The Napoleonic Wars, 1805 – 1815, brings you a fast-paced, tension-filled, card-driven wargame using a point-to-point movement system that pushes the envelope in a new direction for this pivotal period of history. Having a simple-to-learn strategic system and short rulebook, The Napoleonic Wars, can be played in an evening as the cards and Diplomatic Track make for tough decision-making in the face of everchanging enemy threats.
Set in 1805 Europe, you must weigh the strategic dilemmas facing the two alliances in mortal conflict. Napoleon’s France enjoys a superb army, central position, superior leadership, and a useful, if not powerful, ally in Spain. However, she faces three foes.
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 #6: General Clay Steps In
US General Lucious D. Clay was appointed as military governor of the United States zone of Berlin from 1945 until 1949. He was best known, especially to the people of Berlin, as the person responsible for the Berlin Airlift, which fed and supplied the people of Berlin from the air when the Soviets cut off all access to the city for eleven months, from June 1948 to May 1949. Without the airlift, the west would have been left with two terrible options – allow West Berlin to be starved into submission and annexation, or invade East Germany to open a supply corridor, almost certainly starting an all-out war with the Soviets.
In the early 1960’s, US President Kennedy turned to the now retired General Clay and called on him to deal with serious issues that arose in Berlin, like the faceoff between tanks at Checkpoint Charlie (card #4). Clay understood Berlin and had the respect of its people, so Kennedy brought him along on his famous visit to the city, during which the president gave his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech (card #7).
The General Clay Steps In card in Checkpoint Charlie represents the retired general being sent by Kennedy to resolve issues in West Berlin. Playing the card removes an event marker from the city and is the only way many of the event markers can be removed during a mission. It is especially useful for removing the Faceoff marker or a troublesome Stasi Stakeout.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Ich bin ein Berliner Speech by President John F. Kennedy.
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.
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.
#92: Castelnau and Voie Sacrée from Verdun 1916: Steel Inferno from Fellowship of Simulations
Over the past several years, we have played quite a few World War I games with our focus on the Guns of August events every summer. We have really played some fantastic games including some of the true classics on the genre such as Paths of Glory from GMT Games and The Lamps are Going Out from Compass Games but also some real hidden gems like At All Costs from Hollandspiele, Devil Dogs from Worthington Publishing and Decisive Victory 1918: Soissons from Legion Wargames. A game that we very much liked was Verdun 1916: Steel Infernofrom Fellowship of Simulations. The game is a Card Driven Game that uses cards with events and operation points to tell the grim story of the year long fighting around the French city of Verdun. The game uses a bucket of dice approach to the initial bombardments in a battle and then players choose whether to follow that with an infantry assault that doesn’t use any dice to determine hits. The game is very much a wargame but I think the cover highlights a key fact about the game by calling it a “Strategy Game” namely that it is a game as there are wildly powerful events based in history, with lots of dependence on dice not just for bombardments but also for playing certain offensives Event Cards where Victory Points are earned based on the higher numbers rolled. The game is very well done, is truly interesting and surprisingly deep with its tactical choices and decisions.
Some cards cannot be played as an Event until a specific named card has been played by the player. This is indicated on the card with a small “requires” box above the title of the card which shows the card that must already be in play as a Permanent Event to allow the new event to be triggered. Also, these Required Cards also have a small “combo” box above the title of the card to remind players which card they will allow to be played as a Permanent Event. Sometimes this concept of Combos must be planned for and may take a few rounds to get lined up to be able to play.
A perfect example of this is the Castelnau/Voie Sacrée Combo. Castelnau is an Event Card that must be played down on the table as a Permanent Event and is available during Turns 1 and 2. Once it is played, then that unlocks the play of Voie Sacrée and allows a very powerful Combo to go into effect by allowing the French player to place 12 units into the En Route Box on the board meaning they will be available for placement during the next Turn. This is so very powerful as in order to get that many units to use, the French player has to sacrifice a total of 12 VP (1 VP per unit added as Reinforcements). With this Combo, you sacrifice no VP’s and get 12 units to place on the board to plug the inevitable holes that will be created by the powerful German Barrages and assaults. There are other Combos as well including several specified Offensives (Russian Offensives and the Somme Offensive) that take several Turns to accomplish with multiple cards to get an opportunity to roll dice to gain VP’s. This was a very novel idea for the CDG mechanic and really worked well to create some portion of the game that required planning and an investment.
The Voie Sacrée, which is French for Sacred Way or Sacred Road, is a road that connects Bar-le-Duc to Verdun, France. It was given its name because of the vital role it played during the Battle of Verdun in World War I. After March 1916, along the 45 miles of the Voie Sacrée, transport vehicles were on the move day and night, ferrying troops, armaments, and supplies to the Verdun battlefield. During the initial crisis of February 21st through March 22nd, 600 trucks per day had already delivered 48,000 tons of ammunition, 6,400 tons of other materiel and 263,000 men to the battlefield. Beginning on February 21st, all horse-drawn traffic and troop movements on foot had been ordered off the road, leaving it open for truck and motorcar traffic only. After March 1916, one truck passed every 14 seconds, submitting the road to considerable wear and tear. Quarries had to be opened nearby to supply the road with crushed stone. Over the course of ten months, 16 labour battalions worked to keep the road in good shape and order. The road had been recognised since 1915 as the only reliable vehicular road that remained in existence to supply Verdun safely. All the standard-gauge railway lines that could reach Verdun had already been interrupted by German forces in late 1914. To compensate for this precarious situation, the road had been widened to 23 ft during 1915, so it could accommodate the continuous up and down flow of two lines of truck traffic. This preemptive roadway improvement in 1915, plus success in organizing the transport system on the road (a mission supervised by Colonel Maurice de Barescut, the Chief of Staff of the French Second Army), is what ultimately saved Verdun in 1916.
The Voie Sacrée still exists, but it has been paved over and is now an active secondary road. In 2006, the route was renumbered RD1916, a reference to the road’s most critical year. From 1923, the Voie Sacrée was marked by a borne every kilometer along the route. Each borne is topped with a sculpture of an Adrian helmet, the helmet worn by French soldiers during the Battle of Verdun.
The town hall in the village of Souilly, on the Voie Sacrée, served as headquarters to Generals Philippe Pétain and Robert Nivelle during the Battle of Verdun. A large, well-preserved, two-story stone building fronting on the Voie Sacrée, the Souilly town hall is still in official use today. Several plaques on its facade remind the visitor of the historic role it played in 1916 during the Battle of Verdun and, later in 1918, during the Meuse–Argonne offensive.
The year is quickly fading as we are nearing the start of the 4th quarter of 2026. Man the year has just gone by so quickly and I still have so many great games awaiting us to give them the attention they deserve. But there are always new games and they are also equally deserving. This month, I was able to find 19 games to share (including 6 games from our sponsor). I was also able to find 3 games being offered on Crowdfunding through Kickstarter and Gamefound.
Again this month, we have a sponsor for the Wargame Watch post in Neva Game Press. This is Neva’s 3rd time sponsoring this post and they are very busy as they have a ton of new games upcoming. Neva Game Press 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!
Big Experiences, Small Footprint: New from Neva Game Press
At Neva Game Press, we believe great games don’t require massive boxes. Our ‘Hardcover Book’ box policy delivers premium components and deep, innovative mechanics in a shelf-friendly format—without compromising playability. We recently rebranded from Neva Wargames to Neva Game Press to reflect our expansion into thematic titles, though our commitment to wargaming remains stronger than ever.
End-of-Year Releases
We are closing 2026 on a high note with two major releases. After the rapid sell-out of Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth—the first volume of our Blind Valor Series—we are thrilled to bring it back as a Revised Edition, and we are grateful for the community’s support. We are also releasing an Iwo Jima: Hell on Earth Update Kit for owners of the original 1st Edition. Finally, we are launching our new tactical wargame, Peking: 55 Days of Fury—the first volume in our Breach Point Series.
Peking immerses 1–2 players in the 1900 Boxer Rebellion for a tense, 90-minute experience. Whether defending the International Legations or leading the attack, you’ll need to master our unique fog-of-war mechanic and hybrid system (featuring event cards and operation points split into two phases) to secure victory.
Our commitment to the community continues with an ambitious slate for 2027, featuring: Valls: Battle of the Goi Bridge, Spartacus: Rome under Threat, 1806: The Elbe Campaign and Reformation: Fire and Faith.
They recently announced their next Kickstarter project that would take their system to the Anglo-Boer War called The Great Anglo-Boer War: The Battle for South Africa 1899-1902. The game is currently on Kickstarter and appears to be a very important addition to the many games on the period.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Great Anglo-Boer War is a grand-strategic level game of the war between the British Empire and the Boer Republics in South Africa from 1899 to 1902. The Boers were armed like no other adversary the Empire had ever faced. By October 1899, war had become inevitable—and both sides were equipped for the first ‘modern’ conflict. Both sides had rifled breech-loading artillery, machine guns, bolt-action magazine rifles, trenches, barbed wire, and more.
The war started as a conventional contest but morphed into the first modern guerrilla war of the 20th century. In the end, the Empire overwhelmed the Boers, but by 1910 all of South Africa (including the contested republics of 1899) was granted self-government as a Crown Dominion, with Louis Botha as the Prime Minister. The Boers can be said to have lost the war but won the peace. A fascinating bit of history but an even more interesting study in military history.
The game places you in the position of the military commanders of both armies. Political events are largely beyond your control, but may influence what you are allowed to do. There are three scenarios – the Conventional War, the Guerrilla War, and the Grand Campaign Game. The full campaign is THE ULTIMATE BOER WAR EXPERIENCE – from the first desperate siege defenses of 1899 to the treaty of Vereeniging (or maybe not?) – and everything tactical and otherwise in between. Battles, blockhouses, farm-burnings, evasions, escapes, raids, concentration camps, sieges, drives, armoured trains, 1-pdr automatic “pom-poms”, surrenders, entrenchments, typhoid, barbed-wire, native spies, night marches, supply wagons and more. If it was part of the real Boer war – it is in the game. If you know about the war – this is the one you’ve been hoping someone would make, and if you are learning about it – this IS THE GAME for that. With a 44×34 map at 9 miles/hex scale, monthly game turns and an accurate order of battle, this is a game that truly does justice to the topic.
As of September 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has raised $7,389 toward its $12,900 funding goal with 86 backers. The campaign will conclude on Tuesday, October 20th at 1:38pm EDT.
2. Combat! Vietnam from Compass Games
This month we had another pretty big downloading of new pre-order games from Compass Games that I have affectionately referred to in the past as “Pre-Order Palooza”. This one was not their normal 6-10 new titles but there were 4 new games offered and they all looked very good. The first game that I am highlighting here is the next volume in the highly thought of Combat! Series of solitaire wargames. These games represent man to man combat where typically each of the counters on the board represent a single soldier. They have focused exclusively on World War II previously but now they have announced this new game set during the Vietnam War called Combat! Vietnam. I have yet to play any of the previous volumes in the series, even though I own 4 of them, but they are high on my want to play list and I am very much interested in this system because I love Tactical level games, very much enjoy man to man combat in games and also enjoy games that are set in during the Vietnam War.
From the game page, we read the following:
Combat! Vietnam is a stand-alone solitaire game of man-to-man combat in the Vietnam War, covering the years from 1965 to 1972. This game depicts the countless small actions that were fought during those years, with the player commanding a squad of American, Communist, or South Vietnamese soldiers. In the 11 scenarios, the fighting rages across the widely varied terrain of Vietnam, from dense jungles to city streets.
The comprehensive Random Scenario Generator (and Campaign Game) further expands your gaming possibilities. With this tool, players can generate a limitless supply of unique scenarios for Combat! Vietnam.
Combat! Vietnam also includes Armor rules, allowing the player to relive iconic scenes such as T-54 tanks charging south during the Easter Offensive or Marine Patton tanks battling through Hué.
3. Viking Dawn: A Game of Viking Exploration & Expansion 800-1040 A.D. from Compass Games
The 2nd game from Compass Games today is a good one. And I know that because I have played it. But, our friend Gregory M. Smith is a solitaire game designing genius and has done many of these solo, narrative driven style wargames that we have all enjoyed for hours on end while we have been unable to find an opponent or just because we want to play a game on our timeline. We have interviewed him many times for his games such as Zeppelin Raider, Interceptor Ace, The Hunted, Western Front Ace, Amerika Bomber, Defending America, American Tank Ace, British Tank Ace, Rebel Tide, Sinking Yamato and most recently for a magazine wargame called B-52D Linebacker II. But Greg is a versatile designer and also has done many great 2-player games as well. He always has something cooking in his game design kitchen and recently we spoke with him about his new design with Kevin McPartland called Viking Dawn: A Game of Viking Exploration & Expansion 800-1040 A.D. from Compass Games. I was able to play this 1-4 player game while at the World Boardgaming Championships last month and you can read about my experience at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2026/07/27/world-boardgaming-championships-2026-daily-debrief-series-day-3/
From the game page, we read the following:
Viking Dawn is a low-complexity strategic game, with rules for two, three, or four players, each controlling a faction of Vikings (Norse, Swede, Dane, and optionally Geat). Inspired by SPI’s game Conquistador! from the 1970’s, Viking Dawn has exploration, trade (both internal and external), and minor leaders. The game also contains rules for solitaire play with the Danes or Norse.
Faction descriptions:
Norse – closest to the New World, they have the additional advantage of two Explorers, Erik the Red and Leif Eriksson.
Danes – closest to the lucrative raiding and settlement targets of England, they also have the advantage of having several early leaders.
Swedes – although further from England, they are closest to several Russian settlement areas, and river portage routes to the east and Constantinople.
Geats – ostensibly the weakest faction, as they must pay tribute to the Swedes for protection, they have the best trading advantage in the game.
Players compete to raid lucrative settlements and explore the world with longships and warbands. Each faction has named historical leaders, who have an impact on combat and exploration. Players may trade with each other or nonplayer-controlled areas and establish settlements. Includes rules for settlements gaining independence, leader burials, and establishment of the Varangian Guard.
If you are interested in Viking Dawn: A Game of Viking Exploration & Expansion 800-1040 A.D., you can pre-order a copy for $54.00 from the Compass Games website at the following link: https://www.compassgames.com/product/viking-dawn-pay-later/
4. Tunnel Rats: The Vietnam War Underground from Compass Games
Game 3 in this month’s mini-Pre-Order Palooza from Compass Games is another very interesting looking game set during the Vietnam War called Tunnel Rats: The Vietnam War Underground. This game is a solitaire game, which I think makes a lot of sense historically and thematically and actually gets me very excited for the possibilities, and I very much look forward to seeing how this one works. I have great hope for this one. The designer is Lisa Smedman who has done several recent popular solo games including Trench Raid.
From the game page, we read the following:
Tunnel Rats is a single-player game set during the Vietnam War. You will control two American “tunnel rats” who have been tasked with exploring an underground tunnel complex created by the Viet Cong. This complex is made up of tiles representing tunnels and underground rooms in which the enemy may be lurking. In this claustrophobic environment, the tunnel rats need to be as quiet as possible to avoid alerting the enemy. Tense firefights and hand-to-hand combat feature a unique initiative system, and encounters are fast and furious.
With a procedurally generated map, nine tunnel rat characters to choose from, and a variety of weapon and equipment load-outs, each “run” will provide a new and dynamic challenge. Your team’s objective will vary, shifting the focus of play depending upon which lieutenant is in command of the team. Tunnel Rats also includes rules for campaign play, allowing surviving tunnel rats to gradually hone their skills over time – if they survive.
Be on your guard, as the tunnel rats never know what they will encounter down in “the black”. It might be a hidden punji stake pit, a Viet Cong command center filled with valuable documents, a venomous snake slithering along a tunnel, or a water trap they must swim through without drowning!
5. Against the Reich Deluxe Edition from Compass Games
Game 4 from the Compass Games mini Pre-Order Palooza is a classic hex and counter operational level wargame set in World War II called Against the Reich Deluxe Edition designed originally by Joseph Balkoski.
From the game page, we read the following:
In June of 1944, the world held its breath as land and naval forces of six Allied nations launched the largest amphibious assault ever attempted. The long-awaited second front, the Western Front, was finally open. The Allies had to force the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany by crossing the great Rhine River into the Reich itself. Adolf Hitler was confident that the battered but undefeated Wehrmacht could hold two enormous fortified zones (the Atlantic and Westwalls) and repulse any attempt to cross into the German homeland. Against the Reich is the first game in years to cover the entire Western Front campaign. The players are in the positions of Eisenhower and Hitler, making the grand decisions that control the course of the campaign.
