❌

Normale Ansicht

Published — 23. Februar 2026 ⏭

Interview with Russell Brown Designer of Checkpoint Charlie from GMT Games

✇The Players' Aid
Von: Grant
23. Februar 2026 um 14:00

I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed topic such as espionage or intelligence. And this past month, 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. I have reached out to Russell and he was more than willing to provide some great insight into his design.

*Keep in mind that the design is still undergoing playtesting and development and that any details or component pictures shared in this interview may change prior to final publication as they enter the art department.

Grant: Russ welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?

Russell: Happy to be here to talk about Checkpoint Charlie! My wife and I live in a lovely town called Waukesha, just outside Milwaukee. I retired a little early from a career as a software developer and went back to the University of Wisconsin to study creative writing. That led to my main hobby, which is writing science fiction novels. On most days, I leave my house, walk to downtown Waukesha, and write at a local university library or public library or down at my favorite coffee shop. Basically, I’m livin’ the dream.

Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed most about the experience thus far?

Russell: I’ve done a lot of freelance writing for tabletop RPG publishers, but what got me interested in historical game design was solitaire bots. A couple years ago, I found a bot for Command and Colors: Ancients created by Paulo Miranda, and I had a blast playing against it. I expanded it for Samurai Battles and had fun with that. I decided to create a full bot, with no decisions made by the player, for one of my favorite games, Here I Stand. It took months, but I ended up with deck-based bots for each power that had their own personality and did some basic negotiating with the players and the other bots. In my last game against them, as France, I came in fourth. After that, I made full bots for Talon and Combat Commander: Europe. The next step was to develop a solitaire game from scratch, and the idea of a game about espionage in Berlin had been bouncing around in my head for decades. What have I enjoyed most about the experience? The answer is strange, but I think I actually miss being a programmer. Game development uses those same parts of my brain. It’s very different than writing novels.

Grant: What is your upcoming game Checkpoint Charlie about?

Russell: Checkpoint Charlie is about managing British Secret Intelligence Service espionage missions in early 1960’s Berlin. You play as a case officer, a mastermind if you will, not an individual agent. It’s inspired as much by the fictional works of authors like John le Carré as it is by accounts of actual espionage operations. If you’re familiar with le Carré’s novels, you play as George Smiley, not one of his field agents.

Grant: What games have you used as inspiration for your design?

Russell: That’s a tough one. I struggled to find a game mechanic that evokes the feel I want, a lack of complete control over agents and the situation. I’ve probably been more inspired by computer games with simultaneous movement, maybe something like RimWorld, than by any particular boardgame.

Grant: What is important to model or include in a game about the British Secret Intelligence Service?

Russell: The first question is, who is the player supposed to be? I didn’t want to model the experience of an individual field agent. What fascinated me most about accounts of these missions, including faithful fictional accounts, is the way all the assets work together and adapt to a changing situation. I want the player to experience that, all within the context of secrecy, of trying to not be discovered and compromised. To fully experience that, the player has to be a case officer, a person leading and coordinating the mission. What that means, however, is that the player doesn’t have full control of every individual action taken by every agent.

Grant: What challenges did the subject cause for the design? How have you overcome them?

Russell: I’ll limit my answer to what I think were the two biggest challenges. The first was creating a game in which the player doesn’t have complete control, but still has enough agency to successfully complete a tough mission and feel like they did something amazing. We’re working on an article about this for the Inside GMT blog, but the solution mostly comes down to the card draw movement mechanic. Most of the movement and actions that take place on the map of Berlin happen based on which card the player chooses from the draw area. That one choice triggers the movement of up to five assets and KGB agents and also affects where surveillance and intel appear on the map. The second challenge was making a game about missions taking place in secret over hours or days, with fictional agents, feel at least somewhat historical. I hope we accomplished this by using actual locations on the map and including historical events to anchor the missions in this period.

Grant: What type of missions do players undertake?

Russell: I hope Checkpoint Charlie will be perceived as a “toolkit” game. For me that means there are enough components there, and enough interacting mechanics to be able to create many different missions that feel unique. Specifically, there are missions that are basically pick up and deliver with a KGB agent on your tail, missions where you set a trap for a KGB agent by planting a piece of tempting intelligence, a mission where you have to cross the Berlin Wall to deliver instructions to a dissident Russian scientist, and a mission where you have to protect a Soviet defector and get him safely to the airport with identification papers in hand. If you play Checkpoint Charlie in campaign mode, you’ll uncover evidence of a mole in your station and run another mission to get them to expose themselves. Every mission requires you to worry about the basics of moving assets around on the map, but beyond that each mission is unique. There are twelve missions included, and so far, we haven’t run out of interesting ways to combine all the elements provided in the game.

Grant: How does the game work in its cooperative mode?

