While attending Buckeye Game Fest this spring, we were gifted a copy of a newly published game called And the War Came: American Civil War 1861-1865 from Pinkerton Games, which is published by Blue Panther LLC and Steve Jones. The designer and owner of Pinkerton Games Larry Pinkerton had been their earlier but had to leave due to some other pressing business and we were unable to meet but were very grateful for the game. Upon returning home, I reached out to Larry to see if he would give us a bit of an inside look at the design and he was more than willing to discuss the game.

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

Larry: Grant and Alex, first, thanks for the opportunity to tell you about myself, and my game, And The War Came. I’m a lifelong resident of southwest Ohio, from the Dayton area. I’ve got three great adult kids, each working on their families and/or careers. I’m now retired from both my civilian job, and my almost 34 years as a traditional Ohio National Guard member-last duty assignment as an Air Defense Brigade Commander-so now more time for hobbies. 

Now that And The War Came is finally done, I enjoy hanging with my kids, playing music, and traveling. I still do part time contract work in support of US Army training events, which I enjoy as well. And I hope to find more time for playing other wargames too!

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

Larry: I’ve always been interested in the American Civil War, and many years ago it came to me that a block style game and a strategic level treatment of that war would make a great game-one that didn’t really seem to be available, at least for what I was looking for. I’ve really enjoyed developing the game, adopting, changing or dropping processes, seeking to get at the right balance of playability, workable mechanics and good history. It took a while, but I’m happy with the results.  

Grant: What is your upcoming game And the War Came about?

Larry: And the War Came is a strategic level American Civil War game, focused on the southeastern United States. It started life as a block game, but when I decided to self-publish, I switched to rotatable counters due to cost. But play is similar-it’s area movement and card driven, so those familiar with Columbia style block games will recognize some of the mechanics.

Grant: What does the title mean in relation to the history of the American Civil War?

Larry: I bounced so many title ideas and finally settled on And The War Came, which is a sentence in Lincoln’s 2^nd inaugural address (March 4, 1865). I felt that line summarized how the United States stumbled and staggered into civil war. And the wonderful Carte de Visite Collection images from the US Library of Congress I chose for the game box spotlight who the actual participants really were.

Grant: What games gave you inspiration for your design?

Larry: Columbia Game’s Hammer of the Scots and Victory Game’s The Civil War 1861-1865 were by far the strongest influences.

Grant: What is important to model or include in a game about the American Civil War?

Larry: Above all, I think it is leaders and leadership at the corps and army level. Any discussion of ACW campaigns seems to hit on the “what ifs” of senior leaders. There were simply so many generals I could have chosen to model in the game, but I finally settled on 22 Union and 19 Confederate leaders that did or could have risen to army or independent command. The formations on both sides were so similar, in my opinion it was the leadership that was truly decisive.

Grant: What challenges did you encounter in the design? How have you overcome them?

Larry: Wow, there were a lot; game flow, simple but historically accurate mechanics, relative strength and play balance, rail and naval capacity, re-playability, map scale-all had to be refined through trial and error, playtesting and compromise. And countless rulebook edits! Rules concepts I thought made perfect sense in my head and on the page drew several questions when reviewed by others. But I think it’s a pretty good final product.

Grant: What is the scale of the game? Force structure of units?

Larry: Regional area movement, and seasonal turns, representing three months. The map is bounded by eastern Kansas to eastern Texas on the western edge, New Jersey to northern Florida along the Atlantic Coast, lower Midwest on the northern edge, and Gulf of Mexico on the southern. Most states contain 4 to 10 areas-states with better road networks tend to have less areas. But there is more territory than units to control it. Fortress cities (i.e. Washington, D.C.), major railroads, navigable rivers, and mountains and swamp areas are also portrayed on the map. Rail and naval support capacity change each year.

Units represent infantry or cavalry corps, with a strength of from 1 to 4 divisions, or forts representing 1 to 4 installations. Unit count is: Union-33 Infantry counters, 10 Cavalry counters, 5 Fort counters, Confederate-26 Infantry counters, 8 Cavalry counters, 8 Fort counters.

Grant: What is the counter anatomy?

Larry: Very straightforward if familiar with Columbia style block wargames-a mechanic I have always admired for simple and clean fog of war, step reduction, and ranged or initiative combat. \Counters are square with strength point symbols (divisions) arrayed along each edge, plus movement and combat ratings. Infantry has a combat value of C2 with a move allowance of 1. Cavalry has a combat value of B1 with a move allowance of 3. Forts have a combat value of A1 with a move allowance of 0-they are stationary. There are also corps insignia (Union) or battle flags (Confederate) just to add historical flavor, and the branch insignia of the period for infantry, cavalry or forts. Ultimately, I chose to give similar units of both sides the same combat or movement ratings (since both Union and Confederate formations grew from the same organizational foundations and traditions), but those ratings can be modified by the leaders who command them, both at corps and army levels, and/or the battlefield terrain.

Grant: What does it mean the “game is We Go turn based”?

Larry: Most functions are conducted by both players at the same time. For example, in the Administration Step, both players recruit (buy) their new units/strength points, enter new or recovered from wounds generals, or administratively move/transfer generals already on the map to new assignments/commands. When both players are done, they go to the next step, (Operations), with Action Phases where each plays a card to determine who moves first, they complete their moves and then resolve any battles that result from movement. The Logistics Step and Victory check complete a turn.

Grant: What type of experience does this approach create?

Larry: It minimizes down time for one. Actions in the Administration Step, Operations Step, Logistics Step happen simultaneously. Only in the Operations Steps’ Action Phase (or depending on the season, phases) does movement happen sequentially. This limits the action/reaction dynamic to operations, where maneuver happens in small chunks due to the seasonal card play. Neither side is able to make big sweeping moves, while the other side can only watch-the mechanic enables campaigns like Gettysburg or Vicksburg, although they may not necessarily occur during the course of play.

Grant: How does the game use cards?

Larry: Cards list the number of “orders” you can issue to units in order to conduct movement or other actions. There are also cards with both events and orders where players must choose which to use. And most cards have a bonus action (improved combat, movement, or leader promotion) to spice things up. The season determines the number of cards each player receives that turn. The Winter season/turn, each player receives only one card-in the single Action Phase, each player compares their card to the other player’s to determine who moves first (initiative), then second, then resolve any combats. This makes for a short turn. In both Spring and Fall seasonal turns, players receive two cards each, then play their cards against each other in each of the two Actions Phases, conducting moves and combat. In the Summer seasonal turn, three cards are dealt to each player-thus there are three Action Phases that turn.

Grant: What type of cards are included? Can you share a few examples?

Larry: There are 30 cards in the common game deck (there are not separate unique decks for Union or Confederate players). The deck includes 22 orders cards, each card with a value of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 orders. The orders determine how many units (corps) or commands (see Leaders below) can be moved with that card-a card with only one order allows the movement of only one unit, etc. Orders can also be used to promote generals or repair rail roads, etc. Again, most, but not all of these 22 cards also have a bonus that improves movement, or combat for a unit, or gives a free general promotion.

There are also 8 cards that include a combination of orders and events such as blockade impacts, partisan activities, native uprisings, surprise attacks, diplomatic incidents, immigrant or native recruits, or spy activity-each event with favorable impacts for themselves, or negative impacts for the opposing player. I chose for the event cards to be generic in nature and usable for both sides, verses specific events (i.e. Trent Affair) scripted events. For these 8 cards, players have the option to play the event and still have two orders to move other units, or not play the event at all, and have all three orders for movement.

The entire deck is reshuffled at the start of a new year. Since each player only receives 8 cards in a four season/turn year, only 16 of the 30 cards are played each year-some cards may not get played during the entire war, while others may reappear several times.

Grant: How does combat work?

Larry: Again, similar to other Columbia style block games.

Paraphrased from the rulebook:

Units Fire or Retreat in a combat round. The sequence of combat is A class units fire/retreat first, before B class units, followed by C class units which fire/retreat last. If both sides units are the same class, the defender has the advantage, and fire/retreat before attacking units of the same class. A general’s initiative rating may change who has the first shot advantage. To Fire, roll as many dice as the unit’s current strength points (SP). A hit occurs for each die roll equal to, or less than the unit’s combat number rating. Hits on the enemy take effect as they happen, each hit immediately reducing the enemy unit strength point count by one. Say a 3 division (SP) infantry corps has a combat rating of C2-that corps rolls 3D6 dice and every “1” or “2” rolled is a hit, reducing enemy strength and effectiveness when returning fire. In a battle between a B1 cavalry unit and a C2 infantry unit, the B1 rolls first, but only scores a hit for each 1 rolled. The C2 rolls second and scores a hit for each 1 or 2 rolled. One round of combat is complete when each unit fires or retreats.

Some unit strength may be recovered at the end of combat if the unit is not destroyed-with this recovery rule I’m trying to account for after the battle return to duty wounded, stragglers, local prisoner exchanges, etc. I was aiming for about 20% casualty rates in combat.

Grant: How do Leaders work? How are they killed or wounded?

Larry: Leaders are used to command corps or armies (units under the command of a general are actually called “commands”, i.e. Sherman’s command). A leader imparts his initiative (A, B, or C class) and tactical ratings to the unit or units he commands. In Sherman’s case, he changes a C2 infantry corps under his command to a B2. A leader’s initiative and tactical ratings may change at different ranks. And I’ve added optional rules to randomize when leaders enter the game, and their ratings.

Leader counters also rotate-they all enter the game as a one star general. They may be promoted to two or three star rank. Grant and Sherman can even be promoted to four star (GEN) rank as they historically became army group commanders. A one star general (BG) controls one corps counter; a two star (MG) may command one or two corps.

The only way a leader can be promoted to three stars (LTG) rank is to take command of one of the 5 named armies: Potomac, Cumberland, and Tennessee for the Union; Northern Virginia and Tennessee for the Confederacy. Named armies may contain four or more corps, depending on the army. And only named armies may have subordinates of one or two star rank. If a three star army commander is relieved of command, there is a political cost, and the leader reverts to one or two star rank.

Leaders also represent staffs and logistics trains, so commanded units may engage in two rounds of combat, whereas corps without a commander may only initiate one round of combat-so even lower quality leaders can be beneficial since they allow you to fight an additional round. Most leaders also increase the movement allowance for infantry to 2 instead of the base 1.

And yes, leaders may be wounded, killed or captured. At the end of each combat which involved leaders, a leader casualty assessment is rolled-lower ranked leaders are more likely to be casualties. If assessed as a casualty, another D6 is rolled for severity of wound. Rolls of 1 through 5 indicate the leader is out for that many turns. A roll of 6 means the leader is killed. And if a commanded unit is destroyed but the leader is not killed or wounded, the leader is captured. Captured leaders may be exchanged as prisoners.

Grant: How does the design create fog of war and uncertainty?

Larry: The counter covers hide counter information until opposing units engage in combat. Of course, leader losses will occur, which adds to uncertainty. The cards also provide for a lot of variability in maneuver. And the strength replacement recruiting is a combination of fixed values for the year, plus a die roll for variable recruits each season. Recruitment strengths diminish for both sides over the course of the game. There’re several optional rules that address the Emancipation Proclamation, Drafts, Leader randomization, etc. to add historical flavor or variability to the game.

Grant: Who is the artist for the game?

Larry: I did the artwork…in MS PowerPoint. Whew, not the easiest thing to do! But I’m happy with the results. I used public domain art and was able to generate nice graphic quality with the tools available. And I found you can only go so far in development before you have to start addressing production concerns. And the War Came is definitely a game on a budget!

Grant: How is victory achieved?

Larry: Quite simply, players must accomplish more than their historical counterparts in the same period, for example the 1862 scenario, when the Border States, most of Tennessee and New Orleans were in Union hands by year’s end. So, victory usually means holding more territory, but there are also war weariness and political factors that contribute to, or detract from, victory. Examples are the midterm elections of 1862, Presidential elections of 1864, and weariness of the northern population.

Grant: What do you feel the game models well?

Larry: The overall ebb and flow of the conflict-using corps formations on a large area map just works well. And although there are abstracted naval and logistics rules that function well, I chose to focus on the senior commanders and Lincoln’s and Davis’s struggles to find effective military leadership for their troops at corps and army levels. And I think I’ve got the right level of political factors that contributed to the War’s outcome factored in. It’s hard for the CSA to win, but if the USA sits on it’s hands to build strength and perfect its leadership, the USA will lose. The USA must take the fight south early and often-and that’s a lot of territory to cover.  

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

Larry: There’s so many classic ACW titles out there that cover the entire scope of the war in great detail, and yet I think And the War Came fills a niche. For those familiar with board wargames, it’s not overly complex and it plays fairly quickly. I like the unknowns and fog of war, and think the re-playability is there. The historical framework is solid. I tried to not model for effect, so historical campaigns and outcomes are certainly possible, but not preordained. I wanted an interesting beer and pretzels game, one that both those familiar and unfamiliar with the ACW could enjoy. Again, I’m satisfied with the results.  

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

Larry: I think if there’s another one in me, it’ll be a strategic treatment of the American Revolution-but to model that conflict will take some work, initially just to get the scope right, and factor in the interrelationship with the wider Anglo-French conflict.

Oh, and I must add a hearty thanks to Blue Panther Games, for their great production and distribution support! I just couldn’t nail down a publisher-but after consulting with Steve Jones (BPG) I realized I could partner with Blue Panther and do it myself! I would recommend them to any aspiring designer who’s interested in self-publishing.

If you are interested in And the War Came: American Civil War 1861-1865 from Pinkerton Games, you can order a copy for $65.00 from the Blue Panther LLC website at the following link: https://www.bluepantherllc.com/products/and-the-war-came

-Grant

Als ich mich das erste Mal mit Believe in me! (please) beschäftigte, kam mir sofort das ikonische Video von Jesus He Knows Me in den Sinn. Die Bildsprache des Brettspiels und der erste Blick auf das Thema ließen sofort Phil Collins vor meinem geistigen Auge tanzen, mit Scheinen wedeln und um zahlungskräftige Anhänger buhlen. Meine...

Der Beitrag Interview: Erik Haffner & Henneke Holst erschien zuerst auf Brett und Pad.

We have played 2 of Tompet Games previously released games with the only not having been played called Kill the King from 2016. First was Donning the Purple, which is an asymmetrical king of the hill game with a bit of worker placement that deals with the players managing the glory of wealthy and powerful Roman families, and their second game called Halls of Hegra, which is a solitaire-only wargame in the same vein as Euro-based games such as Robinson Crusoe, This War of Mine and Dead of Winter. The mechanics include worker placement, bag building, and area control/tower defense and the goal of the game is to survive wave after wave of German troops as they assault the secluded mountain fortress at Hegra.

