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 #88: National American Woman Suffrage Association from Votes for Women from Fort Circle Games
Votes for Women is a very interesting card-driven game that covers the American Women’s Suffrage Movement from 1848-1920, culminating in the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment which granted women the right to vote. The game is a 2-player game, that has a fully developed solitaire mode with an “Oppobot” and offers a cooperative mode for those who don’t wish to play as they Opposition. The Suffragist player will have to push Congress to propose the Nineteenth Amendment, and then focus on campaigning to have a minimum of 36 states to ratify the Amendment. The Opposition side will try to prevent Congress from proposing the amendment and failing that to have 13 states reject the amendment.
The game uses cards in a fairly traditional CDG way as there are events that can be be taken or the cards can be played to do things like Campaign, Organize or Lobby Congress. Each card has a specific Card Era that is used to create of the each players’ Draw Decks. Late cards will be on the bottom of the deck, Middle cards will be in the middle of the deck and Early cards will be on the top of the deck. The Suffragist and Opposition decks each have one Start card that will be placed in the player’s hand at the start of the game. Some Event Cards have a prerequisite and some of the cards require a player to roll a 6-sided die and only take the the action on a roll of 3-6. Otherwise, the Event Card is discarded with no effect. The cards in this game are also steeped in historical details, from the name of the events that tie back to specific individuals or happenings, to major moments in the struggle. This game is about the history of the struggle for the right to vote and it is very good!
One of the more interesting aspects about the mechanics of the game is the use of Campaigners to go about trying to influence the attitude of the people and legislators regarding the Nineteenth Amendment through the Campaign Action. When a card is played for a Campaign Action, the player rolls a die, either a 6-sided or 8-sided die depending on what cards have been activated, for each Campaigner they have in play. The player then gets to take the dice and their results, which range from 1-8, and assign a specific die to each of their Campaigners. Each Campaigner may then place the corresponding number of cubes, matching the Campaigner’s color, in the States within the region that the Campaigner is located in. The player may spend a Button to move the Campaigner to a different region, but all of the corresponding cubes must be put into the same region. This is a great way to get a lot of influence out on the board to begin taking control of various States for the final vote in the game. This also is a very efficient way of doing this as you will be rolling 2-3 dice for your Campaigners and then spamming the States. With that in mind, today’s card is the National American Woman Suffrage Association and it provides the Suffragist player with a new Campaigner (purple) to place out specifically into the Atlantic & Appalachia Region that includes the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware. The card also grants the Suffragist player with 3 Buttons that can be used as described above to relocate a Campaigner from one state to another. This card is very helpful and should be played for the Event 9 times out of 10 and will make a huge difference in the outcome of the game. Once a 2nd or 3rd Campaigner is deployed, I tend to take Campaign Actions rather than some of the less intensive placement options or Events.
The National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) was an organization formed on February 18, 1890, to advocate in favor of women’s suffrage in the United States. It was created by the merger of two existing organizations, the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) and the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). Its membership, which was about 7,000 at the time it was formed, eventually increased to 2 million, making it the largest voluntary organization in the nation. It played a pivotal role in the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which in 1920 guaranteed women’s right to vote.
Helen Hamilton Gardener, Maud Wood Park and Carrie Chapman Catt at Suffrage House in Washington, D.C.
Susan B. Anthony, a long-time leader in the suffrage movement, was the dominant figure in the newly formed NAWSA. Carrie Chapman Catt, who became president after Anthony retired in 1900, implemented a strategy of recruiting wealthy members of the rapidly growing women’s club movement, whose time, money and experience could help build the suffrage movement. Anna Howard Shaw’s term in office, which began in 1904, saw strong growth in the organization’s membership and public approval.
After the Senate decisively rejected the proposed women’s suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1887, the suffrage movement had concentrated most of its efforts on state suffrage campaigns. In 1910 Alice Paul joined the NAWSA and played a major role in reviving interest in the national amendment. After continuing conflicts with the NAWSA leadership over tactics, Paul created a rival organization, the National Woman’s Party.
Here is a link to our full video review of the game:
About 18 months ago, while attending Buckeye Game Fest in Columbus, Ohio, we met up with David Thompson to get a quick look at a few of his newest upcoming games at the time including Line of Fire: Burnt Moon from Osprey Games and the very interesting American Civil War game with a twist called Rebels Against Rebellion from Flying Pig Games. I got to play Rebels Against Rebellion and very much enjoyed the game and what it was trying to convey about the lack of support for the secession of Tennessee from the Union as most of the residents of Scott County voted against breaking away during the American Civil War. The game pits the local groups against each other as the Free and Independent State of Scott fights against the local secessionist residents as violent confrontations between Loyalist and secessionist-aligned partisans and outlaws engaged in raids on farms, stealing livestock, and destroying property. Since that time, the game has progressed and has launched on Kickstarter. I reached out to one of the game’s designer David Thompson to see if he would be willing to share about the design and as always he was more than happy to oblige us.
Grant: David, welcome back to our blog. What is your new upcoming game Rebels Against Rebellion about?
Davind: Thanks for having me back! Rebels Against Rebellion is a card-driven war game for one or two players, set in Scott County, Tennessee, during the American Civil War. Tennessee’s own path to secession was messy. The state voted against a secession convention in February 1861, then reversed course and voted to join the Confederacy in June, following Fort Sumter. But East Tennessee never went along with it. And of all the counties in East Tennessee, none rejected secession more decisively than Scott County: 521 to 19. Later that year, the county court went so far as to pass a resolution declaring Scott County’s own independence from the state of Tennessee, calling itself the “Free and Independent State of Scott.” That’s the story we’re telling: Southern Loyalists trying to hold their ground against the Confederate army and their allied secessionist guerrillas, for the whole length of the war.
Grant: What should the title convey to the players?
David: I wanted the title to carry that irony right up front. Rebels Against Rebellion. The people of Scott County were, technically, rebelling against a rebellion by resisting the Confederacy in order to maintain their ties with the Union. History likes to flatten “Rebel” down to one side of the Civil War, but in Scott County that word cuts the other way too. I liked that the title does some of the historical educating on its own, before a player has even opened the box.
Grant: Why was this a subject you wanted to focus on?
David: It’s a story that doesn’t get told nearly enough. We hear a lot about the big battles and the big generals, but the internal fractures within the South (communities that stayed loyal to the Union under occupation, that organized home guards, that got raided by their own state’s army) that’s a different and much more personal kind of Civil War story. I’ve made a habit of chasing these under-told corners of history rather than the well-trodden ones, and Scott County is about as under-told as it gets. Once you learn about Julia Marcum defending her father’s house with an axe, or the Home Guard’s oath at the Huntsville courthouse, it’s hard not to want to build a game around it.
Grant: What are the unique features with the system used for the game?
David: The core of it is a deck that represents both your units and your locations. Playing a card from your hand isn’t just “move a piece,” it’s your people and your settlements acting together. Every location you control is physically a card sitting in your deck, hand, or discard pile, so controlling territory and building your deck are the same action. You don’t have a separate “buy phase” and “map phase.” When you improve control of a location or bolster in a new unit, you’re deck-building in exactly the same motion as you’re expanding on the board. I think that tight coupling between deckbuilding and area control is the thing that sets Rebels Against Rebellion apart.
Grant: What did you need to model regarding the American Civil War and the situation in Scott County, Tennessee?
David: Quite a lot, honestly. We needed the asymmetry between the two sides to feel true to what actually happened. The Loyalists start the game already holding six locations and 11 points, reflecting how entrenched they already were in the county by the time real fighting started, while the Confederates start with nothing on the board and have to earn their presence. We needed the food economy to reflect how much this was a war of resources and raiding: burned farms, stolen livestock, the constant question of how you feed yourself when supply lines are contested. We needed supply lines themselves to matter for Confederate regulars in a way they didn’t for local guerrillas, since regular units like the 43rd Alabama or Morgan’s Raiders came in from outside the county and depended on a route back to it, while home-grown units like the Home Guard didn’t need that at all. And we needed the map’s road, water, and path connections to reflect the real terrain. Scott County’s isolation and rugged geography is a huge part of why guerrilla warfare took hold there in the first place.
Grant: What is your design goal with the game?
David: We wanted a game that plays cleanly as a tight, two-player card-driven war game, and we wanted a player who knows absolutely nothing about Scott County going in to come away from a session with real curiosity about what actually happened there. Every named card, every location, every unit in the game is drawn from the historical record. If the mechanics are doing their job, “Capt. William Robbins” isn’t just a card with shield and gun icons on it. It’s a doorway into a real person’s story.
Grant: What other games did you use as inspiration?
David: The DNA is definitely there from our work on Undaunted, that idea of your deck representing your force on the board rather than being an abstract resource. But Rebels Against Rebellion pushes further into area control than Undaunted ever did, so we were also looking hard at how area-control and card-driven wargames handle territory scarcity and endgame tension. The most obvious influence comes from Martin Wallace’s A Few Acres of Snow, which serves as a the origin for the core concept of playing a location card as the source of movement. A lot of our actual influences, though, came out of the playtesting process itself.
Grant: What sources did you consult about the history?
David: We leaned heavily on the Scott County Historical Society throughout, especially David Jeffers, Alan Keeton, and James Cecil, who were enormously generous with their research and their archives. On the written side, Paul Roy’s Scott County in the Civil War was probably our single most important source. His overview chapter and his 148-page account of individual Scott County soldiers did a lot of heavy lifting for us. We also relied on Esther Sharp Sanderson’s County Scott and Its Mountain Folk and Scott County Gem of the Cumberlands, H. Clay Smith’s Dusty Bits of the Forgotten Past, Noel C. Fisher’s War at Every Door for the statistical picture of East Tennessee loyalism, Ben Garrett’s Enclave, decades of back issues of the Scott County Chronicle and the First National Bank Chronicle, and the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies for the military correspondence. Dr. Stuart Ellis-Gorman did our proofing and copyediting to help make sure we got the details right.
Grant: What did you learn from your trip to this area as part of your research?
David: Back in the fall of 2025 I went to Scott County to meet with folks from the Historical Society and access primary sources that were otherwise unavailable. This trip was absolutely critical to the design process. The men I met at the Historical Society had deep knowledge on the subject, so I conducted interviews with them. They also provided me some of the primary sources I had read about, but could not access without their help (mostly in the form of photocopied versions of printed documents from local authors). My trip to Scott County also gave me the opportunity to visit the area and experience the topography for myself.
Grant: What are the differences between the playable factions of the Confederates and the rebels?
David: Thematically, the Loyalists are defenders who start the game already dug in. They begin with six locations and a head start on the scoreboard, and their whole arc is about holding what’s theirs and expanding cautiously outward. The Confederates start with nothing on the board and have to fight for every location, but they’ve got the raw power to do it: bigger regular units, the ability to bring in outside firepower, provided they can maintain a supply line back to where those units are actually based.
Grant: How did you differentiate them in their mechanics?
David: A few ways. The Loyalists have much more extensive access to the Improve Control action, which allows them to place a second control marker into a location for an additional victory point and card benefit, while a couple of key Loyalist locations, Brimstone and Trammell’s, double as both a location and a unit card depending how you want to play them that turn. The Confederates, on the other hand, get access to harder-hitting regular army units, but those units can carry a supply line requirement, so playing them isn’t as simple as just having them in hand. You need an unbroken road connection back to their origin. It creates a real asymmetry: the Loyalists play a tighter, more efficient game, while the Confederates have more raw strength but have to work to unlock it.
Grant: How does the game use cards?
David: Cards do double duty as your units and your locations, and every card you play resolves a specific action before it goes to your discard pile. Food is the one shared resource, but everything else, from combat strength to your area-control footprint, lives directly on the cards moving through your deck.
Grant: Can you show us a few examples and explain their use?
David: Sure, take the Home Guard. It’s a Loyalist unit card linked to Huntsville, and if you upgrade it, you get an improved version with better combat value. Or take Chitwood’s, a basic location card: play it for its Take Food action to add to your supply, or play it to Move into an adjacent location, which is how you expand your territory or launch an attack. And then there’s Brimstone, which starts as a plain location card but can be improved into Capt. William Robbins. At that point it’s simultaneously the location and a combat unit, with its own attack value and shield icons, giving you flexibility about how you use it depending on what your turn needs.
Grant: How do the cards upgrade or power up?
David: There are two upgrade paths. Improve Control takes a basic location card, has you pay food, and swaps it for its improved version, which usually comes with better attributes and, for a couple of key locations, unlocks a linked unit. Improve Unit works the same way for unit cards directly. You pay the listed food cost, and the improved version replaces the original in your discard pile while the old card goes out of the game for good. Either way, you’re not adding new cards on top of old ones. You’re replacing weaker cards with stronger ones, so your deck gets more powerful without getting bigger and bloated.
Grant: How important is this to the design?
David: It’s central. Deck quality, not just deck size, is what wins you the game, and the choice of when to spend food on upgrading versus expanding onto the board versus bolstering in new units is the core tension every turn.
Grant: What is the layout of the board?
David: The board depicts Scott County and its surrounding area, with locations connected by roads, water, and paths. Each connection type governs how many cards you can commit to an attack moving along it, from one card on a path up to three on a road. Locations within Scott County proper are marked in brown; locations outside the county, like Somerset, Jacksborough or Jamestown, are marked in grey and generally serve as Confederate staging points and supply origins. Each location shows its star value, which doubles as its point value and its food cost to take control, along with any food production and, for locations that can be improved, their upgraded attributes.
Grant: What is the anatomy of the counters?
David: We use control markers rather than traditional counters. One per location per player, showing who currently holds it, with some locations (mostly limited to the Loyalists) able to carry a second marker once improved. The real “unit anatomy” lives on the cards themselves: name, faction affiliation, attack and defense attributes, a linked location, an improvement cost, and icons indicating whether the unit returns to its supply or is removed from the game entirely after a successful attack.
Grant: How are units activated?
David: You activate units by playing their card from your hand as part of a Move action or in response to an attack. There’s no separate “activation phase.” A unit card played in combat commits its attack or defense value to that fight; the same card, played on its own, might instead trigger a Bolster or Improve Unit action. Context and the icon panel on the card tell you what’s legal in the moment.
Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?
David: Turns alternate, Confederates first. On your turn you play cards from your hand one at a time to take actions, resolving each fully, including paying food and playing any additional required cards, before moving to the next, and you can stop whenever you like. Once you’re done taking actions, you discard down as much as you want from what’s left in hand, then draw back up to a five-card hand, reshuffling your discard pile into a new deck if you run out.
Grant: What actions are available to players?
David: Take Food, Improve Control, Bolster, Improve Unit, and Move, which is also the action that triggers combat if you’re moving into a location your opponent controls.
Grant: How does combat work?
David: Once you move into a contested location, the attacker plays one required combat-eligible card face down, and the defender either matches with a card of their own (up to a maximum of two, since they can also commit the target location’s own card) or passes. This goes back and forth, both sides adding cards until they hit their limits or choose to stop, with the attacker’s ceiling set by the connection type they’re attacking along. Everyone reveals at once: the attacker totals their attack icons, the defender totals their defense (and any dual-purpose attack icons used defensively), and the defender wins all ties. Win as the attacker, and you strip your opponent’s control marker, shift points in your favor, and get the option to immediately take control as a follow-up action.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
David: You’re racing toward one of a few thresholds: reach 20 points while your opponent sits at 10 or fewer, or simply hold more points than your opponent once the game’s light-colored food tokens run dry and it tips into sudden death. The Confederates have a separate, blunter win condition too: if the Loyalists ever lose every control marker on the board, the Confederates win outright. And if the very last food token, one of the ten darker ones, gets taken, the game ends in a draw, so there’s a real, ticking clock underneath everything you do.
Grant: Who is the artist and how does their style assists in thematic immersion?
David: Kwanchai Moriya handled illustration and Jina Rueter handled graphic design, and I couldn’t be happier with how it came together. Kwanchai has this warm, painterly quality that makes Scott County’s mountains and creeks feel lived-in rather than just decorative. It goes a long way toward making cards like Capt. William Robbins or Julia Marcum feel like real people from a real place rather than generic Civil War stand-ins. Jina’s layout work keeps the cards (action icons, attributes, linked locations, improvement costs) legible at a glance, which matters enormously in a system where you’re constantly reading your hand.
Grant: What type of experience does the game create?
David: Tense and personal. Because the map is so tightly connected, and because food is always ticking down toward sudden death, every attack matters and every food token spent is a decision you feel. It plays fast for a war game, but it doesn’t feel light. The historical grounding and the asymmetry between a scrappy, entrenched Loyalist defense and a Confederate side that has to earn its foothold give it real dramatic shape.
Grant; What are you most pleased about with the design?
David: I’m just happy that we had such an amazing team come together to work on this game. Trevor and me from a design perspective, Kwanchai and Jina bringing the game together through their illustration and graphic design, with Denver at Flying Pig Games leading the way. It was a dream team for this project that I am so passionate about. Of all the games I’ve worked on recently, this is the game closest to my heart. I just want to spread the word about these amazing people who fought for what they believed in.
Grant: What other games are you currently working on?
David: It’s a busy stretch. Alongside Rebels Against Rebellion, I’ve got Night Witches coming, co-designed with Liz Davidson (Fort Circle Games); two expansions for Sniper Elite with Roger Tankersley (Rebellion Unplugged); Flintlock!, a Seven Years’ War and French & Indian War game built on Paolo Mori’s Blitzkrieg! System, also with Roger (Floodgate Games); For the Gods!, co-designed with Trevor and Brett J. Gilbert (Mighty Boards); Zheng He, co-designed with Geoff Engelstein (GMT); and Undaunted 2200: Revolution, co-designed with Trevor (Osprey Games). There are some others on the way, but those are further off…
Thanks as always for having me!
As always, thank you so much David for your time in answering our questions and for showing me the game about a year and a half ago. I very much look forward to playing the final product and wish you well with the Kickstarter campaign.
If you are interested, we did an interview video with David while attending Buckeye Game Fest in the spring of 2025 and you can watch that at the following link for more information on the game:
As this month’s Wargame Watch posts on the blog, I will have just come back from attending the World Boardgaming Championships in Seven Springs, Pennsylvania where I was able to spend 5 1/2 days of fabulous gaming. I bring that up because this month I just didn’t have the time to do the deep dive that I normally do and only was able to find 27 games (including a new game from our sponsor Nuts! Publishing). I was also able to find 3 games to share being offered on Crowdfunding through Gamefound and Kickstarter.