Russell: When playing solitaire, the player has four cards in their hand. With two players, each player gets three cards, and with three players, only two. However, each player contributes one of their cards to a shared hand available to all players. In this way, each player always has four cards to choose from. This also helps reduce the issue of a player holding a card that’s important for the mission, but it isn’t their turn when it’s needed. The game also includes optional secure communications rules, where players cannot discuss plans or strategy or future game states except when they exhaust a meeting token to pause the game and have a discussion.

Grant: How do players work together?

Russell: The players are all working toward the same mission objectives, taking turns going through the turn sequence. They work together by having the same plan so they’re not working against each other. They work together by being smart about which cards they contribute to the shared hand. In secure communications mode, players have to save their meeting tokens for those critical moments when they’re presented with a new challenge or it’s clear that the existing plan has gone off the rails. The cards contributed to the shared hand are even more important in secure communications mode, because they can signal basic agreement on a plan without having to call a meeting.

Grant: As a solitaire game how does the bot work? What are its priorities and how does it make decisions?

Russell: The opposition basically emerges from two mechanics in the game. The first is the surveillance pawns placed in locations around the map. These appear when a surveillance card is drawn from the mission deck and they are placed based on which cards are showing in the draw area. When an asset moves into a location under surveillance and fails a save roll, they become detected, along with any items they carry. The second mechanic is the movement of KGB agents on the map. They move around based on which card the player takes from the draw area, in the same way that the player’s asset’s move. Running into a KGB agent almost guarantees an asset will be detected. In addition, when an asset or item is detected, every KGB agent gets a free move every turn and converges on that asset or item. If a detected asset or item is ever in the same location as a KGB agent at the end of a player turn, they are compromised and removed from the mission. There are some very simple priority rules governing which location KGB agents will move to if they have a choice, but otherwise the logic of how they move is the same as for the player’s own assets.

Grant: What type of experience does the game create for players?

Russell: I think the word is “constrained,” or maybe “desperate.” The game is designed to make players feel like they don’t have much control of the situation, when in fact they do have enough to successfully complete the missions. Toward the end of a mission, when the players look at the cards in their hands and the draw area and see that there is a path to victory, despite the fact that their key agent has been detected and KGB agents are closing in, I want them to breathe out and realize they haven’t truly relaxed for thirty minutes.

Grant: What decision points face players?

Russell: Good question. Players will feel, with good reason, that the most important decision they make each turn is which of the two cards they take from the draw area. That decision effects so many parts of the game, and often involves making difficult tradeoffs. But players also make many other decisions each turn. When assets and KGB agents move, they often have a choice of two destination locations, and the player can usually decide between them. The player also must decide which card to play at the start of their turn, and this can significantly impact the outcome of everything that follows. The player can spend Intel cubes to look ahead at the next card, or to improve the odds of a detection save. They decide when an asset picks up or drops an item. In a multi-player game, they choose cards to add to the shared hand and decide when it’s necessary to call a secret meeting.

Grant: What is the layout of the board?

Russell: First, I need to point out that this is all just my own prototype artwork for playtesting. The two most important areas on the board are the map of Berlin and the card draw area. The map is roughly a five by four grid of iconic locations connected by travel lines. It’s made up of sixteen locations in West Berlin and four in East Berlin, on the other side of the Berlin Wall. The player’s assets will move around this map, gathering intel, interacting with items and other assets to complete the mission, and hopefully avoiding detection. The KGB agents also move around this map and are the players’ primary adversaries. Below the map is the card draw area, a row of five face-up cards representing locations, items or assets. Above each card location is a spot for a chit representing one of the moving tokens on the map – the assets and KGB agents. The draw area is the core mechanic of the game, determining where assets and KGB agents move, where surveillance and intel cubes are placed, and even where some historical events take place. In addition to these two areas, the board also contains locations for intel collected by either side, as well as unused surveillance pawns available to the KGB.

Grant: Why was a point to point layout of locations your choice for the board?

Russell: Checkpoint Charlie evolved from a smaller card game in which the player built up the map of Berlin by placing cards in a grid, so I think that led to a point to point map. It’s also important for the paths between locations to be immediately clear and easy to process for the players, since they’re often calculating which is the shortest path between two locations. Perhaps the main reason we’ve stuck with this layout, instead of say, going to an actual map of the city divided into regions, is that it allows us to highlight iconic locations Instead of entire neighborhoods. Assets move from Checkpoint Bravo to the Berlin Hilton, or from Café Adler to the Tiergarten. It allowed us to give the whole game a more narrative feel.

Grant: What is the purpose of the draw area at the bottom of the board?

Russell: The basic mechanic is that players can only draw one of the two cards on the ends of this row of five cards, and then all the other cards shift before refilling the empty position. No card stays in the same location from turn to turn. This is important, because these cards are used to determine where tokens move on the map. Each card location can have a chit above it corresponding to an asset or KGB agent on the map, and every turn, after the cards shift, that asset or KGB agent moves toward the location, item, or asset depicted on the card below their chit. In this example, the Dentist token will move to Mehringplatz, because that’s the card below her chit. Jester will move one location closer to Checkpoint Charlie, and Svetlova, the KGB agent, will move one location closer to the 1958 Rambler item currently at RAF Gatow. In addition to their role in moving tokens on the map, each card also has an effect printed on the bottom that applies whenever that card is showing in the draw area. As cards are drawn and new cards replace them, these effects come and go and can have significant impacts on the mission. Finally, the five cards in the draw area are also used to determine where surveillance pawns and intel cubes are placed.