Both of these games are excellent and they are now embarking on their fourth game called Crown & Courage that tells the story of the German invasion of Norway in 1940 and the royal family’s defiance and ultimate escape from the country to avoid capture and funding of the German war machine. We asked the designer Petter Schanke Olsen if he would be up for one of our interviews and he was more than happy to share.

If you are interested in Crown & Courage, you can learn more about the project and back it on the Kickstarter page at the following link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tompet/crown-and-courage

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

Petter: Thank you for having me. It’s an honor to be featured here. I have been a big fan of The Player´s aid for many years. 

I’m a 40 year old geek from Norway. I’m very interested in history. Mainly WWII and Ancient Rome. So I try my best to make games from those eras.

During my day job I work for the government, making educational material for kids who are deaf or hard of hearing. My main area is video production. 

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

Petter: I have always liked to make things. One day, many years ago, I was thinking about flanking on medieval battlefields and thought that would make an interesting game mechanic. I made a small prototype for a boardgame based around that called Kill the King. 6 months later I ran a small but successful Kickstarter for it and I have never looked back. The feeling of seeing random people enjoying a game I have made is very rewarding.

Grant: What is your upcoming game Crown & Courage about?

Petter: Crown & Courage is a solo game where you step into a desperate race against time as Norway collapses under the pressure of the German invasion during the early days of WWII. Your goal is to guide the King and the royal family to safety while evacuating as much of the nation’s gold as possible. 

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

Petter: When I was 18 I spent a year in the royal guard here in Norway and during that period we learned a lot about these events. I have always wanted to make a game about this subject but I have been skeptical about doing games based on Norwegian history because it is a little known story internationally. After seeing the international success of our previous game, Halls of Hegra, I realized that I don’t need to worry about that so here we go! 

Grant: What is your design goal with the game? 

Petter: My design goal for this game is the same as all my other games. I want the player to feel the same level of stress and weight of making the right decisions with limited resources as the real people in history. In Donning the Purple for example, a game about being the roman emperor, I wanted the players to feel the burden of everyone trying to kill you so they could be the new emperor. In Crown & Courage I want the player to feel the pressure of seeing the Germans advance through Norway, trying to capture you and occupy the towns while you have to make hard decisions about what to do next.  

Grant: What from the German invasion of Norway in 1940 was most important to model?

Petter: It was important to model how poorly prepared and equipped the Norwegian army was for an invasion. The Norwegian troops in the game for example, can only defend and not counter attack. But they were good at slowing down the enemy by sabotage, and that is a big part of the game (and also one of my favorite mechanics)!

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

Petter: I have read several books about the topic and biographies of King Haakon. But I would actually recommend watching a movie about the same topic called The King’s Choice. It’s great!

Grant: What is the goal of the game?

Petter: To reach safety with the royal family at the northern part of the map. And at the same time successfully evacuate Norway’s gold reserves. Historically the evacuated gold was used to fund the government in exile and the Norwegian trade fleet.

Grant: What is the layout of the board? 

Petter: The two main components of the board are the map over southern Norway and the grid where you place your actions. There are also other minor tracks and systems. I also try to include much of the rules on the board itself so you don’t have to look in the rulebook all the time. This aids the players in playing the game.

Grant: How important are the cities and what happens when they become German occupied?

Petter: The cities are very important. If all of them are occupied you lose the game! Every time a city is occupied you have to resolve everything that is revealed on the Occupation Track, and that becomes increasingly bad as each new city is occupied.

Grant: How do the Norwegian troops defend against the Germans?

Petter: The battle system is kind of like our first game Donning the Purple. The Germans only move forward into battle if they have more strength than you. You can however spend action cards to boost your strength. You can also choose to spend extra morale in each battle to make a valiant defense and take out more German soldiers.

Grant: Can you talk about the grid system in the game called the Order Grid?

Petter: This is the main mechanic of the game. You choose an order tile and place it into a space on the 3×3 grid. This is your primary order this turn. Now you must choose the horizontal or vertical line that intersects with the chosen primary order. If the line you choose has other order tiles you will also resolve them. This makes your turns more powerful over time and can make for some interesting combos. Some of the orders you can choose among are Evacuate, Rest, Inspire, Sabotage, Upgrade and Strategize.

Grant: What are the difficulties the player must deal with in the form of Stress, Morale and Threats?

Petter; Stress is something that the King will gain throughout the game. When the Stress Level is too high you will lose Willpower. Willpower is used to decline demands from the Germans each round. If the Willpower runs out you lose the game. After you lose Willpower the Stress Marker resets but it can never be lower than the current Threat Level, so it might not reset as low as before. Morale reflects the morale of your troops and population. You can also use morale to draw extra cards or be more efficient in your defense

Grant: How does the player manage these?

Petter: Stress is reduced by taking the Rest Order. Morale is increased by the Inspire Order and Threat is lowered by Discarding Cards.

Grant: What are the German Demands?

Petter: At the end of each round the Germans will send demands. They will for example demand that the King resign. You can choose to ignore this at an increasing cost or decline the demands but that costs Willpower and is a diminishing resource. Historically, Germany demanded that Norway cease all resistance and submit to a German military occupation. Specifically, they demanded that the Norwegian government allow German troops to land unopposed to establish naval bases, secure vital Swedish iron ore shipments, and prevent the Allies from using Norway as a battlefield.

Grant: How does the German bot work?

Petter: The Germans are controlled by the grid system. Their actions are placed around the 3×3 grid. When you choose and place your primary order the Germans will resolve their actions (which is framing the grid system) that intersect with the primary actions. Each action will resolve 1 time per revealed German symbol on the grid. It is a pretty cool system and I’m pretty pleased with it.

Grant: What type of challenge does it create?

Petter: Lots of challenges! Basically, when you place your orders you are deciding which actions you AND the Germans will take. It is quite a puzzle.

Grant: How is victory achieved?

Petter: You win by getting the King to freedom in the northern part of the map. This is the main goal. If, as part of the Evacuate action, you move the King into the space marked Freedom, you win the game. You must still complete the entire Evacuate action before you win the game though. Keep in mind that the game is very difficult to win, but if you do manage it and want to gauge your success, your score is equal to the number of Gold Reserve cards you have successfully evacuated.

Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?

Petter: I like to think it creates a stressful but thematic experience where you are making tough decisions while exploring the Norwegian countryside!

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

Petter: I’m most pleased about the Grid Order system! But the Evacuation and Sabotage mechanics are pretty cool as well. 

Grant: What other designs are you working on?

Petter: I have several WWII themed designs in various stages but it is too early to say what will happen next.

We were able to play a prototype copy of the game and very much enjoyed it. We played it cooperatively, even though the design is a solitaire game, and had a great time strategizing and considering our options together and were very impressed with the maturation of the game mechanics and flow of the game. Here is a link to our preview video from that experience:

If you are interested in Crown & Courage, you can learn more about the project and back it on the Kickstarter page at the following link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tompet/crown-and-courage

-Grant

Hermann Luttmann is a great designer and I just love his solitaire takes on historical battles. His newest design is a solitaire game called A Hell So Terrible: Verdun 1916 from GMT Games that focuses on the German assault on the city of Verdun in 1916 during World War I. Keep in mind that Hermann is a very creative designer and uses lots of very interesting and chaotic design elements to create a very interesting and satisfying gaming experience. Also, most of his games are just that, with very engaging gameplay and a lot of the unknown that will hit you in the face from time to time! I just love his games. We reached out to Hermann and as always he was more than willing to share more about the design.

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

Grant: Hermann welcome back to the blog. What is your upcoming game A Hell So Terrible about?

Hermann: Thanks so much for having me back again! This is getting to be a bad habit. A Hell So Terrible is currently on the GMT P500 list and covers the German assault on Verdun during World War I. The offensive was launched on Feb. 21, 1916, and its ultimate goal was, as Chief of Staff Erich von Falkenhayn infamously stated, to “bleed France white”. This design sets up the solitaire player commanding the German army at Verdun. The player must push the various German Corps forward along nine different tracks across three main sectors, all of which converge on the city of Verdun and its last ring of fortresses. But the player only has a limited amount of time to close the noose around Verdun, as at the start of July, the Allies will be launching their huge offensive along the Somme River and vital German resources will need to be diverted to defend that front. So, this game design combines a little bit of push-your-luck with a little bit of tower-offense (reverse States of Siege, if you will), and a dab of historically-weighted chaos, to give you a nice flavorful stew of military simulation and game play fun.

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

Hermann: We actually went through a number of different titles, and I had this one neat quote I found:

“Humanity is mad! It must be mad to do what it is doing. What a massacre! What scenes of horror and carnage! I cannot find words to translate my impressions. Hell cannot be so terrible. Men are mad!”— Second Lieutenant Alfred Joubaire in his diary during the Battle of Verdun (May 23, 1916).

The BBC also used a version of this quote for the Verdun chapter of their special Great War TV series – “Hell Cannot Be So Terrible”. Gene Billingsley came up with the final, truncated version for the game’s title. I take great pride in my game’s titles, and this is no exception. I want the titles to be poetic, artistic, and memorable and thus are usually portions of famous quotes, book chapter titles, etc. By doing so, the title has a meaning and conveys to the player a hint of what the game is about. In this case, as you may surmise, it is supposed to be a bit depressing and gloomy, preparing the player for a difficult Great War grind. The player will experience, in abstract and harmless form of course, the tough slog and frustrating pace of a WWI offensive against an entrenched enemy.

Grant: I see that you described it as a “tower offense” game. What does this mean?

Hermann: This clever twist on the “tower defense” label was created by the game’s developer, Marco Poutre, and I just love it. A tower defense game traditionally means that a player is located in the relative center of the game board, and they are required to defend that center from a foe advancing from multiple directions. Lose the center and lose the game. A Hell So Terrible flips that dynamic around 180 degrees. You are the approaching German attacker moving along multiple axes of advance and the French enemy “bot” is the central defender, trying desperately to keep you away from Verdun.

Grant: Furthermore, the player takes on the role of the attacker. How did this change your design focus? 

Hermann: Primarily, the game design must provide the player with strategies of offense and exploitation, rather than that of defense and blocking. The game’s mechanics are structured to offer ways and means for the Germans to conduct actions against the enemy, rather than offer just reactions to enemy moves. You are the instigator and thus drive the action with your play. But that’s not to say that the French “bot” sits idly by…it will counterattack and it will generally do that in the spot which least suits you and your plans.

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

Hermann: Well, as you may or may not know, World War I has always been a primary interest of mine. It is just so rich with gaming opportunities because there are so many interesting fighting fronts featuring many different armies. The war is loaded with fairly obscure yet fascinating battles and campaigns and making them each “gameable” is a real challenge. Designing a playable game out of trench warfare was one of my earliest self-inflicted gaming challenges and that all lead directly to the In Magnificent Style push-your-luck style system, which has now come full circle to A Forlorn Hope from Wharf Rat Games (which actually does cover trench warfare). In the A Hell So Terrible game design, that aspect of pushing your troops ”against the wind” of enemy fire (but at an operational scale now) seemed to fit really well with what a game about Verdun should simulate. 

Grant: What is your ultimate design goal with the game?

Hermann: Simply, to provide the player with as much angst and anxiety as possible! This operation is perfect for the push-your-luck and tower offense approach. The player is placed under a severe time constraint, so the requirement to not only keep moving forward (even when it seems unwise to do so) but also the need to harbor the few resources you have available in the game (more on that later) is a perfect combination of game play juggling. The player must pick the best spots to attack, when to attack, and with what expenditure of assets. And to keep all these moving parts in a playable, accessible format that doesn’t overstay its welcome is the design goal.

Grant: What from trench warfare during WWI and the numerous attacks on Verdun was most important to model?

Hermann: Well, there are quite a few factors that I really wanted to get into the design to make it feel right. Obviously, the French defensive positions are deep, layered, and unpredictable. There are multiple chains of trenches, forts, and terrain features that must be overcome. How do you, as the attacking Germans, go about penetrating these defenses and inflicting as many casualties as you can on the defending French? Well….planning, logistics, bombardment, flanking, reconnaissance, and determination are the tools to overcome those traditional WWI obstacles. Using a design-for-effect principle, there are simple mechanics built into the game that allow the player access to each of those tools, but at the same time, they are not always available and certainly aren’t limitless.

The player must assess each phase of the game and play it to their best ability, utilizing these historic tools to pry loose the French defenses. So, all these factors are important to model to get the best full experience of attacking in WWI.

One other critical thing I wanted to model is the unknown. What I mean is, the French defenses were mostly hidden and they were deep. Though the player can see the French units on the game board, their strengths are unknown until engaged and even the effect of your artillery bombardments is unknown until you actually have units enter those spaces. This is a huge aspect to WWI trench warfare – you are just never sure what the enemy is doing nor what kind of shape they are in. This fog of war really creates a high level of tension and requires the player to try their luck sometimes, even when it might not seem advisable. And the game will constantly be changing the state and makeup of the French defenses, including allowing them to hit back at unexpected times with counterattacks. All these aspects of WWI warfare are critical to include to give the proper experience, and they are all found in this game. 

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

Hermann: The Price of Glory by Alistair Horne is my “must read” source.

Verdun 1916: They Shall Not Pass from Osprey Publishing.

Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War from Oxford University Press by Paul Jankowski.

And in addition to published books, I reviewed various online articles and video documentaries.

Grant: What other games did you draw inspiration from?

Hermann: Honestly, none. I know you guys have covered a number of the other Verdun games and I know that there are some really good ones. But A Hell So Terrible is, I feel, a unique wargame approach to this campaign and as such, I don’t like to be influenced by other games when I begin a design. That goes for most of my other designs as well, by the way. Again, that’s not to say that other game designs aren’t great games – most are. But I don’t want to allow myself to be subconsciously swayed one way or the other by another designer’s approach, unless I’m actually using an operating system as my core engine (like States of Siege, for example). That’s not to say that I won’t read the background and historical information that is contained in other games or read the associated historical articles in a game magazine. But for the most part, I do not consult other games to get design ideas.

Grant: What are the Activation dice and how do they work?

Hermann: One of the driving inspirations for this game’s design approach was the idea of using an activation dice mechanic in a wargame. This is a relatively new game mechanic, at least in my experience, and I first encountered it in the Claustrophobia game series. I’ve come to appreciate the fact that it is an almost perfect blend of randomization and player decision making, all in one simple mechanic. You roll a bunch of dice – the random part – and you must then assign those dice to particular tasks – the decision part. My twist on that concept is that I marry that idea with the ability to change the kind of dice you roll and then apply the entire push-your-luck concept on top of that. There are two types of dice – Movement and Casualty – and after all dice are rolled, one of each is assigned to an activated unit. This will tell you how far a unit can move and how many casualties it will suffer just from moving (i.e., representing the constant enemy “wall of fire”). 