A Quick-Playing Simulation: Designer Joseph M. Balkoski, whose specialty is the Western Front, has provided an accurate, realistic simulation that plays like a game. With short and long campaign games, you can choose the length of the simulation.
Headquarters and Supplies are Realistically Linked: Players must decide where to concentrate their resources. Limited supplies make the placement of headquarters and depots a critical factor in the campaign.
Choice of Invasion Sites: The Allied player must decide where to invade – do you strike a lightly defended area and accept a long, grinding ground campaign, or strike close to the Rhine and risk quick destruction?
Historical Overview: Russel F. Weigley, author of Eisenhower’s Lieutenants, the definitive history of the Western Front, has analyzed the strategic options facing Eisenhower and Hitler – and the players.
Loaded with other Features: A short “Battle of the Bulge” scenario, Second Invasion, Flooding Holland, Port Repair, The Roer Dams, Rail Movement, Mediterranean Front Reinforcements, Amphibious and Airborne Assaults, and much more.
6. Enlightenment Empires: Power and Politics in Eastern Europe, 1725-1795 from GMT Games
One of my favorite parts about historical wargaming is that I get exposed to and am able to learn about some of the more obscure parts of our world’s history. Now you might be saying to me that the subject of power politics in Eastern Europe form 1725-1795 is not obscure and I think that you would be correct if I was from Eastern Europe. But as I am from the United States, this is not a period or locale that we learned much about in grade school. That being said, I am very much interested in this concept and history and am glad to see Brian Asklev taking another crack at a topic that focuses on some of the history from his neck of the woods. When Enlightenment Empires: Power and Politics in Eastern Europe, 1725-1795 was first announced a few weeks ago, I was immediately interested because I do love games where several nations have to compete economically, politically, diplomatically and through force of arms. I also recently played Brian’s Baltic Empires at WBC and very much enjoyed that game and this one appears to be in a similar style and uses the very interesting Dramatis Personae cards to inject historical characters with their abilities into the game play.
From the game page, we read the following:
Enlightenment Empires is an approachable 2-5 player strategy game about conflicts between the states of Central and Eastern Europe region during the Enlightenment era, a transformative period of political upheaval, large-scale warfare, and constant struggles for power. Players will have to develop their economy, decide their internal policies on the ideas of individual liberty and effective governance, secure trade deals and financial assistance within the context of the global rivalry between Britain and France, and finally build armies to become the dominant power of Central and Eastern Europe. Russia, Poland-Lithuania, Prussia, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire will fight for hegemony, using variable victory conditions that reflect their respective historical objectives.
Building on the solid foundation provided by Baltic Empires, highlights of Enlightenment Empires include:
Five new asymmetric factions with unique abilities and objectives, including a new “Constitution” objective reflecting the pinnacle of Enlightenment political ideals.
Another highly thematic deck of historical Dramatis Personae to constitute your royal court, now also including random events that can disrupt players’ plans…or present them with new opportunities.
A simplified, yet still deep and political, economic system that forces players to make tough decisions regarding their state’s internal policies (serfdom, noble privileges, and military spending) and its diplomatic relations to the superpowers of the period, England and France.
The same streamlined battle system based on custom dice per unit type, now modified by military reforms.
More detailed minor powers that players may form alliances with.
Variable player counts (from 2 to 5 players), with scenarios ranging from a tight duel to a tense multiplayer conflict replete with alliances and betrayals.
If there is a word that could define the whole of 18th century, it would be the Enlightenment. The philosophical thought that applied reason to all spheres of life guided the social and political developments of the 1700s, and intellectuals, scientists, politicians, and rulers alike acted either in support of it or against it. And while in Western Europe the republican ideals of enlightenment brought about the French Revolution, in Central and Eastern Europe enlightenment became a tool for state-building for the absolutist monarchs, including the Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria Joseph II, King Frederick II of Prussia, or Empress Catherine the Great of Russia. The mid-18th century period was formative for these powers, with Prussia and Russia continuing to struggle to establish their dominance in the region, while Austria and the Ottoman Empire fought to preserve their status, and the weakened state of Poland-Lithuania struggled to reform its constitution before meeting an unlucky demise. Three of the traditional “pentarchy“ of Great European Powers (namely, Russia, Prussia, and Austria) were Eastern powers that achieved this status during the 18th century. Their dominance in the region was forged by the work of bureaucrats and reformers, as much as by the soldiers and generals on the fields of the Seven Years‘ War.
Keep in mind that these type of games can sometimes be very complex and have lots of moving parts. And I am not saying that this doesn’t have them but Brian has said that the game is very approachable.
Enlightenment Empires presents these political and military conflicts in a fun and accessible format, while also doing justice to the fascinating history of the region during this period. The game features five asymmetric factions with different strengths, internal political conditions, military forces, and historical objectives, along with the capacity to develop their states by conducting reforms along (or against) Enlightenment ideals, investing in economic infrastructure, and recruiting key historical characters that offer unique game effects. The game also includes several scenarios for variable player counts and durations, offering additional flexibility and replayability.
7. The Last Hundred Yards Volume 6: The Forgotten Hell from GMT Games
If you didn’t know we really enjoyed The Last Hundred Yards as well as Volume 2: Airborne Over Europe. The system is extremely interesting for a tactical game and uses some novel elements in regards to how victory points are scored including a focus on time to complete missions as well as the casualties incurred. Really an excellent system with lots of crunch and potential! Now, even though there are a total of 5 other volumes that have been released, Mike Denson has forged ahead with the next entry in the series which gives us a look at the operations in New Guinea and the Northern Solomon Islands during WWII with The Last Hundred Yards Volume 6: The Forgotten Hell.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Last Hundred Yards: The Forgotten Hell is Volume 6 in The Last Hundred Yards Series. This game examines the Allied campaigns against Japan in 1942, focusing on U.S. operations on Guadalcanal and Australian fighting in Papua New Guinea.
In New Guinea, Australian militia and the Australian Imperial Force troops fought a brutal and desperate delaying campaign along the Kokoda Track from Port Moresby to Buna, Battling through jungle, mountains, rain, mud, hunger, disease, and exhaustion, they resisted repeated Japanese advances and flanking attacks. Their stubborn defense slowed the enemy, shielded Port Moresby, and eventually helped reverse the campaign. At Milne Bay, Australian forces pushed the Japanese back and shattered the belief that the Imperial Japanese Army was invincible.
On Guadalcanal, U.S. Marines and Army troops fought equally savage battles, destroying Ichiki’s force at Alligator Creek and later assaulting entrenched Japanese positions around Mount Austen. There, the enemy used caves, rocky ridges, and concealed strongpoints to prolong the struggle.
Together, these engagements reveal the intensity of jungle warfare in the Southwest Pacific, where endurance, small-unit leadership, and relentless attacks under terrible conditions shaped the early Allied offensive against Japan. These actions also showed how terrain, logistics, and morale could decide campaigns as surely as firepower across the battlefields of the Solomons and New Guinea alike.
8. Shenandoah: Jackson and Sheridan in the Valley, 1862 – 1864 (Stonewall in the Valley and Sheridan in the Shenandoah) from Multi-Man Publishing
A BIG and well respected American Civil War operational system is what Great Campaigns of the American Civil War (GCACW) is and the newest volume in the series is called Shenandoah: Jackson and Sheridan in the Valley, 1862 – 1864. One of the things that I very much appreciate about this system is the fact that they use some of the best art out there for their covers.
From the game page, we read the following:
Shenandoah: Jackson and Sheridan in the Valley, 1862 – 1864 is the latest design in the award-winning Great Campaigns of the American Civil War(GCACW) Series. It contains both a complete redesign of the Stonewall in the Valley (SIV) game covering Stonewall Jackson’s 1862 valley campaign and a completely new game module Sheridan in the Shenandoah that depicts Sheridan’s 1864 valley campaign. The game is designed by Joe Balkoski (the original GCACW Series creator) and Chris Withers. The original SIV game maps have been upgraded to contain the latest GCACW map features, with map design executed by artist Charlie Kibler—whose work on the series dates to its creation in 1992.
Shenandoah: Jackson and Sheridan in the Valley, 1862 – 1864 uses the latest version of the GCACW Standard Basic Game Rules, which also apply to all other games in the series, and these rules are now printed at an increased 11-point font size instead of 9-point. After more than a quarter-century of refinement, these rules are extremely well organized and relatively easy to learn, even for series newcomers. The Advanced Game rules cover situations specifically applicable to these unique campaigns such as “The Burning” that depicts the desolation of the valley by Union cavalry in 1864.
Stonewall in the Valley includes one new Basic Game scenario, the four original Basic Scenarios rebalanced, and the original Advanced Game campaign scenario extensively revised:
The Battle of Kernstown (March 23, 1862; 1 turn): Introductory scenario on the battle of Kernstown – ideal for beginners.
My Last Council of War (March 10 to March 23, 1862; 14 turns): Heavily outnumbered, Jackson moves south from Winchester thru Strasburg to Mt. Jackson. A Union force of three divisions follows to Strasburg while sending two divisions out of the Valley to reinforce McClellan. Jackson races back north and attacks the remaining Union division at Kernstown but loses the battle.
God Blessed Our Arms at McDowell (April 30 to May 11, 1862; 12 turns): Historically, Jackson moves west from Staunton and causes the Union force at McDowell to retreat north to Franklin. He briefly pursues them but then returns to the Valley. This scenario postulates what might have happened had Ewell’s division and Banks’ two divisions become involved in the McDowell campaign instead of holding fast in their camps in the south of the Valley.
Rebel Blitzkrieg (May 21 to June 2, 1862; 13 turns): Jackson and Ewell advance north on the Luray Pike and surprise the small Union force at Front Royal. A Union division entrenched at Strasburg to the west belatedly discovers it is in danger of being cut off and just beats Jackson north to Winchester. Jackson defeats the Union at the first battle of Winchester and pursues to Harpers Ferry. Meanwhile strong Union forces are moving in behind Jackson from both the east and the west. Jackson turns south, marching to Strasburg and then Mt. Jackson and barely avoids the trap.
Our Beautiful Valley Will be Cleansed (June 6 to June 11, 1862; 6 turns); Two Union columns, separated by the Shenandoah River, pursue Jackson south from Strasburg. Fremont’s force engages the Confederates at Harrisonburg and then two days later battles them at Cross Keys. Meanwhile Shields’ division advances into Jackson’s rear and almost captures his wagon train. Jackson turns his army from Fremont to Shields and defeats Shields in the battle of Port Republic causing both Union forces to pull back north.
Jackson’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign (March 7 to June 19, 1862; 105 turns): The entire Valley campaign is covered in this scenario. Both sides typically have forces moving all over all three maps in exciting maneuvers and with forces coming and going due to external events. The scenario plays quite fast due to lulls where sets of 5 turns are skipped. The original advanced rules have been simplified, and the scenario has been extensively playtested and re-balanced.
Sheridan in the Shenandoah includes twelve Basic Game scenarios and two Advanced Game campaign scenarios, all extensively playtested:
Second Winchester (June 13 to June 15, 1863; 3 turns): Ewell’s corps leads the Confederate army thru the Valley to invade Pennsylvania and routed the Union division at Winchester. The Rebels cut off the Union retreat and captured most of the Union division. The route was now clear for Lee’s invasion of the north.
The Battle of New Market (May 15, 1864; 1 turn): Introductory scenario on the battle of New Market – ideal for beginners.
Piedmont (June 4 to June 6, 1864; 3 turns): Picking up the after Sigel’s debacle at New Market, Union General David Hunter marches south from Winchester. With Breckinridge, Confederate hero of New Market, aiding Lee at Cold Harbor, defense of the Valley falls to a ragtag collection of troops that are rushed to the area under General W. E. “Grumble” Jones. The forces battle at Piedmont, Jones is killed, the Rebels are routed, and the Union captures Staunton.
In the Valley Again (July 23 to August 5, 1864; 14 turns): Early’s army moved back into the Valley in mid-July after retreating from the outskirts of Washington, D.C. On July 23, Confederate scouting revealed that Early was only opposed by Crook’s forces and not the VI and XIX corps, which had returned to D.C. Early attacked Crook at Kernstown and routed the Union forces which retreated across the Potomac. Confederate infantry destroyed the B&O RR at Martinsburg and threatened to invade north. Two Confederate cavalry brigades advanced north towards Chambersburg, burned it, and were chased by 2 Union cavalry divisions. Meanwhile, the VI and XIX corps had been recalled to the Valley, but then along with Crook’s force, moved east to protect against an assumed invasion again by the Confederates. The Union force soon countermarched back to Harpers Ferry and the Confederates retreated south.
Second Kernstown (July 24, 1864; 1 turn): A simple scenario covering the second battle of Kernstown – ideal for beginners.
Sheridan Takes Command (August 10 to August 14, 1864; 5 turns): Sheridan took command of all forces in the region on August 7th. His orders were “wherever the enemy goes let our troops go also”. The plan was to trap the Confederate infantry in the northern valley, but Early knew the danger and moved south just ahead of the Union. Both sides marched rapidly south until the Confederates setup a strong line at the Fisher’s Hill. Sheridan prepared to attack but halted his plans when a strong force under Anderson entered the Valley at Front Royal.
You Must Be Cautious (August 17 to August 21, 1864; 5 turns): With the Union infantry camped along Cedar Creek and the Confederates entrenched in a strong line at Fisher’s Hill just to the south, Sheridan learned of the approach of Kershaw’s division. This elicited a new directive from Grant warning Sheridan he “must be cautious and act on the defensive until movements … force them to detach” troops. Therefore, Sheridan conducted a night march to Winchester. From there the Union briefly defended at Berryville and then at Charlestown. The Confederates pursued and eventually tried to bring on a battle at Charlestown. However, Sheridan was cautious and followed the new defensive strategy and disengaged to retreat into a strong, compact line at Halltown, just in front of Harpers Ferry.
Third Winchester (September 19, 1864; 1 turn): This scenario depicting the third battle of Winchester is only one turn but still features lots of maneuver and combat.
From Winchester to Fisher’s Hill (September 19 to September 22, 1864; 4 turns): This scenario encompasses two significant battles in the valley campaign. The Union army attacked the Confederate defensive line just east of Winchester and eventually drove the Rebels back to Winchester. This final Confederate line collapsed, and they retreated south all the way to a formidable defensive position at Fisher’s Hill, just south of Strasburg. The Union pursued and then rolled the west flank of this line and routed the Confederates.
Early’s About Played Out (September 23 to September 26, 1864; 4 turns): After the battle of Fisher’s Hill the Confederates retreated south. The Union pursued with their entire army, but the action for the next few days was limited to cavalry and rear-guard skirmishes. The Confederates safely made it to Brown’s Gap, while the Union infantry stopped at Harrisonburg and Union cavalry started burning the countryside.
Tom’s Brook (October 9, 1864; 1 turn): This solitaire scenario is filled with cavalry action and is an excellent learning scenario for beginners.
The Battle of Cedar Creek (October 19, 1864; 1 turn): While this is only a 1-turn scenario it is filled with the action that took place in the battle of Cedar Creek. The Confederate player starts with a Night March and a Surprise Attack. The Union responds with a special “Sheridan’s Ride” action to enable counterattacks.
Sheridan Moves South (September 19 to October 20, 1864; 32 turns): This scenario spans the battles in the campaign from when Sheridan attacked the Confederates at Winchester, to when the Confederates were defeated at the battle of Cedar Creek. This campaign can be easily played in a weekend.
The Last Valley Campaign (July 21 to October 20, 1864; 92 turns): This scenario encompasses the entire campaign from when Early’s army returned to the Valley after his raid on Washington, to when he was defeated at the battle of Cedar Creek. There is maneuver and combat all over all three maps in this scenario. The action often starts with a Confederate offensive and advance to the Potomac. The Union then gets significant reinforcements to launch counteroffensives.
9. Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII Reprint from Best with 1
I love a new and interesting way to tell the story of a key battle and I found a very interesting one called Okinawa: The Last Battle of WWII from Best with 1 earlier this year. This is a solitaire only game and for each game the player will draw four objectives from a possible 12 that you must survive and capture before time runs out. On your turn, the player will roll special dice and then spend those to take actions such as movement, attack and take special actions from different unit action cards that will be set up in a square from from 1 to 10. The numbers coincide with the dice of the attacking Japanese and as the player moves through the rondel they will be able to activate and use their different soldiers to attack the Japanese defenders or use their special abilities to gain tokens that can be used for rerolls or healing of wounds
I think that the best part of the game is the concept of resource management as you have to use the dice appropriately to move and fight and also to manage your troops as you can upgrade certain cards as you pass the midway point of the round as well as when special actions are granted via the special resource chits. Upgrading units is very important as this will unlock things like heavy weapons in the form of bazookas, a Sherman tank and planes to be able to take out the Japanese armor units defending the island. The game is about efficiency of movement and doing the most with what you have. The dice determine what you can and can’t do and movement is optional as you don’t have to move unless you feel it is advantageous. But remember, that you have to defeat the defenders and the various objectives to be able to advance to your final objective and sitting in one space too long is not advisable.