This month we have a sponsor for the Wargame Watch feature in Nuts! Publishing. Founded in 2011, Nuts! Publishing is a French tabletop and board game publisher established by four wargaming and history enthusiasts. While initially famous strictly for historical and tactical wargames, the company has expanded its catalog to include cooperative, sci-fi, and family-friendly board games, while maintaining a strict selection process for those games they do publish. They are well known for developing popular original titles like Mini Rogue, Diluvium, and 300: Earth & Water, which is a part of their unique small format wargame series called Combat Rations that recently released the 3rd volume in the series called Guerre Eclair. The “Combat Ration” Series is a line of highly accessible, compact wargames designed to be played in about an hour including the 2 previous titles of 300: Earth & Water that delves into the Persian invasion of Greece in 492BC, and Port Arthur that retells the story of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War.
But, they also have a full line of more beefy traditional wargames including such titles as Urban Operations, Saigon 75, Stalingrad Roads, This War Without an Enemy, We Are Coming, Nineveh and Phantom Fury.
In addition to their own unique games, they also hold licenses to translate and distribute highly acclaimed international games for the French market, such as One Deck Dungeon, War of the Ring and the UndauntedSeries.
Their newest wargame release is called Guerre Eclair designed by Yasushi Nakaguro and is a part of the Combat Rations Series. Guerre Eclair is a remake of the 2019 game called The Rise of Blitzkrieg from Bonsai Games and is a card-driven game for 2 players lasting around 45 minutes. The setting is World War II in 1940 as the Germans unleashed their new Blitzkrieg tactic to invade France. The attacking Germans hide their intentions by choosing a conquest goal of either taking the Maginot Line, conquering Paris or controlling the ports at Dunkirk. Dice are rolled for combat and the highest 2 dice totals determine the outcome and if doubles are rolled losses to units will be inflicted. The French and British really cannot afford to lose many units as they don’t have a lot but neither can the Germans. The game is simple but fairly meaty with lots of decision points and we had a great time with it, as we have had with the other games appearing in the series.
Here is what Florent had to share on their upcoming slate of games:
In May, we released Guerre Eclair the third game in the CombatRations series and work on the next titles in the line is well underway (specifically Norway 40, followed by Bulge 20 – Yes, by Joe Miranda previously published by Victory Point Games). Urban Operations 2nd Edition is now available in stores worldwide. Please note that an upgrade kit is available on our website for owners of the 1st Edition.
Upcoming releases in early 2027 include The Coldest Winter, a card-driven game about the 1939–40 war between Finland and the Soviet Union (designed by Timo Pohja; art by Nils Johanssen), followed by Supremacy 2050, in which the world’s four major powers clash between 2020 and 2050 (designed by Pierre Razoux; art by Domhnall Hegarty).
Finally, we will launch two crowdfunding campaigns in 2027. The first will be for the second edition of Sword of Rome, covering the rise of Roman power in the 3rd and 4th centuries BC (designed by Wray Ferrell; art by Nicolas Roblin and Gabriel Pardon). The second will feature Nemto a cooperative sci-fi wargame (designed by Hermann Luttman; art by Nicolas Roblin and Christian Benavides).
Quite a variety of eras and gameplay styles!
Here is a link to an interview we did with one of the owners, designer and main bottle washer Florent Coupeau while attending Essen Spiel 2025:
Here also is an older video we did with Florent while attending SDHistCon 2024 where we discussed the excellent Combat Rations Series and Guerre Eclair (recently released) and the upcoming Norway 40:
1. Pacific Fleet: Rise & Fall of the Japanese Empire from VUCA Simulations
VUCA Simulations is a newer company on the scene the last several years (really since 2021) and they are coming out with some really great looking games. We have played several of their games and always have a great time with them. One of their newest pre-order offerings is called Pacific Fleet: Rise & Fall of the Japanese Empire designed by Hiroyuki Inose. I love a good Pacific Theater WWII game and this one looks pretty great.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Pacific War was unlike any other conflict of the Second World War. Vast oceans, isolated island chains, carrier task forces, long-range bombers, amphibious invasions, and industrial warfare all combined into one of history’s most complex military campaigns.
Pacific Fleet: Rise & Fall of the Japanese Empire places you in command of this global struggle. Lead the Imperial Japanese forces in their quest to establish dominance across Asia and the Pacific, or direct the Allied war effort as overwhelming industrial power gradually turns the tide. Every carrier strike, convoy, amphibious landing, and production decision shapes the course of the war.
This is not merely a naval game—it is a complete grand-strategic simulation where sea, air, and land warfare are seamlessly integrated into one operational system.
Fight from the opening attacks of December 1941 through the climactic campaigns that determined the fate of the Japanese Empire. Unlike many Pacific games that focus on individual battles, Pacific Fleet presents the entire theatre as one interconnected campaign where logistics, production, intelligence, and operational planning are equally important.
2. Modern Tactics: Afghanistan – British Forces Expansion from VUCA Simulations
We have played a lot of Old School Tactical from Flying Pig Games, which is designed by Shayne Logan. Shayne now has a design with VUCA Simulations that deals with modern warfare in Afghanistan called Modern Tactics: Afghanistan. That was announced on pre-order a while ago and has since been delivered but there is now an expansion of sorts to the game called Modern Tactics: Afghanistan – British Forces Expansion but it is being designed by another designer named Kenneth Tee of People Power from GMT Games fame.
From the game page, we read the following:
The war in Afghanistan was fought village by village, compound by compound, and patrol by patrol. Every operation demanded careful planning, disciplined infantry, close cooperation with allied forces, and constant vigilance against an elusive insurgency.
Modern Tactics: Afghanistan – British Forces Expansion places you in command of the British Army, Royal Marines, Special Air Service, and supporting Afghan forces during Operation Herrick. Experience thirteen new scenarios inspired by real operations fought throughout Helmand Province between 2001 and 2012, introducing new units, mechanics, and tactical challenges to the Modern Tactics system.
Whether conducting a night raid with the SAS, leading Gurkhas into hostile villages, defending isolated platoon houses, or escorting Afghan National Army units through dangerous territory, every mission presents unique tactical and operational decisions.
3. Thirty Years of Misery: The Thirty Years War 1618-1648 from VUCA Simulations
A couple of years ago, I came across a new designer named Brian Asklev and have done interviews with him covering Baltic Empires from GMT Games and 1812 – Napoleon’s Fateful March from VUCA Simulations. Brian is a pretty sharp designer and I very much like his approach to design as well as the choices in designs that he is doing. His new game is called Thirty Years of Misery: The Thirty Years War 1618-1648. The cover art is amazing, the topic looks great and the approach that he is taking seems to be very novel.
From the game page, we read the following:
Between 1618 and 1648, Europe was consumed by one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in its history. What began as a rebellion in Bohemia soon engulfed the Holy Roman Empire and drew nearly every major European power into a struggle over religion, dynastic ambition, and political supremacy. Millions perished as armies marched across Central Europe, cities were besieged, alliances shifted, and entire regions were devastated.
Thirty Years of Misery places you in command of the major powers that shaped this conflict. Lead the Imperial Habsburgs, the Catholic League, Sweden, or France as you fight to reshape Germany through military campaigns, religious influence, political maneuvering, and strategic diplomacy.
Victory requires more than battlefield success. You must secure electorates, protect your heartlands, influence the religious landscape of the Empire, and achieve your faction’s unique historical ambitions before peace is finally negotiated at Westphalia. Rather than recreating individual battles, Thirty Years of Misery captures the entire strategic conflict across three decades of war.
Every campaign combines:
Military operations
Religious conflict
Political objectives
Coalition warfare
Historical events
Dynamic diplomacy
Each round features a randomized turn order, ensuring that no two campaigns unfold the same way. Players must continually adapt to changing circumstances, unexpected interventions, and opportunities created by both allies and enemies.
4. Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth Revised Edition from Neva Game Press
Neva Game Press (formerly Neva Wargames) is a new publisher who appeared on the scene 2+ years ago. When I started seeing their posts on Twitter and Facebook, I was immediately impressed with their interesting topic choices for their upcoming games as well as the fact that they are trying to make small footprint wargames that pack a punch. And the art is also very appealing and brings an aesthetically pleasing and attractive look to their games! Their first release called Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth, which is a solitaire look at the amphibious invasion of the island of Iwo Jima in 1945 at the end of WWII, was both commercially and critically successful and has sold out and now they are bringing back a revised edition for pre-order.
From the game page, we read the following:
Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth is a hex & counter wargame based on this iconic battle. This challenging solitaire wargame puts you in command of US Marine Regiments as they battle entrenched Japanese Battalions during the iconic 36-day Operation Detachment. Each game turn represents approximately four days, condensing the intense conflict into nine turns of strategic decision-making.
In Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth, your mission as the commander of US forces is to conquer the island of Iwo Jima to secure its three airfields and the iconic Mount Suribachi. The game simulates the 36-day battle in nine turns, with each turn representing approximately four days.
Victory is determined at the end of Turn 9 by calculating your Victory Points. You earn VP’s by: Eliminating Japanese units, Capturing key objectives on time and Japanese surrender. You can lose VP’s if: You play too many Special Orders and/or you suffer too many US casualties. Your final VP score will give you an assessment of your performance, ranging from a “pen-pushing job” (1 or less to 5 VP) to an “incredible victory” (19-20 VP).
I think that a new company selling out their first release is probably pretty rare in our hobby but Neva did it and it is partly because a good solitaire game is always in demand and their focus on quality, in both game play and components, speaks to wargamers and word will spread fast once it is out. So what is different in this new Revised Edition?
Because we are heading back to the printers, we saw the perfect opportunity to integrate our community feedback directly into the game. The Revised Edition will feature:
Upgraded Map: A minor visual tweak where hill hex frames are slightly thicker, making them much easier to identify during intense gameplay.
Box Art Variant: A fresh, slight variation of the original box art (while keeping the classic spirit of the original design).
Fully Integrated Updates: All components from our Update Kit (detailed below) will come standard inside the box!
5. Rebels Against Rebellion from Flying Pig Games Currently on Kickstarter
About 18 months ago, while attending Buckeye Game Fest in Columbus, Ohio, we met up with David Thompson to get a quick look at a few of his newest upcoming games at the time including Line of Fire: Burnt Moon from Osprey Games and the very interesting American Civil War game with a twist called Rebels Against Rebellion from Flying Pig Games. I got to play Rebels Against Rebellion and very much enjoyed the game and what it was trying to convey about the lack of support for the secession of Tennessee from the Union as most of the residents of Scott County voted against breaking away during the American Civil War. The game pits the local groups against each other as the Free and Independent State of Scott fights against the local secessionist residents as violent confrontations between Loyalist and secessionist-aligned partisans and outlaws engaged in raids on farms, stealing livestock, and destroying property. Since that time, the game has progressed and has already launched on Kickstarter.
From the game page, we read the following:
Rebels Against Rebellion is a card-driven war game designed by award-winning designers, David Thompson and Trevor Benjamin. The cards in your deck represent the units and locations under your control. Each turn you will play cards to perform actions on the board and to add, remove, and improve the cards in your deck. The player who most successfully spreads their control across Scott County is the winner.
Tennessee’s role in the American Civil War and the Secession Crisis was marked by significant internal divisions between its eastern, middle, and western regions. In early 1861, when South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union, Tennessee’s legislature resisted the idea. However, following the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861, Tennessee was forced to readdress its position. On June 8, 1861, a state referendum resulted in a decisive vote to secede.
Despite this formal decision, Tennessee remained divided. In the eastern part of the state, loyalist sentiment was strong. East Tennessee had overwhelmingly voted against secession in the 1861 referendum, while West and Middle Tennessee overwhelmingly supported secession.
As tensions escalated, residents of East Tennessee found themselves forced to take sides, often leading to violent confrontations. Loyalist- and secessionist-aligned partisans and outlaws engaged in raids on farms, stealing livestock, and destroying property. The establishment of local militia groups known as the home guard sought to defend loyalists. These small militias acted in secret, launching surprise attacks on Confederate soldiers and secessionist raiders, but they also faced constant threats from the Confederate army and local secessionist groups.
Of the thirty-one counties in East Tennessee, none voted against succession by a higher margin than Scott County. With a vote of 521 to 19 in favor of rejecting secession, the county’s stance was clear. Local residents so opposed the Confederacy that later in 1861, the county court approved a protest resolution declaring the county’s secession from the State of Tennessee and the creation of a “Free and Independent State of Scott.”
This is the story of the Free and Independent State of Scott during the Civil War.
If you are interested, we did an interview video with David while attending Buckeye Game Fest in the spring of 2025 and you can watch that at the following link for more information on the game:
Because I know that many of you will be paying this one solitaire, Denver did an overview video of the solitaire mode and you can watch that at the following link:
As of August 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $24,531 toward $10,000 funding goal with 450 backers. The campaign will conclude on Tuesday, August 18th at 12:00pm EDT.
6. Lee’s War: The War in Virginia 1861-65 from Worthington Publishing Currently on Kickstarter
One of the subjects that Worthington Publishing does really well is the American Civil War. They have their Civil War Brigade Battle Series that we have enjoyed and they really have a way of making these ACW games playable yet integrating some of the most important historical aspects to keep them grounded in history. Their newest series is focused on the Strategic Level and is supposed to be a 3 volume series. The first entry in the series is called Lee’s War: The War in Virginia 1861-65 and is currently on Kickstarter.
From the game page, we read the following:
Lee’s War is Volume I in what I hope to be a 3 Volume set on the American Civil War. It is meant to show the difficulties each side faced during the war. There is no plan currently for a full war campaign scenario. Players are given scenarios based on the campaigns and complete years of the war. I hope you enjoy playing the short crisp 2 – 3-hour scenarios giving an intense game experience as well as a study in Civil War command.
If this game is successful then Volume II, tentatively titled Grant’s War will be the Western Theater along the Mississippi from 1861 to 1864. Volume III, titled Sherman’s War, will be the Western Theater and the battle for Eastern Tennessee and Georgia from 1861 to 1865.
The game is for 2 or more players but is highly solitaire friendly (one player playing both sides) due to the random nature of certain rules such as Dice Differential and combat die rolls.
Lee’s War is a strategic level hex and counter war game for 2 or more players of the entire American Civil War in Virginia from 1862 – 1865. Leadership is highlighted using counters representing the combat leaders of the war. The destruction of the opposing players forces are the main objectives of the game, followed by the occupation of key cities or rail lines. The political aspects of the war are not reflected in the game per say, however they are reflected in the Victory Conditions. The longer the south drug out the war, and the more Union casualties inflicted, the better the chance that Lincoln would lose the 1864 election, and a peace Candidate (probably McClellan) would end the war with southern independence.
Here is the current 14 scenario list:
First Manassas / Historic 4 turns or optional long game 8 turns (July 1 – August 31, 1861)
The Peninsula Campaign / 10 turns (April 1 – June 15, 1862)
The Peninsula Campaign Plus Seven Days 16 turns (April 1 – July 31, 1862)
Second Manassas / 7 turns (July 14 – August 31, 1862)
As of August 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $27,212 toward its $1,861 funding goal with 304 backers. The campaign will conclude on Saturday, August 15th at 4:00pm EDT.
7. Warfighter: The WWII Eastern FrontSpecial Forces Card Game from Dan Verssen Games Currently on Kickstarter
The Warfighter system from Dan Verssen Games is a card based game designed for 1 to 6 players. You can play solo or cooperatively against the AI to complete World War II squad-level combat missions. One of my favorite parts of the game is at the start of each mission, you will select one or more Player Soldiers, equip them with skills, weapons, and combat gear within the mission’s Resource limit. You then fight your way through hostile territory and engage enemy soldiers, as you attempt to reach and complete your mission objective. Every mission is a stand-alone game. You build your Soldiers, select your Gear, and then run your mission. Within 30 to 60 minutes you will have succeeded or failed. We simply love the system and prefer the WWII focused modules (we really hated Fantasy!) and are very excited to see that they are doing this WWII Eastern Front offering as I think that it will offer a new and interesting view of the history.
From the game page, we read the following:
Warfighter WWII Eastern Front recreates the brutal skirmishes fought across the vast Soviet battlefields of World War II, where Soviet Red Army and German forces clashed for shattered cities, strategic strongholds, and hard-won ground in some of the harshest climactic conditions of the war. You will face fierce resistance from enemy troops, but the battlefield itself, from deep snow and choking mud to bitter cold and broken terrain, can prove equally deadly.
Do you have what it takes to defend the Rodina and drive the invader from our soil?
Warfighter WWII Eastern Front is the latest title in the Warfighter WWII Series, which includes other core sets for the Europe, Pacific, Mediterranean and North Africa Theatres of Operation. The Eastern Front has been an area of interest which we have been discussing for a time, and we began research and design work in January 2025. Now, the game design is complete, and we are ready to present it for crowdfunding support.
A key part of the game is squad building and mission planning. You decide which soldiers go on the mission, and which skills, weapons and gear to equip them with, best suited for the objective you are attacking. You control their actions and resolve all combat against hostiles and events encountered, but do not take too long, as the timer is counting down!
As a solitaire wargame, the game’s hostile response system handles all the enemy decisions and actions which will oppose your squad and thwart your mission plans. You will have to respond to the unexpected events and hostile attacks, as well as challenging weather and terrain, to make it to the objective and complete the victory conditions. Glory for the Motherland! Slava Rodina!
Along with the Eastern Front Core Box, there are seven Expansions which will allow you to extend your gameplay to include more armed forces and battles. The expansions offered with the Eastern Front core box feature Penal Battalions, Airborne, Partisans, as well as the Soviet Winter, Soviet Winter Vehicles and the Raid on Peenemünde.
We have also created the Critical Hit Deck pack, a new type of expansion which introduces critical hits to Soldiers and Hostiles alike, to add some cinematic flair and drama to your stories. All expansions are designed to be playable with the core set, and they add new Soldiers, Missions and Objectives, Gear, Skills, Locations, Hostiles and Events to your gameplay.
As of August 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has raised $24,469 toward its $20,000 funding goal with 151 backers. The campaign will conclude on Monday, August 3rd at 3:00pm EDT.