Grant: How has the dice activation streamlined the game? Why does this work so well?

Hermann: The dice activation system not only tells you how you can move your units but also resolves the persistent enemy fire without needing the player to resolve a dozen separate combats. There are two categories of activation dice – Movement and Casualty. The Movement dice come in two types – Advance (green dice) and Infiltration (black dice) while the Casualty dice also come in two types – Friction (orange dice) and Suppression (red dice).

The Advance die allows normal movement results and is the default movement die unless the player opts to spend Command Points to upgrade one or more of these dice to Infiltration dice. The Infiltration dice represent the deployment of Stosstruppen, highly skilled and specially equipped assault troops, and as such these dice allow more movement. Because Command Points are a limited resource, the player must make that critical decision whether to spend those points to get the more efficient Infiltration dice.

The Friction die is assigned to a unit to represent the amount of enemy fire it is receiving and it is the default die unless the assigned unit has its Support marker (representing the supply trains and supporting local artillery) nearby. If the marker is with or adjacent to the activated unit, the player may automatically substitute the Suppression die for the Friction die. The Suppression die represents the tactical artillery (present with the Support marker) bombarding the enemy and thus suppressing the enemy troops and their defensive fire. The problem is that Support markers are hard to move and rarely are able to keep pace with their associated German unit.

Thus, the player is left with some interesting command decisions, even though a unit’s movement and vulnerability is randomly determined by a simple die roll.

Grant: What time pressure is felt by the player?

Hermann: Like all game designs that have any kind of push-your-luck aspect to them, time has to be of the essence. If there is no time pressure, there is no reason to push and take chances. In this game, each turn is half-a-month and the player must accomplish the German goals by the end of the 10^th Game Turn, which is the end of June, 1916. The Somme offensive starts at the beginning of July and this marks the point where the Germans must have achieved a victory at Verdun in order to compromise that offensive. The player will find that it is a long slog to capture the ring of French fortresses and get to the outskirts of Verdun in time. So, they will be compelled to push hard and take risks to get to the inner sanctum before the end of the game.

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

Hermann: The experience will hopefully be, as I said before, one of anxiety and fun all mixed into one package! And despite the random events and numerous dice rolls, there is a parade of tactical and strategic decision-making the player must navigate each and every turn. Just to list the toughest and most critical…

• Which Activation dice do you assign to which unit?
• In what order do you activate the units? This matters because you can maneuver your units to create flank attack benefits.
• How do you spend your limited Command Points?
• Where do you place your Bombardment and Big Bertha markers?
• How far do you push your combat units forward before you have to slow them down to allow the Support markers to catch up?
• Do I spend precious time to do a Reconnaissance before attacking?

Grant: How does the solitaire bot for the French function? How does the AI prioritize its decisions?

Hermann: The French bot works mostly through the Event Cards, though as stated before the French firepower is also inherent in the Casualty dice effect. The events are almost all based on things that actually happened or could have happened during the Battle of Verdun and though they won’t occur in exactly the same order chronologically, many are weighted to have different effects depending on the month in which the card is drawn. The French are always tenaciously defending, but the cards dictate when reinforcements arrive, the deployment of fighter aces, the bombarding of German units, the appearance of random patrols, and the launching of counterattacks. And the location of many of those counterattacks is often influenced by how much progress German units are making on their tracks… r in other words, how close they are to Verdun itself.

Grant: What is the flow of the game?

Hermann: Each Game Turn begins with the draw of an Event Card and this card can affect any position or area across the game board. The player determines if they receive any additional Command Points and then resolve a dogfight procedure to determine which side has Air Superiority this turn. Then the player conducts any desired Artillery Bombardment, placing such markers face down on French units. The player selects which of three sectors to activate – left, center, or right. Before activating units in each sector, another Event Card is drawn and often, its effects apply just to the chosen sector (but not always). Units of the chosen sector move and fight until all are Spent for the turn. Then another eligible sector is chosen, another Event Card is drawn, and its units move and fight until Spent. Once all units on the map are Spent, the player calculates any Victory Points earned, and resets for the next turn.

Grant: What are the Events that start a turn? What are some examples of these events?

Hermann: The Event Card that is drawn to start the turn (during the Initial Event Phase) is the same as the others – they all come from the same deck. But this first card may affect the game differently. If it does, it will say so right at the top of the card. So, for example, the “Shell Shock & Attrition” card is especially devastating if drawn as the Initial Event. If drawn at the start of a Sector activation, it requires the German units of that Sector (only) to each take an immediate Morale Test (which could result in their becoming Spent before they even get to activate). If this card is drawn during the Initial Event Phase, it affects all the German units on the game map and every unit must take an immediate Morale Test!

Grant: How are Command Points used? How are they earned?

Hermann: Command Points (CP) are the currency with which the player can do some really cool bonus actions or get gameplay benefits. Using CP to the best of your ability is a key to winning the game. The player gets 15 CP to start the game and then earns some more each turn, but fewer and fewer as the game progresses. This is an abstract way to simulate the breakdown of communications between German headquarters and the troops, as well as reflecting the degrading of confidence in the operation, especially by Crown Prince Wilhelm himself. Certain Event Cards also grant additional CP. Command Points are used throughout the game to do a number of special actions, including purchasing Infiltration dice, re-rolling combat dice, replacing losses, using Attack Momentum (see below), redeploying units, etc. All powerful tools when used at the right moment in the game.

Grant: What is the need for the dogfighting step? How does this play out?

Hermann: The Dogfight Step is a part of the Air Campaign Phase, which just generally reflects what is happening in the skies above the Verdun battlefield.

The Dogfight is a simple competitive dice roll, with the side who has Dogfight Advantage at the time (as listed on the Turn Record Track) getting to roll two dice and use the higher roll. The winner gets to bump the Air Superiority marker one box in their direction. Who has Air Superiority at any point in the game can affect some events, but most importantly for the player, if the Germans have Air Superiority, they have more Bombardment and Big Bertha markers available to use in the turn (simulating that the German Drachen – balloons – are free to fly to observe and guide artillery fire). Again, a simple thematic mechanic that reflects a complex issue.

Grant: How does heavy bombardment work?

Hermann: During the Heavy Artillery Bombardment Phase, the player deploys a certain number of Bombardment and/or Big Bertha markers onto the game map. At the very start of the game, there is a special step called the Trommelfeuer Step which allows the player to place 20 Bombardment and 5 Big Bertha markers around the map. This is to simulate the massive preliminary barrage the Germans conducted before the assault. During all the other game turns, the player gains a certain number of Bombardment Points, based on where the Air Superiority marker is located. Bombardment Points are spent to purchase Bombardment and Big Bertha markers to place face down on French units or into the special Voie Sacree (Sacred Way) area, which was the logistical lifeline for the French forces. The markers each have variable effects on their back sides, ranging from no effect to utter destruction. But these markers are randomized and the player does not know what effect applies to the targeted French units until a German unit enters their space for combat or the player takes the time to conduct a Reconnaissance action to reveal and apply the marker immediately. A Big Bertha marker placed in the Voie Sacree area can interdict that area and delay French supplies and reinforcements, which is enacted by nerfing certain Event Cards.

Grant: What is the layout of the board?

Hermann: The boards shows the entire area around the Verdun fortress complex. There are nine movement tracks and each track has a dedicated German unit and Support marker. Each of these tracks are made up of a series of eight spaces. Most spaces have a terrain feature associated with them – clear, forest, hills, fortress, or trench. There are also a number of landmark spaces that have special game effects (ex: Fort Douaumont). The tracks are also divided into three Sectors, each representing a major segment of the German army attack zone. The left Sector has only two tracks, the center Sector is the main attack zone with four tracks, and the right Sector has three tracks and is the left bank of the Meuse River, which was manned by the Bavarian Corps. Every German unit starts in its own trench area and must move up the track toward Verdun, encountering and hoping to defeat French units along the way.

Grant: What dangers are present for the advancing Germans?

Hermann: My goodness…there’s a myriad of dangers for the German player. The French can not only offer a stubborn defense of their trenches and forts, causing you casualties and loss of time, but they can also bombard your units and whittle them down from afar. Logistical considerations are numerous, as the player needs to carefully use the Command Points in the right spots and must have the Support markers keep a steady pace to support their associated German fighting units. The air war has to be won consistently to maximize artillery bombardment. The player is going to be severely curtailed by Event Cards and coping with those while also taking advantage of the few good Event Cards is essential. Finally, the most dangerous factor of all is the passing of time. The player only has ten turns to accomplish a lot and every minute lost during those ten turns can make all the difference between victory and defeat.

Grant: How does Fog of War work? Why was this important to include?

Hermann: Well, as with most of my games, I love dabbling with the three F’s of War…the Fog of War, the Friction of War, and the Fortunes of War. And this design has all those elements in it. The player of course has to deal with the uncertainty of the Activation dice rolls and the unknown of the combat dice rolls (see below). Along with that, the Event Cards are always throwing a new, unexpected wrench into the works. In fact, the player does not even know definitively how effective their artillery bombardment has been! On top of all that, French units are deployed face down and their exact strengths are not revealed until contact is made or until the player spends time to scout out the units with the Reconnaissance action. These are all important elements to include in the game because these are exactly the same challenges the German army and its commanders had to face at Verdun. And as with all games that lean on the historically-weighted chaos theory of design, having this level of Fog of War in a game design not only makes it more realistic, but it makes it a more fun game as well.

Grant: How does combat and losses work?

Hermann: Combat in this game is pretty straightforward. Each side in a combat totals up their SP and rolls a D10 which is added to their SP to get a Combat Score. The French get an extra die to roll (using the higher result) and/or additions to their Combat Score if located in certain terrain. The German units can get re-rolls and/or an extra die if they are using an Infiltration die for their activation, or spend a Command Point, or have a flanking unit. Some Event Cards can affect combat as well. Each side gets a total Combat Score and inflicts Hits on the opponent based on that score…the higher the score, the more casualties are inflicted. This yields interesting combat results as both units scoring high means huge casualties for both sides, regardless of who wins. Then the side with the higher score wins the combat, and the opponent must retreat. The actual difference in scores can affect units differently. For example, if a German unit wins a combat by only one point, it will hold the position as the winner but it will become Spent, meaning it is done for the turn! Too many of these kinds of wins can spell doom for the German player. A large margin win will allow the German unit to choose pursuing the enemy and continuing forward or consolidating and bringing its Support marker up one space. Tough choices!

Grant: What is the concept of Attack Momentum?

Hermann: Ah, that’s my sly little “gamey” mechanic for this design. I wanted to add another twist to the Activation dice assignment mechanic that also acts as a mitigation against bad luck – or in this case, technically a mitigation for good luck. So, the idea is that if the player assigns two good Activation dice to a unit, instead of having to re-roll those dice the next Game Turn, the player can instead spend a Command Point and keep those dice with that unit but must count down each die by one number. So, for example, if you assign a “6” Movement die and a “5” Casualty die for a unit, you could spend a CP and activate that unit again with a “5” Movement die and a “4” Casualty die (assuming the unit was not Spent during its first activation). So, good dice stay with the unit, but lose their potency over time. Historically, this simulates a commander seeing a unit performing well and then directing assets and leadership to that unit to exploit their superior performance.

Grant: How do you model German Command Efficiency?

Hermann: Well, in games where there is significant dice rolling, I do like to use the “doubles = something special” mechanic, because you know that the odds will produce a certain number of doubles rolls during the course of the game. As such, I like to make something special happen when they are rolled that the player can exploit, and in this game the use of a doubles Activation dice roll is actually more in the control of the player because the doubles can be “created”. What do I mean? For example, if you are rolling Activation dice for the right Sector (three tracks, so three German units), you’ll roll a total of six dice – three Movement dice (Advance and/or Infiltration) and three Casualty dice (Friction and/or Suppression). This creates a pool of dice results from which you will assign two dice per German unit – one Movement and one Casualty die for each. Thus, if you have two matching dice, you can grab those two and create a doubles result for that unit. An assigned doubles result triggers German Command Efficiency and it allows you some options for activating that unit. You have one of three options you can apply – increase the Movement result by one type (ex: change the result from Move 1 to Move 2); reduce the strength point loss from the Casualty die by one; or move the unit’s Support marker up one space. The chosen benefit is applied, along with the normal dice roll results, when the unit is activated. Again, a simple bonus to reflect the superior abilities of the German officer corps.

Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?

Hermann: I’m hoping that the game creates an intense gaming experience. One in which the player can exercise tactical and strategic options in an effort to carry out a particular plan, but coupled with the excitement of the unexpected challenges by – and sometimes, assistance from – the Gods of War. This should be a gaming experience of tough decisions and of taking calculated risks. And ultimately, I think this will inevitably come down to a nail biting ending.

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

Hermann: I’m really proud of the fact that I think I got almost every crucial element of simulating the early stages of the Battle of Verdun down to workable and accessible mechanics. The game’s core mechanics and use of historically-based Event Cards drives a narrative that draws the player directly into this era and into the drama of this particular battle. To be able to do that and still keep the game accessible and easily playable is, for me, the ultimate goal and I think A Hell So Terrible  achieves that goal.

Grant: What other designs are you working on?

Hermann: My, my… t’s a busy year for sure! Here we go:

1. They March Against Us: Leipzig 1813: This is the first game in the Bonaparte’s Sword Series, which will essentially be Napoleonic Blind Swords. Roger and Richard at Revolution Games are playtesting it right now and so far, so good. It should be available this year.
2. A Forlorn Hope: This game is Wharf Rat Games’ first published design and just finished a very successful crowdfunding campaign. We’re now working on getting it all finished up and designing the stretch goals that were achieved. This one is going to be a real beauty and I can’t wait until people actually get to play it.
3. Dawn of the Zeds: Designer Edition: Yes, Dawn of the Zeds is back and this is the newly redesigned version of the classic. I’ve updated the mechanics, especially the combat system. It will have the traditional map layout and characters of the previous three editions, but I’ve also added a ton of new stuff as well. This is published by Blue Panther and I think (hope) will be a huge hit.
4. A Primitive Madness: Antietam 1862: The third Black Swan Series game by Flying Pig Games will indeed cover the Battle of Antietam. This one will be a bit different, as the scale has changed to accommodate the smaller battlefield. This will have the same huge maps and elite production of the other games.
5. At Any Cost: Metz 1870: This game will be republished by Hexasim sometime this year. I am reviewing the original game and probably updating a chunk of mechanics to allow the game to play more smoothly and quickly. And it will have all new artwork.
6. Kill All Fermitians!: A republication of an older game (Volters Lead the Way!), this is going to be published by Flying Pig Games as a deluxe push-your-luck science fiction game. The new artwork with this one is amazing!
7. Nemto: A big, multiplayer, cooperative science fiction wargame that will be published by Nuts Publishing. This is going through all original artwork right now and even some professional background story telling to add to the game. It tells the story of human mercenary companies sent to an alien planet to lay claim to its powerful natural element – pinnaclium.
8. More Brains!:  Have you ever wanted to play as a zombie? Of course you have! Well, here’s your chance. Another new company, Jackl Games (run by Randy Lein from Legion Wargames) is going to publish this multiplayer game that I co-designed with Ryan Heilman. Each player controls a team of Alpha Zeds, zombies who are accumulating brain power and with each new brain, a new skill. Very different and very fun.