The different units have various functions including attack, such as the Rifleman, Machine Gun Team and Sniper but also have secondary functions to remove the fog of war, heal your damaged units or gain additional resources. The Japanese defenders are well hidden and also have various defenses such as pill boxes and caves that will require the player to defeat these before moving to attack the units located inside.
In the end the game is about defeating the Japanese defenders while doing so in a set amount of revolutions around the rondel setup. This can be as few as 2 times around or as many as 4 and knowing when to use your resources to reroll your dice, as you either didn’t get the run of consecutive numbers you were looking for or just need a specific number, you will run out of resources quickly and you must plan them out as best you can to win the game. This one is really fun and I have played it about a dozen times winning about 70% of the time. The game plays in about an hour and the action is fast and furious and you are immediately beset by the staunch Japanese defenders and must act quickly.
You do not have to buy the Hero Bound game but can order the game as an Add On.
10. Tank Clash: Eastern Front from Ameba Games
I love to highlight these little campaigns that I find on Kickstarter and this month there is a new company, or at least that I am not familiar with, called Ameba Games that is offering a small game called Tank Clash: Eastern Front. This games appears to be the 2nd game in the series with the 1st being called Tank Clash: Western Front.
From the game page, we read the following:
Tank Clash is back with new iconic World War 2 tanks!
The Red Army is spearheaded by the powerful Soviet armoured units like the T34, SU100 and IS2. Germany pins its hopes on the last of the panzer divisions to halt the Soviet advance. The Wehrmacht fields its fearsome tanks like the Stug III, Nashorn and Tiger II for the coming battle.
The stage is set for the largest clash of late-war heavy armour.
Tank Clash: Eastern Front is a standalone tactical tank warfare game for 2 players, designed for both newcomers and seasoned strategists. Easy to learn yet rich in tactical choices, it combines its signature checkers-style armour tracking system with dice rolling and hand management for intense skirmish battles.
Already own Tank Clash: Western Front?
Built with modularity in mind, Eastern Front is fully compatible with its predecessor. Combine both games to command 12 unique tank types across expansive battlefields with up to 4 players. Eastern Front’s new features – including new missions, battlefield tokens, event cards and enhanced gameplay elements can also be incorporated into Western Front for an even richer combat experience.
I know what you might be thinking, as the art is a bit cartoony, but I am going to give this one a chance. I think that any wargamer likes to use tanks and this one appears to be focused on these metal monsters and I am going to give it a go. Plus the components are really nice, including some very well made poker chips that are used on the board, and frankly the price of $40 is probably worth what you re getting.
As of September 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $9,054 toward its $3,928 funding goal with 108 backers. The campaign will conclude on Wednesday, September 16th at 9:00pm EDT.
New Release
1. A Hellish Fight: The Battle of Fort Sumter – 1863 from High Flying Dice Games
I love lesser gamed subjects. Or even sometimes games that have never seen the light of day and never touched certain subjects. It is always nice to play something unique and interesting while learning new parts of history. High Flying Dice Games does this exceptionally well as they have made their living on doing lesser (or even totally) unknow battles in their small format games. This month they have released a game that focuses on the 2nd siege of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina in 1863 called A Hellish Fight: The Battle of Fort Sumter – 1863. This one looks pretty interesting and appears to focus on the iron clad battles and bombardment of the ruins of the fort that were still held by the Confederates.
From the game page, we read the following:
Following the capture of Fort Wagner on September 7th, and the protracted bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Union navy’s ironclads as well as army land batteries, an assault to take the fort’s ruins was planned. Admiral Dahlgren and General Gilmore both felt that securing Fort Sumter’s capture would not only lead to Charleston’s surrender, but send a clear signal that the Confederacy’s days were numbered.
If you are interested in A Hellish Fight: The Battle of Fort Sumter – 1863, you can order a copy for $18.95 from the High Flying Dice Games website at the following link: https://www.hfdgames.com/sumter.html
2. Guadalcanal: The Battle for Henderson Field, Oct 23-26, 1942 from Dan Verssen Games
The Valiant Defense Series designed by David Thompson has been one of my favorite solitaire wargame series of the past nearly 10 years. Each of the volumes in the game address very specific situations and always have a very interesting take with fun mechanics, great art and fantastic production. The torch for the series though has been passed to a new designer in Vincent Cooper. He has designed Volume 5 Guadalcanal: The Battle for Henderson Field, Oct 23-26, 1942 and it has finally fulfilled off of Kickstarter.
From the game page, we read the following:
Take command of the valiant Marines of the 1st Marine Division, supported by Soldiers of the 164th Infantry Regiment, desperately defending Henderson Field against waves of Japanese troops. Guadalcanal: The Battle for Henderson Field is a solitaire and cooperative tactical wargame published by Dan Verssen Games (DVG) as Volume V in the Valiant Defense Series.
Here is a bit of a designer diary/commentary from the designer Vincent Cooper:
This all started about 3 1/2 years ago when I first played Pavlov’s House. I say played. I ‘played’ the game for about 10 minutes…and then I sat there in stunned disbelief at how a game could be sooooo good!!!!
By the time I finished there were two very clear ideas for games fully formed. I contacted DVG to see if there was any interest and they put me in touch with David Thompson. I didn’t hold much hope. There was no reason for him to trust his IP to me, a person he didn’t know.
But I gave it a try and David, it turns out, is one of the nicest people you can ever come into contact with. After some back and forth, the idea for Guadalcanal – The Battle for Henderson Field was born (not, in fact, one of the original ideas, but we’ll see what the future holds for them…).
The game has been through various stages of development and now stands ready to KS!! I will be giving more details in the future about the various variant play options, but have no fear: This will keep you scratching your head looking for the right decision for MONTHS!!
Art by the supremely talented Nils Johansson
Thank you to all the play testers, and in particular Glenn Saunders, Shane Freshwater and Martin Fenwick Charlesworth Much more to come from out design team in the near future!!!
A few years ago, Road to the Rhine designed by Frank Chadwick was announced and it is now ready to ship.
From the game page, we read the following:
In the cataclysmic battle of the Falaise Pocket, the Allied forces defeated the German army and drove them back across France in disorder. In the south of France, American and French troops of the 6th Army Group have stormed ashore and driven the remnants of the German 19th Army north toward the border.
Road to the Rhine covers the Allied pursuit of the German Army following the Normandy breakout through fierce fighting at the West Wall and bridging the Rhine River. The campaign game covers the period from September 1944 through April 1945, while separate shorter scenarios include Operation Market-Garden and the Battle of the Bulge. The game includes two battle games (one-turn scenarios), two longer scenarios, and one full campaign game. The game also includes extensive designer notes from original game designer Frank Chadwick and a historical play-through of the Bulge battle game.
Road to the Rhine is another classic by Game Designers’ Workshop, re-mastered by Compass Games. Originally designed by Frank Chadwick, this edition pays tribute to the classic by honoring the original game system while introducing many enhancements for gameplay purposes. In terms of presentation, we upgraded all components, including completely new full-color maps, new reinforcement and new unit displays, expanded turn and supply tracks, enhanced charts, a rulebook with incorporated errata, and larger counters.
This one does have two 22″x34″ maps but with only 2 countershafts so it is large in scope but not necessarily in scale as it appears to be fairly low counter density. One to keep an eye on though as it is designed by Frank Chadwick and is a remastering of the classis GDW release in 1979.
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 Neva Game Press!
They recently announced their next Kickstarter project that would take their system to the Anglo-Boer War called The Great Anglo-Boer War: The Battle for South Africa 1899-1902. The game is currently on Kickstarter and I reached out to my contact there Kevin Talley who acts as one of the Developers on the team for his input into the design to give us a better picture of how this new game plays.
Grant: What is the focus of your new upcoming game called The Great Anglo-Boer War?
Kevin:The Great Anglo-Boer War is a grand-strategic level game of the war between the British Empire and the Boer Republics in South Africa from 1899 to 1902.
Grant: Who is the designer and what is their goal with the game?
Kevin: As with all of our designs, R.J. Mills is the designer. He has always been fascinated with the Boer War and the goal was to make a really good hex-and-counter wargame to cover the whole conflict.
Grant: What is important to model from the history of the Anglo-Boer War?
Kevin: Well, the Boer War was very unique. It began as an asymmetric conventional contest in 1899 between the relatively small citizen militia forces of the two Boer Republics (they had no standing professional armies) and nearly the entire army of the British Empire! Then, once the Empire had captured both Boer capitals in 1900, the Boers refused to surrender and instead decided to fight a guerrilla war (and that went on for 2 more years). So, given the dynamics of this truly unique conflict, making a realistic game presented some serious design challenges. The design had to accurately simulate the conventional period, where the fractional Boer forces soundly defeated the British in several key battles during the early months, and it also had to credibly represent the guerrilla phase of the war, where very small numbers of Boers roamed (often unseen) and raided (always with surprise) throughout a vast area nearly twice the size of Texas. For this phase, the Empire forces had 250,000 troops deployed unsuccessfully trying to defeat 20,000 guerrillas! It all ended (finally) 31 May, 1902, with the Treaty of Vereeniging.
Grant: What other games inspired this design?
Kevin: We had not intended to make a Boer War game here at Cadet until after we started seeking a good grand-strategic/operational game about the Boer War to play. We got the “Boer War bug” playing Geoff Noble’s Redver’s Reverse: The Battle of Colenso, 1899 from Legion Games and decided we wanted to play a game of the whole war. We had pledged the KS Campaign for Joseph Miranda’s The Boer War from Canvas Temple Publishing and were hopeful, but it wasn’t what we’d hoped for in the end. Then we tried all the other Boer War games out there, or at least those we knew about, but there just wasn’t a good, realistic, strategic level/operational game of the whole war – especially not with the kind of depth we were looking for. We wanted something more like Nick Karp’s Vietnam: 1965-1975 from Victory Games – but for the Boer War – something with that kind of simulative value, historical chrome and especially guerrilla war operational mechanics. The closest thing we found was the old 3W game from 1991 (Eric Faust and Lew Fisher) called The Boer War. It had a lot of what we were looking for, but it was under-developed, errata-riddled and had too many issues to list. Still, that game had some brilliant design ideas, so we decided to start with that framework and make our own game. We were surprised that this topic didn’t have more published games already.
Grant: How did warfare change during the Victorian Age? How did you capture these changes?
Kevin: The British Army was fighting in drill book formations all the way through the 19th century. Consider that, just a year before in 1898 at Omdurman, the infantry stood in close order (just like in the movie Zulu), easily repelling the 50,000-strong army of the Khalifa with Lee-Metford volleys, Maxims and quick-firing breech loading artillery. This all worked very well when the enemy had swords, spears or primitive firearms. But the Boers had Mausers. And Krupps. And Maxims! Tactics had to evolve to meet this new level of lethality and the British Army was not initially prepared to face an enemy that was equipped with the same weapons as they. And an enemy that chose trenches and concealment – inflicting severe losses on British troops in drill formations. The combat system in the game realistically models the advantages of entrenchments, terrain, unit formation posture, night marches and even artillery effects. The Boers on defense can be very tough. A typical attack will be costly. Best to use open order and artillery to great effect – even better to use maneuver and avoid the prepared defense altogether. It took the British some time to learn their lessons.
Grant: What sources were consulted for the historical details?
Kevin: The bibliography for the game is included in section 26 of the rulebook. We used 20+ books on the topic to get the information for the design, and of course those include all the most important works published about the war: Rayne Kruger, Pakenham, Farwell, Arthur Conan Doyle (who was there), Barthorp, Reitz (a famous Boer Journal of the war), Maurice’s official history, Amery (Times history) and more. Someone who has researched the war and knows the historiography will truly appreciate this game.
Grant: What is the scale of the game? Force structure of units?
Kevin: The map scale is 9 miles to a hex. The map is huge. 34″ x 44″ on the table. The unit scale can be as little as a half battalion on the Empire side (500 men) and a single commando element of as few as 333 for the Boers. But the system is so flexible that a single leader’s counter in a hex on the map could represent as many as 30,000 Empire soldiers (with supporting artillery) and up to 13,320 Boers with several batteries of their guns as well. The game scale works for both large conventional battles (early war) and small guerrilla actions (later war).
Grant: What is the layout and anatomy of the counters?
Kevin: The counters are the typical ½” variety, printed on both sides. There are Entrenchment markers that, when flipped, double as “Scorched Earth” markers; Rail markers (early war) that also double as Blockhouse Line markers (guerrilla phase); Boer Control markers that can also be used as Strength Point counters; Number markers that flip to various increments; dozens of Empire Detachment markers which flip to show either Infantry or Cavalry or Artillery Strength Points (and the rotated position of these markers indicates the detachment strength in the hex); Armoured Train unit counters; Supply Wagon unit counters; Unit Status markers for multiple conditions like Retreated, Disordered, Demoralized, Invasion VP’s and more; and of course the Empire and Boer Leader counters, which are the basic units of maneuver in the game.
Grant: What different types of units are available to both sides?
Kevin: A Leader counter on the map typically indicates a ‘Force’ (which is a leader and the Strength Points of soldiers and artillery in their command) for both sides. These Forces are the maneuver units that move around on the map. There are also Detachments, which are Strength Points of soldiers and artillery without a leader (these secure and patrol an area, with a ZOC but without the counter moving). The Empire Strength Points can be Infantry, Cavalry or Artillery, with each point equating to 500 soldiers or a battery of field guns. The Boers are basically all mounted infantry militia, with each Strength Point representing 333 Boers or one battery of their artillery. The Empire also has Armoured Train units (we kept the English spelling), which function as ‘line of communication’ forces that police Empire-controlled rail lines. The Boers also have their Republic Presidents (Steyn and Kruger) and their small government staffs, which serve to score Victory Points by avoiding capture and maintaining their presence as head of state, either in their capitals or out on the veldt.
Grant: What is the off-map Arrow/Wheel used for?
Kevin: There are “Unit Displays” for both sides. These typically show a small picture of the Leader next to a pair of Strength Point numbered ‘wheels’. The players use counters with little arrows on them to indicate on the ‘wheels’ how many SP’s of soldiers are in a Leader’s Force, with any artillery batteries indicated by using a number marker. This keeps the counter-density on the map low, since the battalions, regiments, batteries or commandos are indicated using these off-map strength displays, and only the Leader’s counter moves on the map.
Grant: What was the inspiration for this mechanism?
Kevin: This came from the 3W game. Some players dislike this method for managing unit strength, and it took some getting used to, but we eventually decided it was the best mechanic we had seen in any design for this aspect of the game. Now we love it. Especially because of the flexibility it allows once the war changes from conventional to guerrilla. Historically the forces changed from divisions and brigades fighting large Boer commandos to much smaller columns of Empire troops chasing small Boer units of a few hundred all over the map.
Grant: How does it show the importance of Leaders in the game?
Kevin: I think this whole method of organizing the armies of both sides by each “Leader’s Force” really works perfectly to simulate the Boer War. It matches the real history. Everything a Force does boils down to the influence and command capabilities of the Leader. And forces of widely varying strength and unit composition were assigned to different leaders on both sides at different times throughout the conflict.
Grant: What is the Leader specific initiative rating system? How does it aid in your telling of the Anglo-Boer War?
Kevin: A Leader has to ‘roll for initiative’ to do most actions. Each Leader has an initiative rating which either helps or hurts their odds of a successful die roll, and the ratings are based on the historical performance of that Leader. This represents more than simply a Leader’s tendency to act decisively or not, but also his relative command influence for scarcity of resources, typical Victorian-era officer rivalries, orders and communications variables, bad intelligence and other typical “frictions” of war. The history of the war is full of instances where orders didn’t get communicated, sometimes weren’t given at all, or were ignored. Battles were lost many times because this leader or that failed to act on their own initiative or had some other priority override their commander’s intent. There are some Leaders whose rating is so good, they can nearly always do anything the player wants (and those are almost exclusively Boers). Other Leaders are reliably ineffective, and special care must be taken by the players to choose the right missions for these people. The realism of the design is greatly enhanced by this aspect – a player might have a great plan, but there is no guarantee that their Leaders will enact it. As Lord Roberts said after the battle at Poplar Grove, “In war you can’t expect everything to come out right.”