Grant: How does the game use cards?

Russell: Cards are used for a few different systems in the game. When they are showing in the draw area, they determine where assets and KGB agents move, apply special effects to their depicted location, item or asset, and are used to place surveillance and intel. When a card is in a player’s hand, or in the shared hand in a cooperative game, they are only used for the played effect printed at the top of the card. There are also cards in the mission deck used to trigger historical events and the placement of surveillance pawns and intel cubes.

Grant: What types of cards are included?

Russell: The three most important types of cards, and the only cards that will ever end up in the draw area or a player’s hand, are location, item, and asset cards. The draw deck for the mission, referred to as the mission deck, contains one card for each of the twenty locations on the map, plus one card for each asset and item involved in the mission. The mission deck will also include a variable number of surveillance cards, intel cards and event cards, depending on the mission.

Grant: Can you provide us with a few examples of the cards and explain their uses?

Russell: Certainly. Let’s start with the location card for Checkpoint Bravo. On the map you’ll find the Checkpoint Bravo location at the bottom left. In reality, this was the main entry point for road traffic coming into West Berlin from West Germany, and it was actually a much busier crossing than Checkpoint Charlie. The name and the image on the card make it easy to match it to its corresponding location on the map. At the top of the card is the played effect. This is what happens when the player plays the card at the start of their turn, and it generally isn’t optional. At the bottom of the card is another printed effect. This is the active effect and applies as long as the card is showing in the draw area. The Checkpoint Bravo card is actually quite powerful. It moves a KGB Agent of the player’s choice one location closer to Checkpoint Bravo. The active effect of this card is very good, as well. As long as the card is showing in the draw area, the player may spend an intel cube to make a detected asset entering Checkpoint Bravo become undetected.

Next let’s look at the Papers card, arguably one of the most important items in the game. This card will only appear on missions that include the Papers item marker. If a detected asset has picked up this item and is carrying it, playing this card can make them undetected. For some missions, the active effect at the bottom of this card is even more important. Dotted travel lines on the map cross over the Berlin Wall and assets normally can’t traverse them, but while this card is showing in the draw area, an asset carrying this item can cross into East Berlin, or back.

Finally, let’s look at an event card. This is the Powers Abel Exchange card. It represents the 1962 CIA prisoner exchange of Soviet spy Rudolph Abel for captured U.S. U-2 aircraft pilot Francis Gary Powers at Glienicke Bridge, as depicted in the movie Bridge of Spies. When this card is drawn, it has the printed effect and then is set aside for reference. Event cards never stay in the draw area or go into a player’s hand.

Grant: What types of missions confront the players?

Russell: I’ve mentioned a few, but others include transferring intelligence documents through a dead drop to throw off enemy agents, making sure a West German Stasi agent finds evidence that the KGB has infiltrated the West German secret police, using radio receivers and any means necessary to gather intel from East Berlin, and planting a bug on the other side of the Berlin Wall.

Grant: What happens when a mission fails or succeeds? 

Russell: If you’re playing a single mission, completing the objectives of the mission means you’ve won. There are no victory points, just success or failure. If you’re playing through missions as part of the campaign, then whether you win or lose a mission may determine which missions you’re assigned in the future. If you successfully deliver instructions to the dissident Russian scientist, then at some point you’ll be assigned a mission to cross into East Berlin and extract him to the West. If you failed to deliver the instructions, you’ll be assigned a different mission. Most importantly, your score in the campaign game is based on how many of your eight missions you complete successfully. Losing a mission also typically implies that one or more of your assets were compromised, which may limit their availability for future missions.

Grant: How is victory obtained in the game?

Russell: Each mission has one or more specific objectives that must be completed. As soon as those conditions are satisfied, the players immediately win. Conversely, there are one or more conditions that immediately end the mission in failure. In the campaign game, the player is rated based on how many missions they completed successfully.

Grant: What role do intel cubes play? How are they acquired and what do they offer?

Russell: Intel cubes represent intelligence available in the city that is pertinent to the mission. This could be coded signals, special documents, or known informants. Missions typically start with a couple intel cubes already on the map, and every time an intel card is drawn from the mission deck, an intel cube is placed on the location represented by the rightmost card in the draw area. Whenever one of the player’s assets moves into a location with an intel cube, the cube is collected and can be spent by any player during their turn for various benefits. For example, spending a cube allows the player to look at the next card in the mission deck. When a KGB agent enters a location with an intel cube, that cube is placed in the next box of the numbered KGB Intel track, and mission-specific events are triggered when specific numbers are filled. For instance, a mission may specify that another KGB agent is added to the map when the KGB Intel track reaches space 3.