Thanks so much to Grant and Alex for allowing me to write about A Hell So Terrible! I hope gamers enjoy it. All the best! Hermann

As always it was a pleasure speaking with you Hermann. I am very excited about this one as it sounds very interesting and is a gaming subject that I have a great interest in as you mentioned. I am looking forward to our next opportunity to meet up and play some games!

If you are interested in A Hell So Terrible: Verdun 1916, you can pre-order a copy for $75.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1192-a-hell-so-terrible-verdun-1916.aspx

-Grant

A few years ago, Worthington Publishing released a new game called Dawn of Battle designed by Mike Nagel. The game was HUGE size wise containing dozens of playable historic scenarios. The game allows players to refight various historical battles from 1500 BC to 1500 AD or a range of 3,000 years of combat. Players take the roles of the great commanders of history, including Xerxes, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Saladin, and William Wallace. Since that time, Blue Panther has agreed to print the game in a new Designer’s Edition and also have added some new content to an already large amount of scenarios and counters. Recently they announced a new Scenario Pack Expansion, which includes MORE scenarios, called Dawn of Battle: Epic Combat! and well it appears to be pretty EPIC! We reached out to Mike to get some inside information about the expansion.

Grant: Mike welcome back to the blog. What is your new expansion Dawn of Battle: Epic Combat!?

Mike: I’m always happy to contribute. Thanks for the opportunity!

Dawn of Battle: Epic Combat! is the only true expansion for Dawn of Battle: Designer’s Edition. By that I mean that it comes with another map as well as more counters and terrain tiles. It’s likely the only expansion that the game is going to get as it fulfills the vision that I have for the game system. Beyond this, it’s all scenario packs…many, many scenario packs.

Grant: For those not familiar, what are the hallmarks of the Dawn of Battle Series?

Mike: Dawn of Battle is a game system of low to moderate complexity that allows players to recreate any battle from roughly 1500 BCE to 1500 CE, although I have strayed a bit further in both directions. As Alan Emrich described the game when he was helping me develop it, it covers everything from guts to gunpowder. The game was derived from my previous design Ancient Battles Deluxe (which Alan published with Victory Point Games). That game was inspired by the old Bill Banks game Ancients (published by Good Industries and 3W). While designing this latest iteration, I had several critical factors in mind. The first was accessibility. The game had to be relatively easy to get into in terms of rules density as well as setup time. The second was accuracy. Despite the scope of the game requiring a certain amount of abstraction, I still wanted to ensure that identifiably historical results could be achieved. The third was portability. The game, which is something of a “hobby in a box,” needed to be able to be pulled off a shelf and easily transported to a game club or convention. The fourth was relative affordability. Given the economic pressures of the day, I wanted to ensure that players really got their money’s worth. Finally, of course, the game has to be appealing and above all, fun to play. I believe I’ve nailed every factor with Dawn of Battle.

Grant: What do you hope to add to the series with the Epic Combat! Expansion?

Mike: One thing that Dawn of Battle cannot do out of the box are the massive battles you see teams of folks playing at conventions. It’s a 2-player game. The goal of Epic Combat! is to present both an option to play Dawn of Battle with up to eight players at a time, but also challenge two players to successfully fight out massive battles as well. Epic Combat! provides the components and structure to do that.

Grant: Why do you feel the system needs this addition?

Mike: A couple of reasons. First, and likely the most expected, is that an epic battles option is available for Richard Borg’s Command & Colors Series. Since Dawn of Battle is similar in scope and scale (but light years away in design and play), it makes sense to offer an option as well. The other reason is that the addition of additional units and terrain tiles allows for greater flexibility in scenario design for those who want to give their own favorite battles a whirl.

Grant: As a team focused game, how do teammates work together? What is the division of leadership between the players in this team approach?

Mike; Let’s assume a maximum load of four players per team. Three of the players are field commanders, represented on the map with their own leader unit. The fourth player acts as the commanding general. Each field commander gets his own action point during a turn to do with as he pleases. Any additional points are granted to the field commanders by the commanding general. The field commanders may not offer suggestions to other field commanders during play. The commanding general allow this, but at a cost.

Grant: What is the new map included in the expansion? What type of terrain is included?

Mike: The map is the same as the map in the base game. The two are mated along a short end to form the epic playing surface. If players ever wondered why one edge of the map had half-hexes rather than a pretty border, now you know. This was the plan from the outset. The terrain tiles are more of the same: woods, hills, rough, and enough rivers and streams to cross the entire length of two maps.

Grant: There are also additional counters. Are these more and different units or just more of those in the base game to create larger battles?

Mike: The counters are also more of the same, beefing up the inventory with a couple of twists. First is the addition of an ‘e’ indicator on each counter, which serves two purposes. One is to distinguish the expansion counters from those from the base game. The other is to allow these counters to be used in a different manner than their counterparts, according to a scenario special rule. Say a variety of Heavy Infantry that might be more mobile than other HI. This adds even more flexibility to scenario design. The second twist is the inclusion of several errata counters that correct misprints from the early printings.

Grant: What is the upgraded command system?

Mike: The command system is much the same, with action points being used to activate formations to perform specific tasks or enhance combat or die results. Where things differ a bit is in how command range works, since there are many more units spread over twice the area.

Grant: How are Command Cards used?

Mike: Command Cards are used by the commanding general. At the beginning of a battle, each commanding general can select a number of these cards to start with. The general is gambling on which cards might be the most useful. There is also a chance that additional cards may be acquired during play. Each card can be used for one of three purposes. The printed event can be used as noted, the card can be discarded as an extra action point, or it can be discarded as a “dispatch,” which allows play stop and players to confer (this is the only time field commanders can interact).

Grant: Can you share with us an example of these Command Cards and explain their layout and anatomy?

Mike: Pretty straightforward.

Grant: What are courageous heroes? How do they work?

Mike: Heroes are the solution to the real estate problem. With so many more units and space, how do you keep them under control? It seemed too clumsy to simply state that command radii were doubled. This made some leaders really strong while not making weaker leaders strong enough. What heroes do is extend a leader’s printed command radius so long as the hero is within that radius. Say a leader with a radius of 2 positions a hero two hexes away (still within the leader’s radius). The hero now inherits a command radius of 2, thus extending the leader’s radius out to 4 hexes. This allows leaders to manage much larger formations. A leader “spawns” a number of heroes equal to their command rating at the beginning of each turn. Heroes can also be used as individual leaders outside of a leader’s command, providing more flexibility of action during a turn.

Grant: Are these generic personas or based in history?

Grant: Like leaders, these are abstracted personalities. It’s up to the scenario background and the leader capabilities to dictate who’s who.

Grant: What epic-sized scenarios are included with this expansion?

Mike: There are 6 total epic-sized scanarios:

Qarqar, 853 BCE

Gaugamela, 331 BCE

Sentinum, 295 BCE

Raphia, 217 BCE

Pydna, 168 BCE

Pharsalus, 48 BCE

Grant: What errata corrections for cards and counters are included for the base game?

Mike: There are about a half dozen units (Light Infantry and Light Archers) that were improperly printed in the first several copies of the base game. Additionally there are about a half dozen cards that were reworded a bit for clarity, so not really errata per se, but still included. There is a chance that the replacement cards are not identical in size to the rest of the cards in the action deck, so unless the cards are sleeved, using them could be more trouble then they’re worth. Mileage may vary.

Grant: What do you feel the series models well?

Mike: I believe the series does a fantastic job at simulating ancient combat. From the clashing of shields to exploitation on the wings, it all works really well. It’s also a lot less luck-dependent than other ancient combat games. This is the game that ticks all of the proverbial boxes for me. That’s the best part of being a designer: making games I want to play!

Grant: What type of new experience does Epic Combat! create? What are you most pleased about with the expansion?

Mike: One of the things I noticed while designing and testing the expansion is that it provides even more of an (ahem) epic sweep to the battles by allowing the armies to spread out further. The heroes and Command Cards also really ramp up the command and control experience. Although I’ll mostly be sticking to standard scenario design going forward, when I want to really ramp things up and there’s space on my table, epic is a great time!

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

Mike: I’ve still got quite a few irons in the fire. Given its great success so far, I’ve started working on Off the Line, Volume II – Winter War that pits the Soviets against the Finns with some cool new features coming to the system. Of course, by the time this is posted, the fifth scenario pack for Dawn of Battle should be available (that’s 120 scenarios so far!). I’ve got a sci-fi skirmish game coming out soon called MASS Impact. Following that is a light dueling game called Have at You! All of these will be printed by Blue Panther. I also hope to have an ancient naval game called Navarchoi published by Legion Wargames soon(ish) and several Flying Colors games are on GMT’s pre-order list. Of course, I’ve also got several other projects on the design table, but more word on those later. I can’t give all my secrets away!

Now, back to the design table…thanks again for the opportunity to share.

Keep in mind that Dawn of Battle: Epic Combat! requires the base game of Dawn of Battle: Designer’s Edition to play, which is sold separately.

If you are interested in Dawn of Battle: Epic Combat!, you can order a copy for $50.00 from the Blue Panther website at the following link: https://www.bluepantherllc.com/products/dawn-of-battle-epic

-Grant

Quelle

Source

We became familiar with the work of Javier Romero when we played his game Lion of Judah: The War for Ethiopia, 1935-1941 from Compass Games in 2017. Since that time, we have done 6 designer interviews with him for World War Africa: The Congo 1998-2001 in Modern War No. 52 from Strategy & Tactics Press, Soviet Fallout: The Nagorno-Karabakh War: 1992-1994 in Modern War No. 54 from Strategy & Tactics Press, Santander ’37 from SNAFU Design, The Chaco War, 1932-1935 in World at War #86 from Decision Games, Caporetto: The Italian Front 1917–18 in Strategy & Tactics Magazine #337 from Decision Games and most recently Bosnian War 1992-1995 in Strategy & Tactics Magazine #351 from Decision Games. A few months ago, I saw where Javier was redesigning a formerly published game of his from World at War Magazine called Partizan! The War in Yugoslavia, 1941-1944 from a Chinese wargame publisher called Kilovolt Studio. I immediately reached out to him and he was more than willing to talk with us.

Grant: Javier welcome back to the blog. What historical period does your new game Partizan! cover?
What did you want the title to imply to the players?

Javier: Many thanks. Glad to be back.

Well, I wouldn’t call it a “new” design. A first version of Partizan! was published in World at War Magazine back in 2011. Partizan! is a simulation of the Guerrilla warfare in World War II, from the Axis invasion in the spring of 1941 to late 1944, when the Soviet forces entered the region and the guerrilla struggle ended in the south and east of the country, even though the war iWan Yugoslavia would go on until May 1945.

The title, of course, evokes the epic of the Partisan struggle, the foundational myth of the Communist Yugoslav regime of Josip Broz Tito, “Tito” is a prime example of “Sic Transit Glory Mundi” if there is one. Upon his death, in May 1980, Tito went from being idolized at home and hailed abroad as one of the most outstanding leaders of the 20^th century, to being reviled in his own country and all but forgotten abroad.

Grant: Who is publishing this new edition of the game?

Javier: Chinese editor Kilovolt Studio did this new edition.

Grant: How has the game changed from its original publication in 2011 in World at War Magazine?

Javier: It is a boxed version complete with upgraded graphics, a sturdier map and pre-rounded counters. The editor added errata, rules and counters that were left behind from the original version and later published as add-ons online and in later issues of World at War Magazine. Apart from that, the game is basically the same.

Grant: What was your inspiration for this game? Why did you feel drawn to the subject?

Javier: Well, that region of the world (let’s call it Southeastern Europe – “Balkans” can be found offensive by the locals for a number of reasons) is one of my pet subjects, so to speak. So far I have designed several games on WWII in Yugoslavia (Partizan!, Balkans ’44) as well as on the Yugoslav Wars of Independence in the 1990s, including War Returns to Europe: Yugoslavia 1991 and Bosnian War for Strategy & Tactics. As mentioned in earlier interviews, I have travelled extensively across former Yugoslavia and the neighboring countries and always had a great time there.

Grant: What was your design goal with the new edition?

Javier: The game mechanics basically remain the same, although the editor added an important element that was left out from the first edition, namely the Chetniks or Yugoslav royalists that played a key role in the war.

For the Chinese wargaming public, this subject has a particular interest as well because in the People’s Republic of China the Partisan epic (one of the ideological/propaganda foundations of Socialist Yugoslavia) was, and is, wildly popular so much so that the Chinese edition is called Walter’s War. “Walter’s War” refers to the 1972 Yugoslav film Walter Defends Sarajevo (Serb Croatian: Valter brani Sarajevo) based loosely on the military feats of Vladimir Peric, aka “Valter”, who defended Sarajevo during the German retreat from the southern Balkans in late 1944.

Walter’s War is one of the most famous examples of the “Partisan movies” subgenre, a series of films on the Partisan epic made in Yugoslavia between the 1960’s and the 1980’s. It was particularly popular in the Eastern bloc countries-on the year of its release, it was viewed by some 300 million people in the People’s Republic of China alone. Fifty years later, it is still something of a cult movie in China and other countries.

Grant: What type of research did you do to get the details correct? What one must read source would you recommend?

Javier: Thankfully, over the last 20 years quite a few books have been written on the Yugoslav War. This interest in guerrilla warfare was partly due to the use of historical models to understand modern insurgencies such as Iraq in the GWOT years.