Grant: What is the layout of the game board?
Kevin: The Game Map contains almost all of the area of the war, from the eastern Transvaal and much of Swaziland and Zululand all the way to the Kalahari desert in the west; from 150 miles west of Port Elizabeth on the coast all the way up past Durban in Natal – and all of the mountains, ridges, rough and veldt of South Africa contained therein. It is a very large area and the map scale is 9 miles per hex. Using .625 hexes (for standard ½” counters), the map is 34″ x 44″ on the table.
Grant: What key terrain features are included and how do they affect maneuver and tactics?
Kevin: The terrain types for hexes include mountain, rough and veldt. Special hexside types can be ridge or river, bridge or rail. The mountain ranges are all there, as are the ridgelines and heights, rivers and rail, towns, ports and capitals. Even the passes and “neks” are indicated. The actual escarpment of the Drakensberg are all mountain hexes, but the Biggarsberg north of Ladysmith, as an example, is treated as ridge-type hexsides with rough terrain hexes. There is a real distinction between mountains and typical rough country/hills. The geography of South Africa was a serious factor in the conduct of the war and the terrain effects for both movement and combat are significant in the game.
A Force attacking across a river hexside is reduced by 50%; a Force attacking across a ridge or into mountains is reduced by 25%; a Force defending in mountain terrain is doubled; a Cavalry Force crossing a river pays 2 extra movement points to do so, while an Infantry Force pays 3; a veldt hex costs 1 point to enter, a rough hex 2, a mountain hex 4, and crossing a ridge hexside adds 2 points. Geography is key. Often, the only way to effectively dislodge an enemy Force from a position is to maneuver them out of it, because the odds for a successful attack are slim based on the terrain. The Tugela River line in Natal is a famous example of a natural fortress, and so it is with the game. To get past a competent Boer defense there, it will take an Empire player who understands the map and the combat system (plus some good dice and a card or two).
Grant: What type of cards are included? Can you share a few examples.
Kevin: The cards are great. Mostly they modify the combat odds or DR’s by providing for an odds-column shift or a DR mod for one of the many on the Battle Board (the Empire Attack Scouting Effect, the Artillery Effect or the actual combat DR). But there are also many cards that influence very specific game actions – like evasions or recruiting, siege surrender extensions or supply situations, armoured trains or movement or initiative effects. Some cards influence the unit formation or entrenchment posture during a battle, while some may determine the outcome of night marches. Some are related to intelligence and reveal hidden enemy units or prevent unknown strength in a combat event. Others influence scouting and observation, signals and orders, escapes and ambushes…I could go on.
All the cards were created based on actual events that happened during the war. Here is an excerpt from the Campaign language and the “design notes” section of the rulebook: “The game cards are designed to build historic realism into the game, especially for the combat system. As in all wars, small instances of chance – moments of decisive leadership (or not) – a thunderstorm – an oil-less signals lamp – a wire fence – a flooded drift – a poorly drawn map – a mistaken guide – an enemy surprise…all these historic events and elements of chance are represented in our design by game cards for both sides. We think this adds to the design immensely, since these can account for odds column shifts and DR mods that the players cannot anticipate. Like their historical counterparts, the players cannot know exactly what their odds are until the battle is joined and the card(s) are revealed!”
Grant: How does combat work?
Kevin: The combat system uses an odds-based CRT and a combat die roll to determine battle results, so it is fairly typical of a hex-and-counter wargame. What gives the system the right depth is that combat can happen during the movement as well as the combat phases. Combat can also be initiated by the non-phasing player using a reaction mechanism – so it isn’t nearly as simple or predictable as “I go / You go”. Based on the history, we felt the combat system (even at this scale) needed to incorporate strength ratios, unit tactical formations, weather, visibility, unknown Boer strength, artillery strength and effects for both sides, leadership, scouting and intelligence, terrain, night march outcomes, unit morale, “dummy” defensive positions, entrenchments and more.
Grant: How does the Battle Board work?
Kevin: There are so many effects and modifiers that contribute to the combat system that we decided the only way to keep everything straight was to have a Battle Board. For example, an Empire attack vs. a defending Boer Force would look like this: First, the Force attacking commits their desired number of Strength Points to the battle using the Attacker’s SP display, then the defending Boer unit’s SPs are indicated on their display. Any unit status particulars (Disordered, Demoralized, Retreated) are also indicated. The next step is to see how many unknown Boer SPs there are, so a die is rolled and that number goes on the Board (usually the Empire player cannot know their exact combat odds until after they commit their SPs to the attack because of this “unknown SP” die roll). Then any terrain or supply state modifiers are applied (there are markers for these) for both sides to establish the initial combat odds, and a counter for that ratio is placed in the appropriate box on the odds track (always rounded in favor of the defender). Next, any factors that modify the combat odds are noted and applied (entrenchments, the Empire Attack Scouting Effect DR, any other enemy units in the attacker’s ZOC, a Demoralized defender, any cards – attacker first). Now a marker is placed for the final combat odds on the final odds track. The last bit is to calculate what modifier (if any) is going to apply to the combat DR. The Artillery Effect is determined with a DR, if the Empire is using a night march there is another DR, the Empire Force’s Leader combat rating is applied, if the attack is made from a rail-move ZOC it matters, and finally any cards that modify the DR – attacker first. Once the Battle Board has been completely and correctly configured, the combat die is rolled and the CRT consulted to determine the result. The Battle Board is really essential to keep track of all of it.
Grant: What role does scouting and intelligence play in the game?
Kevin: The British generals were famously ignorant of the Boer dispositions in the early battles, for they had almost no intelligence organization in their army corps and they were especially short on mounted troops for effective scouting. The Empire Attack Scouting Effect is built into the combat system to reflect this. If the “E.A.S.E.” DR is greater than the number of Cavalry SP’s in the attacking Force, there is an odds-column shift to the left for the combat on the CRT. Later in the guerrilla phase, there is a “mystery movement” dynamic which keeps the Empire player guessing about which Boer commando markers are real units and which are only decoys. Some of the game cards confer valuable intelligence by allowing the Empire player to reveal a “mystery” commando of their choice (and native spies can help both sides).
Grant: How is artillery used?
Kevin: There is an Artillery Effect Track on the Battle Board which compares the arty strength of the two sides in a battle – whomever wins this comparison gets a modifier that applies to the combat DR. The Boers get a DR to add to their battery count, so even an Empire Force with 8 batteries of guns might not win the Arty Effect Bonus if there are 3 Boer batteries (if they roll a 6, they have 9). This “Boer Arty Effect” DR does not necessarily represent additional unknown batteries/guns, but more simulates the Boer tendency to use superior artillery tactics, multiple prepared positions, gun re-positioning during a battle, indirect fires and hidden gun positions with range and target fire preparation. In addition, the British firepower was often wasted against cunningly prepared “dummy” trenches and positions such that seemingly impressive preparatory fires were completely ineffective. The Boer Arty DR serves to simulate both aspects. The Empire has far greater potential weight of fire, but qualitatively the Boer Arty is superior (as with the historical truth). There are cards for both sides that impact the Artillery Effect for a battle.
Grant; What is the role of Scorched Earth?
Kevin: As the Boers turned more towards guerrilla tactics, the Empire forces began burning farms and killing or confiscating livestock (and especially horses) as reprisals for Boer attacks and to destroy potential shelter and supply sources for the guerrillas. This often resulted in the re-settlement of the Boer women and children in concentration camps, where thousands perished from disease and hunger. There are several game mechanics during the guerrilla phase that simulate this aspect of the war, and one is the “Scorched Earth” program. If the Empire player chooses, they may assign Forces during a game turn to “Scorch” one or more district areas in the Boer Republics. A marker is placed, and Boer movement point costs in that district are doubled, while guerrilla recruiting is halved. Once “Scorched”, a district can no longer provide Boer VP’s during the District Control segment of the VP interphase. But there is a potential cost to this kind of “scorched earth” policy: every turn this is done the Boer rolls a die – if the result is equal to or less than the number of newly “scorched” districts for the turn, the Boers get 5 VP for each. These VP’s reflect negative public opinion, parliamentary outrage and press coverage back in England, as well as increased Boer resentment and dedication to fight to the bitter end to avenge the destruction of their homes and families. The Empire player must balance the military benefits against the possible consequences of the policy (and be careful).
Grant: How does the Attrition Phase work?
Kevin: There is a lot going on during the Attrition and VP interphase. Hundreds of the Boers in just about every Force will simply leave to go home (they are all volunteer militia, not regulars); The Empire may have thousands of losses to typhoid (it was a big deal during the war); Boer family deaths in the concentration camps may cause desertions in the commandos (and uproar back in Britain); Besieged Empire garrisons may suffer losses or surrender; Railheads may advance or be pushed back: Forces might entrench; Unit statuses (like Demoralized units) get updated; VP’s for the game turn are tallied and losses counted, and the totals for the war (or scenario) are arrived at. It gets even busier if a Boer capital has been captured during the turn, as this can drastically increase the number of Boers who choose to “take leave” and go home (low morale). At the end of the phase, the players advance the game turn marker and start the next month of the war.
Grant: How is victory determined?
Kevin: Victory Points are awarded to both sides for all kinds of events. Mostly major or minor battle victories, but also for siege outcomes (relief or surrender), Boer invasions of Empire territory, capture of Leaders and capitals, control of districts, consequences from the scorched earth policy and concentration camps, and even penalties for over-stacking. There is a VP table on the back of the rulebook so the players can double-check during the VP interphase, and there are handy player-turn and interphase record sheets to use as well. Whoever has the most VP’s at the end of the scenario wins, unless an automatic victory for either side ends the contest early.
Grant: What different scenarios are included in the design?
Kevin: There are three scenarios – the Conventional War, the Guerrilla War, and the Grand Campaign Game. Here’s an excerpt from the Campaign language: “The full campaign is the ultimate Boer War experience – from the first desperate siege defenses of 1899 to the treaty of Vereeniging (or maybe not?) – and everything tactical and otherwise in between: Battles, blockhouses, farm-burnings, evasions, escapes, raids, concentration camps, sieges, drives, armoured trains, 1-pdr automatic “pom-poms”, surrenders, entrenchments, typhoid, barbed-wire, native spies, night marches, supply wagons and more. If it was part of the real Boer war – it is in the game.”
Grant: What does the game do well in modeling the Anglo-Boer War?
Kevin: We feel the game succeeds in modeling just about every aspect of the war, but there are a few particulars. Again, from the Campaign language: “For our design, we wanted a more granular scale of both movement and combat than any other strategic-level Boer War game yet published. Rayne Kruger, in chapter 23 of his “Good-Bye Dolly Gray” pointed out that, perhaps more than any other Boer advantage, the Empire was fighting “a war against space.” We ended up having two 22″ x 34″ map sections at 9 miles/hex to pull this off. A very large game on the table – but very typically “Cadet.” As it goes here, bigger is better. More hexes = more realism.”
Also, the Empire forces during the war were especially dependent on the rail lines for supply, while the Boer forces were far less dependent on any supply system to keep their forces in the field. The supply rules in the game really do justice to history, as everything the Empire player wants to do will be substantially constrained by their proximity to a rail line. In fact, some remote districts simply cannot be effectively garrisoned by Empire forces or detachments, because those units will be out of supply. Moreover, the scarcity of draft animals (oxen and mules) during the war meant only a handful of supply wagon units were available to extend an Empire LOS away from any rail line, and so it is with the game. These few substantial wagon convoys are also prime targets for the marauding Boers (as with countless examples from the war).
Grant: What has been the experience of playtesters?
Kevin: The game plays very well, indeed, but there were a few unexpected outcomes from the initial design, especially the combat system. In our first run of the conventional war scenario, we discovered that the “Boer unknown SP DR” mechanic needed a change. The Boers simply fought too well. Every time the Empire committed SP’s to an attack, the Boers would essentially be ‘reinforced’, owing to their unknown SP die roll. It always added SP’s to the Boer Force, since it wasn’t designed to subtract them. True, this kept the Empire player uncertain as to the combat odds until the forces were joined, but it had the effect of representing the Boers as ahistorically disciplined regular troops – prepared to fight to the death and hold their ground even when attacked by 15, 20, or even 30,000 British with 50+ field guns. The Boers just didn’t do that. There are far more examples of the Boer volunteers fleeing in droves from large Empire forces (in spite of exhortations and even threats by their leaders and even presidents) than examples where they stood their ground. In many ways this tendency served to preserve their forces and denied the Empire the showdown battles they hoped for during the second phase of the conventional war. A small rearguard of hardcore Burghers (farmers) would usually hold off the exponentially larger Empire forces, allowing their thousands of fleeing comrades to make their escape. They traded ground for time and blood, almost always avoiding any decisive loss.
So, we amended the rule so the DR can go either way, depending on the size of the attacking Empire force and on another DR modified by the Boer Leader rating of the defending force. This solution made a huge difference and resulted in the historical outcomes we wanted. If you attack Botha with a large Empire Force, he will likely motivate several hundred more Burghers to join the defense. Attack Prinsloo, though, and he’s likely to have several hundred of them (or more) run away before the battle is joined. There is a card in the Empire deck that prevents the unknown SP DR altogether, and now freshly retreated or Demoralized defenders don’t roll either.
Grant: When can we expect the game to be fulfilled?
Kevin: We are optimistic that the community will support our Campaign for this one (gotta get successfully funded first), and we will start the production sample and the rest of the process immediately afterward. Our anticipated timeline is to have the games shipping to the backers by August of next year.
Grant: What projects are in the near future for Cadet Games?
Kevin: We would really like to get our Hamburger Hill game produced. The design is 100% done and it is a really detailed sim of that famous battle. We ran it on Gamefound back in 2025 but it didn’t hit the goal. So, we will likely run that one again to see if we can’t get that produced here sometime soon. We have a ton of other projects in the works, one of which is a solo design covering the Mayaguez incident and the battle for Koh Tang Island from May, 1975. We have been really immersed in the Boer War since the middle of last year, so this one has had almost all of our attention (and still does for now, since we are playing through multiple rounds of the guerrilla phase and all of its intricacies)! We also have Barbarossa ’41 on deck for our Armies & Alliances Series of WWII ‘miniatures and monster map’ designs. Thanks again for helping us get the word out about our passion for military history and wargames!
Thank you for your time in answering our questions Kevin and for the great care you guys are taking with these games to tell a fun and interesting part of history.
Bravery in the Sand is a 2-player game that covers the major part of the battle known as Operation Crusader in North Africa during World War II. Covering the period from November 20 to December 3, 1941, players assume the roles of the Axis and Commonwealth generals to determine who will be victorious in this battle. One player controls the Commonwealth force (British, South African, New Zealand, and Indian), and the other player the Axis force (German and Italian). Players activate formations via chit draw, and combat is of the roll-to-hit variety. Includes rules for battlefield recovery, replacements, fortifications, Rommel and more.
About a month ago, I started a new feature on the blog called Discussion Thread where I pose a question or a situation and seek your input and comments on the issue to gain greater understanding and to encourage thoughtful feedback. The response to the first post about In-Game Retribution was positive and there were a lot comments and opinions shared. I now wanted to do another post in the series but focus on the subject of Zones of Control and their importance in wargames.
A Zone of Control, typically referred to as ZOC, is the area immediately surrounding a military unit that exerts tactical influence over adjacent spaces, which in turn restricts enemy movement, closes up gaps in a line preventing enemy units from moving through, forces combat or triggers some sort of reactive action such as opportunity fire or engagement without the passive player needing to occupy those hexes or take any actions. They are designed to create some sort of resistance to enemy units as they approach. Mimicking real world combat and adding in this concept of awareness of enemy movement.
I think that everyone has an opinion on the subject of ZOC’s and these opinions are mixed regarding complexity, the type, being rigid or sticky, and their in-game effects, but there is a consensus that they simulate well the concept of military friction and holding frontline positions. Let’s take a quick look at the different types of ZOC’s and I will share my thoughts on each.
First up, is the rigid/locking ZOC where units must halt their movement the moment they enter a space where an enemy unit is exerting a Zone of Control. The ZOC in this case forces the moving unit to terminate its movement for that turn. I very much prefer these type of ZOC’s as I think that they really simulate the concept of prepared and even sometimes dug-in troops have the advantage and can force advancing units to stop trough interlocking fields of fire or heavy gun projection on the area such as off-board artillery.
