommend you take these type of events when they come into your hand rather than discarding these cards to take another action, that might seem important at the time, but in the end these events are just too efficient to pass on. Commodus will provide you an option. This option is taking the +2 IP or another type of action such as ending a Mutiny (very important as it usually takes you discarding a card and losing an IP) or drawing two cards to add to your hand (imagine if you can only draw that Local Guides card you have been looking for or the Ambush that you need to take on the Quadi in their Home space). It becomes a choice of “either/or” and I am here to tell you the only reason the “or option” is provided is to lure you away from the real prize in that of gaining the +2 IP. Please listen to my advice and take the +2 IP. You will thank me in the end! Remember, that the concept of Imperium Points (IP) represent the Emperor’s overall political authority and stability in Rome. If the IP track ever reaches zero, the player immediately loses due to usurpation. Points are lost from specific card events, barbarian surges, and certain combat results, requiring players to prioritize special events to gain them back

Commodus was Roman emperor from 177 to 192AD, first serving as nominal co-emperor under his father Marcus Aurelius and then ruling alone from 180AD. Commodus’s sole reign is commonly thought to mark the end of the Pax Romana, a golden age of peace and prosperity in the history of the Roman Empire.

Commodus accompanied his father during the Marcomannic Wars in 172AD and on a tour of the Eastern provinces in 176AD. The following year, he became the youngest emperor and consul up to that point, at the age of 16. His solo reign saw less military conflict than that of Marcus Aurelius, but internal intrigues and conspiracies abounded, goading Commodus to an increasingly dictatorial style of leadership. This culminated in his creating a deific personality cult, including his performances as a gladiator in the Colosseum. Throughout his reign, Commodus entrusted the management of daily routine affairs to his palace chamberlain and praetorian prefects, namely Saoterus, Perennis, and Cleander. Roman soldiers and the general populace generally liked Commodus during his reign, largely because he was popular with the masses and focused on lavish spending rather than costly foreign wars. He was adored for presenting himself as a masculine, gladiatorial Hercules, though the Senate despised him

Commodus was assassinated by the wrestler Narcissus in 192AD, ending the Nerva–Antonine dynasty. He was succeeded by Pertinax, the first claimant in the tumultuous Year of the Five Emperors.

I shot a playthrough video for the game and you can watch that at the following link:

I also followed that up with a full video review sharing my thoughts:

In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Russian Leader Tsar Alexander I from Congress of Vienna from GMT Games.

-Grant

My Favorite Wargame Cards – A Look at Individual Cards from My Favorite Games – Card #71: The Wartburg from Here I Stand: Wars of the Reformation, 1517-1555 from GMT Games

Von: Grant
31. März 2026 um 14:00

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.

#71: The Wartburg from Here I Stand: Wars of the Reformation, 1517-1555 from GMT Games

Here I Stand: Wars of the Reformation 1517-1555 is an experience packaged in a game that attempts to boldly cover the political and religious conflicts of early 16th Century Europe. The game focuses on the struggle of religious reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli as they battle the Papacy for changes in their views of God and religion. But it is more than just the Holy War as it deals with the other European countries involved in the affairs of the time including France, England, the mighty Hapsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire in the east. They all played a role in the process of the Reformation and the design brilliantly weaves this all together into an interesting and engaging experience. The game also covers other plot lines and events of the period, including wars, marriages and ascendancies to thrones, using a unique Card Driven Game (CDG) system that models both the political and religious conflicts of the period.

Today, I want to take a look at a very interesting Response card in The Wartburg. Response cards in Here I Stand are event cards that can be played out of turn to interrupt the actions of an opponent or provide immediate reactions to specific game events. Response cards are often used to negate, mitigate, or enhance events and combats, and they may be played during an opponent’s impulse, provided the text allows for this asynchronous timing. These cards also tend to have specific pre-requisites that must be met in order to play the card and The Wartburg states that the card is “only playable by Protestants, and Luther must be alive”. The card itself allows the Protestant player to cancel the play of a card as an event but cannot cancel a Mandatory Event. The card however can cancel the play of the Papal Bull or Leipzig Debate Papal Home Cards, which is probably the way that the card will mostly be used. The card will not only cancel the play of the event but will also end the impulse of the player playing the card. This can be very powerful and when played at the right time can be a game saver for the Protestant player.