8. Lee Moves North: Campaigns of Antietam and Gettysburg from GMT Games
Several years ago, Mark Herman designed a unique and simple American Civil War game called Gettysburg that appeared in C3i Magazine #32. That game became the basis for his new Civil War Heritage Series with the first volume being Rebel Fury that focused on five battles from the Chancellorsville and Chickamauga Campaigns and Volume II being Army of the Potomac. Mark has now advanced the series with the upcoming Volume III called Lee Moves North: Campaigns of Antietam and Gettysburg that was announced this past month by GMT Games.
From the game page, we read the following:
Lee Moves North is a standalone game that covers the Confederate invasions that led to the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg. Lee Moves North is the third volume in Mark Herman’s Civil War Heritage Series that began with the Charles S. Roberts Award winning Rebel Fury (Best American Civil Wargame of 2024).
Lee Moves North is a low-complexity, grand tactical simulation that won the James F. Dunnigan Award for Playability and Design. Its unique combat system generates a detailed narrative that perhaps for the first time allows you to fully experience the risk calculus of a Civil War Army General.
If you know how to play Rebel Fury or Army of the Potomac, you can play the one map battles of Antietam and Gettysburg right out of the box. The game comes with 13 scenarios, 7 of which are played on one map to include 4 DOG (the four days of Gettysburg) with the remainder using all or some number of its EIGHT grand tactical maps, plus a standalone Theater scenario. The thirteenth bonus scenario covers Jubal Early’s 1864 invasion that led to the battle of the Monocacy River.
Through Lee Moves North you will experience these famous battles in a way that you have not seen them before. The grand tactical level is about maneuver combinations prior to and during a battle but make no mistake you will also see the brutal nature of Civil War combat. As the general leading an army, you will have player agency over when, where, and how often to attack using the unique Rebel Fury combat system. Following the combat narratives that are in every book that you have ever read on the Civil War you will experience the frustration of seeing your assaults fail more often than they succeed yet the better general is the one whose plans turn this historical reality into victory.
While we have not yet played Army of the Potomac, we have very much enjoyed the system and its first volume Rebel Fury. Here is a look at our video review for Rebel Fury:
If you are interested in Lee Moves North: Campaigns of Antietam and Gettysburg, you can pre-order a copy for $82.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1253-lee-moves-north.aspx
9. Rowing to Hades: Fast Playing Naval Battles of the Ancient World from GMT Games
Ancients games are always a good time and if that game has naval units, including triremes, Greek fire ships and the like sign me up. This past month, GMT announced this new game from designer Jason Walonoski called Rowing to Hades:Fast Playing Naval Battles of the Ancient World. Jason is a newer designer with his first game called Epipolae: The Athenian Expedition in Sicily, 415-413 BCE, which is a part of the Levy & Campaign Ancients Series. I share that because he knows something about Ancients and I also think that he is a good designer with a good approach.
From the game page, we read the following:
Rowing to Hades is a squadron-level naval wargame set in the ancient era. The era of oars, not sails. Rams, not broadsides.
Inspired by classics such as War Galley (GMT), Trireme (Avalon Hill) and the Commands & Colors system, it will appeal to gamers who want to enjoy quick naval battles at a different scale and complexity level.
A single battle can be completed in 30-60 minutes. There are scenarios for the Greco-Persian and the Peloponnesian Wars as well as a campaign system to link multiple battles together in an afternoon.
A key design goal was to create a fun quick-playing game, not a simulation. Many details are abstracted, while maintaining historical flavor.
Combat is simple and quickly resolved. After all units have moved, they may Ram. If units have not moved, they may conduct Melee.
Attackers roll a base number of dice determined by the unit type (different types of units roll different numbers of dice for ramming and melee), with the number of dice increasing or decreasing for factors like attacking from the rear, using a special maneuver card, or the enemy formation (for example, line abreast, line ahead, or kyklos).
I am very much interested in this one. Tactical level naval combat is something that is very appealing and this one looks to be on the lighter side of the spectrum but offers enough depth that it should be a very interesting experience.
If you are interested in Rowing to Hades: Fast Playing Naval Battles of the Ancient World, you can pre-order a copy for $55.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1252-rowing-to-hades.aspx
10. Commands & Colors: Ancients 8th Printing from GMT Games
Commands & Colors: Ancients depicts warfare from approximately 3,000 BC to the opening of the Middle Ages in 400 AD, which is quite a spread across time encompassing different strategies, tactics and even technology. CC: Ancients uses the standard card activation system which identifies a number of units that can take actions in one of three areas on the board, including the Left, Center and Right. This card system is standard to the series and really keeps the game light and fun as you sometimes simply cannot control take the actions you need to in order to win the game.
One of the reasons that I like Ancients and how it implements the system is that the scale changes during each of the battles represented. This means that some of the scenarios will have an Infantry unit representing an entire legion of fighters, while in other scenarios a unit may just represent a few warriors. This flexibility makes the game really interesting and you have to learn how best to use each of your units in each of the settings. This really adds to the replayability factor as well because you are learning from each scenario.
The unit variety in this one is interesting as compared to other games in the series such as Battle Cry and Memoir ’44 as each of those volumes had just three types of different units. In Ancients though there are multiple different types or classes of Infantry. Units are rated according to their makeup and in some ways their tactics and are placed in three neat and tidy categories including Light, Medium and Heavy. In the ranks of the Light Infantry, there are the standard Light Infantry, Auxilia, Light Bow and Light Sling for example. In looking at the other types of units there are Cavalry, Chariots, War Machines, Leaders, and the best part Elephants. The game comes with very clear and well done player aids that outline the different abilities of each type of unit and help you with an understanding of their movement, combat dice and any special abilities.
The final best thing about the game is the number of different engagements portrayed and how each of them uses different units and will require you to think on your toes about how best to utilize your assets. The battles covered include Akragas, Crimissos River, Ticinus River, Lake Trasimenus, Cannae, Dertosa, Castulo, Baecula, Ilipa, and Zama. All in all, I find Ancients to be a simple yet fulfilling gateway to the series and would recommend it heartily to anyone interested in getting on board.
From the game page, we read the following:
Commands & Colors: Ancients allows you to re-fight epic battles of the ancient world. Here the focus is on the two rivals for power in the Western Mediterranean – Carthage and Rome. Will you, as Hannibal, triumph over larger Roman armies; or as Scipio Africanus, will you beat Hannibal with newer tactics of your own?
Units in both armies can only move and fight when ordered. The command playing cards supply those orders, providing an element of luck that creates a fog of war and presents players with both challenges and opportunities. You must maximize your opportunities by playing your command cards judiciously. How well you handle the diverse units, their weapons, and the terrain, will determine victory.
Commands & Colors: Ancients contains the battles of Akragas, Crimissos River, Ticinus River, Lake Trasimenus, Cannae, Dertosa, Castulo, Baecula, Ilipa, and Zama.
11. Commands & Colors: Napoleonics 6th Printing from GMT Games
I will be honest with you, when we first played Commands and Colors, I was really leaning toward Ancients as my favorite one. But that all changed once we got the grand daddy of them all on the table in Napoleonics. To me, I really enjoy the added layers of depth to this one. It has six expansions for a reason as they have tried to capture the intricacies of each nation and their unique abilities and fighting styles to make for very highly stylized game.
Of all the C&C games this one is on the richer end of the scale, especially as you add in the expansions. The little bits of chrome make the combats more tactical. You can put your infantry into square formation to counter cavalry charges, but that comes with it’s own sub set of limitations. Each nation has their own special ability, and then each of their units have their own characteristics. An example of which are the Spaniards’ Infantry being straight up not as good as others. They roll dice equal to their number of blocks -1 for example. Each faction has strengths and weaknesses which gives you a little more to think about. Again, nothing overwhelming, and nothing you can’t handle but Napoleonics just has that extra richness and detail that brings the game to life and makes each play feel different from the last.
There are a few new differences in this one. Leaders play a very important role on the battlefield. They don’t add to attack but keep units in formation and from breaking. You must try to keep the Leaders away from the front line because they can become casualties but you need them to keep order on the battlefield as they will allow units to ignore some symbols.
Another major difference is in how units do when they are reduced. In all previous versions of the C&C system, the number of remaining blocks in a unit was not factored into the strength of that unit’s attack. If they had three units left, they would still roll their maximum 2 dice. But now that has changed and I really like this one. The basic attack strength of a unit is equal to the number of its blocks.
The color and the pageantry of a Napoleonics battle is hard to ignore and this one has a lot of substance to the game that the other volumes don’t approach. I will play Napoleonics at any time and relish the chance to learn new strategies and try out new tactics with the multitude of different units found in each expansion.
In the end, Commands and Colors is a fantastic system that has a little bit of everything that will appeal to any wargamer’s taste. I recently played Tricorne and man was that a fascinating experience. We also played the new one from GMT from 2019 Medieval and enjoyed it, and actually really liked some of the new additions, but just were let down by the theme. If you haven’t tried C&C yet, what are you waiting for? Pick a historical period you like and give it a try. You won’t be disappointed!
From the game page, we read the following:
The Napoleonic historical period has always been one of our favorites and was actually the second historical game that we developed using the Commands & Colors system. The Wars of Napoleon rules at first glance may seem more complex than other Commands & Colors games, but if you are familiar with the game system, you are only a few short steps away from taking Command. Even if you have never played before, learning the fundamentals of the game system is straightforward and will be an enjoyable endeavor.
For the game group in Orlando, Wars of Napoleon is one of our favorites. There is a wealth of subtle and bold features that set it apart from other historical periods and it truly embraces the tactical doctrines of France and the various nations that fought against Napoleon.
The Napoleonic period showcases a unique balance between the roles of Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery on the battlefield.
In combat, a unit’s battle strength is directly tied to the number of blocks present in the unit. Therefore, as a unit suffers block loses its combat effectiveness is reduced.
An Infantry unit, by forming square, can reduce the effectiveness of the most gallant Cavalry charge.
Artillery in combined arms combat along with an Infantry or Cavalry melee attack can produce the most devastating results.
As with other Commands & Colors games, the battle dice resolve combat quickly and the Command cards provide a fog of war and will present players with new challenges and opportunities for victory.
When in Command, the battlefield tactics you will need to execute conform remarkably well to the historical advantages and limitations inherent to each Napoleonic Army. For example, as the French Commander you will want to maneuver your infantry units into a position to take advantage of their melee attack dice bonus. While a British Commander will want his line infantry to take up a defensive position and stand and volley fire with a dice bonus. The other major powers also have similar seemingly simple advantages that can impact a battle and will influence your Command style for that army.
The core Wars of Napoleon game will feature French, British and Portuguese troops, while the expansions will showcase one Coalition army that opposed Napoleon.
12. Pacific War: The Struggle Against Japan, 1941-1945 Deluxe Edition 2nd Printing from GMT Games
Both Alexander and I love Empire of the Sun and really enjoy Mark Herman designs. Now I know that Pacific War is not EotS but it definitely was a precursor and led to its design and development. Unfortunately, I did not play the original Pacific War as I was 12 years old and focused on other things (baseball, football) and other games (mainly Dungeons & Dragons and other role playing in my teens). So, this one interests me because it will be a new experience for me.
From the game page we read the following:
Pacific War is a Strategic wargame that takes you from the attack on Pearl Harbor to the climatic summer of 1945… from Australia to China… from Burma to Hawaii… from the defense of Wake Island through the invasion of Guadalcanal culminating in the desperate battles to defend the Japanese Home Islands.
Strategic wargame that covers the entirety of the Pacific Theater of World War II…pretty big game, both in scale and distance. For a game to cover the entire theater, it has to be deep and have various systems to cover all of the different types of actions. Here is an answer on this aspect frog the game page:
For the first time in a Pacific Theater game, size, subtlety, and ease of play has come together in a game of sharp action and historical accuracy. Players can become familiar with the layered Pacific War systems in the solitaire Engagement scenarios, then fight their way through increasingly panoramic Battle, Campaign, and Strategic two player and multi-player Scenarios. As they learn the game’s basic maneuver and combat systems, they will then layer on more advanced systems for Strategic bombing, submarine attacks on merchant shipping, search and detection, amphibious assaults, and extensive Operations driven by their command decisions.
As this game is a reprint and updating of a classic, the first thing I thought about was what has changed in the design? Mark answered this question very well in the game write up on the game page:
So, what will change in the new version? The structure and feel of the design will be unchanged, so if you played it in your youth, you already know how to play. That said, a devoted number of players have been playing this game for 35 years and I have incorporated the best of their feedback into this new and final edition for this title. I am going over each scenario and updating them with information that I did not have available back in 1985. For example, I now have several Japanese translations of their official records that were only published in the last few years. Toward this end, I am adding at least six new campaign and strategic scenarios, so you can experience the entire panorama of the war in a long afternoon .
The key question that I consider when buying a new game is will it hit the table? The owners and reviewers who created the game’s reputation were excited that Pacific War had a layered set of scenarios that incorporated fifteen-minute solitaire learning engagements, two hour battles (such as Coral Sea and Santa Cruz that were used in a decade of tournaments), two to eight hour Campaigns (such as Malaya, Guadalcanal and Breaking the Bismarck barrier), and of course the Strategic scenarios that cover the entire war from a single year to the entire war. Will you ever play the entire war? It’s unlikely (to date I have only done it three times). However, Pacific Waris an operational level game and the Campaign scenarios are the heart and soul of this game system. Most play in an afternoon to completion. So, will it hit the table? Only you can answer that question, but from a time and learning perspective this game will support any time commitment you wish to make, to include the 100+ hour Strategic Scenario.
No cards, as this one is not a Card Driven Game, and lots of counters with 9 counter sheets listed. This is going to be blast and I hope that we get around to playing this game so that I can get a view of the original work from one of my favorite designers.
1. Bohemian Rhapsody – Battles of Wimpen: May 6, 1622 and Hochst: June 20, 1622 from High Flying Dice Games
Paul Rohrbaugh and his company High Flying Dice Games is a designer I love to follow. He is always doing games on smaller or lesser known conflicts and I just find his work to be superb and really draws me in. Recently I saw where he was releasing a new series of games covering the Thirty Years War called Bohemian Rhapsody – Battles of Wimpen: May 6, 1622 and Hochst: June 20, 1622.
From the game page, we read the following:
Bohemian Rhapsody – Battles of Wimpen: May 6, 1622 and Hochst: June 20th, 1622 is a game with 2 battles and both battles were part of the so called “Bohemian Phase” of the Thirty Years War and were one the result of the other. The first took place when the Catholic forces of Tilly and Cordoba surprised the smaller force of George Fredrick of Baden who was trying to cross the river Neckar near Wimpfen. Even if the Protestant forces made their best in the battle, thanks to a favorable uphill position, theywere defeated.
A month and an half later, another part of the Protestant troops moving around the Rhineland, the part commanded by Christian of Brunswick, was stopped by the same catholic army under Tilly and Cordoba near Hochst, while trying to cross the river Main. The ensuing battle was a sort of a draw, as at least a part of the catholic army was able to join the other catholic force under Mansfeld, but at so high a cost in losses, that the Palatinate theatre of the war was de facto closed.
If you are interested in Bohemian Rhapsody – Battles of Wimpen: May 6, 1622 and Hochst: June 20, 1622, you can order a copy for $20.95 from the High Flying Dice Games website at the following link: https://www.hfdgames.com/bohemia.html
2. La Conqueste: The French and Indian War 1754-1763 from White Dog Games
I have really enjoyed my plays of several games designed by R. Ben Madison. He has a knack for including elements of the history into the gameplay while placing the events into the framework of his chosen system, which is usually the States of Siege Series…but not always. His newest offering called La Conqueste: The French and Indian War 1754-1763 from White Dog Games uses the States of Siege Series System and dives into the French & Indian War.
From the game page, we read the following:
Over 270 years ago, France controlled most of North America east of the Mississippi River. The British had colonized only along the Atlantic Coast and wanted to expand further west. Conflict between these two great powers in the New World was inevitable. The immediate issue in the new World was whether the upper Ohio River valley was to be a part of the British Empire, and therefore open for trade and settlement by English colonists, or part of New France. When, in 1754, war broke out between France and England in Europe, it quickly spread to the New World, where it was called the French and Indian War, and where two of the most famous generals in history fought one another: Wolfe and Montcalm.
In this exciting game of that titanic struggle in America designed by R. Ben Madison, you control the forces of New France against England and the British colonies as the epic nine-year long French and Indian War breaks out.
If you are interested in La Conqueste: The French and Indian War 1754-1763, you can order a copy for $60.00 from the White Dog Games website at the following link: https://www.whitedoggames.com/french-and-indian-war
3. Fortress of Oblivion: Iran in the Sasanian Era 224-651 AD from White Dog Games
Another new solitaire States of Siege Series offering this month from White Dog Games takes us to ancient Persia and Iran in the Sasanian Era covering the years of 224-651 AD. This one is also designed by R. Ben Madison and looks to be very interesting.
From the game page, we read the following:
Fortress of Oblivion is an exciting solitaire game by designer Ben Madison that puts the player in the role of the ancient Shahs of Iran during the Sasanian Era, 224-651 AD – or even later, if you survive! You will use the economic, military, and social resources of the Iranian Empire, called “Persia” in the west, to defend your realm against invading foreign armies from the west (Armenians and Romans, later called Byzantines), the east (China, Central Asian nomads, and the mighty empires and petty states of India), and marauding Himyarites and Ethiopians from the south, soon to be routed by your greatest foe: the giant Arab Caliphate!
If you are interested in Fortress of Oblivion: Iran in the Sasanian Era 224-651 AD, you can order a copy for $60.00 from the White Dog Games website at the following link: https://www.whitedoggames.com/fortressofoblivion
4. Santa Cruz 1797 Reprint from Bellica 3rd Generation
One well recieved wargame from 2017 was called Santa Cruz 1797 from Bellica 3rd Generation which was designed by Iván Cáceres. The game covers the British amphibious assault on the fortress at Santa Cruz de Tenerife in Spain and is a card driven siege game. Bellica 3rd Generation is now reprinting this game which has been out of stock pretty much everywhere with a new edition.
From the game page, we read the following:
Early morning on July 25, 1797…A squadron of His Britannic Majesty under the command of Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson set out to assault the fortifications of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The fight would be desperate and the first light of day would find the
On this occasion, in addition, Nelson lost his right arm due to an impact from a cannon (“El Tigre”) that is still preserved in the Museum of the Castle of San Cristobal, in Tenerife.