Next, we have the soft ZOC where advancing enemy units can move through enemy ZOC influenced spaces, but suffer some sort of movement point penalties, attrition, or extra costs. I also really like this concept as it typically functions similarly to more rigid ZOC’s by costing a +2 or +3 movement cost which typically ends a units movement but not always. I have seen moving units have to take a step loss to take an extra move or more simply extra movement costs such as the placing of a disrupted marker or the like. This type really focuses on the pressures and cost of moving into and through these Zones of Control but are simpler than the more rigid variety.
Finally, I have seen more fluid ZOC’s such as when units can pass adjacent to enemies, but doing so might trigger attacks of opportunity or reactive fire at a disadvantage such as providing the units projecting the ZOC a positive DRM in their attacks or attacking with a column shift on the Combat Results Table. This concept is that moving or advancing units have less cover, less caution and open themselves up to attack more so than those that are forced to stop.
I think that all 3 of these types have their merits and downsides but their use typically depends on the situation represented in the design, the mindset or experience of the designer and the varying historical troop quality and fire power of the units. A line of tanks dug in is much more fearsome and demands a different level of respect in their ZOC projection than say a small arms squad of soldiers who do not have heavy weapons such as LMG’s. And I think that all are viable in design.
Then there is the lack of Zones of Control. I am not a fan of this concept at all but have found that it is typically used in more introductory wargames that are less complex and focuses on being less of a simulation than a traditional hex and counter affair. Many years ago, and at a time when we were still early in our wargame learning journey, I played a game called Paul Koenig’s Market-Garden: Arnhem Bridge from Victory Point Games. I think that I was attracted to it because of the subject of Market-Garden and the inclusion of Allied airborne units. In looking at the game, the main focus and goal is to move toward the bridge and capture it. The path to move to the bridge is through fairly dense urban hexes with a road leading right to the on-ramps.
Strategically, a German commander would have lined the streets with their best units to prevent the enemy from simply riding right down the middle of the street to the bridge. This commander would have given orders to fire on anything approaching and would have had reserve units located in the buildings to the left and right of the streets to prevent small unit interdiction through the back alleys. These units would have taken up positions to bring heavy fire upon any approach hex and this is typically simulated in other games through the use of a Zone of Control. This ZOC would typically cause advancing units to stop while taking fire from an adjacent unit but in this design, the units just kind of ride on by, waving to the nasty MG-42 nests on the 2nd floor of the buildings and blowing kisses to the Panzers hidden in or behind the piles of rubble!
In reviewing the history of the campaign, one of the major problems the British had in advancing on the bridge was that relatively small German forces had taken up positions in the woods and on the outskirts of the city and effectively pinned down most of the advance of British forces toward Arnhem. This, in my opinion, is a major design flaw and should be house-ruled or cause a redesign of an otherwise fun and good playing game. I have illustrated this point with the pictures below where the British 4-6 Infantry unit simply moves right down the street between 4 better groups of units (an 8-9 Tank, three 6-8 Mobile Infantry and a crack 6-6 SS unit) without taking fire or being stopped! Seems silly doesn’t it?!?
I really tend to prefer the sticky/rigid/locking Zones of Control that seem to be found in most of the hex and counter wargames we play. I am more ok with the less restrictive soft or fluid ZOC’s in a tactical wargame where I can hold actions to then inflict opportunity fire on advancing units. But, as I said before, once you introduce the big guns in the form or tanks or heavy artillery, I really like the sticky/rigid/locking Zones of Control. Is this a taste thing or am I in the minority?
So what are your thoughts on the importance of Zones of Control? Can you enjoy and play a game that doesn’t have them? What is your preference in their stickiness/level of exerted influence in a game? What games do them best? Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I will come up with a few more of these posts over the next few months to share and I hope to see lots of comments and reaction.
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.
#91: DoD Contractors from Andean Abyss: Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Colombia from GMT Games
The first game in the COIN Series called Andean Abyss is a 1-4 player multifaction treatment of the campaign for control of Colombia with different factions such as the the Government, FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia), AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) and the Cartels. The game focuses on all of the facets of the conflict including guerrillas and police, kidnapping and the drug war, military sweeps and terror. The factions deploy distinct capabilities and tactics to influence Colombian affairs and achieve differing goals. Andean Abyss creates an opportunity to get a feel for this model of insurgency and counterinsurgency in Colombia.
In this entry, we will take a look at the interesting and fairly powerful DoD Contractors. The card pays homage to the efforts by the Department of Defense to pay independent contractors to provide pilots for crop spraying over FARC-held territory and for reconnaissance flights to pinpoint the locations of guerrillas and their bases of operation. Patrolling FARC guerrillas in 2003 shot down one such flight along the western slopes of Caquetá and took three US personnel hostage, setting off a Colombian Army manhunt. The event gives the Government player the opportunity in a single Department to Activate all underground Guerillas and also to remove all Cartels Bases. Typically, to perform this type of action is a multi-turn investment with the Government having to mobilize and move Troops and Police into a Department and then perform a Sweep operation to uncover them. Then on a following turn, they can Assault and do things likes Air Strikes to attempt to eliminate these units. But this is very hard to do as the FARC and Cartel player can just use their next action to send their units back Underground or to Rally additional units in the space to safeguard their assets and Bases. On the other side, the Insurgents can use the event to remove up to 3 Government Troop Cubes and also mark both the Government and FARC ineligible through the next turn which means they will lose a turn. This effect is tied to the manhunt by the Government looking for the downed hostages as their resources and efforts are tied up preventing them from taking their normal actions. This can be really powerful and allow the insurgents to recover and get their units on the move or bring in more. Depending upon the time of the game that this is played, and around whatever circumstances are going on, this can really be a powerful card either way and I love how it reflects the US efforts to smoke out these drug lords in their war on drugs.
In 1978, Baton Rouge pilot Barry Seal, who flew commercial jets for TWA, is recruited by CIA case officer Monty Schafer. He asks Seal, who has been smuggling Cuban cigars into the country to make a little money, to fly reconnaissance missions over Central America using an Aerostar 600, outfitted with aerial surveillance cameras. Seal accepts the job, but hides it from his wife, Lucy.
In the 1980’s, Schafer asks Seal to act as a courier between the CIA and General Noriega in Panama. During a mission, the Medellín Cartel picks Seal up and asks him to fly cocaine on his return flights to the US. Seal accepts and flies the cartel’s cocaine to Louisiana, airdropping the drug in the countryside.
The CIA turns a blind eye to the drug smuggling, but the DEA tracks Seal down. To avoid the authorities, Seal and his family relocate to Mena, Arkansas and his wife comes to accept the wealth generated by his side job. The small town becomes wealthy as the hub of US cocaine trafficking.
Later, Schafer asks Seal to run guns to the Nicaraguan Contras in Honduras. Realizing the Contras are not serious about the war and just want to get rich, Seal starts trading the guns to the cartel. The CIA sets up a Contra training base in Mena and Seal flies the Contras in, but many of them escape as soon as they arrive.
Seal makes so much money he buries it in suitcases in the backyard. The FBI catches wind of the sudden exuberance on the streets of Mena. Eventually, the CIA shuts down the program and abandons Seal, who is arrested by the FBI, DEA, ATF and Arkansas State Police simultaneously.
Seal escapes prosecution by making a deal with the White House, which wants evidence of the Sandinistas being drug traffickers. They ask him to get photos that tie the Medellín Cartel to the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. Seal manages to get them, but the White House releases them as propaganda against the Sandinistas. Seal is prominently shown in the pictures, which leads to his indictment by the crusading state attorney general and the cartel plotting revenge.
Seal is convicted but sentenced to only 1,000 hours of community service. Moving from motel to motel making video recordings detailing his experiences, Seal expects an explosion any time he starts his car. As his community service is performed at the same Salvation Army building every night, Seal cannot hide from the cartel and is shot dead by an assassin. The CIA destroys all evidence connecting them to Seal and continues smuggling, instead using Iran to get guns to the Contras, as proposed by Schafer.
While this example is a bit more than crop dusting, the operation is part of the same deal and shows the US Government’s reliance on private commercial aircraft pilots during the war on drugs.
Our friend Gregory M. Smith is a solitaire game designing genius and has done many of these solo, narrative driven style wargames that we have all enjoyed for hours on end while we have been unable to find an opponent or just because we want to play a game on our timeline. We have interviewed him many times for his games such as Zeppelin Raider, Interceptor Ace, The Hunted, Western Front Ace, Amerika Bomber, Defending America, American Tank Ace, British Tank Ace, Rebel Tide, Sinking Yamato and most recently for a magazine wargame called B-52D Linebacker II. But Greg is a versatile designer and also has done many great 2-player games as well. He always has something cooking in his game design kitchen and recently we spoke with him about his new design with Kevin McPartland called Viking Dawn: A Game of Viking Exploration & Expansion 800-1040 A.D. from Compass Games. I was able to play this 1-4 player game while at the World Boardgaming Championships last month and you can read about my experience at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2026/07/27/world-boardgaming-championships-2026-daily-debrief-series-day-3/
I reached out to Greg recently to get a bit more information about the design to share with you and he was more than willing to talk with me about this new game.
Grant: Greg welcome back to the blog. What is your new upcoming game Viking Dawn about?
Greg: Hey Grant, a pleasure as always. I still think back to the first few of these interviews we did many years ago and laugh. Good times! [Editor’s note: When I reach out to Greg about doing one of these interviews, he is always willing to respond but often adds “don’t get medieval on my ass!” meaning he hopes that my questions are reasonable in number. He has a separate life to game design evidently.]
But, to business – Viking Dawn is an operational/strategic level look at the Viking raids and explorations in Europe, the New World and even into the Mediterranean and North Africa from roughly 800 to 1,000 A.D. 1-4 players will attempt to build a legacy for their faction, including the Swedes, Danes, Norwegians or Geats, by amassing Victory Points through wealth acquisition, exploration, area control, founding and growth of colonies and elaborate Leader burials. The game is playable in 4-5 hours with each of its 8 turns spanning a period of 20-40 years.
Grant: Why did you feel inspired to make this game?
Greg: One of my favorite games in college was Conquistador: The Age of Exploration 1425-1600 from Strategy & Tactics Press and one evening I was watching Vikings (the recent series from the History Channel) and I thought, hey, I should make a Viking version of Conquistador. There’s nothing quite as dramatic as a game that covers 200+ years.
Grant: What sources did you consult to get the historical details correct?
Greg: As you might imagine, there was NO shortage of research materials, which is great on one hand, but on the other, can be daunting. I thought the most scholarly and overall excellent of the bunch was Johannes Brøndsted’s The Vikings. Another great overall look was Robert Ferguson’s The Vikings. Another similar book was Jonathan Clements’ The Vikings. (Nobody hesitates to use that name, you might notice.) The best resource with pictures of artifacts, drawings, and maps included was a book by Richard Hall titled The World of The Vikings.
Grant: I understand you have a design partner in Kevin McPartland. How did this partnership come about?
Greg: It was quite hilarious actually. Kevin is an accomplished designer in his own right, but a couple years back I brought the first prototype of Viking Dawn to the Compass Con and explained how the idea originated. The light bulbs went on in his head, because he ALSO loved Conquistador back in the day and was upset he hadn’t thought of this first! We laughed, then after playing the prototype, he was making nonstop suggestions (and historical corrections and additions). He so improved the prototype I felt I had to have him as co-designer, to which he graciously agreed.
Grant: What was the division of labor between you two?
Greg: Well, I did most of the initial design work, but every time we got together he had some fixes, tweaks, historical corrections, and additions. I’d say he almost acted more as a developer, but he came up with enough mechanics I think co-designer is probably more accurate.
Grant: What other games inspired your design approach?
Greg: As mentioned, Conquistador was the primary inspiration for the overall theme of raiding and exploration, with leaders that last a turn or two before dying (typically of old age, with 20 year turns).
Grant: What is the players goal in the game?
Greg: As with many games, the goal is to amass the most Victory Points, which will determine the winner. Unlike many games, this is achieved through exploration, pillaging, looting, building settlements, and my favorite element through lavish burials for your deceased Leaders. They may have accomplished great deeds in life but if you don’t bury them with gold they aren’t really truly memorable.
Grant: What does a victory look like in the game?
Greg: That is a bit hard to define, as there are many paths to victory, but the most likely path to victory involves settlement income, exploration Victory Points and burial income. If you don’t develop your network of settlements and establish your economy, you will not be able to generate the needed funds to pursue further exploration and settlement and will also not be able to afford to keep your empire going at the end of each turn as you have to pay upkeep on Warbands and Longships.
Grant; What was important to include or model about Vikings in the game?
Greg: Despite the operational/strategic nature of the game, we had to have pillaging and looting or it wouldn’t really be a game about Vikings as this was one of things they are best known for historically and the reason that they were greatly feared in Europe. Just as important (in my mind) was to model the exploration aspects of their seafaring, and this is encouraged by getting Victory Points by being the first to explore various far reaching corners of the map including Russia, Constantinople, Persia and the New World.
Grant: What was your greatest design challenge to overcome?
Greg: The game was too long in its initial versions, and it took some creative editing to chop it down to a more manageable eight turns. It was fun at 12 turns, but just took an inordinate amount of time (6+ hours). I really dislike games that take too long.
Grant: What is the time scale of the game? Why was this important?
Greg: Unlike games about more recent conflicts, the Viking heyday was several hundred years. This was a serious design challenge, but we finally decided on the first two turns being 40 years each <!> and the rest of the turns 20 years each. This sounds crazy, but it actually works, and allowed us to cover the main historical time frame in a playable system.
Grant: What are the different Viking factions in the game?
Greg: You can have 1-4 players, with the Danes, Norse, Swedes and Geats, an offshoot of the Swedes. Think of the Geats as the Portuguese from Conquistador.
Grant: How do factions gain new Leaders? How historical are these Leaders represented?
Greg: The Leaders in the game are mainly the more famous/notorious of the Viking faction they represent. They arrive on the Turn Track via their historical arrival dates, and depart via the same (most last only a single turn, some survive for two turns.) However, each player may spend silver and purchase temporary Leaders and Explorers if they don’t have one arriving for awhile. Leaders give a bonus in combat, and Explorers give a bonus in seafaring, so they can be significant. Part of the asymmetrical build of the game is map location, but also Leader arrival times. The Danes have early advantage, but the Swedes and Norse are stronger later in the game.
Grant: Can you share a few examples of these leaders with us?
Greg: For example, these are the Norse Leaders. They have arrival/departure turns (which is sometimes the same turn) and the specialized Explorers have the circular symbol denoting that status.
Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?
Greg: In general, you receive income, buy units, send out expeditions in turn order, pillage, establish settlements, return home with exploration VP’s, and bury your dead Leaders. There’s more to it than that, but that’s the basic gist of things.
Grant: What different units types are available to each side?
Greg: The basic combat unit is the Warband. The basic transport is the Longship. The basic “civilian” unit is a Settler.
Grant: How does combat and raiding work? How is it Press Your Luck?
Greg: Combat is mainly a combination of how many Warbands you have, modified by Leaders and/or Berserker chits. There isn’t much of a Press Your Luck aspect to combat (exploration, yes, trading, yes, but combat, no.) However, there is a CRT so you have to know your odds. Trying to pillage with only a 50/50 chance of success is risky and should be avoided.
Grant: What actions does each player have access to?
Greg: Players have almost complete freedom in what they want to do – but should obviously focus on doing things that earn Victory Points (making silver, or being the first to explore an area and return home to tell about it). Basically, the actions are external trade, exploration, creating settlements, pillaging, raiding, even demanding ransom. Players can send out multiple expeditions even, with the caveat they have to be able to afford it.
Grant: What is the layout of the board? Who is your artist?
Greg: Here’s the map, being basically most of the places the Vikings went (which was a challenge to show!) Nadir Elfarra, my favorite artist, did the work.
Fun story about the map, I showed an earlier version to my wife, Cindy, and the first thing out of her mouth was “Where are the Sea Monsters???” So we corrected that
Grant: How does trade work?
Greg: Internal trade happens automatically with your settlements, assuming you’ve paid for their upkeep. External trade, on the other hand, is a decision the player makes via the External Trade Chart. It requires you to risk a silver and a Longship, and you decide which column to use.
Grant: How are colonies established and how do they grow?
Greg: If you have successfully pillaged a green (habitable area suitable to be settled) you can drop off Settler(s) if you brought any. Each area has a Growth/Attrition number and also a Size Cap. At the end of each turn, you roll to see if the settlement grows (up to the size cap) or suffers attrition. Obviously, England has less attrition and a larger size cap than, say, Greenland. One fun problem is that when areas reach their size cap, they roll to break away and become independent from the homeland.
Grant: How does Longship travel work? What dangers are involved?