Another historical player that began to receive long overdue attention were the Yugoslav Royalists, or Chetniks, that until the early 21^st century were almost forgotten or considered a footnote when compared with the Partisan epic of Tito and his guerrilla army. The military museum in Belgrade, Serbia reflects this perfectly. The first time I visited the military museum there were two floors, one dedicated to praise the feats of Tito and his partisan army, the other covering the rest, from Medieval times to the 1999 War against NATO. The second time I visited the museum, in the early years of the 21^st century, I found out that the “Partisan” area was closed for reforms, and all Communist era exhibitions were being replaced with exhibitions dedicated to Col. Draza Mihailovic and his Chetniks.

Grant: What from World War II in Yugoslavia was most important to model?

Javier: Simulating what was de facto a three player game (Partisans, Chetniks, Axis and local Allies).

The third player – the Chetnik – presents a major problem. Basically, they didn’t fight the Axis- their policy was to wait for the Western Allies to arrive while preparing for the final showdown against the Communists. On the other hand, while the Partisans had a central command, the Chetniks were a loose coalition of local leaders that followed orders when it suit them to do so, and often reached temporary agreements with the occupying forces to fight the Communist Partisans. Tito had mobile troops which could operate everywhere and hit the enemy targets without concern about the inevitable and brutal enemy reprisals. In fact, the reprisals ended up being a source of recruits for his Partisan army. Mihailovic’s units, however, were strictly territorial, and he could not control them. Most of them (especially the Chetnik units in Bosnia) recognized him only as an honorary leader, but only followed their orders when, and if they matched with their own priorities. So, in practice, the Chetniks are not a “player” in the game, but they can be mobilized by the two players (Axis and Partisans) depending on a number of circumstances.

Grant: What is the scale of the game?

Javier: Turns are quarterly (three months per turn, covering from mid 1941 to late 1944). So to speak, each turn condenses several major operations and smaller actions.

Grant: What different unit types does each side have access to?

Javier: Being a guerrilla war in the Balkans, the standard unit is leg infantry, of course. There are a handful of motorized/armored and cavalry units, but almost all units are infantry. There are air support markers and a Special Forces unit or two.

Grant: What is the anatomy of the counters?

Javier: Units have two basic factors: conventional and guerrilla combat. Guerillas, of course, are better at guerrilla combat, regular units are better at conventional Combat. There are two Combat Tables, guerrilla and conventional-which that is used depends on leadership, initiative and terrain. A guerrilla force fighting in forest or mountain hexes for example has a better chance of using the Guerrilla Table. A conventional unit fighting in a railroad or clear hex has better chance of using the conventional table.

Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play? What type of experience did you want the Sequence of Play to invoke?

Javier: In general, the Guerrilla player has the initiative, while the Axis player has to react. The turn begins with the guerrilla phase were the Partisan player determines resources receives and recruits/upgrades units. This is followed by the objective placement phase, where players deploy a number of targets on map representing intelligence on possible targets provided by their network of spies and other intel sources. Then the Guerilla player moves and attacks targets, and/or enemy units. After that the Axis action phase begins. Upon receiving reinforcements, the Axis player may attack guerilla units. However, catching guerrillas can be difficult-they can easily avoid being forced to fight in particular in forest areas.

The Axis player begins the game with large forces (Germans, Croatians, Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians) while the Partisan begins with a handful of odreds (detachments). However, as the play goes on, the Italians surrender and the Axis player is increasingly stretched thin. Besides, Bulgarians and Hungarians cannot move from their respective regions. The German and Croatian policies in Yugoslavia all but ensured that the population would join the Partisans.

Grant: What is the layout and area of Yugoslavia covered by the game map?

Javier: The map covers all of Yugoslavia and neighboring areas, from Slovenia to Macedonia and parts of Hungary, Albania and Bulgaria. The map contains all charts and tables needed to play.

Grant: What strategic pinch points does the terrain create?

Javier: Terrain is important, like in the systemic cousin Red Partisans (published by Paper Wars in 2025). Forest, mountains and swamps are the Partisan’s friend. Avoid flat terrain, and particularly railway hexes, that can be reinforced quickly. However, railroads are a major objective of the Partisans, so the Partisan player must strike a balance here.

Grant: What is your focus on Zones of Control in the game?

Javier: In general there are no Zones of Control. Zones of Control are exerted depending on the unit and terrain type. Regular units, for instance, do not exert ZOC on mountain or forest hexes for Partisan units.

Grant: What is the Guerrilla Political Phase? What does this represent from the history?

Javier: Basically, it represents the prestige of the Partisans among the local populace and abroad. If the guerilla player attacks at least one ground attack against an Axis ground unit, they roll for Tito’s Prestige. The higher the prestige, the more resources he can receive from the Western Allies. Tito’s prestige begins at box 1. When it reaches box 6, the Partisans can receive extra resources and the support of the Balkan Air Force (Allied bombers). When it reaches level 7, the Partisans can deploy and use a British Special Force unit, the 2^nd SAS.

This simulates the increasing prestige of the Partisan guerrillas among the Western Allies, who initially opted to provide support to the Monarchist forces of Col. Mihailovic. After the reports by the Deakin mission came from Yugoslavia in 1943, and thanks also to ULTRA intercepts, Tito began to be regarded as the only effective guerrilla movement fighting the Germans, while Mihailovic did nothing, or, even worse, reached agreements with the enemy occupiers to fight the partisans.

Grant: What is the Allied Landing Scare roll? What does this represent?

Javier: Several of the major Axis anti-partisan drives in Yugoslavia (Operations Schwarz, Weiss…) were launched with the objective of clearing the coastal areas from hostile guerrillas and prepare the defense of the Balkans against an expected Allied landing. Beginning with 1943, there were several “landing scares” that had all sides (Partisans, Chetniks, Axis) scrambling to occupy the best coastal positions before the arrival of the Western Allies.

For instance, in January 1943, fearing Allied landings in the Balkans, the Axis launched Operation Weiss (White), the largest anti-partisan drive to date, involving 90,000 troops, aimed at destroying Tito’s stronghold at Bihac. Tito planned to move back to Serbia and Eastern Bosnia to destroy the Chetnik forces there before they could join forces with the Western Allies.

Grant: What is the purpose of the Weapons Cache markers? How are they concealed in combat?
How does combat work?

Javier: Weapon Cache markers represent weapons sent by the Western Allies along with arms captured to the enemy, used to improve Partisan detachments into Partisan brigades and divisions.

Grant: What is the makeup of the Combat Results Table? What unique odds are represented and why?

Javier: There are two Combat Tables, guerrilla and conventional-which one is used depends on leadership, initiative and terrain. A guerrilla force fighting in forest or mountain hexes for example has better chances of using the Guerrilla Table. A conventional unit fighting in a railroad or clear hex has better chances of using the conventional table.

Grant: How do Replacements and Withdrawals work?

Javier: The Guerilla player collects replacements-the more territories they control, the more replacements received. Control of towns greatly increases recruitment, but guerrilla units are much more vulnerable in urban terrain. Axis reprisals increased the number of recruits. They also receive “weapons caches” that can be used during the game. They represent clandestine weapon factories, and, as the game goes on and Tito gains popularity among the Western Allies, they represent weapons shipments from the West. Certain game results yield weapons caches as well. These can be used to upgrade partisan units into Brigades and Divisions.

The Axis reinforcements and replacements work differently-They receive a fixed number of replacements per turn, with the exception of “Allied landing scare” turns, when they received extra replacement with which to launch anti partisan drives and clear the coastal areas of Partisans.

Grant: How are Artillery, Air and Naval Support handled?

Javier: There are no artillery units in the game. It is modeled into the regular brigades and divisions. There are only two air support markers that add or decrease odds shifts in attack or defense.

The Partisan army, of course, had no air support units, although they can receive the support of the Allied “Balkan Air Force”. The Axis has only one marker -Yugoslavia was very low on the priority list of the Luftwaffe. Naval Support is handled by the “Partisan navy” counter that provides an odd shift in attack or defense in combats in coastal hexes. The Partisan navy counter enters play after the Italian surrender.

Grant: How do players win the game?

Javier: The Partisan player can add Victory Points by blocking railway lines from resource centers (there are five on map) to Germany. This represents the disruption of resource exploitation in the Balkans. Another way to score Victory Points is to destroy objectives such as fuel depots, train stations or bridges, or rescue downed Allied pilots, determined prior to the turn by the objective table. During the Victory check phase of each turn, the Partisan player rolls 1D6 for each objective marker under their control and adds the corresponding modifier for that objective. Destroying a Dam, for instance, adds +3 to the die roll. The final result is the number of VP’s scored for that objective. Control of towns and cities at the end of a turn gives extra VP’s to the Partisan player. (Control of towns and cities, even temporary, allow Partisans to recruit extra manpower and liquidate collaborationists).

Finally, “Landing scare” turns allows the Partisan player to earn VP’s for controlling port towns and cities, from Bar in Montenegro to Zara/Zadar in Croatia. This simulates the chaotic fight that followed the Italian armistice of September 1943. The Italians controlled large parts of former Yugoslavia, and their surrender ignited a race to arrive first to the huge caches of arms and supplies in the Italian zone, in a free for all between Partisans, Germans and Chetniks. Tito was furious at the Allies for not warning him of the upcoming Italian surrender. Some of the Italian forces joined the Partisans against their former Croat-German allies. This is included in the game as well.

The Axis player must try to deny VP’s to the Partisan player, and make him pay dearly for every VP gained: each guerrilla ground unit eliminated deducts 10 VP. The Axis can also kill Tito. If Tito is eliminated, the Partisan player loses 2 VP’s at the start of each subsequent turn, and their prestige is reduced to 1, so they receive no more extra resources from the Western Allies. The Axis player can try an assassination attempt with the 500 SS Parachute Battalion that historically tried to kill or capture Tito in May 1944, in operation “Knight’s Move”.  

Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?

Javier: The game creates a cat-and-mouse experience, quite similar to the history, where the Axis launched constant anti-partisan drives but Tito and his Partisan army always escaped to fight another day, despite of suffering huge casualties. By the mid to late game, after the Italian surrender, the Partisans are too powerful and the Axis player lacks enough resources to launch mass offensives, thus remaining mostly on the defensive. It is now time for the Partisans to gain as much terrain as possible before the arrival of the Soviet forces in the Fall of 1944.

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

Javier: I think that the game gives a fair idea of what happened in Yugoslavia in 1941-44. It was an extremely complex situation, with many different national and political loyalties at play. The Axis conduct of the Balkan counterinsurgency was a case study of how not to wage a guerrilla war. Their policies, and in particular that of the Croat state, created the perfect conditions for the Communist movement to thrive and take over: they destroyed the existing authority, set the different nationalities against each other, but lacked sufficient strength and brute force to impose a different system. The final result was anarchy and an ideal situation for the triumph of a revolutionary war, which Tito exploited to the fullest.

Grant: What has been the response of playtesters?

Javier: As far as I know, many players really enjoy the Partisan hidden movement rules in Partizan! and found the cat-and-mouse game play quite engaging. They appreciate the combination of simple rules, short playtime, and asymmetrical game play, with a full game often completed in just one day. The scoring mechanism, which rewards destroying objectives, forces Partisan players to carefully consider their strategy—whether to focus on scoring points or increasing their forces. Axis players get a true feeling of frustration of counterinsurgency operations.

Facing an Axis player with a good memory can sometimes be challenging for the Partisan side. Partisans can counter this by swapping the positions of units within the same hex. Overall, the game offers a simple yet enjoyable take on Partisan warfare. Although some players find it a bit troublesome to place markers every turn, the Chinese edition includes tables and numbered markers to help the setup. Most players find the experience enjoyable.

Grant: What other designs are you working on?

Javier: Strategy & Tactics just published Pensacola 1779-82, and soon will be publishing Forgotten Front: Italy 1944-45. Curiously enough, in these games are featured both irregular and conventional forces. In Forgotten Front, for instance, guerrilla and counter guerilla operations play a key role as the ORBAT includes not only regular Axis and Allied divisions and brigades, but also Italian partisans and Fascist Italian counter guerrilla forces, such as the infamous Black Brigades. Pensacola 1779-82 includes irregulars, militias and Indian levies that are highly useful for recon, foraging and to harass enemy regular forces.

World at War will publish my design on the 1945 Burma campaign, where (again) guerrillas played a decisive but little known role.

I am currently working on a number of designs for Decision Games, Paper Wars and Banzai Magazine. I am currently working on the playtest and development of Aragón ’38 for SNAFU Design and Battle for the Mediterranean for VUCA. You can see here some spectacular previews of Battle for the Mediterranean by Pablo Bazerque here.

As always, thanks for your time Javier in answering our questions as I know you are a busy man and always have lots of interesting gaming subjects on your design table.

-Grant

» 02.05.2026 Interview: Bernd Eisenstein mit „Boardgames with B7“ (BGG – EN).

Gemeinsam schreiben macht Spaß: Auf dem kollaborativen Rollenspiel-Blog Kritischer Fehlschlag geben Spielleitungen seit 2024 Einblicke ins Schreiben von Abenteuern. Wir haben mit Sebastian Hahn, Gründer des Projekts, über die Entstehung des Blogs, die Rückmeldungen der Community und aktuell erschienene Abenteuer gesprochen.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von Andreas Schellenberg geschrieben

Folge 40 regt hoffentlich ein wenig zum Nachdenken an. Zumindest uns hat das Interview mit Cosima Werner ebenso die Antennen hochfahren lassen wie die Beschäftigung mit dem Spiel LIMIT von Alexandre Poyé (erschienen bei Ludonaute bzw. bei Spielworxx). Zusätzlich sprechen wir noch intensiver über SKYBRIDGE von Michael Rieneck und Franz Vohwinkel (erschienen bei Deep Print […]

Der Beitrag CfM040 Limitierte Brücken erschien zuerst auf fjelfras.de.

Form Square Games has recently offered their next several games on Gamefound, one in their Limits of Glory Series called Jersey New Jersey and the 2nd game a stand-alone non-series game covering the French & Indian War called A Strong War. I think that these games are well timed with this year being the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and I look forward to playing and exploring all of these games. I reached out to the designers of A Strong War named Mark and John Kwasny about an interview to give us a look inside the design and get more information and they were interested in answering our questions. One point about the game before we get into the interview, the title, A Strong War, refers to the type of war the Abenaki Nation threatened to unleash on the land-grabbing British in 1753. The sparks of war, ignited in 1754 near Fort Duquesne by an obscure colonel of Virginia militia, George Washington, spread quickly; soon, flames engulfed the entire globe as England and France vied for control of empire. Over the next 5 years, Regular regiments from the French and British armies, American and French-Canadian provincial units, and Native warriors all fought in a chaotic and violent series of campaigns and frontier raids that culminated in the British conquest of French Canada and the defeat of the Native Nations, most of which had sided with the French.