For example, in our most recent play at Buckeye Game Fest, I was playing as the Protestants and Bill Simoni as the Papacy. After the forming of the Schmalkaldic League and the Protestants changing into a military power, the focus of the other players turned toward me as I was doing well and near victory. They all then decided to declare war on the Protestants and began to advance upon and attack my fortified Electorates to take away VP I had earned by having both religious and political control in 5 of the 6 as the League was formed. As we came into turn 5, I was at 24 VP and ultimately came up shy of a victory by 1 point at the time. I had been able to take over the entirety of England and change every space and also get about 5-6 spaces in France, but now the Papal Bull came to play and Bill fought me back and forth with him taking over 3-4 spaces followed by me reclaiming 3-4 spaces. It was a beautiful game of back and forth and I used every tool at my disposal to fight him including The Wartburg card to stop the untimely excommunication of Zwingli before he could attempt to embarrass him in a debate. That card play at that very time saved me or most likely he would have used Eck who is his best debater against Zwingli who is just average and I would have lost leading to him being burnt at the stake giving him VP or by allowing him to turn over a few of my hard fought converted spaces back to Catholicism.

The only problem with this card is that it commits Luther so he will be unavailable to be chosen directly to debate during the rest of the turn. But this was a small price to pay at that time and ultimately led to me being able to hold on through the end of Turn 6 where I won a Protestant victory on the tie breaker with England.

Martin Luther stayed at Wartburg Castle from May 1521 to March 1522 under the alias “Junker Jörg” (Knight George) to hide from papal and imperial authorities. During these 300 days of protective custody, he translated the New Testament into German in just 11 weeks, wrote numerous theological works, and grappled with spiritual turmoil. His greatest accomplishment at Wartburg Castle was his translating of the New Testament from Koine Greek into German, which laid the foundation for a unified German language and made the Bible accessible to ordinary people. He also wrote numerous works, including Against Latomus and several tracts. He began his attack on monastic vows during this time, arguing they were contrary to faith. Luther used his time in exile for intense study and writing, referring to his stay as his “Patmos”, referring to the Apostle John’s exile to the Island of Patmos in 95AD. While here though he also experienced significant psychological distress and temptation. According to legend, he threw his inkwell at the devil during a confrontation, leaving a stain on the wall. His exile was organized by Frederick the Wise after the Diet of Worms and the stay was designed to keep Luther safe from those looking for him, ensuring the survival of his reform movement.

In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Commodus from The Wars of Marcus Aurelius: Rome 170-180CE from Hollandspiele.

-Grant

My Favorite Wargame Cards – A Look at Individual Cards from My Favorite Games – Card #70: Mohawks from Wilderness War: The French & Indian War, 1755-1760 from GMT Games

Von: Grant
24. März 2026 um 13:00

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.

#70: Mohawks from Wilderness War: The French & Indian War, 1755-1760 from GMT Games

One of my fondest memories of our wargaming journey was our initial experience with the full campaign game of Wilderness War from GMT Games. We were 2 very inexperienced wargamers and we slogged through a 9-hour marathon play over a few days that ended in a 0-0 tie of all things. That’s right, the game ended in a tie, even though we both had a card in hand, but I was unable to use mine to activate Levis, which was my only potential Victory Point scoring force, and Alexander’s forces were in too tenuous a position or too wounded to risk an open battle for VP’s. You would think that this would have turned us off to the game but on the contrary it made me fall in love with asymmetric wargames and the Card Driven Game mechanic with its use of Action Points and events to wage war on the North American continent. The end score of our game really followed the tension of the game, and the blunders on the side of the British that counter balanced their various successes.

All in all, this game was excellent to play and we both highly recommend it. The two factions play extremely differently which leads to many intricate and reactive strategic decisions. The British have many powerful forces with their Highlanders and cannon while the French have access to better leaders and mobile troops and Indian allies who can run around the frontier raiding and burning settlements for VP’s. Laying siege and assaulting really feels like it should, and avoiding battle until you are ready is something that is integral to maintaining a strong presence on the board. You cannot always get into every possible fight as you will not survive the attrition of these battles. The deck plays really well, and as you don’t have to worry about the opponents events in your hand going off, the management aspect is much simpler yet very engaging as there are always reaction cards you can play or cards that you want to hold onto for that perfect moment.