Santa Cruz 1797 is a game for two players in which each player has a well-defined role: the British must storm the city and occupy its key points while defeating the Spanish military forces, the Spanish must wait to see where his opponent lands and then launch into a tenacious and aggressive defense to defeat him.
The game is a block wargame and works with a card engine that allows players to act on the opponent’s turn and creates a situation of unparalleled tension and uncertainty until the end of the game.
If you are interested in Santa Cruz 1797Reprint, you can purchase a copy for 50,00 € ($57.00 in US Dollars) from the Bellica 3rd Generation website at the following link: https://bellica3g.com/en/product/santa-cruz-1797/
5. Lone Panther from Mike Lambo
Over the past several years, print and play solitaire wargames have gained a lot of traction in our hobby. A solitaire wargame that is very affordable at $10-$15 and can be purchased and downloaded online. What is not to like? And the name of Mike Lambo has been tied to a lot these games as he has designed 20+ of these titles and has built quite the rabid and loyal fanbase. His newest game is called Lone Panther and can be downloaded from Wargame Vault. I do know that typically these games are sold on Amazon but I have not seen this offering make it there as of yet.
From the game page, we read the following:
The German front in the Italian Po Valley is collapsing. Months of retreat, shattered divisions, and dwindling fuel have left the once‑proud Panzerwaffe reduced to scattered pockets of armour fighting desperately to hold back the Allied advance. In this flat, misty landscape of farms and villages, marshland, narrow roads and orchards, tanks are no longer committed in massed formations. Instead, single vehicles are thrown forward to plug gaps, delay Allied spearheads, or hold a vital crossroads.
You command one such machine, a Panther Ausf. G, operating alone, cut off from its parent battalion and reliant on its crew. Allied forces push north with growing momentum. British armour probes ahead, infantry screens advance through the fields, and fighter‑bombers circle overhead searching for targets of opportunity.
In this final phase of the Italian campaign, a Lone Panther can still shape the battlefield – if its Commander keeps his nerve.
Whilst this game is not a ‘narrative driven’ game as such, with a little imagination it will provide memorable stories. Some events are randomly generated, but the Player always has at least some degree of control over the level of risk they wish to take and how vulnerable they leave their Tank to these Events.
This game is designed to be easy to learn and good fun to play.
This is a solitaire wargame. You play the game, and the enemy is controlled by the game (or the Artificial Intelligence or ‘AI’). You will need at least 7, but preferably 9, standard six-sided dice (not included). There are 10 very replayable missions included with full colour maps and clear instructions.
It is highly recommended that the counters provided on the final page of the game are used to play this game. Simply stick them to card and cut them out. A video demonstrating how generally to do this can be found on the Mike Lambo Games YouTube channel. The easiest way to make these counters is to print or copy them onto an A4 printer label, leave the ink to dry completely, then peel the back and stick to 1-2mm card. Alternatively, any standard paper glue will do such as PVA. You can also find ‘Instructional Playthrough’ videos on the Mike Lambo Games YouTube Channel to see how the game plays.
6. Great War Battles Volume 2: Tankschlacht: Cambrai, 1917 from Revolution Games
World War I is always an interesting war to game. We have played our fair share of WWI games and pretty much enjoyed them all. The Great War Battles Series from Revolution Games is a wargame system designed by Kerry Anderson that simulates World War I engagements at the brigade and regimental level and the newest offering in the series is called Tankschlacht: Cambrai 1917, which is now available for purchase.
The Battle of Cambrai was a massive British offensive on the Western Front in France during World War I and was fought between November 20 and December 7, 1917. The battle is legendary for marking the first large-scale, effective use of massed tanks in warfare.
From the game page, we read the following:
Tankschlacht is the second game in the Great War Battles Series; the first being Death of an Army: Ypres, 1914. Tankschlacht is a brigade/regimental simulation of the Battle of Cambrai, November 20 – December 3, 1917. A two player game where players assume the role of the German and Allied troops as they desperately fight for the valuable position in the line.
7. Blind Swords Series Volume 13Early Threatens Washington: The Battle of Monacacy Junction, July 9, 1864 from Revolution Games
Blind Swords is a series that most all wargamers have heard of and played at least a few games that use the system. We have played several of these games including Shiloh: The First Day and Gettysburg: The First Day in the series from Revolution Games. Recently, they announced a new title in the series called Early Threatens Washington: The Battle of Monacacy Junction, July 9, 1864 designed by Mike Wimple.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Confederate’s 1864 Maryland Campaign, led by Lieutenant General Jubal Early, was designed to draw Union forces away from the siege of Petersburg, Virginia and pose a possible threat to Washington. On the morning of July 9, 1864 Early was in Frederick Maryland, ready to cross the Monocacy River and drive toward a lightly defended Washington. Opposing him was Union General Lew Wallace. Wallace put together a hurried defense using any available troops who delayed the Confederate offensive towards Washington long enough that battle hardened forces from Grant’s Army were able to reach the city and bolster its defenses. These additional forces proved sufficient to repel the threat to the city. Thus, the ensuing Battle of Monocacy Junction has been referred to by many historians as “The battle that saved Washington”.
Early Threatens Washington includes one introductory and two full battle scenarios. The all-day full battle scenario allows players to try various strategies for clearing the Georgetown Pike. Do you try Early’s plan of forcing his way across the Wooden and Railroad bridges while feigning interest in the other crossings or some other, more clever method? The half-day full battle scenario allows players to play out Early’s plan as it actually unfolded, ignoring the morning actions, and focusing on the afternoon climax of the battle. Even though the Union is outnumbered by the Confederates, the situation is balanced and offers tough choices for both players. The thirteenth game in Revolution Games’ popular Blind Swords system, Early Threatens Washington provides an immersive experience of tactical American Civil War combat without a heavy rules load. The game can be enjoyed solitaire, two-player or multi-player.
If you are interested in Blind Swords Series Volume 13Early Threatens Washington: The Battle of Monacacy Junction, July 9, 1864, you can order a copy for $70.00 ($55.00 for a Ziploc edition) from the Revolution Games website at the following link: https://stores.revolutiongames.us/early-threatens-washington-boxed-edition/
8. Stalingrad: Advance to the Volga, 1942 from Revolution Games
I love a good solitaire wargame. And if that game covers the famous Battle of Stalingrad mores the better! A few years ago, they released the first volume in a new Solitaire Area Movement Series called Stalingrad: Advance to the Volga, 1942 designed by Mike Rinella. Mike has done a slew of area movements games, such as Patton’s Vanguard and Last Battle, Ie Shima, and his designs are always interesting and playable.
I have played this one quite a few times, and have also played the follow up version called Manila: The Savage Streets, and the AI and the overall design itself really worked well to create a very interesting and challenging game. In fact, after 4 or 5 plays, I have yet to taste victory. I really have enjoyed my experience with Stalingrad: Advance to the Volga, 1942 as the game is well put together, well thought out and frankly just works. They now have reprinted the game and you can get a copy now after the game was out of print for a year or so.
From the game page, we read the following:
There can be little question Stalingrad was one of the bloodiest and most decisive battles of the entire Second World War. The campaign by the German 6th Army to crush the Soviet 62nd Army and capture the city has been the subject of numerous two-player designs. It is a situation known to most gamers but is presented here in a new and exciting SOLITAIRE format, the first in a series of single-player area movement games by publisher Take Aim Designs. Stalingrad: Advance to the Volga, 1942 puts the player in charge of the attacking and far more mobile German side while the game system handles the defending and largely static Soviet side. No two games will ever be the same. Each turn presents new and unique challenges for the player in the form of random events, uncertain supply deliveries, and unknown Soviet area strengths and defensive strategies.
The primary game is a nine-turn campaign covering the first great German assault on the city during September 1942. The deeper German forces advance, from the city’s less developed periphery to its urban and industrial core, the greater Soviet resistance becomes. The number of German units bled white, effectively out of action, mounts. German determination to secure a rapid victory, represented as “morale” in the game, gradually decreases. The player wins by equaling or exceeding historical German gains and loses if they fail to do so, or if morale falls too low.
Also included is a five-turn “Factory District Scenario” representing the second great German effort in October 1942. The challenge is now even greater: the player must capture all of Stalingrad in order to release divisions in time to cover the German flanks outside the city against the coming Soviet winter offense, which was not far off. With a setup time of less than 15 minutes, low counter density, endless variability, and quick playing time, Stalingrad: Advance to the Volga, 1942 will appeal to every level of player, from the novice to the grognard.
9. Drive on Voronezh, June 28-July 27, 1942 from Legion Wargames
I love Legion Wargames. They are just a solid publisher and Randy Lein is such a great guy. Recently, they started shipping a new game designed by John Theissen called Drive on Voronezh, June 28-July 27, 1942 that deals with combat on the East Front of World War II.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Battle of Voronezh was fought on the Eastern Front of World War II, in and around the strategically important city of Voronezh on the Don river, 450 km (280 mi) south of Moscow, from 28 June-27 July 1942, as the opening move of the German summer offensive that year. The German attack in this sector bit into parts of the Soviet Briansk and Southwestern Fronts with German panzer corps leading the drive.The German assault was conducted by the element of the 4th Panzer Army′s forces of Army Group South under commanded by General Hermann Hoth, who was under strict instructions not to get bogged down in street-to-street fighting.
The armored units of the 4th Panzer Army partly captured Voronezh on 6 July by occupying the western river-bank suburbs, however German troops were subjected to a Red Army counter-attack. The 4th Panzer Army was to be followed by the Sixth Army, and when Voronezh was occupied the former was to wheel south-eastward and move down the right bank of the Don towards Stalingrad as part of Operation Blau. It took two days for infantry divisions from the Army Group South to reach Voronezh to hold the line and free the Panzer troops; Adolf Hitler later came to believe that these two days, when combined with other avoidable delays on the drive south, allowed Marshal Semyon Timoshenko to reinforce the forces in Stalingrad before the 4th Panzer Army could arrive to allow taking of Stalingrad.
Drive on Voronezh covers this opening move in the Fall Blau offensive. The scale of the game is nine miles per hex and two days per turn. The basic units in the game are divisions with special brigades for the Germans and brigades/corps for the Russians. The game uses a basic I Go – You Go system but also includes special event chits that allow players to augment certain combat and movement situations.
If you are interested in Drive on Voronezh, June 28-July 27, 1942, you can order a copy for $46.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_DOV.html
10. Bear Trap: The Soviet-Afghan War, 1979-1989 from GMT Games
A few years ago, GMT announced a very cool looking game designed by Paul Daniels covering the Soviet-Afghan War from 1979-1989 called Bear Trap. The game was described as a block wargame that used a similar system to what was used in the design for Sekigahara: The Unification of Japan.
From the game page, we read the following:
Bear Trap is a quick-playing, low-complexity 2-player block wargame covering the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989).
In the Soviet–Afghan war, Insurgent groups—including the mujahideen—fought a guerrilla war against the Soviet 40th Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) government. The game begins shortly after “Operation Storm-333” was executed at the end of 1979—in this coup, Hafizullah Amin (General Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan) was killed, and Babrak Karmal, a Soviet loyalist, replaced him. By putting the Brezhnev Doctrine into practice, the Soviets sought to prop up the sympathetic local government and “solve the Russian Ice-lock Problem” while the Insurgents sought to expel the secularist government and foreign invaders.
Although the two sides in this conflict were fundamentally different in a variety of ways, they also faced some parallel challenges. For instance, they struggled to maintain loyalty. For the Soviets and the DRA, the DRA armed forces merely offered an opportunity for a paycheck, and there were cases where conscripts in the Soviet Army defected to the Mujahideen (e.g. Kazbek Hudalov). For the Insurgents, propaganda, threats, and promises to family drew would-be combatants away, as did injuries suffered from landmines and attacks on villages. Both sides also struggled to puncture the fog of war, not being able to secure reliable intel about force deployment and strength. And both faced various challenges around supply, communication, and coordination. Both sides needed to react to shifting strategies and developments over this decade long Cold War proxy war, where the landscape upon which it was fought presented many unique challenges.
Bear Trap is a spiritual successor to Sekigahara—building on the same core system. In both games, each player has their own deck of cards; players spend cards from their hand to activate areas or in combat to commit units to battle. This means fans of Sekigahara will find learning Bear Trap easy, but the feel and experience of the games are highly divergent. In addition to the difference in topics covered, other differences include:
In Bear Trap, forces are represented by blocks, stickered side hidden from the opponent, and the orientation of a block determines its disposition (i.e. the orientation of a block dictates whether it’s mobilized, fortified, disordered, poised to offer fire support to a battle initiated by friendly units, or ready to ambush enemy units). The orientation of a block also determines which battles it can join, whether card play is required to commit it to battle, and whether it can be moved or activated.
Bear Trap features an area-based map, rather than the point-to-point style found in Sekigahara.
The sequential combat system popularized in Sekigahara is utilized in Bear Trap, adapted to suit the setting. This includes the use of ‘loyalty challenges,’ making Bear Trap simulate the proneness of (for instance) Afghan forces to defect.
Bear Trap is, like Sekigahara, first and foremost a 2-player game—but Bear Trap includes a unique solo mode, built around a card assisted flowchart bot.
Bear Trap has fewer blocks than Sekigahara, and each player has fewer card types (‘suits’) in their decks.
Bear Trapintroduces ‘strategy’ cards—powerful event cards. Although it would be misleading to label Bear Trap a deck-building game, players will add 2 cards from a pool specific to their side each time they reshuffle their deck.
Bear Trap is not a “clone” of Sekigahara—they are very different games with differences in topic, feel, and mechanism, despite having an underlying shared game system. Bear Trap is also a more asymmetric game than Sekigahara. AlthoughBear Trap is a slight step up in complexity (relative to Sekigahara), the mechanics remain simple, and Bear Trap can be completed in 2-3 hours.
11. Fields of Despair: France 1914-1918 2nd Printing from GMT Games
Fields of Despair: France 1914-1918 is a medium weight 2 player hex-based strategic level block war game set on the Western Front of World War I. Players take control of either the Allies, including France, England, Belgium, the United States and an abstracted Russia or the mighty Central Powers fighting the war not only on land, but also at sea, and most importantly and probably one of the better and more interesting parts of the game, in the air all while having to focus on and make tough decisions about your economic and technological progression.
Fields of Despair uses a very unique and revolutionary block system designed to maintain the confusion and uncertainty of the Fog of War throughout the entire game. The reason that I consider this system revolutionary is that in most block games, the combat values of individual blocks usually range from one to four, so as you scan the battlefield and after a quick calculation in your head you can come up with a pretty good guesstimate of what force power is arrayed against you, while in FoD the combat value of blocks ranges from zero (dummy blocks) all the way to a maximum of twenty. This difference in value ranges alone has completely changed the block wargame and has created a very strategic game that can be quite deceptive and difficult to play well. The reason for this deception is that you can build up one block in a hex to 20 when in other block games this would require 4 or 5 blocks that have tipped your hand and help your opponent to gauge your strategy and react more effectively to counter that. But, this deception does have its limits as air reconnaissance, one of the best parts of the design, allows players to scout out the strength of units and remove that deception. But, you cannot simply scout with no opposition as your opponent can place their air units in that hex you are scouting to initiate aerial dogfights that will ruin your recon attempt.
Movement in the game is also very straightforward and simple and can be used as a deceptive tool as well in addition to the use of dummy blocks. Players are allowed to “make change” during the movement phase, which means a larger block can be broken apart into 2 separate blocks or can even be done in reverse by consolidating a few smaller blocks into a larger force. So after the movement phase, you will not be 100% confident in your enemy’s strength and will have to sometimes just throw your hesitancy out the window and attack. The Fog of War also isn’t lost after first contact with the enemy. Blocks remain hidden even when enemies occupy the same hex and stay hidden until one player decides to allocate an air squadron for reconnaissance or sends his men across no man’s land to attack.
I love that this game is so unique with the Strategic Reorganization element as well as the continuous battle for reconnaissance with the airplanes. I have played several block wargames and the way this is handled is very revolutionary and I am sure will be replicated in future block wargame designs. I also am very impressed with the tightness of the rules and how easy they were to understand and apply. For an ambitious wargame covering the entirety of the Western Front of World War I, a 24 page rule book was a shocker. But it is done very well and has very few rules problems.
If you are interested in Fields of Despair: France 1914-1918 2nd Printing, you can order a copy for $108.00 ($69.00 if you hurry and place your order before they ship in mid-August) from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-686-fields-of-despair-2nd-printing.aspx
12. Small Battles of the American Revolution Volume I: The Battle of Cowpens from GMT Games
While attending the World Boardgaming Championships 2 years ago, I was able to meet up with Dave Stiffler (acting as Developer on the project) and Bruno Sinigaglio who is the designer to get an early look at the upcoming debut release in the Small BoAR Series called The Battle of Cowpens.
I didn’t get any pictures because they didn’t have the components along to show but learned a lot about the design and how it changes the Battles of the American Revolution Series from GMT Games. First off, the scale is the major difference as it is 1/8th of the scale used in the normal series. This means 25 yard hexes and 2-3 men per counter. They also have included both rifle fire and musket fire which is a change as musket fire is simply an abstracted part of the close combat mechanic in BoAR. They also have added some new mechanics to account better for things like morale and being shaken or even shattered.
I have known about this game for a few months, actually nearly a year or so, but am very excited to see this one added to the P500 and hope that the reception is great and that the game does well because I would like to see more small battles covered in future volumes.
From the game page, we read the following:
Two critical battles were considered turning points in the American Revolutionary War: the Battle of Saratoga in New York and the Battle of Cowpens in South Carolina. The Battle of Cowpens was a catalyst to a series of events that led eventually to the surrender of the British at Yorktown. Small BoAR Volume I, The Battle of Cowpens, puts players directly into the milieu of this decisive contest.
The goal of the Small BoAR design concept is to include small yet critical battles that otherwise do not fit the scale of the historically simulating and highly successful Battles of the American Revolution (BoAR) system designed by Mark Miklos. This new system, aptly termed Small Battles of the American Revolution (Small BoAR), was designed by Bruno Sinigaglio working closely with Mark Miklos to preserve the continuity and popularity of the original Battles of the American Revolution game system.