If you are interested in A Strong War: The Conflict for North America 1755-60, you can back the project on the Gamefound page at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/form-square-games/jersey-new-jersey–a-strong-war

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

Mark and John: First of all, thanks for inviting us to do this interview. We appreciate the interest in us and our game! I have watched many of your videos and learned a lot about different games that I have purchased or have considered buying.

We are both retired. John taught Middle School and High School history for 36 years and I taught American and Military history at the college level for 33 years. One hobby we share is playing wargames purely for fun! We have been wargaming since we first made our own game (60 odd years ago) out of a dozen decks of cards. John is an avid fisherman as well, we both read a lot, especially history, my wife and I do a lot of babysitting with our little grandchildren, and we share the unending quest for the perfect chocolate donut (we live 100’s of miles apart and whenever we can get together, we consume a generous amount of such donuts, trying different ones!).

Grant: What is your relationship to each other? How has this aided you in your design endeavor? 

Mark and John: We are brothers and share similar historical interests in military history (he has an MA in Military History, and I have a PhD in Military History). But when it comes to wargames, we have vastly different views on what we like and what works for us in a game. That helped us try to incorporate different styles of play into the design. And John’s pro-French leanings and my pro-British sentiments helped us with the pursuit of play balance!

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

Mark and John: About 15 years ago a person contacted us about making a game for a new game company he wanted to form. We chose the French and Indian War as the subject. Ultimately that fell through, but by then we had a game we really liked but it is a long game and thus was difficult to play a lot. We were both still working full time and had very limited gaming time. So we decided to boil it down to its essence – we wanted to make a game that gave the same feel for that war but was playable in a short time so we could actually play and complete it! (I don’t know about others, but the percentage of games I have played that I actually finished is not very high!) The key, we decided, was less resources and thus more tension for each decision. Our goal was simply to make a game we loved and could play together or with our other gaming friends. We already had all the research for the French and Indian War, so we took that earlier game and stripped it to its bones. We put ten years into this process of stripping it down: fewer rules, less units, to create more difficult decisions to use what little you have. The current version is the result of that decade of work.

Grant: What is your upcoming game A Strong War about? 

Mark and John: As mentioned, it covers the French and Indian War, focusing on the fighting in North America between 1755 and 1760. The game takes a grand strategic approach with the players directing the entire war effort of the two sides through those six years.  

Grant: What should the title convey about the French & Indian War? 

Mark and John: Between the title, and the quote it comes from, it indicated a war to the end between British expansion, Native American defense of their lands, and French efforts to maintain control of French Canada. Either the French and their allied Native warriors would stop British expansion or they would lose everything. And therefore it was a strong war, no holds barred!

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

Mark and John: Braddock’s Defeat has always been a subject of fascination for both of us. Childhood visits to Fort Michilimackinac, Old Fort Erie, Fort George, Presqu’ile, and other places around the eastern Great Lakes (we grew up in Cleveland and we traveled around the area back in the 1960’s), these sparked our imagination early on. The characters involved deepened this interest: Washington, Braddock, Pontiac, William Johnson, Montcalm, Langlade, St. Luc de la Corne, Robert Rogers. We have both read numerous books over the decades on the war and these people, and I studied it while in graduate school for my focus on 18^th Century and American warfare.

Grant: What is your design goal with the game? 

Mark and John: History is important to us, even in a small quick game such as this one. We wanted a good feel for the war and the overall situation, and we wanted a game that sets up quickly, plays quickly, with rules that we believe can be learned relatively easily without lots of charts and details. Also important to us are the types of decisions a player makes. We want those decisions to feel reasonably plausible for that war. Too many games play like WWII no matter their actual subject. We also wanted to be true to the geography of that area of North America – deep, unending forests, rivers and lakes, paths through the woods, limited avenues of approach to the other side, the feel of the constraints imposed by the geography had to be present. And finally, we wanted to create a game that we enjoyed playing over and over and over!

Grant: What elements do you feel are most important to model in a game set in the French & Indian War? 

Mark and John: We considered the key to the war were the limited movement opportunities and the limited resources available to both sides. We also wanted to show the contrast between the formal military campaigns of the regular armies, and the frontier style of raids and destruction by the partisan forces. The need to balance these two very different types of warfare and differing types of forces was key in our opinion.

Grant: What sources did you consult fur the historical details? What one must-read source would you recommend?

Mark and John: We would suggest two. First, we recommend Francis Parkman’s Montcalm and Wolfe, published in 1884. It has a wealth of information, including the use of sources no longer available. One has to be ready for the 19^th century prose, of course, which can help give a true feel for how people saw each other back then but can be difficult to read here in the 21^st century. The other book is Fred Anderson’s Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766, published in 2001. It is a comprehensive study of the war.

[Editor’s Note: I own and have read Montcalm and Wolfe and very much enjoyed the overall vantage point it gave of the war and its inner workings. I also very much enjoyed the ending of the book, including a very dramatic and detailed depiction of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and the fall of Quebec in 1759.]

Grant: What is the scale of the game? Force structure of units? 

Mark and John: The game is deliberately very abstract but the forces available are modeled on the relative strengths of each side. There are yearly turns with multiple activations during each turn/year. It is a game about the Grand Strategy of the war. The focus is on the overall command of the entire theater and the allocation of your limited resources to achieve one of several possible goals. Thus, the force structure is based mostly on what we defined as five different types of combat forces available to the two sides.

Grant: What different units are available to each side? What special capabilities does each type bring to the battlefield? 

Mark and John: The French player has French regular units, Canadian militia and Marine forces (referred to as Marines in the game), and frontier partisans representing Native warriors and the French Bush Rangers such as Charles Langlade. The British player has Colonial units and British regular units. Individually, each cube is equal to another cube, but the key is combining the proper types of units to maximize the bonuses in combat. For example, if a French Marine cube attacks a British Colonial cube, both sides roll a 4-sided die and high roll wins.  But if the French player has a Partisan cube with the Marine, he gets a +2 bonus to his roll. Meanwhile, the British player gets similar bonuses for massing his regulars in combat. Regulars do not fight as well on the frontier, making the French Marines and Partisans even more effective out there. The most numerous forces are the British Colonial units who offer no bonuses but are present in many of the battles. Colonial units can also be used to recruit extra regular units.

Grant: What is used to represent the soldiers in the game? Why was this your preferred medium? 

Mark and John: We use small wooden cubes. We like the feel and look of wooden cubes and the material feels appropriate for 18^th Century warfare. Since there are so few units, wooden cubes seemed the most aesthetically pleasing and easiest way to handle the game’s needs.

Grant: How many soldier pieces does each side have? Why so few? 

Mark and John: The French get three regular cubes, four Partisan cubes, and three Marine cubes, thus ten total. The British have nine Colonial cubes and four regular cubes, thus thirteen total. However, Colonial cubes can be converted into regular cubes at the risk of running out of Colonial cubes. We made it with as few units as possible so each decision on how to use each individual cube becomes critical and difficult. Overall, it gives the right feel of British army numerical superiority, the reliance of the French on their Canadian and partisan forces, and the important role of the British Colonials. Each cube is not meant to represent any specific number or specific units. It tries to represent the overall resources available to the commanders of each side.

Grant: What area of North America does the board cover? 

Mark and John: The board covers from Alexandria in Virginia to Québec and the St. Lawrence River valley in Canada, and from Louisbourg and the east coast to Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh) in the west. Thus, it covers the northeast corner of North America.

Grant: Why did you feel that point to point movement was the best choice for the design? What advantages does this give the game? 

Mark and John: More and more, we like the simpler feel of point-to-point movement. We have played many hex games but as we get older and less able to manipulate stacks of units in small hexes, we find point-to-point movement physically easier to play. It was also easier to represent the difficult terrain between the two sides, and the very limited avenues available to get at each other. In effect, there are three main land routes (through Duquesne, through Oswego, and along Lake Champlain) as well as the naval option for the British. Using hexes or even areas for so few actual paths between the two sides would have created a lot of dead space. This approach fit with our goal of limited resources, limited avenues of attack, and thus tougher decisions.

Grant: What is unique about the combat system? 

Mark and John: Players have very few units and thus have to use each one carefully. There are no real charts needed and though there is some luck, the players can mitigate it to a degree. This is perhaps one of the keys. You commit cubes one at a time in a battle and can call off an attack to save the remaining cubes for use later if the initial rounds of combat go badly. Perhaps the real unique aspect for us is the need to create combinations between which cubes you commit to a battle. And there are only so many combinations possible in a yearly turn, so you have to judge when to use the bigger combinations and when to cut and run. For example, the biggest combination for the French is a combined force of regulars, Marines, and Partisans. But in the first year, the French player has only one regular, so he can only use this super combo (as we always call it!) once in that year. Where does he want to commit this strong force? Does he prefer to defend a critical fort, or to raid the frontier to eliminate Colonial units, or to attack to secure control of a border location? These are the kinds of decisions we enjoy most in our combat system.

Grant: What type of strategy is needed with this focus? 

Mark and John: A very careful use of the very limited resources. All games have that to an extent, but with so few units, players have to hoard their units and use them sparingly. You have to look at the whole year (one turn). You can only use each cube once a year. Committing your best forces early might gain an initial advantage but could then leave you with nothing to defend or attack with later in the year. Each battle, each combat round, and each activation has to be weighed carefully with what needs you might have against an unexpected disaster or opportunity later in the year. 

Grant: How does the actual combat play out?

Mark and John: Perhaps an example is the best way to give a feel for combat. The British player declares an attack on a French fort at Oswego. He then commits three of his cubes (the maximum you can ever commit to one combat) to make the attack (two British regulars and one Colonial cube). Now the French player has to decide whether he wants to use precious resources to defend Oswego. It is not a home location, but it is next to two vital home locations, Fort Niagara and Fort Frontenac. He decides to defend with the maximum of three cubes as well (one regular, one Marine, and one Partisan). Round 1, the British player has to decide which cube to commit to the battle. He chooses one of his regulars. He could lead with the Colonial and save his regulars in case it goes badly early but leads with his power! The French player then decides which of his cubes to commit first and he starts with his Marines. Now both players roll the 4-sided die and the number rolled is the Strength gained from that cube for this combat. So if both players rolled a 3, then it is 3 to 3 after the first round. That is a tie and therefore if the combat is ended there, the defender wins ties. Instead, the British player commits his second regular and the French player decides to commit his Partisan. Both players again roll a die to determine what Strength they get for these newly committed cubes. In addition, the British player gets a +2 bonus to this roll because he has committed a second British regular. The French player gets +2 to his roll because he has two different types of cubes in this combat. The British player rolls 2 and adds his bonus to get a total of 4 Strength for this second committed cube. The French player rolls a 4 and adds his bonus to get a total of 6 Strength for this second committed cube. After two rounds, the British player has a total Strength of 7 and the French player has a total Strength of 9. If the combat ends now, the French player has a greater total Strength and would thus win. Still, the British player might at this point choose to call off the attack because he will not get any bonus for his remaining Colonial cube whereas the French player will get another bonus when he adds the regulars to the fight. The British player accepts defeat, saves the Colonial cube for use later in the year, the French player saves his regular cube, and the combat is ended.

Grant: Why did you choose to use a 4-sided die for combat? 

Mark and John: We wanted to have some randomness in combat so that it was not just a math game. But we wanted to avoid wild swings of results between high and low rolls. We experimented with 6-sided dice, 4-sided dice, 3-sided dice, and 2-sided dice. Ultimately after hundreds (literally) of games, we determined for us the 2- and 3-sided dice did not offer enough randomness and combat was almost reduced to mathematics. The 6-sided dice provided too wide a variance of results. A difference between a roll of six and a roll of one overshadowed any strategy or skill in using the combinations and bonuses. Thus, we settled on a die that I personally hate, the 4-sided die (the triangular shape is hard to pick up!), because it gave us the best feel for some randomness but still allowed players’ skill and strategy to have a large impact on the results as well. Form Square Games has brilliantly come up with a way to generate a result of 1 to 4 using an 8-sided die, and that resolves my hatred of our chosen dice!

Grant: I see that each player has several paths to victory. What does this look like?

Mark and John: The multiple paths to victory offer the players strategic choices during the game and between different games. But these paths are not always compatible with each other, and thus players have to choose which to pursue and if/when perhaps to switch to another approach. The British player has two main options, either go for points gained by capturing enough French home forts to win without having to conquer all of Canada, or if his losses on the frontier become too heavy or the French gain too many points in the border locations, he has the option to switch to an all-or-nothing conquest of Canada and ignore points. The French player can also win on points early on by attacking border locations, but he can instead choose to focus more on frontier raiding to eliminate Colonials and win through the destruction of the Colonial military. It is difficult, however, for the French player to do both. Thus, the competing needs of the different paths to victory create tension for each player when determining his strategy year by year and over the course of the entire war.

Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?

Mark and John: We wanted an experience that becomes so nerve-wracking that you might just forget to drink your newly opened beer. John did this in one of our test games and it became our litmus test for how good the game was or was not. He opened a beer, we sat down to play, it was one of the better nail-biting contests, and when it was over, he declared he needed another beer. He picked up the open bottle and it was still full! He had become so immersed in the game that he had completely forgotten about his beer. That is the kind of experience we hope people get by being drawn into the excitement of a tense, quick playing game of nerves.

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

Mark and John: First, we set out to create a game we enjoyed playing. Once we had done that, our next goal was for somebody else to play it and enjoy it. When Form Square Games expressed interest and said they had had others play it and respond favorably, we were ecstatic. Having them publish our game is the ultimate goal we had pursued for years. For the game itself, as mentioned above, we wanted a game that is quick to setup and play (a typical game lasts an hour or so and can be set up for a rematch in a couple minutes), and that creates tension and tough but meaningful decisions. We have played this game to completion more than any other game we have played, and still look forward to playing it again!

Grant: What other designs are you working on? 

Mark and John: We have tinkered with the idea of using this system to create a game covering the American Revolutionary War.  We think it would work pretty well but we have not gone very far with that.  We have also designed and played a game on the Battle of Ligny in 1815, which we enjoy but it is not fully finished or tested either.  We want to represent aspects of tactical combat that we have not seen in other games and have had some good results.  But ultimately, these two were designed again for our own enjoyment and we have not put in the serious work yet required to transform them into publishable games.