Grant: What role does surveillance play?

Russell: Each time a surveillance card is drawn during a mission, a location in the draw area is placed under surveillance, signified by a red surveillance pawn. This means KGB surveillance resources have been allocated to that location. Some card effects remove surveillance pawns, while others place locations under surveillance. Each mission has a limited number of surveillance pawns, so when surveillance is added in one location, it may be removed from somewhere else. When an asset moves into a location under surveillance, they must roll a 10-sided die and pass a save or become detected. Some locations improve this roll, as do some items, and some assets are just better at avoiding detection. Some event markers, like demonstrations, also affect this save. As I mentioned earlier, once an asset is detected, KGB agents will move toward them and they will soon find themselves compromised and removed from the mission.

Grant: How does the campaign system work?

Russell: Players undertake eight of the twelve missions and are rated based on how many are successful. The set of missions assigned depends on success or failure of some of the earlier missions. Some of the intel cubes gathered during one mission may carry over to the next, and compromised assets may have to sit out a mission or two. Any historical events that occur are also removed from the campaign so they’re not repeated in later missions.

Grant: What do you feel the game models well?

Russell: I think Checkpoint Charlie shows that the mission is going to move forward one way or another. You have to guide it and use what resources you have to nudge it back on track when it strays. You can try to force it by drawing cards that always move your favorite asset to their best location, but that probably means your other assets are going to stumble into a KGB agent, or the KGB agents are going to gather too much intel and trigger some unwanted event. This is a game about making intelligent tradeoffs and using what control you do have to mitigate the bad effects when there aren’t any good choices.

Grant: What has been the experience of your playtesters?

Russell: The pleasant surprise for me has been how quickly they adapt to the way their assets and the KGB agents move. Compared to other games with movement points or action points or an activation system, Checkpoint Charlie is very different. They’ve figured out the whole draw, shift, move process within a couple turns. It is different, but it’s actually fairly simple. It has also been fun to see them view the components of the game, and particular card events, as part of a narrative. The game is telling a story.

Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?

Russell: I’ve played this game a lot, in all of its iterations. I’ve been through all of the missions many times, and then played through them all again to make sure we didn’t break them after we adjusted some rule or changed the effects on a couple cards. What pleases me most is that when I play this game, even after playing it all those times, I still really enjoy it.

Grant: What other designs are you contemplating or already working on?

Russell: I’m working on solitaire bots for Virgin Queen and for Combat Commander: Pacific. I have three board game designs in various stages. The first and farthest along is Allied Advance, a small, one-hour solitaire game where the player commands allied forces in Europe from the capture of Monte Cassino to the fall of Berlin. The second is Gilgamesh, a three-player game of Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period, where the winner is the ruler whose reign inspires the most memorable epic. The third is Bletchley Park, a two-player game that spans all of World War II in Europe, with one player as the axis commanders encoding the details of large military operations, and the other as allied observers and codebreakers trying to undermine those operations without revealing which codes they’ve broken. It’s going to be a lot of fun figuring out the bot for that one.

Thank you. I’m grateful that I had this chance to answer your questions.

In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am so glad that this topic is being covered here and look forward to playing this one day soon.

If you are interested in Checkpoint Charlie, you can pre-order a copy for $48.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1211-checkpoint-charlie.aspx

-Grant

Published — 28. Januar 2026 ⏭

Interview with Hermann Luttmann Designer of A Forlorn Hope from Wharf Rat Games Coming to Backerkit February 10th

✇The Players' Aid
Von: Grant
28. Januar 2026 um 16:32

Wharf Rat Games is a new publisher recently started by the dynamic duo of Ryan Heilman and Wes Crawford. I have interviewed both of these guys a few times for their own designed games and also hung out with them quite a bit at conventions including Buckeye Game Fest in April 2024 and the World Boardgaming Championships in August 2024. I am really happy for them that they have taken this plunge and created their own publishing company. I know they know games. Have been in the industry for a while now and also have great connections with many designers and would be designers and I am sure that they will bring many quality offerings to our tables over the next decade plus.

Wharf Rat Games is a Baltimore-based board game publishing company whose mission is to produce high-quality, light-to-medium-weight board games with engaging themes in historical, science fiction, and fantasy genres. With gameplay designed to last under 90 minutes, their games aim to captivate both casual and experienced players. But there is more than just their introduction here as they have signed their first game and it is from a designer we all know and love – Hermann Luttmann. A Forlorn Hope places solo players or up to three cooperative players in command of a battalion charging across No Man’s Land to capture enemy trenches during World War I. Success requires careful balancing of bold advances and timely retreats to avoid casualties, maintain cohesion, and keep troops from becoming pinned under relentless enemy fire. Over a decade ago, Hermann pitched a groundbreaking design to Alan Emrich at Victory Point Games—a push-your-luck mechanic within a wargame framework, originally set in the WWI trenches. While the concept was well-received, Alan suggested a Civil War theme instead, leading to the creation of In Magnificent Style, based on Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. This game went on to be published by Victory Point Games and later by Worthington Publishing.