Greg: You may travel a maximum of three legs (each leg being six areas or fraction thereof). This makes the theoretical maximum 18 areas. However, the further you go, the more likely you are to lose Longships and/or your entire expedition. Explorers can mitigate these risks, but there are very few explorers in the game. So there is definitely risk in exploration.
Grant: What type of experience does the game create for players?
Greg; I would like to think of Viking Dawn as a “historical Euro” for lack of a better term. It’s certainly more of a game than an attempt at perfecting simulating all the historical events of the time. Kevin’s fantastic knowledge really helped to make it better historically, and I think it does a really good job of doing a “broad brush” rendering of the Viking age.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Greg: I really thought the turn order mechanic made it very tense. Everybody secretly purchases Warbands and Longships, but turn order (a huge advantage to go first early in the game) is determined by who has the most silver remaining after purchases. If you buy a lot, you can do a lot, BUT you’re probably low on silver and going last in the turn. So determining turn order by remaining silver turned out to be a great mechanic.
Grant: What has been the feedback of your playtesters?
Greg: Anybody who knows me knows that I’m my own biggest cheerleader, BUT seriously, we had a great time playing this the last several years at Compass Con. It’s just fun multiplayer, especially when bad things happen. I am very happy with the design, and especially since Kevin McPartland made it ten times better with his involvement.
Grant: When can we expect to see the game released?
Greg: I refuse to answer this question on the grounds I’m never right but if pressed, I’d have to say early 2027. It’s done and at the printers.
Grant: What other designs are you currently working on?
Greg: I’ve got a few irons in the fire. Solo Banner (Burning Banners dungeon crawler), Western Desert Ace (North Africa WW2 version of Western Front Ace), Soviet Tank Ace, B-52D Linebacker II (magazine game), Gotha Raiders (magazine game), Project Z (Japanese hypothetical heavy bombers 1947), Ground Attack Ace (Stukas and Sturmoviks), Korean Tide (1950-53 Tide Series), Star-Spangled Tide (War of 1812 with Kevin McPartland again), a B-36 game, and a few others. Trust me I’m staying busy!
Thanks as always, enjoyed chatting.
If you are interested in Viking Dawn: A Game of Viking Exploration & Expansion 800-1040 A.D., you can pre-order a copy for $54.00 from the Compass Games website at the following link: https://www.compassgames.com/product/viking-dawn-pay-later/
The Struggle for Zorn: The Red Blight is a 1-5 player semi-cooperative fantasy wargame. Players will represent the various Houses of the fictional Kingdom of Zorn, and these Houses have joined together to defeat the rising threat of the vile Red Blight. The Red Blight is an evil entity that has just launched an invasion of peaceful Slumbering Troll Valley, the northern-most province of the kingdom. The monsters of the Red Blight are now holding the citizens of the valley hostage and have absconded with the province’s valuables, treasures, and vital resources. The Houses have been summoned by King Rufus V of Zorn to launch a Royal Crusade to free the valley and rid it of this blight.
The game’s players will each control a Commander, a Magic User, and a House Army, made up of various types of military units. Each player attempts to defeat enemy units and capture Treasure Tokens, and by so doing earn Glory Points. The player scoring the most Glory Points will be awarded with the title “Hand of the Crown” and win the game. However, players must cooperate and assist each other as well. If the Red Blight achieves certain conditions, all the players lose the game, regardless of their situation or amount of Glory Points. If players can stave off The Red Blight’s attempt to exploit the valley for four full days, the monsters will lose access to the malignant power that sustains them. If this evil has been successfully thwarted, peace and freedom will be restored once again to the valley and one of the intrepid Houses will gain the ultimate royal reward.
During the First World War, the British and French made a secret agreement to carve up the Ottoman Empire – literally drawing on a map in red and blue ink – without respect to the peoples, culture, or history of the region. This would have devastating effects over the next century.
In Sykes-Picot, two players take on the roles of infamous diplomats Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot, using red and blue markers to carve out territories to control and to influence on a dry-erase map. Trick-taking card play and table-talk negotiations drive the proceedings, with the winner of each trick choosing one of the two cards to implement, and the loser consoling themselves with the remaining card. Each player has a set of hidden objectives they’re trying to achieve. Players may be as co-operative or as competitive as they wish in pursuit of these goals.
Tonally, the game is light, reflecting the distance and cavalier attitude of these imperialist powers. We feel there’s something horrifying in that, and this approach captures some of that horror.
HISPANIA from Draco Ideas is a slick little small box game with a big punch that sees the player controlling the Roman Empire and attempting to subjugate and put down resistance in the provinces of Hispania from 198 to 18BC. The game is extremely flexible and may be played cooperatively by 2-3 players, competitively with 4 players or as a solo game. The game is somewhat of a resource management game as the players must use their limited funds in the form of Denarii wisely to attack and put down revolts springing up around the country as local armies rally support for the resistance to Roman rule.
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 #5: Berlin Film Festival
Every summer since 1951, Berlin had hosted the international Berlin Film Festival (the Berlinale) and awarded the Golden Bear to the best film in each of five categories. Venues in both East and West Berlin were used for screening of films. As summer approached in 1962, Berlin found itself cut in two by the Berlin Wall amid growing tensions between East and West. It seemed there were any number of events that could trigger a war over the city. And yet, the Film Festival was held, entirely in West Berlin this time. The festival drew thousands of visitors to the city, including Hollywood stars like Jimmy Stewart and Tony Curtis. Screenings took place in venues throughout the city and, we can assume, brought a much-needed sense of normalcy and continuity to the residents of West Berlin and perhaps a sense of what was lost to those in the east.
The festival took place every year throughout the Cold War, and after reunification it once again began film screenings in the former East Berlin. The festival continues and this year the Golden Bear award for best film went to “Yellow Letters.”
The Berlin Film Festival card in Checkpoint Charlie assumes the Berlin Hilton is full up with visitors and cannot function as a Honey Trap. The card also assumes that the extra traffic in the city, including thousands of additional pedestrians trying to get a glimpse of celebrities, negates any Ongoing Card Effects that allow additional movement during the Movement step.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look General Clay Steps In as he is appointed by President Kennedy to resolve issues in West Berlin.
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.
For those that don’t know, the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC) takes place every year in late summer and is held at the beautiful Seven Springs Mountain Resort in southwestern Pennsylvania. WBC is a national, even international, event where players come together to play games both competitively and for fun with other gamers. The competitive side of the games include everything from tiddly winks, to Robo Rally, Diplomacy and to heavy wargames including many from one of our favorite publishers GMT Games including games such as Combat Commander, Empire of the Sun and Panzer. Also at this convention, the initiates of the Battles of the American Revolution Series gather to hold a competitive tournament competing for the Golden Tricorne (this award doesn’t exist as I just made it up but maybe Mark Miklos will figure out how to get this accomplished!).
Each year, series designer Mark Miklos writes a fairly in-depth and lengthy After Action Report that he posts in various locations on the interwebs including on Facebook, the Consimworld Forum folder for BoAR and on GMT’s website on their InsideGMT blog. This year, Mark has again agreed to share his AAR with us to post here on the blog for our readers to enjoy.
This was a special year for American Revolutionary War gaming at the World Boardgamiong Championships. Our Battles of the American Revolution event nearly drew record attendance. Thirty three players, one short of the all-time high, battled across eight classic Rev War battlefields. Our numbers included seven new players from among the fifteen who attended our demo on Sunday evening. In addition to the gaming itself, this year’s BoAR event included three special activities to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary: a seminar, a trivia game and a party. Each will be described below.
We were given a dedicated space for the entire week in the Foggy Brews unlike in year’s past when we had to compete for table space in Winterberry. This year we hung flags and banners, played period music, and in general had an 18th century refuge to further enhance the special mood and vibe.
Two heats were played on Monday. Heat 1 was the Chatterton Hill scenario from the Battle of White Plains. Twenty two players competed as we kicked off the week. Because White Plains is the most recent volume in the BoAR Series it has a short competitive record. Nevertheless, the outcomes this year were telling. Each side scored four decisive victories with the British adding another three substantial ones. This is a 57% winning percentage for the British which closely approximates the 60% edge that the British have had in this scenario based thus far on twenty four tournament games.
Heat 2 was the old classic, Saratoga. Sixteen players squared off in this one. We played the campaign game with this year’s British players dominating. They scored four substantial victories to two. Each side added one marginal win as well. Ten players returned on Tuesday morning to face off in the full Brandywine Creek campaign. The optional “Muddying the Waters” intel rules were not used. It was great to see this big battle on the table. I took the approach this year of selecting larger games that typically are used for a final and instead used them during the heats. Outcomes in this battle were comparable with the Americans earning one decisive and one substantial victory while the British earned two substantial and one marginal win.
Eleven players showed up for the Battle of Germantown on Wednesday morning necessitating the first and only bye in this year’s tournament. It was given to yours truly as last year’s champion according to standard WBC protocol. The remaining ten players earned one American substantial victory, one British substantial victory and one British marginal victory. The other two games witnessed the first draws in this year’s tournament as John Vasilakos and Bruno Sinigaglio completed a game of maneuver in which neither earned a VP. The match between Chris Mlynarczyk and Frank Sinigaglio was a little more robust with Chris’ British earning two VP’s and Frank’s Americans earning three.
Our final heat, played on Thursday, was the full Monmouth Courthouse campaign. This is another big game which was nice to see played by twelve players. The British swept the field with one decisive, one substantial, and one marginal victory. The other three games ended in a draw: Charles Orndorff and Bob Jamelli (3 VP’s each), Tim Miller and Randy Collard (3.5 VP’s to 1 with Tim missing a marginal win by one-half VP), and John Vasilakos and Father Eric Tolentino (1 VP to none respectively). After the heats we advanced the top eight players to single elimination beginning with a quarter final round. The top seeds were Miklos (17 tournament points), Father Todd Carter (15 TP and 83 cumulative army morale points), John Vasilakos (15 TP and 10 cumulative AM), Young Rob Doane “The Good” (10 TP), Tim Miller (7 TP), Charles Orndorff (4 TP, 74 AM), Chris Mlynarczyk (4 TP, 49 AM), and Bruce Cota (4 TP, 20 AM). Bruce was unable to play and so the eighth seed was offered to the first alternate, Jim Dauphinais (4 TP, 19 AM). Jim was also unavailable and our second alternate, Jeff Lange graciously stepped up (2 TP, 32 AM).
The game was the first day at the Battle of Newport. The full two-day battle of Newport had been played three previous times as a final with the Americans winning all three. Interestingly, in the Day 1 action, it was the British who won three, two decisively and one substantially, while the Americans managed one substantial victory when Father Todd’s Americans defeated Chris Mlynarczyk. It was now on to the semifinals. To fit the semi-final and the final into a single day I selected short games which were welcomed after the string of long contests at Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth and Newport.
Thus, our semifinal was the Guilford Courthouse historical scenario. Here John Vasillakos’ British won a solid marginal victory over Father Todd’s Americans, 5.5 VP’s to 1. Meanwhile, Rob Doane’s Americans won marginally over my British. In our match the VP’s were tied at 3 each, but the British need a margin of +2 VP’s to win, otherwise the Americans do.
The stage was set for the final pitting John Vasilakos against Rob Doane at the Battle of Eutaw Springs. Over the course of 225 competitive games of Eutaw Springs, the Americans have won 89 times, the British 90 times, and 46 contests have ended in a draw. Since this was the final, however, victory in a draw would be awarded to the player with superior army morale at game’s end. There was no bid as each player got their preferred side, John the British and Rob the Americans. John formed his line forward, anchoring it between swampy ground on his left and the blackjack oak on his right. Rob’s approach took advantage of surprise, initiative, morale, and momentum and he was able to capture a British Regular plus Major Marjoribanks. This gave Rob 2 VP’s to John’s 3 for holding the British encampment. Rob’s gambit was then to slowly fall back, preserving the draw and his now superior army morale, which would be all he would need for victory. John, of course, pursued. In the end each player scored 4 VP’s, but John’s army morale had fallen to 8 while Rob maintained a robust 14 army morale points. Victory for the Americans marked a fitting conclusion in a year of celebration for the 250th anniversary of independence. Congratulations to both Rob and John for an exceptional week of competition and a hard fought final contest. I finished 3rd, Father Todd finished 4th, Tim Miller was 5th and Charles Orndorff rounded out the top six. This year’s final was videotaped by WBC. An overhead camera rig was set up above the Eutaw Springs big board game set prior to play. Audio was recorded. We are all anxious about the chance to watch it when it becomes available and I will share that information with those who may be interested.
Custom “Gaming the American Revolution WBC” Dice Tray made by John Olson awarded as an extra prize for the tournament winner.
We let out all the stops this year in honor of the 250th. First up, on Tuesday evening, we enjoyed a one hour talk by designer Bruno Sinigaglio who spoke to us about the Battle of Cowpens. Cowpens is the first game in our new series, Small Battles of the American Revolution or Small BoAR. Bruno described the battle in detail and how he adopted its elements into the new design wherein he lowered the scale to 1/8 that of a full BoAR game; making a hex 25 yards instead of 200 and a strength point 12 men instead of 100. At that scale, muskets as well as rifles have ranged fire and artillery can fire across the board. This level of granularity allowed Bruno to introduce other elements as well such as placing cavalry in a reserve status that enables them to charge after the normal movement phase has ended. Bruno had an audience of twenty two who paid rapt attention while he shared several PowerPoint slides to enhance his talk. The timing was perfect because we were able to announce that Bruno and I were receiving our proof copies that very week which would be waiting for us to review upon returning home from WBC. This means all those who preordered on GMT’s P-500 will very shortly be receiving order fulfillments. It was a fitting way to kick off our agenda of special events for the week. On Wednesday evening we played Rev War trivia pitting the Bloody Backs against the Yankee Doodles. We had 11 players on each team plus several interested observers who came just for the fun. A spokesperson for each team was asked to put on a uniform, British Regular or Continental courtesy of our friend and reenactor, Chris Mlynarczyk. In each round they would come forward with their team’s written answer on a whiteboard. Nine rounds were played, corresponding to the years 1775-1783, followed by a bonus round. Questions for each round progressed in point value and difficulty. In the bonus round the teams were allowed to bid from among their accumulated points. It was nip and tuck for a while until the British broke through earning a 5 point answer that put them in the lead. They would never look back. In the bonus round the Americans bid it all while the British bid conservatively to protect their lead. Every member of the winning British team received a first day of issue, commemorative envelope from the USPS that featured a postmark of April 19, 2026 stamped Concord, Massachusetts. Each envelope also had affixed to it a commemorative stamp from the five battle series designed for the 250th by the USPS: Lexington & Concord, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Valley Forge, or Yorktown. It was a lot of fun and a great way to rev things up for our final event, our 250th anniversary celebration and party on Thursday night.
Thanks to Ken Guttermuth, we had signage located around the Seven Springs campus advertising our special events. All were welcome. Participation in the BoAR tournament was not a prerequisite. There were attendees at Bruno’s talk and at our trivia game who were not BoAR players. Likewise, over 50 people came to our party, several of whom saw our signs and were inspired to participate. We served an enormous cake, once again courtesy of Ken Guttermuth. A cash bar was opened directly adjacent to our venue in Foggy Brews just for the occasion. We had period music, remarks, readings, and a reminiscence to our fallen comrades who were not there to celebrate with us. There was a rousing three cheers for General Washington, and even a bit of a sing along where we repeated the refrain, “Hurrah, our country forever hurrah” to the song “An American Frigate” about John Paul Jones and his victory over Serapis in the English Channel. They could hear us in 1776! It was a terrific night, every morsel of cake was eaten, and one or two attendees even got emotional, and we wouldn’t have had it any other way. This was a terrific WBC. Forty two total games of BoAR were played, likely enough to maintain our status as a Century event at the convention. Special thanks to all those who helped to make this year’s event memorable: Ken Guttermuth for the space, the signs, the cake, and all his full-throated support along the way, my AGMs Dave Stiffler and Rob Doane, Dave doing double duty by reciting and leading the cheer for Washington during our party, Jeff Lange for running a companion event in our Rev War space, Freeman’s Farm 1777 by Worthington Publishing, Tim Miller for designing our Gaming the American Revolution logo and banner, Chris for the use of the uniforms at trivia, Bruno for agreeing to break away from his GM duties to give his talk, and to my wife Darlene who was our hostess at the party.