In previous posts in this series, we have discussed the importance of the players of both sides gaining the trust and services of the indigenous Indian denizens of North America in the fight. The French and British can both use the Indian recruitment cards, including cards such as Iroquois Alliance, Northern Indian Alliance and Western Indian Alliance, to recruit, restore, and move native allies to gain victory points through raids and controlling of territory. The French hold a significant advantage with more access to a greater number of Indian auxiliaries, and will be using these cards to launch early raids, while the British can recruit specialized units like their Mohawk or Cherokee allies. 

In this entry, we will take a look at the British card Mohawks. Mohawks is one of those cards that has a pre-requisite qualifying condition to play the card. In this case, the qualifier is that the leader Johnson must be located on the board within 2 spaces of Canajoharie, which was a Mohawk village located in upstate New York. As long as he is within the required 2 spaces, the card can be played to bring out onto the board the Red striped Mohawk Indian units. These must be placed with Johnson and the other added benefit is that any reduced Mohawks on the board can be flipped to their full side. These pro-British units can only be recruited by the British player and their arrival in New York can be a huge boon to the British as the French and their Indian allies will be raiding the villages and settlements up and down the frontier regularly during the game as one of their most dependable sources of Victory Points. These Mohawk allies can spread out around the area and intercept incoming raids before they can occur. Remember that Indian allies in Wilderness War are not powerful combat units and are best used to raid and prevent other tribes from raiding.

I very much love the thematic connection here as in order to attract the Mohawk Indians as your allies you must have someone that they trust in the area and this is Johnson. Sir William Johnson was a pivotal British superintendent of Indian Affairs whose deep integration into Mohawk society secured the crucial Mohawk Nation alliance for the British during the French and Indian War. By living among them, learning their language, and marrying Mohawk women, he maintained the Iroquois Covenant Chain and led Mohawk warriors in key victories. This is one of the great things about these Card Driven Games and their use of the cards to deliver the bits and bobs of history to enlighten our understanding and to expand our knowledge of the period.

As a young man, Johnson moved to the Province of New York to manage an estate purchased by his uncle, Royal Navy officer Peter Warren, which was located in territory of the Mohawk, one of the Six Nations of the Iroquois League. Johnson learned the Mohawk language and Iroquois customs, and was appointed the British agent to the Iroquois. Johnson commanded Iroquois and colonial militia forces against the French and their allies during the war and was later commissioned a major-general for his role in the British victory at the Battle of Lake George in 1755. His capture of Fort Niagara from the French in 1759 brought him additional renown. Throughout his career as a British official among the Iroquois, Johnson combined personal business with official diplomacy, acquiring tens of thousands of acres of Native land and becoming very wealthy.

In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at The Wartburg from Here I Stand: Wars of the Reformation, 1517-1555 from GMT Games.

-Grant

My Favorite Wargame Cards – A Look at Individual Cards from My Favorite Games – Card #69: Blockade from Twilight Struggle: The Cold War, 1945-1989 from GMT Games

Von: Grant
17. März 2026 um 16:31

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.

#69: Blockade from Twilight Struggle: The Cold War, 1945-1989 from GMT Games

Twilight Struggle is a 2-player game simulating the forty-five year ideological struggle known as the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States which can be played in 2-3 hours. The entire world is the stage on which these two countries “fight” to make the world safe for their own ideologies and way of life. The game starts right after the end of World War II in the midst of the ruins of Europe as the two new “superpowers” of the world squabble over what is left and ends in 1989, when only the United States remained standing.

The map is a world map of the period, where players move units and exert influence in attempts to gain allies and control for their superpower. The beauty of the CDG system used here is that each decision of whether to use a card for the event or the operations value is a struggle as if it is the other side’s event, it might go off hurting you very badly. There are mechanics to allow for the ignoring or cancelling of some of the best cards for your opponent in a side game within the game called The Space Race as well as nuclear tensions, with the possibility of game-ending global thermonuclear war (Shall we play a game, anyone?). I have played TS about 30 times and love it more and more with each sitting. The game makes me sweat, cringe, jump with joy and bite my fingernails. To me, a game that can do all of that in one sitting is worth the price.