If you are interested in A Strong War: The Conflict for North America 1755-60, you can back the project on the Gamefound page at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/form-square-games/jersey-new-jersey–a-strong-war

-Grant

A few years ago, we became acquainted with Andrew Rourke through his Coalitions design from PHALANX that went on to a successful crowdfunding campaign and has recently been delivered. He has since been a busy guy with starting his own publishing company called Form Square Games and also publishing the first 5 designs in a new series called Limits of Glory that will take a look at the campaigns of Napoleon and other contemporary conflicts. In Campaign I, which is called Bonaparte’s Eastern Empire, the game is focused on the campaign of the French in Egypt between 1798 and 1801. Campaigns II, III and IV was Maida 1806 and Santa Maura & Capri. Campaign V was Donning the Sacred Heart, which covers the Vendee Civil War, and just recently fulfilled as I have my copy sitting on my gaming table awaiting an unboxing video.

And now, recently, Form Square Games has announced the next entry in the series which is a two-fer with Campaigns VI and VII called Jersey New Jersey and is set during the American Revolutionary War but also including a 2nd game called A Strong War set during the French & Indian War. I think that these games are well timed with this year being the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and I look forward to playing and exploring both of these games. I reached out to the designer of Jersey who is Peregrine Nicholls about an interview to give us a look inside the design and get more information and he was interested in answering our questions.

If you are interested in Jersey, you can back the project on the Gamefound page at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/form-square-games/jersey-new-jersey–a-strong-war

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

Peregrine: I have been a wargamer ever since my Dad came home with a 1912 1^st edition of Little Wars by H G Wells, when I was 8. I have very fond memories of us playing toy soldiers on the floor using these rules and firing matchsticks at each other’s troops from toy artillery pieces. I still have the book and even recently bought a Britains 25pdr gun on eBay to add to my display shelf! Wargaming ballooned from there and today 50 years later I have almost 25,000 miniatures and over 400 board games! 

Apart from reading (mainly history books or historically based novels), my main other hobby is following my beloved Leeds United, an English football team, whom I always watch on TV and also manage to get to 4-5 homes fixtures per year – a 500 mile round trip from where I live now in south west England.

My day job is working in the family property business, where with my wife & son we buy, sell, manage and develop property. 

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

Peregrine: Andy, that is Andy Rourke of Form Square Games. I was being shown one of his games at a convention and after he had soundly beaten me, we had a beer and I told him about a game idea that had been sitting in my filing cabinet for almost 40 years! After boring him to death for 20 minutes, he said “I’ll publish that!” – at which point I was speechless! But two years later now here we are, at the Gamefound funding stage!

The most enjoyable part of the process has been rediscovering the history. A lot of reading was needed and now having the internet as a tool, (when previous work on the topic was pre-word processing software!), was a massive advantage and led me down countless rabbit holes of historical threads and narratives.

Grant: What is your upcoming game Limits of Glory Campaign VI: Jersey about?

Peregrine: I am responsible for the Jersey game, not the New Jersey game, which is Andy’s baby. 

The Isle of Jersey is the biggest of a small group of islands just off the coast of France in the English Channel.  When William the Conqueror (as Duke of Normandy, of which Jersey was a part) invaded England in 1066 the Channel Island become part of the English crown. When Bad King John (he of Robin Hood fame) lost Normandy to the French in the early 1200’s, the Channel Islands decided to remain English and they have been ever since – they are now self-governing British Crown Dependencies.

The French did try to capture them during medieval times, but it was half-hearted as the islands really had no particular value at that time. This changed when England and France became constant enemies in the early 1700’s as by then Jersey had quite a merchant fleet (because of its trade with its colony New Jersey) and like all merchantmen when war came, privateering beckoned. 

Jersey then became a real thorn in the French side, massively disrupting French coastal trade; after the first year of the American War of Independence the Jersey fleet had captured and brought back to the island over 200 “prizes”. This is what led the French to the two invasion attempts; the 1779 aborted landing and the 1781 successful landing. 

The game covers both these actions, with the 1779 scenario allowing a campaign to develop as if the French had actually landed and the 1781 scenario allowing the player to recreate the actual very brief campaign to see if they get the same or a different outcome.

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

Peregrine: That’s easy – I grew up in Jersey! The Battle of Jersey was something we learned about, although since I left the island in the early 1980’s its anniversary has been elevated locally to include uniformed re-enactors in the town square and all the trimmings!

Grant: What is your design goal with the game?

Peregrine: To give the player an enjoyable game on a topic about which 99.9% of them will know nothing! That is one of the things I love about our hobby, discovering history, stories, narratives and personalities from military history about which one would have been ignorant, without our hobby.

Grant: How have you modified the Limits of Glory System to fit the American Revolutionary War?

Peregrine: I have not really had to change anything about the series. Andy and I have added lots of small flavor elements, but fundamentally the game will be very familiar to anyone who has played other games in the system.

Grant: How has designing a game in a tested and established system been? How constrained did you feel?

Peregrine: A little, but not hugely, as Limits of Glory is after all a very clever and innovative system, particularly the Event Clock and the Glory concept – so there was lots to work with.

Grant: What elements do you feel is most important to model in a game set in the American Revolutionary War?

Peregrine: The Jersey game really doesn’t have the feel of the AWI, in the sense that it is set in Europe, without all the quirks (terrain, native Americans, divided loyalties, etc.), that the fighting in America involves. It was coincidental really that the French decided to attack Jersey during the AWI, it could have easily been in a period during say the War of the Austrian Succession or the Seven Years War – or in the French Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars that followed.

We have included John Paul Jones though – so there is an American link!

Grant: What sources did you consult for the historical details? What one must-read source would you recommend?

Peregrine: Lots of sources. The Societe Jersiaise was most helpful with access to the online resources, some of the contemporary documents were brilliant. 

For example, we found a set of standing orders (in Jersey French – a local Normandy dialect) issued by the Colonel of a Jersey Militia regiment, specifying what his men were to bring to the muster point (the parish church) at that time when invasion alert was sounded. Once I had found a connection in Jersey, through an old school friend, who could translate it for us, (although there were a few words in the old copperplate hand writing that alluded us), we had a real flavor for the situation and it even led us to introduce a special rule into the game for 1779 – “harrows” – but you’ll have to buy the game to find out what they are and how they can be used by a player to frustrate his opponent!

One “must read” source? The Battle of Jersey by Richard Mayne, Phillimore Press 1981. There are still second-hand copies floating around on the web bookstores.

Grant: What was it about the French invasion of the Island of Jersey that made you believe the Limits of Glory System would work well modelling the campaign?

Peregrine: The Limits of Glory System is a very open one in campaign terms so fitting Jersey into its strategic mechanics was actually very easy.

Grant: What different units are represented in the game and what advantages do they bring to the battlefield?

Peregrine: In Jersey there are only four types – British Regulars, Jersey Militia, French Nassau Legion infantry and French Royal Regular infantry. There is also some light artillery floating about as well.

The troops were all of a similar standard, although the Legion was an inferior unit, represented by their stats on the Combat table.

We did of course incorporate contemporary doctrine, so you will find that a Jersey Militia officer cannot issue command to British Regular forces – “After all Sir, the cheek of the fellow!”.

Grant: What challenges does this campaign bring to the system? How did you address them?

Peregrine: Great question.  There were several:

Tides – how were we to represent that Jersey has one of the most difficult tidal systems in the world (it’s tide range is in the top 5 on the planet), and it frustrated the 1779 attempt to invade and had an affect in 1781 also.

Alarm – in 1781, the island was asleep when the French landed, so we had to bring in rules for how the alarm would be sounded, spread, and how local troops would muster, etc.

Hopefully players will feel we have successfully dealt with these issues, with some simple and innovative mechanics.

Grant: What area does the map cover? Who is the artist and how does their style assist in creating theme and immersion?

Peregrine: It covers the whole island. Jersey is not a big place, approximately 45 square miles, so this was not difficult. We also have a separate “break-out” map showing key locations in the capital, St Helier, which will be the focus of the fighting in 1781.

The artist is from 1795! We were lucky that a contemporary map – The Richmond Map – has been digitized by the Societe Jeriaise and is available through their web portal, so were able to use that. Andy worked his usual graphic magic to clean up the color and tones and we are really pleased with the result. Little details like the fact that we have put the parish crest by the church for each of the 12 Jersey parishes (very important in the cultural & contemporary heritage of the island), is very pleasing and really adds to the period feel.

Also, the picture on the box cover and superimposed behind the map & the player aids is contemporary too – being the painting The Death of Major Pierson by John Singleton Copley which was created in 1782-3 and now hangs in the Tate Britain gallery in London.

Grant: What purpose do the various numbers appearing in each space on the board serve?

Peregrine: These are “difficulty” ratings – the lower the number the more difficult it is going to be to move your forces out of an area. You will notice that the Jersey map has some land and sea spaces that are rated “0” – we built some special rules in for those!

Grant: For those that are not familiar, what is a Glory Rating? What role does it play in the game?

Peregrine: It is a major part of all the Limits of Glory Series games – every Leader has a glory rating. It represents the ability, resources, luck and circumstance of each Leader and is used by them to mitigate failures or to turn success into better success. It becomes intuitive to use after a few game turns.

Grant: What was the process like assigning these ratings to the commanders on both sides?

Peregrine: Fun and difficult! Glory must be set to be playable as well as accurate, so we tinkered and play tested until it felt right.

Grant: What Commanders are included for each side? Are there any real interesting personas here?

Peregrine: Lots – I’m not quite sure where to start, so I’ll give you a few from 1781.

Major Pierson – the British hero, who has a St, Helier street and a pub named after him. At 24, he was young for a Major and because the two Colonels on the island were in England on Christmas leave when the French landed (12^th night, 6 January, 1781), he found himself the most senior British officer on the island. He defied a written instruction to surrender his troops from the Governor of the Island (who had been captured by the French), mustered his men and some militia, assaulted St Helier, won, and was killed at the climatic moment of the final assault! Hollywood where are you!

Baron de Rullecourt – the French commander in 1781, who had been the 2IC for the 1779 expedition also. Not a Baron at all, but rather a clever charleton & adventurer who had ingratiated himself in the right circles and persuaded these people to let him command the invasion and had secured a promise he would become the new Governor on the island if successful. A good planner, he pulled off the daring night landing and marched to the capital without detection, capturing the governor in his nightgown! At this point though success went to his head and he assumed all the Jersey & British forces would just surrender as ordered – they didn’t! He was also killed in the climatic battle, at about the same instant as Major Pierson. Some very interesting artifacts were found in his travelling trunk after the battle – I’ll leave the reader hanging here!

Emir Said – a mysterious Indian Muslim “prince”. He accompanied De Rullecourt, dressed in full flowing Arab style dress, turban, the “works”, including a nasty looking large scimitar on his belt. He stood behind De Rullecourt making unintelligent but threatening noises during the surrender negotiations. We have brought him into the game as an NPC – he is fun and unpredictable!

John Paul Jones – a single source identifies the AWI hero as the commander of the naval flotilla for 1781, (following his success at the Battle of Flamborough Head), so of course we had to include the “Father of the American Navy” in the game!

Grant: What is the makeup of the Combat Table?

Peregrine: It is pretty standard for the Limits of Glory System with different troop types (British Regulars, Jersey Militia, Nassau Legion & French Regulars) being given different abilities and success ratings.

Grant: How does combat work in the design?

Peregrine: Again, pretty standard for the Limits of Glory System – although that said there may be some slight changes to reflect the continual nature of the running fights, in what is a truly small campaign in terms of time span.

The big change for Jersey is that there are no sieges. The time span of the campaign is tiny where compared to other games in the system. The actual 1781 campaign lasted less than 1 day; and had 1779 resulted in a landing, 1-2 days would have brought the campaign to a conclusion. That doesn’t mean there are not castles & forts in the game however – we just have a different way of them possibly being captured!

Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?

Peregrine: If the player has played any Limits of Glory Series game they will be right at home. 

Each turn starts with an event, followed by momentum rolls, followed by alternate turns for the players to move or initiate combat, until both players run out of momentum.

Grant: What multiple strategic decisions are presented to the player every turn in this campaign?

Peregrine: Like all Limits of Glory Series games the player must focus in on the objective and get cracking with their plan or they will run out of time. 

Who do I move? Where do I move them to? Can I risk it? Have I got the Glory to mitigate a failure? Where do I muster forces? Do I go and attack the French now, or do I wait until I can rouse more militia out of their beds?

Decisions, decisions, decisions!

Grant: How is victory achieved?

Peregrine: In 1781 the key to the whole game is Royal Square in the center of St Helier (this is where the real climatic battle took place) and whoever holds this location when the time clock runs out, wins. 

In 1779 taking overall control of the island is the objective for the French and denying this to them is the Jersey players goal.

Grant: What are some basic strategies for the French and the British players?

Peregrine: That is probably too detailed to go into here, but Andy has promised that I can have multiple pages in the rulebook to walk players thorough some basic ideas for strategies for both games.

In essence though the French must successfully negotiate the tides & coastline to get their force ashore in a concentrated way and then either push for St Helier with the Governor & Royal Square as their prizes in 1781; or spread across the island capturing & holding militia mustering points & forts, whilst also beating the resident troops in battle in 1779.

For the Jersey player it is all about getting your troops mustered and then into strong enough groups to deny the French their objectives – in the words of Wellington, “give them a damned good thrashing!”

Both sides have equal chances of winning the game and with the fluid nature of the Limits of Glory System, replayability is high.

Grant: What type of an experience does the game create?

Peregrine: Tense, with an increase in this tension as the game proceeds – and hopefully fun! This has certainly been the experience of the scores of play testers we have played it with.

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

Peregrine: All of it! The idea to bring a game about my childhood home to market has sat in my filing cabinet for almost 40 years, so brushing the dust off and making it a reality has been a dream come true for me. To think that the history of this obscure, globally unimportant, battle will be available to a wider audience is fabulous, as it has a fascinating and vibrant narrative with great characters and heroes that deserves to be better known.

I particularly love the map and the use of the John Copley painting in the game also, as a copy of this painting has hung in my home for as long as I can remember.

Grant: What other designs are you working on?

Peregrine: Wow, give me a chance! Just working on this one has been a major task! Let the dust settle on Jersey New Jersey and I’ll cogitate from there!

If you are interested in Jersey, you can back the project on the Gamefound page at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/form-square-games/jersey-new-jersey–a-strong-war

-Grant

A few years ago, I played and very much enjoyed a cool little solitaire WWII card-driven game called Campaign: Fall Blau from Catastrophe Games and designer Martin Melbardis where the player attempted to breach the Soviet defenses on the East Front in the pivotal German summer campaign of 1942. The game system is very playable and simple, but has some strategic depth to it as the player has to make a lot of choices about what to go after, how to manage their scarce resources (fuel) and what generals to use to take advantage of their special abilities to amass enough VP to claim victory over the Soviet Union. They now have the counter punch of that game in a new entry in the series called Campaign: Operation Bagration and it is currently being offered on Kickstarter.