They are now gearing up to launch this interesting game on Backerkit and I reached out to Hermann to get some more information and understanding of the game.

Here is a link to the preview page for the campaign: https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/wharf-rat-games/a-forlorn-hope-can-you-make-it-across-no-man-s-land/launch_party

Grant: What is your upcoming game A Forlorn Hope about?

Hermann: A Forlorn Hope is an abstract simulation of six different World War I trench warfare battlefields, using a push-your-luck system that allows the player to experience the tension, frustration, and futility of these trench assaults across No Man’s Land. Players will try to push their battalions to victory in six different scenarios – Neuve Chapelle, 1st & 2nd Ypres, Verdun, The Somme, Passchendaele, and the Meuse-Argonne (The Lost Battalion). Each scenario is quite different, with unique elements, mechanics, terrain features, events, and victory conditions.    

Grant: What is the meaning of the title? What did you hope to convey about the game to the players?

Hermann: The dictionary definition of forlorn hope is “A persistent or desperate hope that is unlikely to be fulfilled”. There is hardly a better way to describe the madness of the four years of trench warfare during the First World War. Interestingly, a “Forlorn Hope” is also a military term for a group of soldiers who are assigned the riskiest (and potentially most suicidal) mission, often involving infiltration, ambushes, or scouting missions. For the players, we felt the title was perfectly descriptive of what to expect in the game play. These are tough, grueling scenarios that will require the player to grind out their assaults to their best ability. And yes, the friction of war in this game is a cruel, un-welcomed participant.   

Grant: Who is this new publisher and how did you come to do their first game?

Hermann: The publisher is a brand new company called Wharf Rat Games. It was founded by Ryan Heilman and Wes Crawford, both fellow game designers who also became good friends of mine as we worked on other projects together and just hung out at conventions. That I was honored with the opportunity to design their first published game and it was honestly totally by accident! They were interviewing me for their Rat Chat video series and somehow my In Magnificent Style design came up in conversation. I happened to mention that the original idea for the unique push-your-luck mechanism I came up with for that game was actually a World War I trench warfare game. Victory Point Games, who published the original IMS, thought that subject matter was not an easily marketed subject for a wargame, so we changed it to Pickett’s Charge. Well Ryan and Wes asked me if I would like to fulfill my original dream for the mechanism because they really liked the idea of covering trench battles. And here you have it! 

Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?

Hermann: I’ve always found a particular interest in World War I, maybe because it was a subject about which I knew few details, but every time I explored it deeper, it became more fascinating. There are just so many interesting aspects to the various nations involved in the conflict and the widespread fronts where such vicious fighting occurred. It just captivated me and then even more so when I discovered there were relatively few wargames covering the war, at least in the early days of wargaming. When I got into actually designing wargames, I wanted to challenge myself to do unusual games and when looking for relatively under-gamed and obscure topics, trench warfare loomed large. So, I set out to figure a way to make trench warfare entertaining for a game player. A tough task, to be sure, but I stumbled upon the idea of doing it as a solo design with an “against the wind” type of push-your-luck approach.

Grant: What is your design goal with the game?

Hermann: Well, as with any of my game designs, my #1 goal is to make an entertaining game experience that players will want to come back to constantly. I want players primarily to have fun, but also to have some challenging decision-making to ponder, topped off with some genuine surprises. In this game design, I want players to explore the various types of historical trench assault situations, which can be quite varied. Each scenario is unique and highlights a different aspect of attacking across No Man’s Land. At the same time, I hope players learn a little something about each of these battles and then perhaps will be interested enough to want to explore a bit deeper into these fascinating engagements.   

Grant: What from trench warfare during WWI was important to model?

Hermann: Actually, the near helplessness of your troops crossing No Man’s Land and the fact that you are left to fate! You can direct your men to a certain degree…pointing them in the right direction and gauging when they should “hunker down” and take shelter…but otherwise it’s “dancing through raindrops”. What I did with this design is that you do have control of the order in which you move your units and how far (unless the enemy interferes with your plans, of course). I also added the “Wave” mechanic where you want your men to remain in as long a connected line across the battlefield as possible. Not only is this realistic, but a successful wave will earn you additional Tactics Chits, which will increase your units’ abilities and help mitigate against bad luck. So, you as the player are trying to advance against the enemy’s “wall of fire” as quickly as you can, but also trying to maintain order- two opposite forces pulling you apart, and something that a commander on the Western Front had to deal with. Yes, that can be frustrating but it’s also quite fun. You cannot know or control where the enemy artillery will fall – and that’s about as realistic as you can get. You pray and hope and push…and that’s the WWI tension I want to model.

Grant: What sources did you consult about the details of the history? What one must read source would you recommend?