One more thanks must be mentioned. Grant with The Players’ Aid dropped by one afternoon to interview me. He took videos of our decorated room and we discussed several things. I was able to elaborate on our special 250th events. We discussed Volume 11 in the BoAR Series, The Battle of Green Spring. I had my prototype with me, did a short show and tell, and updated the status of the project. We discussed GMT’s upcoming Rev War 250th anniversary event in Camden, South Carolina in September. Grant was also kind enough to inquire about my book, Liberty! A Military History Survey of the American Revolution which incidentally has just gone to the printer as of this writing. Grant is such a gracious host and so easy to talk to. We laughed a lot and probably digressed too much but once we get going, the sky is the limit. It was very kind of him to fit us into his demanding schedule at WBC and to give BoAR so much publicity. At some point soon this video along with his entire WBC 2026 exposé will be up on YouTube for anyone interested. Two down, one to go. We pulled out all the stops at RevCon during Prezcon in Charlottesville last February. Now, at WBC we once again gave it our all to celebrate the 250th. We have one last event on the horizon in Camden in September and I hope to see many of you there. “Hurrah, our country forever hurrah!”
Thank you to Mark for this great insight into the tournament. We appreciate the work he puts into this tournament each year and for his grace in meeting with me while I was at WBC this year. I look forward to the upcoming Rev War 250th Anniversary Event in Camden, South Carolina in September.
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.
#90: Mob from Time of Crisis: The Roman Empire in Turmoil, 235-284 AD from GMT Games
I really love Time of Crisis from GMT Games. This is a very light, introductory wargame that is just plain fun to play. I have been playing it a ton on the Rally the Troops! online platform and really enjoy it no matter what the outcome of those games are. One card that I enjoy using is called Mob, which is a 3 value Populace Card that really can be a devious way to usurp your enemies. Populace cards are intended to be used to increase the support level for your reign in various local senates, recruit militias to assist in the defense of the local populace, to remove Mob counters through the process of holding games and to build various improvements that provide various benefits such as a Basilica, Amphitheater or Limes. You will be unable to control your local provinces without the support of the people and the Populace cards will help you to build that support. But with the Mob card, this is an offensive focused Populace card that can be used to begin undermining your opponents hold on provinces.
When played, the card allows you to place a Mob counter in a province on the board that doesn’t currently have a Mob counter. Mob counters represent rioting and instability in the provincial capital of a province. The Mob in the province will reduce its income generation by the number of Mob counters in the province but also will grow if not dealt with. During the Support Check Phase, if the number of Mob counters in a province equals or exceeds the province’s support level the Governor is replaced with a Neutral Governor with a support level of 1. During the End of Turn Phase, one Mob counter is added to each governed provinces that already has a Mob counter and no Amphitheater. The presence of an Amphitheater doesn’t stop Mob counters from being added from the play of the Mob card but will stop them from growing. Remember, one of the maxims of Ancient Rome was bread and circuses, which is panem et circenses in Latin. It was coined around 100 AD by the Roman poet Juvenal in his Satires. The phrase criticizes how the Roman public traded their political freedom and civic duties for free grain and massive public spectacles.
The Mob card can be quite effective as it reduces the income of your opponents which is used to to purchase additional and more powerful cards but also forces them to spend their card values on suppressing the mobs, through military force with the Suppress Mob action or through placation with the Hold Games action. Both will be a thorn in the side of your opponents and will cause them to have to change their plans temporarily to deal with the issues you have caused them. A fun and delightful “take that” type of card.
Mobs in ancient Rome were powerful, volatile groups of urban plebeians, freedmen and workers who heavily influenced politics, food supplies and public safety. Driven by economic hardship, political gangs, and grain shortages, these crowds routinely rioted, burned government buildings and forced emperors or senators to heed their demands. Ancient Roman writers, politicians, and historians viewed the urban mob (plebs) with a mixture of fear, contempt and fascination, often describing crowds as volatile, lawless and easily swayed by demagogues. One of the more well known quotes from history comes to us by way of Titus Livy when he said, “Indeed, that is the nature of crowds: the mob is either a humble slave or a cruel master.” Livy also wrote: “As for the middle way of liberty, the mob can neither take it nor keep it with any respect for moderation or law.”
1799/1810 copperplate engraving titled The Death of Clodius (or Clodius killed by Milo’s mob) was drawn by the Polish-born French artist Silvestre David Mirys (1750–1810) as part of his series Figures de l’histoire de la république romaine.
I think that every single wargamer knows the name Volko Ruhnke. He has designed several great series in the COIN Series, that has now stretched to a full 15 volumes, and then more recently Levy & Campaign Series, which has an astounding 5 released volumes with several others that are announced and about a dozen more in design. He can make a good game for sure! One of our first experiences in wargaming and the first Volko design we played was Wilderness War. He is now at it again with a new design in a continuing newer series called the Recon Series that uses hide and seek elements and hidden blocks to tell the story of the Allied intelligence efforts during World War I during the campaigns around Verdun in 1916. The game is called Drachen: Reconnaissance at Verdun, 1916 and looks to be very interesting and we reached out to Volko to get a look into the design.
Grant: Volko welcome back to the blog. What is your new upcoming game Drachen about?
Volko: Hi Grant & Alex! Thank you for this opportunity. I love what you guys do.
Drachen continues my new Recon Series, following on to the series’ recently released first volume, Coast Watchers. Volume II – Drachen – is about the struggle for reconnaissance information in a World War I trench battles, specifically, Verdun in 1916.
Grant: What does the title mean and why did you want to use it for this game?
Volko: “Drachen” means “kite” in German and is simply short for “Drachenballon” – kite balloon. The tethered observation balloons famous as targets for balloon-busting fighter aeroplane missions were really the queens of the battlefield in their ability to see what the enemy was up to and guide artillery fire onto enemy targets. They were in effect hydrogen filled kites in that they faced into the wind for stability. On a clear day, even a windy one, a spotter with binoculars in a kite balloon could provide information on enemy movements and positions up to 15 miles away. Tethered to the ground, unlike observer aeroplanes with either no radio or early transmitters only, balloons had instant and secure communications with friendly headquarters or batteries to coordinate fire.
Grant: This is Volume II in the Recon Series. Why does this subject fit your vision for the series?
Volko: I’m looking for the Series to visit settings in which secrets and their discovery really mattered to the outcome of a conflict. The advent of trench warfare on the Western Front was a remarkable moment in land battle because the age-old means of reconnaissance – the horseman – could no longer roam. For the first time, you would know nothing of the enemy beyond the next ridge unless you got up in the air. We gamers have tended to focus on ace-versus-ace duels in the sky. I wanted to explore what all the dogfighting was really about: winning the right to peer down upon your enemy.
Grant: How has your experience with series games assisted you in the development of this Recon Series?
Volko: OK, that’s a big question! I do try to learn, and I have developed some principles for series design:
1) Openness – Make room for other designers to take the series where you never imagined.
2) Complexity – Bigger is not always better. I wrote about this in depth in C3i Nr29.
3) Variety – Make it familiar, not samey. I wrote about that in C3i Nr30.
Regarding variety within a series, it helps to articulate a focus to guide selection of topics, what you keep the same, and what you vary for each setting.
For the COIN Series, that was the premise that counterinsurgency and other popular conflicts were multifactional, that factional relations were key.
For Levy & Campaign, it was that medieval warfare was equally complex as modern but in distinct ways, especially regarding command and logistics.
For the Recon Series, then, it is that secret information – which side protects it or discovers it better – can decide the outcome, at least for certain conflicts.
That said, for me, principle 1) above trumps the other two. Other designers certainly have taken COIN and Levy & Campaign to places beyond my original intent. I hope the same for the Recon Series.
Regarding “bigger is not better” for Drachen in particular, that meant being sure that Volume II did not just add subsystems like more ornaments on a Christmas tree. Rather, I try to drop something unneeded out for every new thing added in. For example, Drachen gets much deeper into resolution of combat than does Coast Watchers, but then Drachen has a much simpler resolution of who won the struggle: just most of 3 Objective cards fulfilled, rather than Volume I’s “victory point salad”.
To keep Drachen “familiar but not samey”, we keep not only the location blocks and open versus secret spotting but also two chit cups for resolution, for example. Where Coast Watchers has Delivery and Patrol cups, Drachen features Air and Group cups to resolve clashes in…well, you can guess where for each.
Grant: What did you need to make sure to model from aerial reconnaissance in WWI?
Volko: The key historical dynamics that I was able to find and felt were important to incorporate in the game include:
The main purpose of fighter aeroplane engagements as clearing the way for friendly observers and countering enemy observers.
The difference between just spotting something and being able to loiter long enough to cooperate with guns or take photos.
Which observation activity would be known to the enemy and which would be secret.
The importance of attrition in aircraft to observation dominance.
Grant: What sources did you consult to get the historical details correct? What one must-read source would you recommend?
Volko: I scarfed up all I could about Great War trench warfare in general, including the nature and use of observation balloons, how aeroplanes cooperated with artillery, the purposes of trench raids, and so on. Naturally, I particularly dug into how things worked in the Battle of Verdun, which was a great learning laboratory for both sides.
My two key secondary sources were The First Air Campaign by Eric and Jane Lawson, which discusses the evolution of air power in World War I and the special juncture that Verdun was in its development, and Alistaire Horne’s The Price of Glory, still for me the best of the several English-language works on the iconic battle.
Grant: What is your overall design goal and thesis with Drachen?
Volko: The design goal is to take apart how reconnaissance worked in trench battles, with the premise that winning the reconnaissance struggle set up the possibility of winning the kinetic part, the fire and assault.
Grant: Why do you feel that blocks and chit pull are the best ways to tell this story?
Volko: Blocks are an age-old but powerful way to manage secret information on the tabletop, without writing or referees. The Recon Series uses blocks in a new way: not as units that the opponent can see massing and moving across the map but as location information about which you start out seeing nothing and have to act to gain any knowledge of.
Chit pull gives me as designer an ability unparalleled by dice to subtly manipulate probabilities – and to give the players abilities to influence those probabilities – in a relatively simple and inexpensively produced way.
Grant: What other mediums did you consider or explore?
Volko: One question was whether to use “record” markers for players to log what they find. The Japanese player in Coast Watchers has such markers on the board as reminders of what is known of Allied blocks that have stood up hidden again.
In Drachen, there is even more to keep track of: various sizes and types of units and fortifications. And some of what players spot they do so secretly. So Drachen provides a record sheet reproducing the battlefield in miniature, but with room to take notes, plus screens to hide that record, if players want to use them. I considered providing record markers to place on the sheet, but the variety of items to spot mean that it would have been a mess, a big pile of counters to sort through – not worth it when a pencil works fine!
Grant: What different units are available to the players?
Volko: Here is a look at the blocks and counters, including the units represented. By the way, no real art exists yet – these are just my homemade prototypes.…
The standup blocks represent the guns, soldiers, fortifications, and depots that fight out the duels between gun batteries and the offensive’s barrage and assault. They build up hidden and are the targets for enemy observation missions. Positioning your hidden blocks will be critical both to make them harder to spot and to get the best use out of them in your plan for combat.
The counters represent those forces carrying out or supporting reconnaissance. They build up openly on the battlefield, except for anti-aircraft emplacements that may be AA sections or just harmless trucks. (Other counters here are markers that support various missions and actions.)
Grant: What is the role of Depots?
Volko: Depot blocks – if they survive unsuppressed – during the offensive resupply guns to fire again or fire at double strength. If the attacker exploits an advance, the depots refill and can again supply guns.
Grant: What are the All Quiet blocks and what do they represent from history?
Volko: “All Quiet” blocks (also nicknamed “trees”) represent just the usual presence of defenses at a side’s positions. So they do not mean empty, rather nothing special to see and shoot at. There are some troops garrisoning the line in what are probably battered trench works, perhaps some wire or field guns. If attacked, at least a few machineguns hidden there will answer.
Grant: What different air assets are available to players?
Volko: The workhouse in the air is the “Air Patrol” – either single or group, the latter more effective but uses up more airframes. Each player has a supply of Air Patrols at their aerodromes (on their mat) and sends them on specific fighter and observer missions or puts them into the Air Cup to add generally to the density of friendly aircraft prowling and protecting the skies over Verdun. Air Patrols suffer loss in action, so you can run out if you don’t manage the air battle carefully, potentially requiring you to recall counters from the cup or the map.
Of course we have balloons too, aloft over friendly positions behind the front line. Enemy balloon-busting fighter missions can destroy them or, more commonly, force them to lower. As noted above, these Drachen are highly effective observers, in the game reaching out to a distance of 4 positions, spotting secretly – you won’t know where your opponent’s balloons are looking unless they range guns in on your blocks – and unlike aeroplane observers automatically succeed in spotting their targets.
On the ground but protecting your balloons and blocks against enemy Air Patrols, you get antiaircraft emplacements – “AA Sections” or dummy “Trucks”. These will make any enemy air missions at or adjacent to them more dangerous. They also occasionally can cause a loss among your own nearby defensive air patrols, representing friendly fire.
The counters for Balloons and AA Emplacements are round to signify that these units can built up, adjusted, and used for free – whereas use of Air Patrols and trench raiders cost actions.
Grant: How are the serial assets used to perform recon? How does this work?
Volko: As reconnaissance and the efforts of fighters to stop it are the focus of the sim, most Air Missions as well as Trench Raids use an articulated chit-pull procedure accounting for a wide range of circumstances.
On the Air Missions table, you can see that we account for the presence of the enemy’s defensive Patrols and AA, how deep behind enemy lines you are flying, whether you are using an Air Group, and how many enemy chits you are likely to draw.
Various Asset cards, like “Boelke & Immelmann”, can further affect these results.
Grant: Why do you feel this is so important to the game?
Volko: Most trench warfare games either focus on the assault by infantry and perhaps tanks or cover the air duels going on overhead. But before those assaults and the barrages supporting them kick off, there would have been a critical period in which the sides were struggling to figure out what the enemy was up to and where they were massed. And that is when most of those aerial dogfights would be going on. Drachen pulls all that together to try to illuminate just HOW reconnaissance got done and would then set the course of a “big push”.
Grant: What is the layout of the game board and the purpose of the different shaped fortifications?
Volko: The game board shows the battlefield of Verdun. Area spaces, called “positions”, each hold a single block hiding the forces or fortifications there.
Terrain is either Lowland, Hill, or Fort – the latter effectively on hills too but tougher to crack. Hills and Forts enable guns on them to shoot a little farther, are harder to take by infantry assault, and often are the very targets that the attacker is assigned to seize.
A road and rail network spans the battlefield. Its effect is to limit where depots can be built up.
Land and Meuse River segments separate the positions. Little wooden stick pieces will mark the front along these segments. Positions group into sectors, such as “Left French”, to guide setup and solo play.
A final feature of the map positions is that some are observation posts. They function much like balloons but with far more limited reach, and they can be suppressed by artillery fire.
Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?
Volko: In each of between 2 and 4 turns total, each side first builds up forces (blocks and counters). Buildup limits are most lenient on Turn I, so players generally need to set a plan of attack or defense then and just adjust positioning on later turns. On Turn II and thereafter, revealed (face up) blocks hide again (stand back up) unless suppressed by enemy fire or under loitering air surveillance. On Turn III and IV – if the attacker has not yet launched an offensive – the defender receives reinforcement in the form of an added block.
The main part of the turn follows buildup, “Reconnaissance” activity by Fighters then Observers. That includes mounting defensive “Barrier Patrols” and offensive “Jagd” against enemy Air Patrols plus Balloon Busting, then Aerial Observation, Trench Raids, and spotting by Balloons and OPs.
After that, the sides will exchange “Directed Fire” by their guns onto previously “Ranged” targets. Or, on Turn II or later, the attacker can instead launch the offensive that will resolve the game.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
Volko: After the offensive, or after Turn IV in the rare case that the attacker never launches one, Victory depends on who has fulfilled more of their 3 drawn Objective Cards.
Grant: What are the purpose of the Attacker & Defender Objective Cards?
Volko: The simulation premise of the Objective Cards is that reconnaissance is trying not only to discover where the enemy is but what they are up to – what matters to them? Will the attack go for a breakthrough, or are they just trying to pin our forces in place and divert our attention from some other part of the front? Or even less, are they for now just trying to grind down our forces and soften up our fortifications? Is the defender set to hold everything at all cost? Or do they just want to bloody us as we advance?
A second set of questions concerns how big an enemy buildup we are dealing with. The Objective Cards give players more robust forces to carry out the more ambitious task. So that too is an essential element of information that reconnaissance is trying to gauge – what are we up against?
The Objective Cards provide a neat and easy way to set out that secret information. Through recon successes, such as finding out how your enemy’s fortifications or troops are deployed, you can discern what your opponent’s cards may be. And if you invest in trench raiding, your raiders might reveal one or more enemy Objectives for certain.
Grant: What are the various hidden objectives?