One of my favorite type of cards from the game are those that force an action upon your opponent, such as discarding a card, reducing the Ops from card plays or causing them to have to make other plans than what they were working toward. These type of cards are more reactionary but definitely cause issues and mimic the various non-military focused strategies and tactics used during the Cold War. One of the most famous events from the early history of the Cold War is that of the Berlin Blockade. And there is a specific card that pays homage to the event in the game called Blockade. Blockade is an Early War Soviet Card that has an Ops Value of 1, which makes the card more valuable to be used for the printed event versus for the Ops.

When played, the card requires the US Player to immediately discard a 3 Ops or more value card from their hand or the consequence of not doing so will see all US Influence being removed from West Germany. This is a tough choice. Being early in the game, it is possible for the US to rebuild in West Germany and replace the lost influence over time if they do not wish to discard such as high value card. But, herein lies the real key to the Blockade cards use. The Soviet Player, who should be paying attention to not only their hand but also the card plays of the US Player, should try to use this card later in a turn once the US Player has played a majority of their cards in order to ensure that the event text can be realistically be achieved. If played quickly during a turn, the chances of the US Player being able to discard the required 3 Ops or great value card is higher and the card play will not generate any meaningful difference on the board state. I also would recommend a 2 card strategy here as the Soviet Player should be holding in their hand a high Ops card to be able to follow up this action with the placement of Influence into West Germany on their very next play. But, the real value to a card such as Blockade is that it forces the US Player to consider what cards are out there and to play around their negative effects as much as possible. Due to the nature of the game, and the randomness of card draws, having an expendable high Ops card ready and able to be discarded just in case of the play of Blockade is not really feasible. Also, remember that in Twilight Struggle that opponent events on cards that you play will go off and Blockade being drawn by the US Player can be bad as it will require them to play the event as you cannot discard a 1 Ops card to get rid of its negative effect in the Space Race Track due to the minimum requirement being a 2 Ops card. So the moral of the story here is that both players need to consider and plan for the play of or the mitigation of damage from Blockade.

The Berlin Blockade, which lasted from June 1948–May 1949, was a major Cold War crisis where the Soviet Union blocked all land and water access to West Berlin to attempt to force Western Allies out. The Soviet Union was taking this action as a means of retaliation against the introduction of the new Deutschmark currency. The US and Britain responded with the massive Berlin Airlift, flying over 2.3 million tons of food, fuel and supplies to the city. At the peak of the Airlift, a plane landed in West Berlin every 30 seconds. The blockade failed and the Soviets lifted it on May 12, 1949, after realizing the Allied Airlift could sustain the city for an extended period of time, marking a significant victory for the West in the ideological struggle. This event led to the acceleration of the division of Germany into East and West and the deepening of Cold War tensions.

In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Mohawks from Wilderness War: The French & Indian War, 1755-1760 from GMT Games.

-Grant

My Favorite Wargame Cards – A Look at Individual Cards from My Favorite Games – Card #68: Usurper Emperor from Barbarians at the Gates, The Decline and Fall of the Western Roman Empire 337 – 476 from Compass Games

Von: Grant
05. März 2026 um 14:00

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.

Card #68: Usurper Emperor from Barbarians at the Gates, The Decline and Fall of the Western Roman Empire 337 – 476 from Compass Games

Barbarians at the Gates, The Decline and Fall of the Western Roman Empire 337 – 476 from Compass Games is a Card Driven Game for two players set during the final hundred plus years of the Western Roman Empire as the Barbarian tribes in the north came down with a vengeance as they clashed with civilization and carved out their place amongst it. The time period covered in the game is from the death of Constantine the Great (337 AD) to the deposition of the last Western Roman Emperor by Odoacer in 476 AD. The Roman player will command the Roman Legions loyal to the failing central authority and those Germanic peoples who have settled peacefully inside the Roman Empire, while the Barbarian player leads Usurper Emperors, and controls the migrations of the Germanic peoples, who are the Barbarians at the Gates. This game is really quite good and feels very much like a wargame even though it is a Card Driven Game. There are lots of opportunities for troop movement, combat and maneuver. And I really liked that. The game is a Card Driven Game and the use of cards is all important and very well done. Each player has their own unique deck of cards that are used and these cards are sometimes removed from those decks when played for an event and also new cards will be added to the deck after each turn. The cards played during a player’s impulse which are not used for the Event are then used for their Operation Points value. These Operation Points can be used for many purposes including Activating a leader, Forced Marches, Raiding, Reinforcement, Migration and Successful Usurpation.