Although extremely important to the history of the Revolutionary War, the Battle of Cowpens involved slightly over 1000 participants per side. In the Battles of the American Revolution system, which represents 100 men per strength point, this would equate to only ten or so combat factors per side. The scale for the battle of Cowpens, on the other hand, is 12 men per strength point, or one-eighth that of the BoAR system. The map scale is also correspondingly reduced to 25 yards per hex from the BoAR scale of 200 yards per hex. The time scale is approximately four minutes per turn as compared with one hour per turn in BoAR.
I think that one of the best parts of this new series, aside from the size and scope of the battles covered being smaller, is that they have not just rested on their laurels and reproduced the BoAR System but have added new mechanics and elements to better deal with these battles and to model the smaller scale battles.
Although Army Morale, the game-within-the-game in BoAR, is faithfully preserved in Small BoAR, and the Small BoAR sequence of play resembles that of BoAR and will look familiar to anyone who has played games in the original series, certain novel elements appropriate to the new scaling have been added. These include:
The ability to designate cavalry units in reserve
Artillery Fire conducted both offensively and defensively
Simultaneous ranged musket Fire as a complement to ranged rifle fire
A Cavalry Reserve Phase where units designated in Reserve may charge after the normal Close Combat Phase
And Opportunity Card Management
As mentioned earlier, I had the honor of sitting down with Bruno Sinigaglio and Dave Stiffler to discuss this new series and The Battle of Cowpens. Here is a link to that video interview:
If you are interested in Small Battles of the American Revolution Volume I: The Battle of Cowpens, you can order a copy for $75.00 ($48.00 if you hurry and place your order before they ship in mid-August) from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1140-the-battle-of-cowpens.aspx
13. Twilight Struggle 20th Anniversary Hall of Fame Edition from GMT Games
As if you don’t know but 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.
I remember my first impressions of Twilight Struggle was that it needed some graphic design improvements and the game just didn’t grab me visually but that was all erased the first time we played as the topic and the mechanics just really spoke to me. This game was our gateway to the CDG mechanic and I still have a real soft spot in my heart for it. Well, this month I got my wish and this new edition of TS with upgraded art is now on the P500.
From the game page, we read the following comments and a bit about the history of Twilight Struggle on the new offering:
“Twilight Struggle is my all-time favorite game. It is a brilliant first design by the team of Jason Matthews and Ananda Gupta. It takes the card-driven genre of games like We The People, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, and Wilderness War to its highest peak. Every game is different and the game gets better and better as you become more familiar with the individual cards. You are surprised as hidden combos are revealed game after game. Every turn is filled with tension as you try to figure out the best way to play the hand of cards you’ve been dealt. Gaming simply doesn’t get any better than this”. – Alan R. Moon
That quote from legendary designer Alan Moon, spoken not long after Twilight Struggle was released in 2005, helped sell out the game’s first print run and introduced thousands of gamers to Twilight Struggle. Fortunately, they mostly shared Alan’s opinion of the game and they told their friends. Soon, a groundswell of play and support for the game ran rampant across the gaming community as tens of thousands of players immersed themselves in the tense competition and compelling storytelling of Twilight Struggle. As a result, Twilight Struggle was the #1 ranked game on BGG for over five years, something no other game has achieved.
Soon there was a digital version of the game for Steam and tablets, introducing hundreds of thousands of additional gamers to GMT’s most commercially and critically successful all-time game and supporting a total of twelve sold-out versions of the boardgame. And over those years, the awards rolled in, reflecting the joy and challenge that Twilight Struggle brought to so many gamers: BGG Golden Geek Game of the Year, IGA Game of the Year, Charles Roberts Awards, and more.
Then, in the summer of 2024 at its Origins convention, GAMA (Game Manufacturers of America) bestowed on Twilight Struggle its most prestigious award, inducting Twilight Struggle into the GAMA Hall of Fame. Designers Ananda Gupta and Jason Matthews attended the awards ceremony and jointly accepted the honor on their behalf and for all of the Twilight Struggle team at GMT.
As we now approach the 20th anniversary of the game’s release, and in light of the recent Hall of Fame honor, we are thrilled to announce a new edition of our most successful game. We invite you to check out Twilight Struggle 20th Anniversary Hall of Fame Edition.
So what exactly is new and different about this edition:
Twilight Struggle 20th Anniversary Hall of Fame Edition adds even more beauty and play options to the original game. Here are some of the additions you’ll see in this new Edition:
A brand new game box by the incomparable Terry Leeds
A double sided map with a new Terry Leeds map on the front and the familiar Deluxe Edition Mark Simonitch map on the back
The Turn Zero and Alternative Space Race variants included.
A new alt-history scenario, “Red Sun Rising” with new cards.
A collection of promotional cards including the Kickstarter Promo Packs #1 and #2 and a selection of promo cards from foreign editions of Twilight Struggle
A background booklet including retrospective essays from the designers
We cannot think of a better way to commemorate the Cold War, this vital piece of world history, than with our freshest and richest version of Twilight Struggle to date.
Here is a comment from Gene Billingsley about this game offering:
We’re really proud of Jason and Ananda and what they and their brilliant game have meant to GMT over these past 20 years—and for all of the TS team that helped to make their design vision a reality. And we’re so honored and really happy that Twilight Struggle was inducted into the GAMA Hall of Fame at Origins this past summer. That is a rare honor. So, to celebrate both the 20th Anniversary of Twilight Struggle and it’s HoF induction, we are adding a new Twilight Struggle 20th Anniversary Hall of Fame Edition to our P500 list this month. As you can see from the artwork, this is a beautiful new edition, featuring a new box and mounted map from Terry Leeds (with the Mark Simonitch map on the back side) as well as all new card fronts (we’re keeping the backs standard so there’s no problem mixing in cards from other versions). It’s also chock-full of a lot of new or hard-to-find play value, with a new scenario and a variety of cards and other game add-ons all in one new package.
With the recent advances in art and production, I have often longed for GMT to retouch some of their best games and give them the art and components that they deserve. It looks like this might be the first step in that direction and I would argue there are other great games that deserve a similar treatment including Here I Stand, Labyrinth, Wilderness War and others.
14. Falling Crescent: The British Offensive: September-October 1918 from Compass Games
More WWI is never a bad thing. Particularly when that game focuses on a front that doesn’t get a lot of love in the wargaming world. But Falling Crescent is such a game that focuses on the British offensive against the Turks in Palestine in the fall of 2018.
From the game page, we read the following:
Falling Crescent is an operational-level game of the British offensive of September-October 1918 against the Turks in Palestine. One player controls the Turkish, German, and Bedouin forces, and the other, British, French, and Arab guerilla forces. A three-player version, commanding the Arabs separately is also included.
After lasting for centuries, the Ottoman Turks’ hold on Palestine is at risk. British forces and Arabs in revolt threaten to bring down the Ottomans and their Crescent flag. The game is one of skill, in which it is entirely possible to change the course of history. This game proves to be an interesting challenge as modifications to the design, such as strategic and operational cards, bring a new feel to the classic model also built-in!
In designing Falling Crescent, designer Roger Nord brought out the flavor of encirclement and surrender, of charging cavalry and elusive Arab guerillas. The Palestine campaign is one of history’s last great cavalry actions. In this fluid scene, local plans can often go astray unforeseen developments may hinder or even alter command plans. The players’ cards, new to this edition, add their part to the fortunes of war with reactive tactics and shifting events.
The game’s pace is swift, and we believe players will enjoy it as a World War I game devoid of attrition and stalemate. Especially in the use of cavalry and air, they will see a hint of things to come in 1939-1940, when a later war will no longer be fought with horses and canvas biplanes, but with treaded armor and screaming dive bombers.
I am very much looking forward to this one. Games on this subject and with this scale are pretty rare and the comment in the description about “one of history’s last great cavalry actions” definitely has my attention!
As usual, thanks so much for reading along and sticking with me this month as I navigated through the many websites and game pages looking for new and interesting games to share.
Finally, thanks once again to this month’s sponsor Nuts! Publishing!
We have an ongoing video series on our YouTube Channel called From Cover to Cover where we read a book on a subject and then pair that with a discussion of the book while covering a few games also on the subject. In this 14th entry in the series, Alexander takes a look at The Napoleonic Wars: A Global History by Alexander Mikaberidze. He then discusses a few games on the subject including Congress of Vienna from GMT Games, Imperial Struggle from GMT Games, Alliance from Columbia Games, Commands & Colors: Napoleonics from GMT Games and The Napoleonic Wars from GMT Games. amongst many others
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.
#87: Proletarian Revolution from The Republic’s Struggle: Battle for the Republic, Spain 1931-1939 from NAC Wargames
The Republic’s Struggle is a thematic Card Driven Game that tells the story of the historical events that took place in Spain after the resignation to the throne of King Alfonso XIII, and the proclamation of the II Spanish Republic in 1931. With the creation of the new regime, the struggle for power between the different social, political and ideological sectors increased, which gave rise to continuous changes of political power, alterations of public order, armed uprisings and violent acts, carried out by the numerous ideological factions of the moment; which culminated in 1936, in a failed military uprising. The failure of this coup d’état was the origin for the Spanish Civil War.
The Republic’s Struggle is based on Twilight Struggle from GMT Games and uses the same concepts of area control while adding in some actual combat with units represented on the board. During the game, the Republican player and the National player, will be able to recreate events of the period to increase their popularity in the localities by carrying out political propaganda, recruiting troops or militias, generating revolts or assaults, establishing diplomatic relations or carrying out bombardments. All this will be done by playing their hand of cards in an alternative way, either by using the events or by playing the action points or icons to perform any of the other actions available to the players.
One of the interesting parts of the design is that each player has what is referred to as a Special Card that is included in their hand from the start of the game and can be played during their turn. These cards don’t count towards the maximum number of cards that each player can have in their hand at the beginning of each turn. The 2 cards are Military Uprising, which is given to the Nationalist player and Proletarian Revolution, which is given to the Republican player. These cards are single-use event cards and can only be used during the first 4 turns of the game, or in other words during the period referred to as Phase 1 – The Republic. If, after this phase, these cards have not been played, they must be discarded and removed from the game. Both players can choose to use their Special Card in an Action round, instead of using one of the cards from their hand. These cards are played like the rest of the Operation Cards either using their Operations Value or applying the effects of the printed Event. Once played, the card will be removed from the game so it is use it or lose it.
Both cards are very powerful but have some fairly difficult criteria that must be met to fully realize the value of the printed Event. In the case of our featured card Proletarian Revolution, the top part of the card first gives the player the chance to downgrade the European Status Quo Track by 2 levels. The European Status Quo Track allows players to appeal to and in some ways manipulate the stance of the other European Nations regarding their view on the Spanish Civil War. It also is the determining factor in how Victory Points are awarded for the crucial Armed Actions aspect of the game. At the end of each turn, if the number of Armed Actions carried out by a player equals or exceeds the current level of the European Status Quo, that player will score 3 Victory Points. Also, as long as the European Status Quo Track is set on level 2, players cannot carryout any action using the Operations Points of cards played to advance in the Diplomatic Relations Track. So this is another tied result to the card as if the level is 1, no cards can be played to advance the Diplomatic Relations Track.
But, remember I said that to fully realize the effects of the card, the Republican player would need to control Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia and every Naval Base Location or every Air Base Location. If this is the case when the card is played, then the Republican player will earn an automatic victory. Frankly, this is next to impossible, but has a sliver of possibility depending on how diligent and attentive the Nationalist player is as well as the hand of cards that are drawn by the Republican player. If they draw certain other events, as well as have a hand full of higher Operations Point value cards, they can make a run at this but it is not necessarily recommended. The card also has a very useful secondary use as if the condition isn’t met, they will get to place out on the board 1 combatant cube, representing one of their combat units, and also remove all of the influence of the Nationalist player in the Catalonia and Valencia Regions. This literally means all of the Nationalist influence in these regions which each has several locations. In order for the card to be used in this manner though the Republican player will have had to previously play the Defense Committees card.
The proletarian revolution in the Spanish Civil War refers to the widespread social revolution that erupted in the summer of 1936. Triggered by the failed military coup of July 17, workers spontaneously armed themselves, taking control of factories, collectivizing agriculture, and establishing anti-fascist militias primarily in Catalonia, Aragon, and Andalusia. When General Francisco Franco and conservative military officers attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Second Spanish Republic, the working class retaliated by launching a massive wave of grassroots social reorganization. This proletarian movement aimed to permanently dismantle capitalist structures and the influence of the conservative elite and the Catholic Church.
In major industrial hubs like Barcelona, workers’ committees seized factories, transport networks, and public utilities, shifting control directly to the trade unions. In the countryside, particularly in the region of Aragon, peasants seized large agricultural estates. They abolished private property and reorganized land into self-sustaining collectives operating under libertarian socialist or communist principles. Instead of relying on a traditional military hierarchy, fighting forces were formed as democratic workers’ militias led by trade unions and political parties like the CNT (anarcho-syndicalist) and the POUM (Marxist).
The suppression of the revolutionary movement divided the Republican forces. Deprived of its radical grassroots momentum and lacking support from Western democracies, the Republican cause lost ground to Franco’s well-equipped Nationalist army (which was heavily backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy). The Spanish Revolution was ultimately defeated in 1939, leading to the collapse of the Second Republic and the beginning of Franco’s 36-year dictatorship.
Here is a link to our full video review of the game:
In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at National American Woman Suffrage Association from Votes for Women from Fort Circle Games.
I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed historical topic, such as espionage or intelligence, and creates a gaming experience tailored around the events to highlight and evoke the difficulties and tension that would have been present. In January 2026, GMT Games announced such a game in Checkpoint Charlie, which is a solo or cooperative game focused on SIS espionage missions in Berlin in the 1960’s designed by Russell Brown. We have posted an interview with Russel and it was very well received and he has now agreed to create a series of History Behind the Cards to highlight the events of the 1960’s Cold War struggle in West Germany but also to share aspects about the game play and how it models the history.
*Note: The cards highlighted in this series and their event text, as well as any pictures used showing any of the various components, are still in the design and development process and as such event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
History Behind the Cards – Checkpoint Charlie from GMT Games – Card #3: Demonstrations
West Berlin, and West Germany as a whole, spawned a number of large, very active student demonstration organizations in the late 1960’s. These were generally in response to a perceived return to very traditional German authoritarian government, and specifically as a reaction to former members of the Nazi party, like Chancellor Kiesinger, serving in the Bonn government.
However, during the slightly earlier time period of Checkpoint Charlie (early 1962 to late 1963), demonstrations were not as organized. They were spontaneous and in response to specific events, like the Speigel Affair (Card #16) and President Kennedy’s Visit (Card #7). As with those later, more organized movements, they consisted primarily of young Germans, and the universities acted as catalysts and staging areas. Even during the period of this game, marches and demonstrations were common enough to warrant an event card.
As a side note, Chancellor Keisinger, who’s Nazi affiliation spawned some of those later protests, was replaced as Chancellor of West Germany in 1969 by Willie Brandt, who was mayor of West Berlin during the period of Checkpoint Charlie. Mayor Brandt has his own token in the game and plays a role in a few of the missions.
The Demonstrations Event Card places a special Demonstrations marker in one of the West Berlin locations on the map. Demonstrations could last for hours, or even days, so this marker generally remains on the City Map for the rest of the mission. East Berlin locations are not eligible because the Stasi secret police, along with the confinement imposed by the Berlin Wall, had effectively suppressed any open opposition in the East. In game terms, the Demonstrations marker provides some cover for assets, increasing their chances of passing both detection and compromise saves.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Faceoff with the Soviets when East German police placed barbed wire barriers to stop East Germans from defecting.
In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am appreciative to Russell and his efforts to bring us these cards and to write these entries to share with our readers. I am also very glad that this topic is being covered in a game and look forward to playing this one day soon.
The June 2026 Monthly Debrief Video, which is the 6th episode in Season 6 of this series, saw us discussing Nostalgia and its effects on the wargaming hobby. I think that nostalgia is generally a good thing but it definitely can be something that holds the hobby back. Too much nostalgia tends to keep us away from new and emerging games and systems and in general can be a suppressor of innovation and progression.
Also, as usual, we covered the games we played in June as well as the games we plan to play in July.
We will remind you here that we are fortunate to be continuing our relationship with Noble Knight Games as the sponsor for our Monthly Debrief Video series. In case you don’t know, Noble Knight Games specializes in hard to find games but also carry all the new releases. But what makes them truly unique is that you can find some of the rarest games, long out of print games, hand made games, imported games from overseas, etc. Thanks to them for their sponsorship and we hope that you will consider them first when looking for the games we cover.
We met Akar Bharadvaj while attending SDHistCon in 2023 and played his award winning design Tyranny of Blood: India’s Caste System Under British Colonialism, 1750-1947 and very much enjoyed the experience and talking with him about game design. Since that time, he has been working on another designer called Chalice of Poison: The Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988 from GMT Games, which was announced in March on their P500. Chalice of Poison is the first volume in a new series that models complex conflicts not only as clashes between adversaries in the air, land, and sea, but also as political struggles within the regimes and military forces fighting it. We reached out to Akar and he was more than willing to share.
*Keep in mind that the design is still undergoing playtesting and development and that any details or component pictures shared in this interview are for prototype purposes and will definitely change prior to final publication as they enter the art department.
Grant: Akar welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
Akar: Thanks, Alex and Grant! It’s great to be here. I live in sunny Arlington, Virginia, just across the river from our nation’s capital. Besides board games, I enjoy travel, museums, graphic design, bad movies, comedy shows, and nice meals. As for my day job, I work as professional wargame designer. I work on teams that make analytic games and tabletop exercises to help policymakers think through challenging issues related to international relations. That said, Chalice of Poison is solely a personal project, and does not reflect my day job or the views of my employer.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?
Akar: I’ve always enjoyed board games since I was a kid, and have gotten into historical games in the last 15 years or so. I flirted with the idea of designing my own for years, but then I actually decided to design one in 2020 when I heard about the Zenobia Award, which is a competition and mentorship program for historical games on underrepresented topics. I was looking for a good project to distract me from the ongoing pandemic, so I entered the contest on a lark, not expecting it to go anywhere. But Zenobia did a great job of helping me walk gradually through the game design process, and before I knew it, I was hooked. When the award project finished, I learned that I had won first place. But more importantly, I had discovered a new passion.