Hermann: Oh, boy – honestly, there is no one book I used as these scenarios cover multiple battles. I researched each battle from the various books I own, on the internet, and I watched one or more documentaries on You Tube for each of the battles. My main source to get a framework for most of the early- to mid-war battles was The Western Front 1914-1916 by Michael Neiberg. Otherwise, there are numerous books covering each of the Western Front trench battles in greater detail.

Grant: What other games did you draw inspiration from?

Hermann: None actually…other than my own. 😊 This game is closely related to In Magnificent Style, Crowbar! The Rangers at Point du Hoc, and the upcoming Kill All Fermitians! (formerly Volters Lead the Way! and is being re-published by Flying Pig Games). Some of the games that I did play in the past, and which gave me hope that I could make a decently entertaining trench game, were Landships (Clash of Arms) and Trenchfoot (GDW).

Grant: How does the game use press your luck?

Hermann: Essentially there are two aspects to the push-your-luck mechanic in this game. One is that you want to get your units to voluntarily Hunker Down before the last Cohesion Cube is lost – this is called a Catastrophic Cohesion Loss. Units that are not Hunkered Down when this happens will be made Pinned, and that makes it harder for them to activate in the next turn (as they start that turn as Shaken units). Hunkering Down in time means the unit has huddled, taken cover, and is regrouping safely. It will begin the next turn without penalty. So, the player pushes their luck by gauging how far to move a unit before Hunkering Down and ending its current turn but thereby being in good shape to start the next turn. The other aspect is that the player will be compelled to keep units in a Wave – a chain of adjacency to each other – to gain the greatest number of new Tactics Chits. Therefore, the player needs to determine how long to keep units active in order to maneuver them into a Wave, but then risking being caught in the open and thereby Pinned when cohesion is lost.

Grant: What type of experience does this create? What are the toughest decisions forced on the players?

Hermann: Well hopefully, as with all my push-your-luck game designs, a sense of constant tension and discomfort! 😊 Because of the nature of the Activation and Event Cards, you never know when things will get really rough, really fast. Artillery barrages can land directly on your units – or just miss them. These can cause units to be forced to become Pinned, ending their turn immediately and making it tough to get them going next turn. Therefore, with each decision by the player whether to push another turn or not, there is never a comfort zone where you think “all is well”. The game system will keep you on your toes and always second guessing yourself – and that’s the experience I want to see players having as they attempt to navigate No Man’s Land in WWI.

Grant: What different player counts does the game handle?

Hermann: I suspect most players will be interested in this as a solitaire game, but in fact it does accommodate two or three players as well. In these counts, players will each control one Battalion and work cooperatively with the other player(s). In the case of the 2-player game, players will alternate control of the second (middle) Battalion. Scoring remains the same, with players sharing in the victory or defeat.

Grant: How does the solitaire game function? How does the AI prioritize its decisions?

Hermann: The player draws a hand of Activation Cards each step. Every card has a theme…either Suppressed, Slog, Advance, or Rush…and a set of matching results for cohesion loss, movement, and casualties inflicted on the unit. The player assigns each card to a unit and that unit must then abide by the directions and effects on that card. Usually, the player has some agency in how that assignment can occur. But if one or more “Draw Event Card” cards is drawn, the player must immediately draw an Event Card and apply its effects before continuing on with the activation. This also has the reciprocal detrimental effect of reducing the player’s hand size for this step’s assignment. If you have fewer cards than units, then you must draw the top Activation Card and blindly assign it a unit. There are a number of ways to help mitigate bad draws and results…the player has Tactics Chits to apply if needed and Officer Cards that can be used for certain special abilities. The AI is the deck of Activation and Event Cards, and the player needs to become familiar with what the Activation deck has to offer to make better calculated decisions. In the case of the Event deck, it is mostly random effects (such as for artillery bombardments and machinegun fire) but does prioritize counterattacks and other events against the most advanced player units. There are also Scenario Event Cards in most scenarios that create events specifically tailored to the battle you are currently simulating.

Grant: What has been your most challenging design obstacle to overcome with the game? How did you solve the problem?

Hermann: Honestly, the hardest thing we struggled with was not mechanical or procedural or thematical…it was making sure that the game was balanced for the player. In other words, that the player in every scenario was sufficiently challenged with a competitive, but not impossible, game. That means gauging how severe the Event and Activation Cards are, how many Tactics Chits to allow, how many Officer cards to be made available and how strong their powers are, and how variable and deadly the combat system is. Oh yeah – and how many Victory Points to award and penalize for each victory condition. And after you’ve taken your best starting estimate of where and how these factors should fall, the only way of getting them right is through trial and error, and tons of testing and demoing. And there’s really no magic formula to solving that issue, other than to hammer through the game and constantly bend, spindle, tweak, fudge, and edit.

Grant: What is the layout of the game board?