The real trick to the cards is to plan out how you are going to use them to your advantage but also how best to use them. Activating Leaders is very important as you can then move them to attack, defend, change control of areas and other actions. Activating a leader depends on their strategy rating (the lower the strategy rating, the better). When a leader activates from a card, they receive a number of Action Points which can be used for movement (1 over highway, 2 over rough or river connections, 3 over strait or for naval movement), continuation after battle (a kind of advance after combat), changing control over unfortified spaces and sieges of fortified spaces. But the cards also are very mean spirited. What do I mean by this? Well, in our first play, I was carefully using my cards to build up my armies to fend off the initial attacks of the Barbarian hordes. I also had begun to build somewhat of a super stack as well to attempt to foray into England and take on the Barbarians there. As I did this building up, I was unaware of the nasty nature of some of the cards. Some of the cards, both for the Barbarians and Romans, allow a play that will turn a single leader and their entire stack into either a Usurper or a Pacified Barbarian Settlement. Both are equally nasty and you have to keep in mind that you can have your best armies simply taken from you and turned to your enemy.

Some of the cards, both for the Barbarians and Romans, allow a play that will turn a single leader and their entire stack into either a Usurper or a Pacified Barbarian Settlement. Both are equally nasty and you have to keep in mind that you can have your best armies simply taken from you and turned to your enemy. Because of this, the Roman player has to decide whether they will group Combat Units under a single leader in order to face the mighty Barbarian challengers at the Gates in which case he risks that leader to Usurp, or to disperse these troops over several stacks never allowing a single leader to amass too many CU but on the other hand also never having a true striking force to attack with. There is an exception here though as an Emperor leader cannot Usurp and you don’t have to worry about that but this is also dangerous as you can lose that Emperor.

Likewise, once they have an Usurper leader on the board the Barbarian player will try to group all Usurper CU with this leader (in order to keep this force strong and in order to allow their Barbarian CU, leader and tribes to march unopposed into the Empire). This creates a very real and historical danger as the Barbarian player is incentivized to do what an Usurper would historically have done and empty the border garrisons in order to march on Rome.

These type of cards are extremely strong and a situation can occur in which most of the Romans still on the board are Usurper leaders and CU. But there is an action that allows for the Roman player to counter these cards and that is the Successful Usurpation action. If the Barbarian player over does it with the Usurper powers, the Roman player can simply steal these conquests by swapping the Roman power for the Usurper power. This in effect has the Usurpation process succeed and the former Usurper leader now becomes the true Emperor!

Usurper emperors in history, particularly in Ancient Rome, were rulers who seized their power illegitimately, often times via a military rebellion rather than legal succession, and were labeled “tyrants” if defeated, or emperors if successful. They were most common during crises and times of turmoil, such as the “Year of the Four Emperors” in 69 AD following the suicide of Nero, often relying on legionary support and issuing their own coins to legitimize authority. 

Emperor Galba by Paulus Moreelse (left); with Emperor Marcus Salvius Otho by Gerrit van Honthorst (center left); with Emperor Vitellius by Hendrick Goltzius (center-right); and Emperor Vespasian (far right).

Usurpation was common during the whole imperial era; virtually all imperial dynasties rose to power through usurpation and conspiracies. The “imperial office” established by Augustus never defined an stable system of succession, and emperors often had to rely solely on military power to survive.

In the Eastern Roman Empire (395–1453), rebellion and usurpation were so notoriously frequent as compared to medieval West, where usurpation was rare, that the modern term “byzantine” became a byword for political intrigue and conspiracy. 

Here is a look at our unboxing video:

We also did a video review and you can watch that at the following link:

I also wrote a First Impressions post on the game and you can read that at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2022/11/08/first-impressions-barbarians-at-the-gates-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-western-roman-empire-337-476-from-compass-games/

In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Blockade from Twilight Struggle: The Cold War, 1945-1989 from GMT Games.

-Grant

❌