My two favorite things about game design are the creative process and the people. I find the creative process immensely satisfying. I get to analyze systems, experiment, and iteratively solve problems and improve a process, and there’s few consequences to failing! If I find that a design doesn’t work, I can just move on to another one, and hopefully return at some point in the future. It’s a beautiful process, and one that actually feels a lot like playing a game.
I also love the people I’ve met through game design. I’ve made lots of designer friends through various cons, and it’s always a delight playing games with them, talking about game design, and just chatting. I always leave cons full of inspiration and ideas, and it’s largely due to all the great people in this field.
Grant: What was it like winning the 2021 Zenobia Award for Tyranny of Blood? Where does this game stand at the present time?
Akar: Winning the award was one of the greatest moments of my life. As I mentioned earlier, I started designing the game just to see what it was like, and I didn’t expect it to go anywhere. (If I knew there would eventually be interest, I would’ve designed a simpler game as my first one!) So, I was pleasantly surprised when I learned that I won, and was excited at how much interest it received.
For those who do not know, Tyranny of Blood is about changes to the Indian social structure under British colonialism, through the lens of the caste system. I designed a fully playable game during the Zenobia Award process, but like so many first designs, it had a bit of a “kitchen sink” approach, and had far too many layers placed on top of each other.
I realized that the game had lots of great elements, but it had some flaws at its core, and so I needed to redesign lots of it. The topic is a difficult one, both ethically and in terms of complexity, so I needed to get the game right to do justice to the subject matter and avoid creating something offensive. On top of all that, the rapid prototyping during the Zenobia process left me exhausted (in a good way). So, I decided to take a break from it, and work on other games in the meantime to improve my game design skills before I can return to Tyranny. Now that Chalice is in development, I can return to that project. That said, it’s been a while, so I need to read through my notes and remember all the nuances of the topic.
While attending SDHistCon in November 2023, we played Tyranny of Blood with Akar and had a great time. We shot the following video interview at the time and you can watch that at the following link:
Grant: What is your upcoming game Chalice of Poison about?
Akar: Chalice of Poison is about the Iran-Iraq War, which took place in the 1980’s. The game focuses on the interplay between external conflict and internal regime stability. You play as one of the two countries, and you are trying to improve your military effectiveness so that you can win the war, without making your military so effective that it becomes a threat to your own regime. Players can win the game if they capture certain objectives in the war, or they can lose if their regime collapses due to political challenges.
The actual combat resolution and prosecution of the war is only one part of the game; the other part is managing your regime and ensuring it does not fall to internal threats, whether that be generals who instigate a coup d’etat or dissident groups fighting against your government.
Grant: What should the name convey to players about the history of the Iran-Iraq War?
Akar: The phrase “chalice of poison” comes from a quote from Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. When he signed the ceasefire agreement in 1988 that ended the war, without any major concessions despite all the bloodshed, he described it as “more deadly than drinking from a chalice of poison.”
Additionally, I found the evocative phrase to be an appropriate name for a game about accepting risk and making sacrifices to achieve objectives. The game is full of hard decisions that seem enticing at first, but end up doing internal damage.
On a lighter note, ever since Tyranny of Blood, I’ve been trying to give each of my designs a name that sounds like a heavy metal album.
“Taking this decision is more deadly than drinking from a chalice of poison.” ~ Ayatollah Khomeini, on accepting the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq War
Grant: What is the new series called? What type of games might be included?
Akar: I haven’t been able to find that perfect name yet, despite coming up with a long list of ideas. So, the series doesn’t yet have a name. If anyone has an idea, I would love to hear them! Please sound off in the comments.
The system best models historical conflicts where major dynamic changes occurred within the halls of state power and the military command structure, rather than with territorial exchanges on the battlefield. So, future games in the series could model other conflicts where weak states fought each other while dealing with significant internal tensions. There are no shortage of those throughout history, from the modern Middle East to 1960’s Vietnam to Ancient Rome.
Grant: What games have you used as inspiration for your design?
Akar: I tend to prefer historical games that include strong political dynamics over straightforward wargames. So, a major point of inspiration has been the Great Statesmen Series, to include Congress of Vienna, Versailles 1919, and Churchill. Those games do an excellent job of demonstrating the interplay between peace negotiations and warfare, and it inspired a lot of the ideas I had about war being played in two phases, and how the two interact with each other. Instead of the connection between fighting war and negotiating peace, I focused on the connection between fighting war and improving military effectiveness. From a purely user experience perspective, I enjoy the tactile feel of placing cubes on cards that was in Versailles 1919, and the mechanic seemed to work well in this game.
Additionally, the war mechanics are loosely based on the States of Siege Series, though with a lot of complexity added. That system offers a simple push-pull model for combat, which I employed for a 2-player tug-of-war. I needed a fairly simple mechanism at the core, so that I could layer many other mechanics on top of it without overwhelming players.
Lastly, one of the solitaire modes is inspired by Mark Herman’s Peloponnesian War, a genius solitaire game where players face off against a bot, but if they begin to defeat the bot by too much, they then switch sides and have to fight against everything they set up in previous turns.
Grant: How have you used and followed the academic research of Dr. Caitlin Talmadge?
Akar: Dr. Talmadge’s 2015 book The Dictator’s Army explores the question of why some authoritarian regimes, especially so-called “strongman regimes,” are ironically so bad at fighting war. Her research delves deeply into 2 case studies: Iran versus Iraq, and North versus South Vietnam.
Her argument is that the factors that reduce the threat of coups also reduce military effectiveness at fighting adversaries. The ideal military promotes based on merit, trains troops robustly, incentivizes open and honest communication, and empowers junior officers to improvise within reason. Conversely, strongman regimes tend to do the opposite: promoting based on sycophancy, avoiding training, incentivizing lies and secrecy, and making all decisions through an inefficient centralized command structure. These traits help dictators feel more secure, but they make militaries less flexible to deal with changing circumstances.
This argument underpins the core argument of Chalice of Poison. The main thrust of the game is reforming your military to improve each of those four factors, but at a cost to your own political power.
Grant: What is important to model or include in a game about the Iran-Iraq War?
Akar; A game on the Iran-Iraq War needs to provide a very specific incentive structure, by which players feel the hubris of thinking a quick victory is possible, but also a deep sense of desperation when things go poorly. It also requires mechanics for dealing with internal stability within each country, and being able to affect stability in the adversary’s country. Lastly, such a game must afford players the latitude to take a wide variety of actions; the story of the Iran-Iraq War is two countries quickly falling into a stalemate, and then experimenting with a large number of strategies and unsavory steps to break the stalemate and achieve victory.
Grant: What challenges did you encounter in the design? How have you overcome them?
Akar: I had to design the game carefully to reflect some misperceptions that the actual historical figures had. We know now that the Iran-Iraq War was an enormous catastrophe for both countries, but the game had to give players some false hope that the game could end at any turn. As such, I had to implement a variable game length, with victory conditions that contract as the game progresses. I had to pace the game well so that players always feel like they’re on the verge of victory (or collapse), and I think the game is nearly there.
The early iterations for the game were very mathy, with a lot of dice roll modifiers and additions to provide bonuses for military reform. It wound up not being fun; either players would have their eyes glaze over due to the excessive math, or they would try to calculate every little decision and descend into analysis paralysis. Instead, I replaced all the bonuses with card play mechanisms, which thematically worked, because it gave players more flexibility to deal with bad situations. I replaced most of the math with a simple card color-matching system.
The game has a unique action costing system that requires players to push their luck, carefully budgeting their political power or else risk losing it all (and the game). I learned that most players instinctually spend their full action allotment, so if I give them 10 points, they want to spend 10 points! So, I had to add in some “brakes” to stop new players from losing the game immediately.
I had 2 additional in-game challenges that I needed to solve. One was how to depict the more unsavory aspects of the conflict, such as chemical weapons and human wave attacks, which were historical atrocities, but necessary to tell the story of this conflict. Typically, a game would have a penalty or cost for doing such things, but in the actual historical case, neither country actually suffered a penalty for these actions until well after the war. Additionally, I needed to balance the game a bit more, to give the losing side a chance. I quickly realized that both of these challenges could actually solve each other. I created a “Desperate Measures” mechanic that allows the losing side to catch up a bit, but at a moral cost.
Grant: What is the scale of the game? Force structure of units?
Akar: The game plays at the political and strategic level, so it is pretty abstract. It models the conflict along up to six fronts: the air, three or four different ground fronts, and the naval front. Each one has an abstracted military strength represented by zero to six wooden chevrons. Each side has one air force, one navy, and three different ground forces: the elite guard, the regular army, and the paramilitary. Each of these five forces has a commander in charge of it. That is as complex as the game’s force structure gets; it does not model more specific units or officer ranks.
Grant: What is each player’s overall goal in the game? What does this mean?
Akar: Each player is trying to win the war while preserving their regime.
Winning the war means capturing a certain amount of territory. Most spaces on the map contain stars representing the relative importance of that space. A player advances on the War Progress Track one space for each star captured. Additionally, the War Progress Track includes an Objective counter that starts at 10, but decreases as the game goes on, representing war-weariness and a reduction in expectations for what players define as “victory.” If a player’s War Progress meets or exceeds the current Objective, that player wins the war (and the game). Of note, a player can potentially win even with zero points, which reflects what happened in real life.
Preserving the regime means holding onto political power cubes within the Regime pool on the board. If the Regime pool has zero cubes in it, the player’s regime falls and that player loses. Cubes move out of the Regime pool when players reform their military, improve their commanders, face problems with dissidents, or fight against a coup d’etat. The fewer cubes in the Regime pool, the higher the risk of internal problems erupting.
Grant: How do players go about developing a professional army that values competence and skill?
Akar: Players start with a “coup-proof” military that is pretty ineffective at fighting, but they can expend political power, and thereby accepting risk to their regimes, to make reforms.
Grant: What actions are available to players to reform their military?
Akar: Players have four major actions they can take. They can coordinate to allow commanders to communicate openly with each other and their underlings, empower their forces in the field to make decisions for themselves, promote commanders based on competence instead of personal loyalty or family ties, and train existing commanders to be better at fighting. Each of these actions has four different levels; players can upgrade the actions to improve their effectiveness, but at a cost of political power.
Grant: What are the costs of this process? How do players manage these threats?
Akar: The costs of each action comes in political power cubes. Each action starts at level zero, which does not cost anything, but is not very useful. Players can make reforms, which essentially upgrades each of these actions one step at a time, up to level four. Upgrading to a higher level requires placing that number of cubes on that card. Actually taking actions usually has an additional cost in power cubes.
Players need to “push their luck” to best achieve reforms gradually. Doing too much too fast is a recipe for disaster. Players can spend a large number of cubes each turn, but they will not necessarily get them all back at the end of the turn. Reforming too quickly can threaten regime stability. To protect against these threats, players will need to go slow, keeping enough political power behind to stabilize their regimes, but inaction can also be risky if it means losing the war.
Grant: What is the Turn Sequence?
Akar: The game has up to 9 turns, each representing a year from 1980 to 1988. Each turn has 4 phases:
In the Planning Phase, players issue hidden orders for six fronts to carry out this turn.
In the Action Phase, players reform their militaries so that they can improve the likelihood that these orders are successful.
In the Battle Phase, players resolve orders, change territorial control, fight dissident groups, and learn lessons for future battles.
Finally, in the Unrest Phase, players face internal threats, to include popular outcry, dissident groups, and coup attempts.
Grant: How are hidden orders issued?
Akar: Each front has a space for an order tile, which players place face-down during the Planning Phase, so that they are secret from the other player. Each order tile has four options, which are chosen by how players rotate their tile:
Attack allows players to start a battle against the adversary, and to advance into their territory if they have a stronger force after the battle.
Defend allows players to fight against an attacker at an advantage, and to bring in a small amount of reinforcements, but does not permit advancement.
Subjugate (Air and Ground only) allows players to fight a battle against dissidents.
Attack Tankers (Navy only) allows players to threaten the adversary’s political power.
Regroup allows players to bring in a large amount of reinforcements, but not to fight in any battle that occurs.
Air and Naval forces have one order tiles each, but Ground forces have three different order tiles, representing the three different ground forces in the game: the Guard, Regular Army, and Paramilitary. The more elite the ground force, the earlier it gets to execute its order and deal damage, which gives it a slight advantage in combat.
Grant: How is combat handled?
Akar: Combat strength is a function of 3 different factors:
The Order tile, which represents orders from on high, determines whether a battle occurs, and if it does, which order the forces use to deal damage.
The Commander card, which represents high-level military leadership, determines the damage the front will do that turn. Each commander has a hit value for each of three battle suits: Fervor, Discipline, and Leadership.
The Battle card, which represents forces in the field, determines which suit on the Commander is used to deal hits on the opposing force. A new Battle card is drawn during each battle.
For each hit defined in the previous step, players remove one military strength, represented by wooden chevrons, from that front. If an attacking front is stronger than the opposing front, it may advance and capture enemy territory, for some bonuses.
In each battle where one side deals more damage than the other, the active Commander learns a lesson about how to fight, which changes his stats. Of note, not every lesson is a good one; some lessons can actually make the Commanders worse at fighting; for instance, if it makes them complacent or arrogant.
Grant: What elements of unrest confront the players? How do they handle these challenges?
Akar: Unrest comes in 3 forms, during the Unrest phase:
Public outcry occurs if a player does not attack in a given turn. This removes a political power cube from the game.
Dissidents represent groups that threaten the regime’s power. The strongest dissident group on the map each turn has a massive negative effect, the second strongest has a moderate penalty, and the other three have a slight penalty. If left unchecked, the dissident groups can cause major chaos, but any troops dedicated to fighting dissidents are necessarily not fighting the adversary, so balance is important.
Coup attempts may break out if a commander has more political support than the regime. Each commander has a number of cubes on the card, which corresponds to his risk to the regime and typically corresponds with his competence. If a commander (or a group of commanders allowed to coordinate) has more cubes than the regime, a coup attempt may break out, and then the player will have to fight battles against the rebellious commander(s).
Grant: How does the design use cards?
Akar: The game has 4 types of cards:
Action cards allow players to choose from among four different military changes each turn, as listed above. Players can “reform” or upgrade these actions to have more of an effect, at the cost of political power.
Personnel cards represent the major figures involved in the conflict. They are dual use cards:
When horizontal, they are Commander cards, meaning that the person on the card now Commands forces. These Commanders each have different strengths across three suits (discipline, fervor, and leadership), which dictate how much damage they do each turn.
When vertical, they are Battle cards, meaning that they are forces in the field who are actually fighting the enemy. Battle cards dictate which suit on the Commander deals damage in a given fight.
Dissident cards represent the negative penalties from the five dissident groups that are in the game. Each turn, during the Unrest phase, players draw one of these cards, which determines what effect they have. The strongest dissident group this turn has a major penalty, the second-strongest has a moderate penalty, and the other three groups have a small penalty.
Grant: What is the layout of the board? What do the point to point tracks represent?
Akar: The War Map is a point-to-point map, which was a necessary design choice because the terrain along the Iran-Iraq border only allows approaches through specific narrow corridors, to avoid marshes, mountains, and other rough terrain. Additionally, the amount of land that each side managed to capture in the war was miniscule, so having a map to scale made little sense.
The map has different squares representing ground territory and sea locations. Black squares are Iraqi-controlled at game start, and red ones are Iranian-controlled. Each space has icons: stars are Victory Points, representing strategically and symbolically important areas; circles are Economy, representing oil infrastructure and sea lanes, and hexagons show the presence of dissident groups.
Beyond the map is a series of tracks representing the current turn, the strength of each country’s economy, and the current war progress (i.e., the winning side’s victory points and current objective).
Additionally, each side of the board has an area to show each regime’s current political power and active military commanders.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
Akar: The most important spaces on the board have stars on them, which represent victory points. Every time a side captures a starred space, the War Progress counter advances that many spaces. (Of note: this value is zero-sum, so only the War Progress of the winning side is marked; if the winning side flips, the counter flips to show that the other side is winning.)
Additionally, an Objective counter, marked with a dove, represents the current victory condition. The game begins with the Iraqi side having maximalist objectives, but as the game progresses, each side is willing to scale down their goals and definition of “victory.” So, the Objective counter moves left each turn, and additionally moves due to player actions.
If the War Progress counter ever meets or exceeds the Objective marker at the end of the Battle Phase, the game ends and that side is the winner! Of note, a side can even win with zero victory points, which probably was the real-world historical outcome.
Additionally, if a side ever runs out of Political Power cubes from their pool at the end of the Unrest Phase, that regime collapses and loses the game. If the other side still has cubes, then they win the game! If both regimes collapse on the same turn, then both players lose and Henry Kissinger wins the game.
Grant: What do you feel the game models well?
Akar: The game does a great job of building tension, fostering an alternating sense of hubris and desperation, and encouraging experimentation through trying different combinations of actions until one comes out ahead. All of these factors were present in the actual history, so I am excited that the game design reflects these traits.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Akar: I am pleased about the game’s originality. I don’t know of another game that shows the competing priorities of internal political stability and external military effectiveness quite in this way. I would be most excited if I (and eventually, other designers) could employ this system to explore other conflicts through history, or perhaps even outside of history.
Grant: What other designs are you contemplating or already working on?
Akar: As I mentioned earlier, I’m hoping to return to Tyranny of Blood, my game about the Indian caste system, and finally finish it. This one is the furthest along, but I have other games that I’m in the early stages of designing.
I’m hoping to adapt the Chalice of Poison system for a 3-4 game about the Vietnam War, tentatively called Riding the Tiger. My idea so far is to add some more asymmetry to the system. The South Vietnam player will likely play similarly to the two sides in Chalice, as an unstable strongman regime prone to coup attempts. The United States player will not face coup attempts, but will have to deal with popular support and an election every four turns. The North Vietnam player will have to manage its politburo, attempting to exert influence over the southern revolutionaries and balance between its Chinese and Soviet patrons (and their competing priorities for Vietnam).
I have another game concept, tentatively called Iron and Cardboard, about intra-alliance dynamics and competition among the Warsaw Pact nations as they rebuild from the destruction of WWII under Soviet domination.