Hermann: Gamers familiar with In Magnificent Style and Crowbar will recognize the game board immediately. On the player side is the first row, representing the home trench. Then there are a series of nine more rows extending to the far side of the map, ending in a final row representing the enemy trench. There are also nine columns, each of which is occupied by one of the nine player units. In addition, the board is segmented into three No Man’s Land Zones of rows…green (the closest to the player), blue (in the middle), and red (closest to the enemy side of the board). These zones have a number of important effects on game play. Finally, there are three Battalion Zones of columns – 1st Battalion (left side), 2nd Battalion (middle), and 3rd Battalion (right side)…into which is deployed the three units of each of the three Battalions. 

Grant: What is the anatomy of the counters?

Hermann: Well, there are no unit counters used in this game! Each of the player’s nine units is represented by a unique wooden piece, showing hand-drawn artwork highlighting the typical soldiers deployed by each nation in the game (there are four armies included – German, British, American, and French). There is no other information on the standees as it is not required for gameplay. There are other numerous cardboard markers used to track information or to be used by the player to perform certain game functions.

Grant: What different type of units are available?

Hermann: There is only one type of unit, technically speaking. The unit pieces represent the generic units fielded by the army you are controlling. Some scenarios will designate if the units represent a unique type of unit. If so, the scenario instructions tell you what your units can do differently during this scenario than the typical unit.

Grant: How does combat work in the design?

Hermann: Combat is pretty straightforward and fun, using custom combat dice. There are two types of combat…Event Combat (generated by an Event Card) and Assault Combat (generated when you move a unit into the same space with an Enemy Unit or vice versa). The dice handle both types of combat resolution. Each face of the die has a letter code that is utilized when resolving Event Combat. This letter tells the player if any Hits are scored on the affected Battalion, if the unit must retreat, and if it must Hunker Down. In the case of Assault Combat, each face of the die has a number value. Both sides in an Assault Combat will roll a number of dice, depending on the value of the enemy unit (shown on its counter) or, for the player’s unit, the use of Tactics Chits, Officer abilities, and the presence of supporting friendly units. All dice are rolled at once and the number values for each side added together into an Assault Combat total. This will yield a victory for either side or a stalemate result.

Grant: How does the game use cards? Can you share a few examples of cards and explain their use?

Hermann: Activation Cards are used to move and fight with your units while Event Cards are random events that will affect your units in various ways (or not, if you get lucky). Each step, you draw a number of Activation Cards equal to the number of available activated units, plus one.

For example, you draw three cards when you have two eligible units to activate (there are only two available units in this example because the third unit is finished for the phase, due to it being Hunkered Down or Pinned). You look at the three cards and if one or more is a “Draw Event Card” card, you draw an Event Card immediately and resolve it.

If it’s the Event Card shown above, the enemy machineguns are issuing sweeping fire across your advancing forces. You check areas “A” and “B” to see which of your units are located in those areas (there could be up to six units in both areas!). You then roll one die against each such eligible unit and apply the letter result rolled on that unit.

Then you discard the “Draw Event Card” Activation Card and you now only have two Activation Cards to choose from. One card is assigned to each of the two units you have left to activate, and its instructions are applied to each unit.

For example, the above “Advance” Activation Card is read from top to bottom as follows:

  • The top (yellow) entry is the possible loss of cohesion. Because there is a “1” shown in the icon, this means that one Cohesion Cube (the scenario will tell you how many you start with) is discarded. If this is the last cube in your supply, there is an immediate Catastrophic Cohesion Loss and any of your units that are not Hunkered Down or already Pinned are made Pinned. This ends the turn – you count victory points earned, reset all the markers and Officer Cards, and begin a new turn, but starting with a fewer number of cohesion cubes to use. 
  • The middle (red) entry is the number of Hits this unit’s Battalion takes. Hits are recorded by Battalion, not by unit, using a Battalion Hit Infliction Track. In this case, because there is a “2” in this icon, there are 2 Hits inflicted on the Battalion and this is immediately recorded by the player.
  • The bottom entry is the Movement allowance for the unit. The color of this icon and the graphic of the soldier’s posture indicate the maximum number of spaces the unit can move forward (towards the enemy only) and the manner of the move (Normal, Cautious, or Crawl). Normal is a standard move forward with no impediments; Cautious is a Normal move but only if the unit is not moving from one Zone to another (like from the Blue zone to the Red zone); Crawl is used to move a unit that is Shaken (removing the Shaken marker) and/or moving from a Shellhole. On the example card, there is a “3” in the Movement Allowance icon so the unit move up to 3 spaces using Normal movement procedures.  

Grant: How is victory achieved?

Hermann: The player scores, and loses, Victory Points (VP) throughout gameplay, and at the conclusion of the scenario. Each scenario lays out exactly what conditions are needed for the player to score, and lose, VP. This is normally a combination of how much progress each of your units makes toward the enemy trenches, capturing enemy trench spaces, and the occurrence of Catastrophic Casualties (that’s when a Battalion accumulates more than 10 Hits). Each scenario may also have entirely unique ways to gain and lose VP, depending on the historical battle situation being depicted. The player totals their VP and compares that total to the narrative table that provides the level of victory or defeat and what would have happened in the battle at your level of achievement.  