Volko: Attacker and Defender each draw 3 cards from up to 9 Objective Cards, most of which are unique tasks hidden from the opponent. Each card not only sets out a task to be achieved but also provides added blocks to that side’s “Reserves” and specifies a number of blocks that the player can build up on the map on Turn I.
One twist is that you don’t have to use a card’s specified forces for that task: the blocks just add to your total available.
A second twist is that particularly successful trench raids can obtain “Plans” that reveal your opponent’s Objective Cards to you: potentially highly useful, as you win not only by achieving your own Objectives but by impeding your enemy’s.
Grant: What different types of these cards are there?
Volko: There is a separate set each for Attacker and Defender. In sets of 3, they go from least to most ambitious/robust, for the Attacker, “Preparation”, “Push”, “All-Out Attack”; for the Defender, “Retrenchment”, “Attrition”, “They Shall Not Pass”. Different scenarios then might limit some of these sets for one or the other side to reflect that stage in the longer Battle of Verdun.
As you can see by the examples, the cards are specific as to their tasks and forces. Generally, the Attacker is either destroy certain defenses, mount strong attacks, or take key positions. The Defender generally is to hold key positions or destroy substantial attacking forces.
Grant: How do players go about accomplishing these?
Volko: A key premise of the game is that reconnaissance success unlocked success of an offensive push. So in the game, you won’t earn VP or whatever for how you run your reconnaissance effort. Rather, knowing what your enemy has where – and “Ranging” those targets for accurate fire by your gun – will set up the combat success that you will need to fulfill more of your own Objectives.
But you will need to add to that skillful positioning of your forces and fortifications to make use of the information that you gather, and then the right decisions when and where to uncover your guns to fire or send your infantry waves into assaults and counter-assaults.
So the game is about reconnaissance but also how that feeds into running trench war combat.
Grant: What challenges does each side face in their objectives?
Volko: Since fulfilling your Objectives flows from how you handle the entire Sequence of Play, they really distill all the game’s challenges. But specific challenges to do with the cards include that the easier tasks come with skinnier forces to fight with, and that you start out unaware of what your opponents Objectives are. That latter can be critical, as even decent performance against the goals in front of you may not be enough to win if your opponent does even better at their secret tasks.
Grant: How do offensives work?
Volko: When the Attacker decides to launch the Offensive, both sides first get to recover some of their suppressed positions. Then each side’s guns, Attacker first, can “Barrage” to suppress enemy positions without needing Ranging by observers, just using more shells. Then each side can “Bombard” Ranged targets to Suppress them more efficiently or destroy them outright (as in the earlier “Directed Fire” phase).
Then players place “Wave” markers to commit where infantry Assaults and counterattacks will occur. For the Attacker, these will attempt to take the defender’s frontline positions. Those get resolved rather simply, including a draw from the Ground cup to give at least some chance for a weaker attack or defense to succeed.
If any such Assault does succeed in taking ground, the attacker may “Exploit” – meaning one more round of Artillery and Infantry combat, usually to try to seize a 2nd-Line position.
Grant: How many players is the game designed for? Is there a solitaire mode?
Volko: Drachen is a 2-player game. A larger number of players, divided into 2 teams, has worked well at the many demos that I have done.
There is a solitaire mode that enables a solo player to take the Attacking side in all the scenarios, whether German or French. It uses instructions and scenario setups found in the Playbook, a “Defenses” display to guide hidden block buildup, and a deck of 18 “Army HQ” Cards to help run Defender actions.
Grant: What opportunities for deception and signaling are there?
Volko: Great question! A point of the Recon Series is to feature not only secret information but both open and secret collection of that information – in part to enhance such opportunities for deceptive signals.
In Drachen, you will have plenty of secret information about which to mislead your opponent. And, critically, you will have potentially or automatically open information that you can transit selectively in order to mislead. Some ideas…in the game, you can:
Put a few Soldiers to get spotted where you do not intend to assault, or fortifications that suggest Objectives that you did not draw.
Range targets that you cannot actually or do not intend to Bombard.
Deploy air defenses in areas that are unimportant to you.
And so on. Circumstances and your imaginings are the only limits!
Grant: What do you feel the game models well?
Volko: I am quite pleased with how the flow of the game models trench warfare’s set-piece buildups, the contest for control of the skies, the danger and importance of busting balloons and launching trench raids, the tit-for-tat artillery duels, including the danger of firing and exposing your batteries too soon, and more. In short, Drachen plays out on the table my mental model of WWI trench battles.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Volko: The biggest thrill for me is that the design has held the interest of a talented corps of testers for many moons and many plays – and that it seems to get universally positive reactions at con demos. Ted Raicer has done wonders to bring out the fascinating aspects of the Great War, but even now trench battles don’t get the spotlight among us wargamers that I feel they warrant. And Verdun does not even have British or Americans (outside some volunteer fliers). So I’m proud that Drachen is adding to our hobby’s examination of WWI’s Western Front in between the famous mobile phases of 1914 and 1918.
Grant: What other designs are you contemplating or already working on in this series?
Volko: I already have a playable prototype for Volume III, and it even has seen some playtests. I call it Masher and it is set in Vietnam. Perhaps a topic for another visit here!
Thanks again for this opportunity to talk about the Recon Series!
I think that this new series, and this game particularly, look really interesting and I am all in on the subject matter and the approach. Also, the game offers 8 main scenarios and a solo learning situation spanning German and French offensives within the titanic 10-month Battle of Verdun. I did just receive my copy of Volume I in the Recon Series called Coast Watchers but have not had a change to get it to the table as of yet. I will rectify that sooner rather than later.
If you are interested in Drachen: Reconnaissance at Verdun, 1916, you can pre-order a copy for $79.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1162-drachen.aspx
The Rock of Chickamauga is the next game in the Black Swan Series and follows closely on the heels of A Most Fearful Sacrifice. Using the same proven game system, The Rock of Chickamauga covers the entire Battle of Chickamauga, fought from September 18th through the 20th, 1863 in northern Georgia. The Union Army of the Cumberland, under William Rosecrans, is driving south from Chattanooga, hoping to envelop and trap Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee in its vise. But Bragg anticipates the maneuver, pulls back and then counterattacks the overextended Union forces. They meet along Chickamauga Creek, the “River of Death”, in an epic struggle.
This scenario-driven, two-player war-game utilizes the ACW operating system called the Black Swan System, which is closely related to the Blind Swords game system first introduced in the game The Devil’s To Pay!. This version of the system is specifically designed to handle larger-scale battles yet keep rules overhead low. players will trigger activations by Corps instead of by lower-level formations but they still have tactical decision-making choices by needing to determine which Divisions get activation priority. Players will use card draws rather than chit pulls.
There are a million ways to die in the Arctic, so carefully choose your supplies and read the ice well, and you just might secure the coveted prize of discovering the fabled Northwest Passage.
Lonely Cairn is a solitaire game about finding the Northwest Passage in the mid 1800’s. Modelled and based upon the ill-fated Franklin Expedition, players will need to equip their expedition and carefully chose what to take with them into the arctic. They will then sail though a channel of icy locations, facing deadly encounters along the way. They must reach the exit by the end of 8 turns, or face being locked in the ice forever.
All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859 simulates the decisive battle of the Second Italian War of Independence at the Brigade-level, with some additional Regimental-size and smaller detachments included. National and corps-level leaders are represented, on a map at 500 meters per hex, with 1-hour turns. Five scenarios are included: three that separately cover the north, central, and southern sectors of the battle, as well as a combined full battle scenario, along with a small introductory scneario. The combined scenario is suitable for up to four players (France, Sardinia-Piedmont, Austrian 1st Army, and Austrian 2nd Army).
The battle itself was a grinding slugfest often described as a “soldier’s battle” – a deliberate slight to the often uninspired leadership of the generals and a tribute to an allied victory gained only at the tip of the bayonet. Villagers in the surrounding region would do their best in the days after to treat the myriad wounded, and answer as to why Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Serbs, and Slovaks were treated as well as the Italians: “Tutti fratelli” (All are brothers). The battle pits two Austrian armies against the combined forces of France and Sardinia-Piedmont, and features the full panoply of colorful period units – Jagers and Grenzers, massed cavalry divisions of all types, Bersaglieri, French Imperial Guard, and the French African Zouaves and Turcos. Advances in infantry and artillery firepower would soon make the tactics of the time obsolete, and the carnage at Solferino reflected the start of this paradigm shift, soon to be highlighted bloodily by the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars.
This treatment of Solferino features an adaptation of Hermann Luttmann’s Blind Swords System (At Any Cost, Hammerin’ Sickles, Stonewall’s Sword) as the core ruleset. The system is heavy on unpredictability and fog of war due to the chit pull mechanic. The chit pull mechanic also very much aids in solitaire play, as does variable activation rules and reinforcement tables. A number of other features help make face-to-face play attractive, including a number of scenario variants and optional rules, a free-setup full battle scenario, and the move-and-countermove of event chit play. Nation-specific event chits also inject some period flavor.
In 1539, a small Spanish garrison of troops numbering 3,500 men held the Albanian village of Castelnuovo for 22 days against the massive Ottoman army consisting of over 54,000 Turk soldiers. This siege took place as a part of the Ottoman-Habsburg struggle for control of the Mediterranean Sea in July 1539 at the walled town of Castelnuovo, which is the location of present-day Herceg Novi, Montenegro. After days of open trench warfare and more than a month of smaller combats, skirmishes, assaults and bombardments from the Turkish navy, the last Spanish defenders fell ending the siege. Castelnuovo 1539 is a wargame that focuses on this siege designed by Francisco Ronco. The defenders are safe behind sturdy walls and battlements but time and continual shelling from the Ottomans will lead to assaults over the walls. The battle is hopeless for the defenders but they can win the game by doing enough damage to the Ottomans to end their campaign and stop them from invading further into the Albania and then onto Spain and the rest of Europe. The game is very well produced using wooden blocks for soldiers, stylized walls, siege trenches and cannon along with ships and the board is also beautifully illustrated. The game is a block wargame where the strength of units are hidden from the opponent and plays pretty quickly in less than 90 minutes and really is a great representation of the battle and its history.
In Action Point 1, we took a look at the beautiful Game Board and its area movement scheme. In this Action Point, we will examine the units available to both sides and compare their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Units
As a block wargame, all of the units in the game are represented by wooden blocks that have stickers affixed to them representing the fighting forces of the Spanish and the Ottomans. There are generally 3 types of units including Infantry, Cavalry and Naval. Infantry is a large category that includes Arquebusiers and Pikemen for the Spanish and Turkish Janissaries and Azab for the Ottomans. Cavalry units are fewer and include Albanian Cavalry for the Spanish and Sipahi for the Ottomans. Each Infantry and Cavalry sticker has a central icon with groups of dots printed on its sides which represent their Combat Strength and the number of dice that each unit will roll in combat. The blocks range in Combat Strength from 2 to 4 dots as not all units have the same Combat Strength. The number of dots oriented at the top of the individual block units represents the current Combat Strength of the unit and can be reduced when entering combat and taking losses. Naval units do not have dots, as they are used in a different way to Infantry and Cavalry units.
All blocks start the game at full Strength and each time a block receives 1 or more hits, it will be rotated counterclockwise so that the top of the block shows the Strength it has remaining. When a Spanish block loses its last Strength Point, it will be removed from the game permanently. The same will happen for Turkish Janissary blocks but for eliminated Ottoman Azab and Sipahi Cavalry units they will be able return to the game at the end of each round during the Reinforcement Phase.
Fleets represent the use of galleys as artillery platforms to support the land forces in their siege and to provide the opportunity to perform some amphibious landing operations with ground troops. The Fleet discs are placed on the board horizontally, unlike the other blocks, and in this way their presence is not hidden from the opponent. Fleet blocks cannot leave the sea areas and count as Artillery Batteries when playing Bombardment and Friendly Fire cards. Once placed, Fleets do not move during the game.
Let’s take a quick look at the statistical makeup of the opposing forces.
In the following table, you will see the number of different types available to each of the combatants. The Ottoman forces have a numerical superiority as they have the most Infantry units with 26, comprising 10 elite Janissaries and 16 Azab. The Spanish have just 21 Infantry, with 10 of those being Arquebusiers and 11 Pikemen. The Ottomans also have the edge in the number of Cavalry units available with 6 Sipahi as compared to just 1 Cavalry unit from the Spanish in the form of a single Albanian Cavalry. The Infantry typically are the backbone of the army and will do most of the fighting and do most of the damage while the Cavalry units will be used to move ahead quickly to seize key areas and set up defenses to allow for the Infantry who have slower movement to catch up. Each side has 2 Fleets and these are vitally important for the Ottomans as this is the means that they can bring onto shore additional units to siege Castelnuovo.
And a look at total Combat Strength for each side. But, first it is important to explain the Combat Strength of each of the units for both sides. The Spanish Arquebusiers have a Combat Strength of 3 as do their Pikemen. This means that these units will roll 3 dice in combat and will be able to take 3 hits before being killed. The Ottoman Janissaries have 4 Combat Strength as do the Azab. When you simply multiply the Combat Strength by the number of blocks of each type you will get their Total Infantry Combat Strength. The Ottoman has a total of 104 Combat Strength spread out amongst their 26 Infantry units and the Spanish have a total of 63 Combat Strength among their 21 Infantry units. This can be used to get a quick idea about which side is better and has more power but this can be deceiving as the Spanish have the walls which can slow down the sieging Ottomans and absorb hits as well. The Ottomans have 49.1% more Infantry Combat Strength than the Spanish with a numerical difference of 41. A fairly significant difference and when coupled with the fact that the Ottomans can bring back killed Azab units where the Spanish Infantry are removed from the game, it is easy to see that the Spanish have the tougher time of it. Also, the Cavalry advantage is on the side of the Ottomans with Sipahi having a Combat Strength of 4 as compared to the Spanish Albanian Cavalry’s Combat Strength of 2. This gives the Ottoman the advantage in Total Cavalry Combat Strength of 24 as compared to just 2 for the Spanish.
I do want to point out that the Spanish have better Leaders and some of their units are considered elite and gain advantage on their combat rolls. The Arquebusiers Blocks have a +1 printed on them as a reminder that they have a +1 bonus to their combat roll and this is a major advantage in combat.
The other difference in combat is a unit’s priority and when they get to roll their attack dice and if hits are scored steps will be removed before lower priority units get to roll. The priority is as follows:
Pikemen go first if enemy Cavalry is present and they are fighting in clear or rough terrain.
Cavalry, if no opposing Pikemen are present and the battle is fought in clear or rough terrain.
Arquebusiers.
All other Infantry will then attack simultaneously.
Cavalry, only if there are opposing Pikemen in clear or rough terrain.
Hits are scored when players roll a modified 5 or 6 result on their 6-sided dice. Remember that Arquebusiers get a +1 to hit, which means they hit on a roll of 4-6, which is a huge advantage. Also remember that there are Leaders and certain Leaders will give a +1 bonus to specific troops that are located in their areas.
Leaders must always have blocks of their side present in their areas on the board but do not count toward the 3-block limit per area. Leaders Agi (Ottoman Janissary Leader) and Sarmiento (Spanish Leader that affects all units with him) grant benefits to the dice rolls of the units they escort. Leaders do not have to accompany specific units and as such can move with any unit in the area they are in, or they can stay there with units other than the ones they originally moved in with. But Leaders must perform the full movement with the units they started moving with as you cannot drop or pick up a Leader during movement. You can move units from where the Leader is without taking the Leader with them, but some units will need to stay behind so the Leader is not alone in the area. If during combat, all blocks accompanying the Leader are eliminated, the Leader is eliminated as well.
Artillery Batteries
Both players have Artillery Batteries at their disposal, which represent vitally important siege pieces used to both defend and attack the city walls. These Artillery Batteries are in the form of red and green cannon meeples (they are very cute) and make a huge impact on the presence of the board as when they are placed they command respect. The Batteries allow players to play cards that fire from a distance and there can never be more than 1 of these Batteries in a single area of the map. The Spanish player’s Artillery Batteries are placed at the beginning of the game and cannot be moved while the Ottoman player can install an Artillery Battery when building Trenches with any cards that allow it. They can also move the Batteries through areas connected by Trenches using those same cards.
In Castelnuovo 1539, the Spanish and Ottoman fighting forces are deeply asymmetrical. The Spanish field a small, fixed and irreplaceable garrison of elite veteran Tercios focused on defense and repairing fortifications, whereas the Ottomans possess an overwhelming, recyclable horde of Azabs, Sipahi Cavalry, and Janissaries arriving by land and sea. You will feel the asymmetry in the game and I think that it is really very well done by the designer to represent this very difficult siege from history.
Anmelden