Lastly, I have a concept called Pillars of Fire about competition and conflict among Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia from 1979 to 1991. It will be asymmetrical, based on the 3 different systems of government (revolutionary theocracy, strongman dictatorship, and conservative monarchy), which will vie for dominance of the region. Chalice actually began as the military module of Pillars before it took on a life of its own, but I think the grand strategy of this rivalry is worth exploring in its own game.
At the beginning of 1793, after the execution of King Louis XVI, France was drawn into a war against a coalition of most European monarchies. On 24 February, the National Convention decreed the mass draft of 300,000 men to defend the eastern borders. Throughout the country, revolts broke out against this conscription, everywhere they were brutally repressed with success. However, an insurgent territory, called the “Vendée Militaire” resisted. Determined to engage in a trial of strength with the new revolutionary regime, the Vendéens gradually organized themselves until they formed a “Catholic and Royal Army”.
Vendée 93, a card driven two player wargame, takes you back to this particularly epic period in the French history, which pitted the young French Republic against the Royalist insurgents from March to October 1793.
“White” or “Blue”, choose your cause and take command of your troops! “White”: you will have to take the advantage quickly at the risk of seeing the Republican forces inexorably strengthen, forcing you into a sinister “Virée de Galerne”. “Blues”: time is on your side, resist the first assaults of the “brigands” to then be able to face the hell of the bocage in order to definitively extinguish the insurrection.
In SPQR: The Battle of Alesia 52 BC, you recreate the historical final battle of Alesia which took place in the year 52 B.C., during Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul. In the heart of the Gaul region, a battle unfolded that would reshape history. Julius Caesar had been carving a bloody path through the Gaul lands.
Vercingetorix, the famed and confident Celtic warrior-king, rallied the scattered tribes of Gaul into a desperate stand on a fortified hilltop in Alesia. From within the encircled settlement, he watched as a vast Gaul relief army of some 250,000 men gathered to finally crush the brutally outnumbered Romans, a storm cloud promising a final, glorious clash.
Will you lead the Roman Legions to glorious victory? Or will you face annihilation in the muddy fields of Alesia? The choice is yours…
A few years ago, after playing all of the games in the Great Statesmen Series, we heard of a new game in the series from a designer not named Mark Herman and I was immediately interested and intrigued as we have had so much fun with Churchill, Pericles and Versailles 1919. 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. We played the game twice last year at Buckeye Game Fest and at the World Boardgaming Championships and absolutely were amazed at the changes and innovations to the system introduced by the designer Frank Esparrago.
With the Hammer is an asymmetric wargame covering the German Peasants War in Thuringia in 1525 along with the exploits of one of its most famous protagonists – Thomas Müntzer. With the Hammer comes with wooden pieces, counters, 2 rulebooks, and historical commentary by Professor Andrew Drummond, and a 22×17 inch map.
Each player is a peasant or a noble; the peasants win as a team, or the nobles win as a team. There is no true solitaire system, but like most wargames, it can be soloed two-handed.
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.
#86: LRRP from Fire in the Lake: Insurgency in Vietnam from GMT Games
The COIN Series uses cards in a very different way from other CDG’s. These cards are not necessarily the driver of the action but more assistive to the actions of the players by setting eligibility and also providing powerful events. The Event Cards are more often than not, very powerful. They either give you a continuing bonus on future Operations and Special Activities (as in the case of the volumes that include the various Capabilities) or allow you to take Operations and Special Activities more times that round than you would normally have been able to had you not chosen the Event and more often than not, at no cost! Also, because of the power of the cards and their ties to one or more factions, you can take the Event which allows you a huge advantage, only to see that very powerful Event reversed with the next Event or with a regular Operation. This is very frustrating but is one of the major reasons that I love the card-assisted element of the COIN Series. Today we are going to take a look at the LRRP Event Card.
The LRRP Event Card, with LRRP standing for Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrol, allows the US player to place 3 Irregulars outside the South then conduct a free Air Strike, that also allows for the removal of Bases first. Keep in mind that Irregulars are US Special Forces pieces, which are the hexagonal shaped cylinders not ARVN Rangers. “Outside the South” means any Laos or Cambodia Provinces. Seems pretty pedestrian but it is important to note that this card changes the rules when played as normally all other units in a space must be removed before Bases can be removed. A very powerful card that typically will be played by the US player when it comes up. But keep in mind that Air Strikes are a dual edged sword as you get rid of pesky enemy pieces but it will result in shifts of Support/Opposition but can also Degrade the Trail. On the bottom of the card, the text allows the VC or NVA to ambush these LRRP”s and remove 3 Irregulars from the map to Casualties. Then it gives an added benefit of shifting each space these removed Irregulars were in 1 level toward Active Opposition.
Image courtesy of Boxxer’s Blog.
A Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrol, or LRRP, is a small, well-armed and nimble recon team that is tasked with patrolling deep into enemy territory to identify or destroy key targets and gain recon on the enemy. The concept of scouting forces such as LRRP’s dates back to ancient warfare but also has been used in more modern and contemporary wars such as the French & Indian War where specialized Rangers, such as Rogers’ Rangers, were tasked with raiding Indian settlements, disrupting supply lines and reporting back to command on troop disposition and movement.
In Vietnam, veteran or specially trained forces often augmented with Vietnamese irregulars usually carried out Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols into enemy territory. The Studies and Observation Group (SOG) was the ground element of the US air war against the Ho Chi Minh Trail as illustrated by Project Tiger that spotted for and marked enemy trail activity for elimination by US air assets.
Here is a link to a very interesting summary of an LRRP and its mission on a Vietnam veteran run blog called Boxxer’s Blog: From the seat of a motorcycle: LRRPs: “—doing the impossible for the ungrateful.”
While attending Buckeye Game Fest in spring 2024, we met with a new designer named John Lapham. John had with him a new game called A More Perfect Union and we got a chance to play the game and chat about it with him. A More Perfect Union is a 2-player card driven game that simulates the public debate over the ratification of the Constitution that took place across the United States from 1787-1789. The game uses the same system as Twilight Struggle and 1960: The Making of the President but felt very fresh and unique to the situation. Catastrophe Games is planning a Kickstarter campaign in the near future and we reached out to John to see about getting some more insight into the design and he was more than willing to share.
Grant: John welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
John: Thanks so much for having me, Grant. My main hobbies will surprise no one – gaming and history. I also enjoy hiking, cooking, and theater. As for my day job, that is in the past. I’m retired now. Before that, I had jobs in both the legal and educational professions.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?
John: I wanted a game on this topic and no one else seemed willing to oblige me—although Jason Matthews and Christian Leonhard came close with Founding Fathers. I enjoyed the beginning and end of the experience. I love historical research and pondering messy interpretive narratives and historical hypotheticals. So, I was not surprised by how much I enjoyed the front end of the design process. What surprised me was how much I enjoyed the collaboration that occurred near the end of the project, and the practical and artistic challenges of turning an idea into an actual, physical game. I had no experience with that process and enjoyed learning about it.
Grant: What is your upcoming game A More Perfect Union about?
John: A More Perfect Union is about the political struggle to ratify the U.S. Constitution in the thirteen states from 1787-1789. The game employs the popular card-driven mechanics of such well-known games as Twilight Struggle and 1960: The Making of the President.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
John: It was the subject of some of my earliest graduate school research in the late 1980’s (yeah, don’t ask, I’ve been around the block more than a few times). As a history educator, I was drawn to less well-known stories, involving people and events that popular and school histories have neglected. This is one such story, and it is an important one that has enduring relevance for understanding much of American history and our current turbulent moment.
Grant: What is your design goal with the game?
John: I had two main goals. I wanted the game to offer a window into the history of that moment and to spark interest in the topic. I also wanted it to be a fun, tense game that could be played in a couple hours but with enough complexity and variability to invite repeated plays.
Grant: What from the Constitutional Convention was most important to model?
John: Ok, that’s a hard one. I cannot give you just one. Several things were important to me.
First, I wanted the game to capture the intense war of words that occurred in the nationwide debate. America was on the leading edge of the first wave of mass media made possible by high literacy rates and the printing press. Americans of the period were highly literate, avid consumers of news, and intensely interested in politics. Ninety different newspapers and hundreds of presses across the country printed thousands of essays, letters, and pamphlets over the course of the debate.
Second, I wanted the game to capture the importance of political strategy in terms of grabbing and holding onto the initiative in the debate through the scheduling of the thirteen state conventions, as well as exploiting the momentum gained from successful outcomes in those conventions.
Third, I wanted to express the tension and uncertainty felt by the delegates during the actual conventions themselves. Delegates often went into these conventions uncertain of their outcomes.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I wanted players to come away with an understanding of the immense challenges faced by the new nation to come together and form a strong union that did not threaten the individual liberty that Americans prized at this time. It is in large part the work of the Anti-Federalists that delivered the country its Bill of Rights, a fact that is perhaps too often overlooked or forgotten by modern Americans.
Grant: What sources did you consult about the details of the history? What one must read source would you recommend?
John: Tremendous digital resources are available on the ratification debate thanks to the phenomenal work done by the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (https://csac.history.wisc.edu/). I encourage anyone interested in this topic to explore their website and the treasure trove of material available there.
For a more curated collection of primary source material, the Library of America has published an excellent two-volume collection of many of the most important essays, speeches, newspaper articles, pamphlets, and private letters, The Debate on the Constitution, which also includes a detailed chronology and biographical information on the participants in the debates.
For a single, narrative history of the entire series of events, the best choice is Pauline Maier’s Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, published in 2010. Reading that book was the last nudge that I needed to start designing the game.
Grant: What is the goal of the game? How do players go about trying to sway States to their way of thinking?
John: Fortunately for me as a designer, the main goal of the game was set out for me in the Constitution itself, which required nine states to ratify it to become binding on those states. Thus, the Federalists win the game immediately if nine states ratify the constitution without recommended amendments, and conversely the Anti-Federalists need five state conventions to reject the Constitution to win immediately. If enough states thread the needle of compromise and ratify the Constitution with recommended amendments, then victory is determined by the weight of the states on each side of the ledger.
The primary tools to convince voters in the states are direct campaign efforts, which involve the use of the campaign points in particular states, and the play of publication events. Publication events address one of three broad sets of issues that animated the debate – commerce, states rights, and individual rights. Each state in turn has a rating that reflects how important each of those sets of issues is to its voters. As a result, the effect of a publication will be more or less, depending on the state in which it appears.
Grant: What is the layout of the board?
John: The board includes several broad features – a map of the thirteen states with a state information and holding box for each state, turn and round tracks, a convention track, a state status track, and a table of information.
Grant: What information is contained in each State Box?
John: Each State Box has a number that reflects the maximum number of combined player cubes that can be present in the state, icons showing if either player starts with cubes in the state, numerical ratings for each of the publication issues, the convention value, and the momentum value of the state, and a spot for the state’s status marker, which shows if the state has scheduled or held its convention. Finally, the state boxes are color coded to show the section of the card deck in which the state’s convention card is seeded.
Grant: What are the 5 different words and corresponding values in these boxes mean? How are these elements connected to the cards?
John: The words “Commerce, States, and Individual” relate to the three publication issues and the numbers (0,1, or 2) next to them reflects the effect that a publication on that issue will have in the state – either adding or removing that number of player cubes in the state. The word “Convention” refers to the convention value of the state and the number next to that is the number of campaign points (CP) a player must expend either to call an early convention in the state or to attempt to take control of the State Status Marker through legislative maneuvering. The word “Momentum” refers to the campaign bonus a player will earn if they win the state’s convention.
The issues ratings connect directly to the publication event cards. The Convention ratings connect to the expenditure of CP gained from card play. The Momentum rating does not connect to the cards but instead relates to the outcome of the convention in the state.
Grant: What is the purpose of the State Factors Table and the State Issues Table?
John: This table summarizes in one place the information contained in the individual State Boxes, and it groups the states by their color codes to show players when they will draw the State Convention Cards over the course of the game.
Grant: What is the Back Room? What role does this play in the game?
John: Each player has a Back Room in which they can place a maximum of two cards. Cards in the Back Room are not part of a player’s hand, cannot be played during a player’s action round, and are not discarded at the end of the turn. Players can access the cards in their Back Room at three times – (1) during the card draw phase of each turn, when they can freely remove or add cards to the Back Room, (2) at the start of any convention, when they can remove, but not add, cards from their Back Room, and (3) during an action phase by playing a card for the sole purpose of adding or removing cards from their Back Room.
The Back Room plays two main roles in the game: (1) it provides a means by which players can hold onto powerful events that are not yet ripe to play – often convention events for conventions that will happen on a future turn, and (2) it provides a way to avoid playing a strong opponent’s event at an inopportune time.
Grant: How does the game use cards?
John: This a classic Card-Driven-Game. Each player is dealt a hand of cards each turn and plays one card each round either to spend the Campaign Points provided by the card or to implement an event described on the card.
Grant: What different types of cards are there? What is the purpose of these different types?
John: There are five different types of cards: State Convention Cards, Publication Events, Convention Events, Reaction Events, and General Events.
Each state in the game has a State Convention Card, which are mandatory events that must be played in the turn in which they are drawn. They grant the player cubes in the state and control of the State Legislature, and they schedule the state’s convention by placing the state’s status marker on the Convention Track.
Publication Events publish and distribute a publication addressing a particular issue in a particular state that and a few of its neighbors. Most of these events will specify the state in which they originate and the issue that they address. A few allow the player to pick the state and/or issue for the publication.
Convention Events can be played for their event only during a convention and will have some effect on the outcome of that convention.
Reaction Events are played in response to some other game effect.
General Events are a catch-all for any other type of event.
Grant: Can you share a few examples of cards and explain their use?
John: Sure, here is an example of a State Convention Card:
Each state has one of these cards and they all work the same way.
These cards trigger the scheduling of State Conventions.
They must be played on the same turn they are drawn and cannot be discarded or placed in a player’s Back Room.
They are seeded in a particular quarter of the draw deck at the start of the game, as indicated by the colored banner in the upper right corner of the card.
When played, you move the indicated state’s Status Marker from the map to Box 1 on the Convention Track and mark it with a cube of your color. This represents that you are in control of the state legislature and can spend CP to call an early convention in this state on a later turn. In addition, you may add or remove 2 cubes in the state.
Here is an example of a Publication Event:
These are the most involved events in the game but like the State Convention Cards they all work the same way. So, once you’ve done it a few times, it becomes straightforward.
The red star identifies this card as an Anti-Federalist Event.
The “3” in the star shows that this card is worth 3 CP.
The newspaper icon under the star shows that this card is a publication event, as do the words in the white banner running along the left side of the card.
When played for the event, publications are distributed in a number of states equal to the CP value of the card. In this case, that means 3 states. The first state the publication must be distributed in is the state identified by the postal code in the title of the card. In this case, it must be distributed in Virginia. In addition, the publication may be distributed in twoadditional states that are adjacent to Virginia for a total of 3 states.
The issue addressed by this publication is individual rights, which is indicated in text at the bottom of the card. The issue controls how many cubes the player will add or remove from each state based on that issue’s value (from 0-2) in each state. The individual rights value in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina is 2, but it is only 1 in Maryland. That means that this publication with add or remove 2 cubes in Virginia, Pennsylvania or North Carolina, but will only add or remove only 1 cube in Maryland.
Grant: What happens if you play an opponent’s event? What type of thinking and strategy does this create?
John: Generally, the event triggers, although the player gets to decide whether the event happens before or after they use the card for campaign points. There are two ways to mitigate powerful opponent events. They can be played during the Initiative Phase of the turn to bid for initiative without triggering the event, although doing so often reduces the player’s chance of winning the initiative for the turn, which is costly in its own right. They can also be stored in the player’s Back Room for possible play on a future turn when the event might be less damaging. This too is costly as the Back Room can hold only two cards and those spaces can also be used to save your own events for a future turn when they will be more effective. Thematically, in both instances you are spending time and energy managing a potential problem rather than advancing your own agenda.
Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?
John: Each turn has the following phases:
Card Draw – Slightly more involved than a standard CDG because each turn you can change the cards in your backroom, which is often a challenging decision.
Initiative Phase – This phase sets the initiative and the first player for the turn.
Action Phase – The heart of the game when players alternate playing cards from their hands.
Convention Phase – State Conventions are resolved or move closer to resolution.
Voter Apathy Phase – Some voters lose interest and players remove some cubes from the map.
Grant: What is a Convention and how does it work? What is the outcome of this process?
John: A Convention is when a state makes its final decision as to whether it will ratify the Constitution. Thematically, this is the moment that elected delegates meet, debate, and vote on the Constitution. To model the drama of these events, players have a final opportunity to play cards that can affect the outcome. After that, the player’s cube totals in the state are compared. If the Federalists have the most cubes, the state ratifies the Constitution. If the Antifederalists have the most, the state does not ratify. If the two factions have an equal number of cubes, the state ratifies with recommended amendments.
Grant: How does Campaigning work?
John: Each state has a set number of voters. This number puts a cap on the number of combined player cubes that may be placed in that state. Players can think of it this way: the voters in each state can have one of three states of mind – undecided, Federalist, or Antifederalist. At the start of the game, most voters are still undecided, which is reflected by the fact that only a few cubes are placed on the board during setup. Campaigning involves the expenditure of Campaign Points (CP) to persuade these votes to change their mind, represented by placing or removing cubes in the states. It costs 1 CP to place a cube in a state. It costs 2 CP to remove a cube from a state. If a state is already at its cube limit, the player will first have to spend points to remove an opponent’s cube before they can place their own cube. Thus, to replace an opponent’s cube with one of your own costs 3 CP. Cards range in CP from 1-4. So many cards will not grant the player enough CP to replace an opponent’s cube with one of their own.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
John: The Federalists gain an immediate victory if nine states ratify the Constitution without amendments. Conversely, the Antifederalists win if five states reject the Constitution. If neither player achieves these conditions before the end of the final turn of the game, at least one state has ratified the Constitution with recommended amendments. Victory at that point is determined by comparing the values of the states in each section of the State Status Track. Each state has a value that represents its political and economic importance – the larger the state the more it is worth. Each player gets full credit for each of the states in their column and the Antifederalists get partial credit (the Convention value) for each state that ratified with recommended amendments. Thematically, this represents a compromise situation, where the Constitution is ratified but with amendments. The stronger the opposition to the original Constitution, the more impactful those amendments will be. Strong amendments represent a partial victory for the Antifederalists. Historically, the Antifederalists efforts resulted in the adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Grant: Which side has the tougher challenge to meet their goal?