Grant: What type of experience does the game create for the players?

Hermann: Well, this kind of design attempts to give the players an appreciation for the frustration, sacrifice, and difficulty of conducting trench assaults during the First World War. Obviously, I can’t honestly replicate the true horror of these events, but I think playing through a tough game like this at least gives a glimpse into the absolutely brutal experience these men faced on the trench lines. Rather than focus on that death and destruction, the game abstractly attempts to give the player the feeling of commanding these troops and leading them on an almost insurmountable mission, under dire circumstances, and against nearly impossible odds. The scenarios included in this game were chosen for the drama, strategy, and historical significance offered by the battles they represent. And by boiling all these factors down to a simple push-your-luck mechanic, with the requisite amount of thematic bells-and-whistles to create the narrative, I think players will at least be challenged, intrigued, and curious about not only exploring all the scenarios and situations, but perhaps even researching the actual details of the horrific experiences of these soldiers. To that end, we’ve also included on every Activation Card an actual quote from a soldier, officer, or author who lived through these battles and hopefully conveys the horrors of trench warfare.

Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?

Hermann: One thing I’m very pleased with is the amount of narrative detail and variety we managed to get into this design. There are six scenarios contained in this first effort, but two of the scenarios actually contain multiple games to be played, kind of mini-campaigns. And each scenario feels so different than the others. Secondly, I am so pleased by the development and production support from Wharf Rat Games … specifically, Ryan and Wes. They are not only terrific designers and developers in their own right, but they’re beginning a company here that cares about providing high-grade production quality and customer service. This entire game package will be an attractive, well-produced, comprehensive, accessible, and highly replayable product and I am very appreciative and proud of that.

Go sign up for the game’s prelaunch at Backerkit and check out the art, news, and upcoming interviews at  https://www.backerkit.com/call_to_action/12a5e9bc-4ce6-4667-8f62-b2df3ccbf9fd/landing and get a free downloadable print-and-play game called A Summer in Sarajevo designed by Ryan Heilman. Can you save Franz Ferdinand from his assassins?

Grant: What other situations could this system be used in?

Hermann: This style of game play is designed for any era…even fictional ones…where one side is primarily static, on defense, and tough. The basic idea is that the player is pushing their luck against a tough defending opponent and their “wall of fire”. However, that defensive enemy is still capable of launching localized attacks of their own, so that even though a static line is being faced, the enemy can still jump out and sting the player. Any situation that fits that set of criteria can work in this system. I have ideas for more World War I battles that will fit in this series, but we’ll first see how well it is received. But I am open to suggestions as to how to convert this framework to almost any other historical era or fictional setting that will work.

Grant: What other designs are you currently working on?

Hermann: Oh boy…every time you ask me this, the list gets longer! 😊 OK…here’s what’s cooking:

  • GMT Games – A Hell So Terrible: Verdun 1916 (on the GMT P500 right now). Also, the More of a Bad Thing expansion for The Plum Island Horror is now out and available. I will also be working on a post-apocalyptic design called Heavy Metal Thunder that is sort of an “express” version of the Plum Island Horror engine. It is designed to give players the same kind of narrative and cooperative experience as Plum Island Horror, but in about half the time and even more accessible as far as rules weight.
  • Blue Panther – Dawn of the Zeds: Designer Edition. Yes – a brand new edition of the Zeds franchise with some new and better mechanics. Also, I need to work on the next Tattered Flags game (Antietam’s Cornfield) and the next Napoleonic solo game (probably on Borodino).
  • Revolution Games – They March Against Us: Leipzig 1813 (the first of the Bonaparte’s Swords Series…which will be Napoleonic Blind Swords).
  • Flying Pig Games – Kill All Fermitians! (formerly Volters Lead the Way!, a science fiction push-your-luck game). And we are beginning work on A Wild Primitive Madness, the next Black Swan Series game covering The Battle of Antietam.
  • Jackl Games – More Brains! (a zombie push-your-luck game).
  • Nuts Publishing – Nemto (an epic, multi-player, cooperative, science fiction campaign wargame).
  • Unknown Publisher – White Mud (a tactical wargame on the Battle of Tuyuti, fought during the War of the Triple Alliance and bloodiest battle ever fought in South America. This was called the “Waterloo of South America” and is such an interesting engagement).
  • Unknown Publisher – Miracle Along the Marne (a Black Swan style of wargame covering the Battle of the Marne in 1914).

You asked! 😊

Thanks again for letting me do this! I really appreciate your support and kindness.

As always it was a pleasure speaking with you Hermann. I am very excited about this one as it sounds very interesting and is also a unique gaming subject. I have played your Press Your Luck designs (In Magnificent Style and Crowbar!) and loved them both. Great games with very tough decisions.

-Grant

❌