John: The challenges faced by the two sides are different, but I hope they are roughly equal in difficulty.
Grant: What are some basic strategies the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist players?
John: The Federalists need to strive to win states quickly and build on that early momentum. They may need to consider making aggressive moves early in the game to take states off the board. They also must stay competitive is as many states as possible. They can only afford to lose four states, and the deck is stacked against them in two states – North Carolina and Rhode Island. The Antifederalist player has a wider range of strategic choices. They can focus on winning outright victory in one or two of the early states in an effort to reach the five states they need for an automatic victory, or they can build up their strength in several of the more valuable states that hold their conventions later in the game and improve their chances of winning the game on the basis of points at the end of the game. They cannot afford to compete with the Federalists in every state. They need to pick their battles carefully.
Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?
John: My hope is that it offers players challenging strategic and tactical decisions and creates dramatic moments of high tension where careful planning or bold action can alter the course of the game.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
John: Overall, I am pleased with the way it models the challenges and choices faced by the historical actors. With respect to the game play, I particularly like the Initiative, Back Room, and Convention mechanisms.
Grant: What other designs are you working on?
John: I’m working on a four-player game about the labor movement in Chicago, during the late 19th-century, and a solitaire game about the Civil War in which the player takes on the role of Lincoln and has to prosecute the war as commander-in-chief, while also navigating the challenges of domestic policy and political campaigning.
While attending Buckeye Game Fest in spring 2024, we met John Lapham and shot a video interview discussing the game and its mechanics:
Next War: Iran is the sixth game in the Next War Series from GMT Games. It is unique in the series in that the Allied player has to do the attacking while the non-Allied player attempts to defend its territory against neo-imperial oppression. With a long logistical tail, few true allies in the region, and the menace of Iran’s A2AD capabilities, re-opening the Straits is a tall order.
A few years ago, while attending WBC, I had the chance to meet Wes Crawford who was demoing one of his new games called Engine Thieves: The Andrews Railroad Raid of 1862 from Compass Games. Wes is a great guy and this game is focused on a rarely, if ever, gamed historical subject in the 1862 Andrews Railroad Raid during the American Civil War. On April 12, 1862, the charismatic Union agent James Andrews and his band of raiders stole the train powered by the locomotive, “The General,” from under the noses of about 3,000 Confederate troops training at Big Shanty (Kennesaw), Georgia. Their risky mission was to cut telegraph wires, burn railroad bridges, and damage track between Atlanta and Chattanooga, thus severing communications, reinforcements, and supplies between the two cities. This was as Union General Mitchel advanced his forces upon Chattanooga with the aim of capturing it and splitting the Confederacy in two. The raiders needed to bluff their way through the Confederate railroad stations and even pass through Chattanooga to meet the advancing Union force in Bridgeport!
Engine Thieves covers this courageous Civil War raid. Play as the Union raiders in a solo game as you race against time, and the Confederate soldiers on your tail, to get to Bridgeport. With 2 players, one of you will play as the Confederates and try to stop your opponent from reaching Bridgeport or at least minimize their destructive sabotage. Follow the adventure and real path these raiders took on their daring ride north!
As the solo player in charge of Andrews and the Union raiders, you must accumulate at least 25 Victory Points by some combination of burning bridges, cutting telegraph wires, damaging track, bringing the stolen train to Bridgeport, and defeating Confederate units that get in your way, all while minimizing raider casualties. Reaching Bridgeport is a high priority since without that accomplishment, General Mitchel would likely call off his attack on Chattanooga. Mitchel might be otherwise unaware of the Raiders’ successes!
In War in the Pacific– A WW2 Roll & Write Game from Solo Wargame, players will allocate limited resources to launch attacks, conduct strategic bombing, maintain supply lines and seize key islands. Your strategy must be swift and decisive, targeting objectives like Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. As the war intensifies, you can divert critical resources to the Manhattan Project, researching and developing nuclear weapons. The race to build atomic bombs could be the key to ending the war. Can you balance the demands of the Manhattan Project with the immediate needs of your campaign?
Once you’ve gained a foothold, you’ll face a crucial choice: invade mainland Japan in a costly land assault, or use strategic bombing and nuclear weapons to force Japan’s surrender. Each option is risky as an invasion could end the war quickly, but at great cost, while bombing and nukes may hasten Japan’s surrender, but could come too late.
With fast-paced dice allocation, resource management, and mounting pressure, every decision could mean the difference between victory or failure in your quest to force Japan’s capitulation.
I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed historical topic, such as espionage or intelligence, and creates a gaming experience tailored around the events to highlight and evoke the difficulties and tension that would have been present. In January 2026, GMT Games announced such a game in Checkpoint Charlie, which is a solo or cooperative game focused on SIS espionage missions in Berlin in the 1960’s designed by Russell Brown. We have posted an interview with Russel and it was very well received and he has now agreed to create a series of History Behind the Cards to highlight the events of the 1960’s Cold War struggle in West Germany but also to share aspects about the game play and how it models the history.
*Note: The cards highlighted in this series and their event text, as well as any pictures used showing any of the various components, are still in the design and development process and as such event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
History Behind the Cards – Checkpoint Charlie from GMT Games – Card #2: Cuban Missile Crisis
In response to the US placing nuclear missiles in the UK and Turkey, within range of Moscow, and in an effort to protect Cuba and keep it within the Soviet sphere of influence, Khrushchev made a deal with Castro in July of 1961 to base Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, within range of most of the southeastern United States.
The US knew the Soviet Union was training and supplying Castro’s army and inserting specialists, and CIA assets in Cuba had seen Soviet surface-to-air missiles. This led to suspicion that the Soviets were intending to place ballistic missiles in Cuba.
The best US assets for confirming the presence of these missiles were high-altitude U-2 Spy plane flyovers. However, the loss of Francis Gary Powers’s U-2 over the Soviet Union to a SAM missile (Event Card #12 The Powers Abel Exchange) created reluctance, since the US now knew the Soviets had deployed similar SAM’s to Cuba. U-2 flights were finally authorized in October of 1962, and it was these photos that confirmed the presence of Soviet nuclear-capable missiles.
The status of Berlin, halfway around the world, played an important role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. From 1958 until the discovery of the missiles, the relationship between the US and the Soviets was dominated by the “Berlin Crisis,” which consisted of a series of military and diplomatic moves by Khrushchev to outmaneuver the Americans and annex West Berlin into East Germany. The Cuban Missile Crisis not only brought the conflict over Cuba to a head, but also brought new attention on the status of Berlin. The two became linked. A ground invasion of Cuba might result in a military annexation of West Berlin by the Soviets, and it was not out of the question for the Americans to concede to the Soviets in Berlin to get the missiles out of Cuba.
President Kennedy avoided direct military conflict and responded with backchannel diplomacy and a naval blockade of ships coming into Cuba. The crisis continued for two weeks, with US ground forces readied for an invasion, Soviet ships attempting to run the blockade, and the US strategic nuclear forces going to Defcon 2. The tensions eased when Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles in exchange for an agreement that the US would never invade Cuba. In addition, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove US nuclear missiles from Turkey.
In Checkpoint Charlie, the Cuban Missile Crisis is assumed to have diverted Soviet attention from espionage activities in Berlin. This card not only removes surveillance from any location of the player’s choice; it also reduces the number of available surveillance pawns for the rest of the mission.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Demonstrations and what effect these student run organizations had on operations in West Berlin and West Germany.
In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am appreciative to Russell and his efforts to bring us these cards and to write these entries to share with our readers. I am also very glad that this topic is being covered in a game and look forward to playing this one day soon.
An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 from Bellica Third Generation is a block wargame that recreates the First Carlist War in the North of Spain which was a civil war between the Carlists who supported the succession of the late king’s brother Carlos de Borbón and the progressive and centralist supporters of the regent Maria Christina acting for Isabella II of Spain who were referred to as the Liberals. The game uses blocks representing units but also includes counters and uses cards. I was able to play the game about a month or so ago with Francisco Ronco who owns the publishing company Bellica Third Generation and very much enjoyed the game and how it represented this interesting struggle.
In Action Point 1, we took a look at the Game Map, discussing the point-to-point movement configuration, the various spaces and the delineation of the Carlist versus the Liberal Zones, as well as explained the use of the Rest of Spain smaller map. In Action Point 2, we examined the units available to both sides and covered the importance of Supply. In Action Point 3, we took a closer look at the Carlist Uprising Phase and what it means for the game. In Action Point 4, we examined the activation system and the use of Action Point Markers. In this Action Point, which is the conclusion to the series, we will take a look into how Battles work, focusing on the tactical aspect of combat with the use of the Battle Board.
Battle
One of my favorite parts of the game is the Battle mechanic. With Battle, I very much enjoy the use of the Battle Board but also like that there are several different types of combat. Battles focus on asymmetric combat rather than massive open field engagements and are typical of the First Carlist War. These Battles boil down to 3 primary types including Skirmishes, Battles and Assaults and each type have their benefits and uses and one of the important things about the game is the need to learn their best uses and then how to perform them. If both sides have at least 3 Infantry or Cavalry units in a contested space, then there is a Battle. Also if 1 or both sides has less than 3 Infantry and Cavalry units in the space, or only has Cavalry units, then there will be a Skirmish. And finally, in order to launch an Assault on a Fortress, the besieging player must have a Field Artillery unit of any value in the enemy Fortress space.
But before we take a look at these different types of Battle, I want to cover the Combat Cards. Combat Cards provide background events and assist tactical maneuvers without running the game on their own. Each player holds a distinct 36-card deck (Liberal or Carlist) representing historical, operational, and tactical modifiers. These cards simulate unpredictable elements, like sudden skirmishes, political shifts, or logistical hurdles. The Liberal Player generally leads larger, but lower-quality forces plagued by supply issues. Their Combat Cards tend to focus on maintaining order, quelling uprisings on the Rest of Spain Map and chasing Carlist expeditions. The Carlist Player will command smaller, high-quality troops. Their Combat Cards focus on exploiting superior mobility, terrain knowledge, and sudden strikes. Since this is an “impossible” war featuring guerrilla tactics, siege warfare, and frequent skirmishes rather than massive battles, the cards adapt to these asymmetric scenarios.
There are 3 types of cards found in the decks, including Event Cards, Operational Cards and Tactical Cards. Event Cards are played immediately when drawn and provide both positive and negative benefits to the players. Operational Cards can be played when the conditions stated on the card are met, during the player’s own Player Phase or sometimes during the opponent’s Player Phase. Tactical Cards can be played in combat as stated on the card. Each player can use a maximum of one tactical card in each Skirmish, Battle Round or Assault Round.
At the beginning of a player’s Player Phase each Turn, that player will take the top card from their draw deck. If it is an Event Card then it is applied immediately. If it is not an Event Card, the card is kept in the hand so that the other player cannot see it. A player can have up to 8 cards in their hand and these can be played as indicated on the card itself.
These cards are very well done and keep the game very interesting and tense as you just don’t know what type of cards your opponent has that they can spring on you in combat. These cards alter the conditions of the battle and cannot be planned for but must be kept in mind as players enter conflicts. From adding defenses that absorb hits (such as the Stone Walls Tactical Card) or provide additional Effectiveness Rating to units in battles when they are firing (such as the False Retreat Card), these cards make a difference and keep the game feeling like a game.
Now that we have looked at the cards, let’s now take a quick look at the various forms of Battle. A Skirmish consists of just 1 single round of fire. First the defender will fire and applies all hits to the attacking units, then the attacker will fire and applies hits to the defending units. There are no morale rolls in the game. In a Skirmish a player fires with a maximum of 3 Infantry and Cavalry units. The player must choose which units will fire with several limitations. maximum of 1 Cavalry unit in rough terrain and a maximum of 2 Cavalry units in open terrain. A player always fires with all Artillery units.
The Battle Board operates as a dedicated, zoomed-in tactical area where the details of combat are resolved. When opposing blocks meet on the main strategic map, units are moved to this board to fight out the encounter safely separated from global troop movements. When a Battle begins, players move their hidden army blocks from the main map onto the Battle Board. Depending on the terrain where the battle takes place (such as rough terrain for a city or plains for the countryside), players deploy their units into specific zones on the board. The Flanks are outside positions that trap or outmaneuver the enemy. The Front Line are the units taking the direct hits and dealing the damage to the enemy and the Reserve is where extra units are kept on standby to join the battle as losses are suffered.
Combat on the Battle Board happens in rounds. As a block wargame, the number of dice rolled by any unit is based on the number of pips shown on the block and the to hit number is equal to or less than their Effectiveness Rating printed on the block. Modifiers may be added from terrain or from the play of Combat Cards. Dice are then rolled and hits are determined with the defending units taking losses by reducing their pips by rotating the block counterclockwise. It is as simple as that.
The big difference in the types of Battle are the duration. A Skirmish last only 1 round while a Battle can last up to 3 rounds. The Battle ends immediately when 1 of the following situations arises. If the Battle lasts the full 3 round, when the 3rd Battle Round ends the defending player remains in the space and the attacking player retreats. There is no Rout or Pursuit A player has no Infantry units in the front line. The other player wins, gains 1 VP, and causes a Rout by the losing side, which will then retreat. Or, a player decides to retreat voluntarily in the End of Battle Round phase. The other player wins and can carry out Pursuit.
The Battle mechanic in An Impossible War captures perfectly the frustration of asymmetry in both competing sides and their troops. The name of the game is specifically reference to the the Liberals’ massive, clunky numbers versus the Carlists’ nimble, guerrilla style of warfare. 2 different armies with 2 different philosophies has created a situation where neither side can feel comfortable with the war and their chances at winning it. I frankly think that the designer David Gómez Relloso did an exceptional job at creating this asymmetry and creating a highly playable and engaging game. If you didn’t know, I chose to add An Impossible War to my Top 10 Wargames of 2025!. It landed at #8 on the list, and probably would have scored higher had I had a chance to play the game further and experience all of the parts of the design.
I also was able to shoot a fairly short video summary of my game play with Francisco Ronco who is the owner of Bellica Third Generation and you can watch that at the following link:
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.
#85: Hydraulic Recoil from Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations
Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 is a massive card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games, which are both grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The game is quite grand and ambitious as it covers 70 years near the end of the Victorian Era and the Progressive Ear and sees quite a lot of global change and competition between the great powers of the time. The game is a Card Driven Game and uses Action Cards as a type of currency to spend for their Command Points or the printed event to take actions such as recruiting armies and navies, industrialize, moving fleets and armies around the globe, influencing minor powers and establish colonies in Africa, India and the Pacific Ocean. The cards are all tied to the history of the period but the game can be played very much as a sandbox allowing players to explore strategies by trailblazing new horizons or following history.
As you might imagine, the game contains combat and wars of both unification and conquest as each of these empires attempt to grow and expand their borders and the game can end with the outbreak of the Great War. These combats are referred to as Land Battles or Sea Battles. Combat is a very well designed part of the game and involves lots of maneuvering of troops on the board to get into position to have a powerful 2 unit stack be the lead attack but also to be supported by adjacent armies providing strength in the land battle. Each nation has a limited number of armies and also has access to what are referred to as Elite Corps and Expeditionary Forces that can be used to supplement goals of conquest. These Elite Corps units are represented by circular counters and are placed atop an army counter they are attached to and provide a +1 Dice Roll Modifier in combat.
When the game hits the 1880’s, which is turn 4, the Hydraulic Recoil Mandatory Event Card will be added to the deck. When this card is drawn and played, the Mandatory Event will go off and become a permanent change to how combat works. First off, the asterisk and double asterisk printed on the Combat Results Table will now be in effect. The asterisks referenced are summarized as follows from the rules:
Only apply the * and ** portions of the combat results if the Hydraulic Recoil Mandatory Event has been played. *The victor may opt to inflict +1 loss to both sides. ** Both sides take +1 loss.
But other than just the additional losses and choices about how best to use them, there are other big changes that come as a result of the Hydraulic Recoil Mandatory Event. After its play, machine guns give non-rebel units a minimum die roll of a 3 in Land Battles (in other words, rolls of 1 or 2 are now 3’s). But also anytime an Elite Corps and its +1 DRM is used in a land battle, that unit will be eliminated. This automatic elimination cannot be taken as a loss inflicted by the CRT but is in addition to those losses. Big guns equipped with new hydraulic recoil mechanisms were, by far, the number one killer during the Great War, and machine guns made most pre-war tactics obsolete. Coupled together these two technologies made combat much more deadly and far less “swingy”. These mechanics are meant to model these technological shifts on a strategic level.
The hydraulic recoil mechanism in machine guns was pioneered by inventor Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim in the 1880’s. He developed it as part of his 1883 and 1884 patents for the world’s first fully automatic, recoil-operated machine gun called the Maxim gun. The Maxim gun has been called “the weapon most associated with imperial conquest” by historian Martin Gilbert and was heavily used by colonial powers during the “Scramble for Africa”. Afterwards, Maxim guns also saw extensive usage by different armies during the Russo-Japanese War, the First and Second World Wars, as well as in contemporary conflicts.
The Maxim gun featured one of the earliest recoil-operated firing systems in history. Energy from recoil acting on the breech block is used to eject each spent cartridge and insert the next one. Maxim’s earliest designs used a 360-degree rotating cam to reverse the movement of the block, but this was later simplified to a toggle lock. This made it vastly more efficient and less labor-intensive than previous manually operated rapid-firing guns, such as the manually cranked Mitrailleuse of 1851, the Gatling gun of 1861, the Gardner gun of 1874, or the Nordenfelt gun of 1873. The Maxim gun is water cooled, allowing it to sustain its rate of fire far longer than air-cooled guns. The extra weight and complexity this added, however, made it heavier and less flexible in use.
Trials demonstrated that the Maxim can fire 600 rounds per minute (equal to 60 riflemen at the time). Compared to modern machine guns, the Maxim is heavy, bulky, and awkward. A lone soldier can fire the weapon, but it was usually operated by a team of men, usually 4 to 6 in number. Apart from the gunner, other crew are needed to speed reload, spot targets, and carry and ready ammunition and water. Several men are needed to move or mount the heavy weapon.
The Maxim gun was greatly influential in the development of other machine guns, and it has multiple variants and derivatives, such as the Vickers, PM M1910 and MG 08. Some are still in service to the present-day, such as in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Anmelden