If you are interested in Campaign: Operation Bagration, you can back the project on the Kickstarter page at the following link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/campaign-fall-blau/campaign-bagration

Grant: Welcome back to the blog Martin. What is your current game Campaign: Operation Bagration?

Martin: Thanks for having me back! Campaign: Operation Bagration is the long-awaited successor to my very first published game, Campaign: Fall Blau and tells the story of the Soviet offensive in 1944 to take back the occupied center of Russia gained by the Germans during Operation Barbarossa and is based on the successful Campaign: Fall Blau game system.

Grant: What was your design goal with the game?

Martin: My design goal for Campaign: Operation Bagration was to switch perspectives to the Soviet side using my tried-and-tested Campaign Game System. I wanted players to take command of the Soviets during one of the most devastating offensives of the war….Operation Bagration, which tore through German Army Group Center in 1944. From a design standpoint, I found it very rewarding to adapt new game mechanics and ideas to fit this pivotal WWII Campaign on the Eastern Front, while keeping the core of the system intact.

Grant: What are the hallmarks of this solitaire Campaign Series?

Martin: I’d say a minimalist approach to wargaming. Very streamlined, using only cards, dice, and cubes, with a 6–7 page rulebook. These are light solitaire wargames designed to be fast and furious with no extra fat or bloat, especially when compared to more traditional hex-and-counter wargames that can take hours to play.

Grant: As a follow up to Campaign: Fall Blau, what do you believe you have improved in the gaming experience?

Martin: While the system as a whole is more or less exactly the same as Fall Blau, I injected some new ideas into the experience to better reflect the historical realities of this campaign. The core game, such as defeating Campaign Cards, the Order system and how Generals work, will remain familiar to players of Fall Blau, but the feel is distinctly different. 

Grant: What elements from Operation Bagration did you need to model in the design?

Martin: Operation Bagration was a completely different beast to tackle than Fall Blau. In addition to taking control of the Soviet army this time around, the mountainous regions of the Caucasus region have been replaced with the swamps of Belorussia and Poland. You’re also facing a much weaker and mostly static German Army Group Center, desperately trying to rebuild a frontline and stop the Soviet advance from swarming into their rear echelons. This is represented by the new “Rebuild Frontlines” rule, which replaces the old “Local Counter-Attacks” rule from Fall Blau. In Bagration, counter-attacks are now only triggered by Event Cards representing Panzer Divisions trying to blunt the Soviet offensive. In fact, the entire Event Deck has been changed to reflect the research I did on Operation Bagration with all sorts of cool ideas popping up on how to reflect the history, units and tactics of this Campaign.

Grant: As a solitaire game, what type of experience does the game create? 

Martin: The game system prides itself on being fast, easy to learn but hard to master. It creates a very similar experience to Fall Blau such as tough decisions weighing the player down each turn on how to best use your limited Orders and finding the right balance between Attacking, Advancing, or stopping for Logistics to catch up. 

Grant: What is the goal of the player?  

Martin: The goal is to capture enough Campaign Cards before the game ends and earn enough Victory Points from those Campaign Cards to reach the victory or even the Brilliant Victory threshold.

Grant: How does the player go about choosing and managing their Generals? 

Martin: Each game starts with the player choosing three Soviet Generals. All of these generals are historically accurate, with options such as Bagramyan, Konev, Rokossovsky, and a few others. Each General has the generic “Hero of the Soviet Union” special ability plus one unique ability. Additionally, each General leads a certain type of army: either a Tank army or a regular Infantry army. Tank armies have fewer manpower cubes but benefit from added mobility, which helps them bring more Campaign Cards to the frontline when using the Advance Order. Infantry armies, on the other hand, have more “meat” and thus more manpower cubes to absorb losses. Each General also has a set number of cubes representing their starting strength in manpower and available forces. Managing your Generals comes down to picking a balanced mixture and using each general’s individual strengths (number of cubes and abilities) to maximum effect.

Grant: What unique abilities do the different Generals possess? 

Martin: As mentioned, each General has the “Hero of the Soviet Union” special ability, which allows you to discard a red cube to re-roll a single die. This represents the Soviet ability to historically take massive casualties and still push on. On top of that, each General also has a unique ability reflecting their historical traits. For example, General Bagramyan is an offensive-minded General, while Rokossovsky was known to always plan two steps ahead and this is represented by his ability to draw extra cards from the Event Deck.

Grant: What type of events does the Event Deck contain? 

Martin: In addition to the Campaign Cards, the Event Deck is really where the historical aspects of the Bagration Campaign really come to life. I made sure to only include Soviet and German units and tactics that were instrumental to the Bagration campaign. The Event Deck contains mostly cards that help you during the game, such as attached Soviet units like the 3rd Guards Cavalry Corps, which can help you exploit the flanks of the German frontline by removing adjacent defenses, or the 4th Tank Army, which grants extra attack dice when attacking a Campaign Card. These cards not only add flavor to the game but also a strong sense of historical flavor.

Grant: What are the different type of German effects included in the Event Deck? 

Martin: The Event Deck also contains cards that hurt the player, such as German Panzer divisions that trigger a counter-attack when drawn, or German reinforcement cards that add additional German cubes to active Campaign Cards on the frontlines. In addition, things like German bombers or bad weather can and will slow your progress.

Grant: What Actions/Orders are available to the player?  

Martin: There are three available Orders each turn, and you may perform one per General. The Advance Order (costs 1 supply) brings unlocked Campaign Cards to the frontline. Once a card is on the frontline, an Attack Order (also costs supplies) can be used to attack and remove any cubes (representing German formations or defenses) on that card in order to capture it and gain the VP listed on the card. Finally, the Logistics Order adds supplies and reinforces a General with a cube to replace losses.

Grant: How do they manage their Supplies? How can they obtain additional fuel? 

Martin: As mentioned, each Advance and Attack Order costs supplies, and the Logistics Order replenishes supplies as well as lost manpower cubes from attacking. Finding the right balance and knowing when to rest using a Logistics Order instead of Attacking or Advancing is very important. However, resting too long will slow your progress, as the clock is always counting down. A General who uses the Logistics Order adds two supplies to your shared supply pool and adds a single manpower cube to their card.

Grant: How do they manage to defeat the various Campaign Cards? 

Martin: After using the Advance Order to bring an unlocked Campaign Card to the frontline in front of a General’s Card, that Campaign Card then immediately deploys a number of grey cubes (listed on the card) onto itself. The card is now available to be attacked using the Attack Order. When you attack, you pay supplies then calculate the number of cubes on the attacking General’s Card and roll that many dice. You need rolls of 4+ to remove a single white (defense) or grey (German units) cube from the Campaign Card. Some Campaign Cards such as fortress cities (Festerplatz) or swamps reduce the attack dice by -1. Rolls of 1–2 result in your General losing a manpower cube (red cube). Once all German cubes are removed from the Campaign Card, it is considered captured and removed from the frontline, and you gain the Victory Points listed on the card. Capturing Campaign Cards also unlocks additional Campaign Cards.

Grant: How do the German forces fight back? 

Martin: This time around, the Germans are much more static than in Fall Blau, which better reflects the historical situation in 1944. While you may still lose manpower cubes through bad rolls on Attack Orders, counter-attacks are now only triggered through Event Cards. A Panzer Division drawn as an event will immediately counter-attack by deploying to the frontline and attacking the General directly in front of it. There’s also the Operation Doppelkopf Event Card, which is placed near the end of the Event Deck during setup and represents a large German offensive action late in Operation Bagration, designed to blunt Soviet momentum.

Grant: What strategy should the player use to do well? 

Martin: Pick a good, balanced mixture of Generals and learn when to attack versus when to build up supplies and manpower through the Logistics Order. Using Generals with Tank Army abilities to bring multiple Campaign Cards to the frontlines helps a lot but too many Tank Generals will lower your overall manpower total. Also, optimize your use of Event Cards to either prioritize Attacks or to regain manpower cubes. Overall, calculated risk management is the single most important factor in the game.

Grant: What different options are built in to make the game more of a challenge?  

Martin: The game is already pretty challenging, but we are also currently planning on developing a Hard-Mode for the Kickstarter that adds 4–5 additional very difficult Event Cards to the deck for those players who love challenges or are even simply masochists.

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

Martin: I’m pleased with the way I’ve adapted the old Fall Blau Game System to incorporate new game mechanics and Events to reflect the different historical aspects of Bagrations’ unique Campaign. Such things such as the German’s use of blocking detachments to try to stop the Soviet steamroller with whatever they could (represented by the rebuilding the frontline mechanic), and the use of Festerplatze or Fortress cities in Belorussia to hold at all cost. Added to this is the liberal use of Soviet tactics such as mine sweeping tanks, the massive God of War bombardment to signal the start of Bagration, Maskirovka deception techniques and American lend-lease trucks to help the Offensive are all well-represented in the game through the Event Deck.

Grant: What has been the response of playtesters? 

Martin: Early on, I got some great and positive responses from playtesters when I initially designed the game. Later, I handed off playtesting and development to Catastrophe Games, who further developed the game and ran additional playtests. I’ve heard good things from them as well.

Grant: What other historical campaigns might the series delve into?

Martin: Next up, I am planning to adapt the series to either the North African or the Pacific Theaters in WWII. I also strangely find that representing the Japanese early-war successes against the Allies in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Singapore a very interesting twist and is a subject rarely touched upon in wargaming. This could also be a good option in the future but who really knows where my creativity can take me? 

Grant: What other designs are you currently working on? 

Martin: As always, I am continuing to design lighter Print & Play wargames with my own independent company, Solo Wargame. I usually release a new wargame every two months or so on Kickstarter and want to continue that trend with a WWII wargame about commanding a Soviet battalion during the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. I also plan to release a new version of my continuing series on WW2 Roll & Write games, this time focusing on the Torch landings in North Africa in 1942–43 with new ideas about convoy interdiction, diplomacy with the Vichy government and eventually pushing the Germans all the way to Tunisia. Like most other creatives, I honestly have way too many ideas and too little time!

Thanks so much once again for having me on! 

If you are interested in learning more about the Campaign Series and how it works, you can watch my preview video for the Campaign: Fall Blau Kickstarter from 2022 at the following link:

If you are interested in Campaign: Operation Bagration, you can back the project on the Kickstarter page at the following link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/campaign-fall-blau/campaign-bagration

-Grant

Seit 1. April 2025 ist Nico Finkernagel Chief Technology Officer (CTO) bei Pegasus Spiele. Teil der IT-Abteilung ist er aber bereits seit 2018. Als Software Engineer war er seither an der Realisierung zahlreicher Projekte beteiligt. Er setzte seine Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse in den Bereichen Datenanalysen und Prozessoptimierungen ein, zum Beispiel bei der Einführung eines neuen Shopsystems und dem Aufbau der IT-Infrastruktur für das Pegasus Spiele Tochterunternehmen Pegasus Spiele North America.

Als CTO hat er nicht nur die Leitung des IT-Teams inne, sondern kümmert sich als Teil des Managements unter anderem auch um den Ausbau der IT-Sicherheitsstrategien, die Einführung neuer Technologien und den Aufbau strategischer Partnerschaften im Bereich IT.

Nach seinem ersten Jahr als CTO blickt er auf die ersten Erfolge und zukünftige Projekte:

Auf welchen Themen liegt dein Hauptaugenmerk seit Beginn deiner Tätigkeit als CTO?

„Seit ich CTO bin, bewegt sich mein Alltag im Grunde zwischen zwei Welten: Zum einen leite ich ein für unsere Unternehmensgröße ziemlich großes IT-Team von fünf Personen. Das heißt ganz konkret: Projekte priorisieren, Strukturen weiterentwickeln, aber vor allem dafür sorgen, dass das Team gut arbeiten kann.
Zum anderen ist ein großer Teil meiner Arbeit strategisch geprägt. Ich beschäftige mich viel mit der Frage, welche Technologien für uns wirklich relevant sind und welche eben nicht. Es geht darum, sinnvolle Schwerpunkte zu setzen und die IT so auszurichten, dass sie das Unternehmen langfristig unterstützt. Das betrifft Logistik- und Handelsprozesse, IT-Infrastrukturen, aber auch generelle Tools, die beeinflussen, wie wir im gesamten Pegasus Spiele Team zusammenarbeiten.“

Mit Blick auf über 30 Jahre Firmengeschichte ist ein Jahr als CTO natürlich noch keine lange Zeit, aber gibt es schon Erfolge, auf die du zurückblicken kannst?

„Ein großer Schritt war für mich, dass wir uns als IT-Team neu aufgestellt haben. Zwar arbeiten wir nach wie vor eng zusammen, besprechen uns regelmäßig und sind als Team die Anlaufstelle für alle technischen Probleme, aber wir haben nun auch alle unsere Schwerpunkte: Entweder im Bereich Administration & Tooling mit Fokus auf Identity Management sowie IT- & Netzwerk-Sicherheit oder im Bereich E-Commerce mit besonderem Blick auf SAP als unser Warenwirtschaftssystem, aber auch unser Shopsystem Shopware. Diese Splittung schafft Klarheit bei den Zuständigkeiten, lässt uns aber auch produktiver arbeiten als früher.

Ein weiterer wichtiger Fokus lag im letzten Jahr auf dem Thema IT-Sicherheit. Wir haben begonnen, unsere Architektur stärker in Richtung eines Zero-Trust-Ansatzes weiterzuentwickeln, also weg von klassischen, klar abgegrenzten Netzwerken hin zu einer Umgebung, in der jeder Zugriff grundsätzlich verifiziert wird. Das betrifft unter anderem Identitäten, Geräte und Zugriffsrechte und schafft eine deutlich robustere Grundlage für unsere Systeme.

Darüber hinaus gab es viele kleinere Projekte und Verbesserungen im Alltag, zum Beispiel die flächendeckende Einbindung der SSO-Authentifizierung oder ein vereinfachtes Zeiterfassungsmanagement, die sich jedoch in Summe deutlich bemerkbar machen und unsere Arbeitsweise kontinuierlich voranbringen. Einige dieser Projekte sind in der IT inzwischen State of the Art, für andere mussten wir eigene Soft- bzw. Hardware entwickeln. Ein größeres Projekt im letzten Jahr war außerdem der Relaunch von pegasus.de Mitte 2025, den wir als Teil eines interdisziplinären Website Teams begleitet haben. Insgesamt ging es in meinem ersten Jahr als CTO aber insbesondere darum, Grundlagen zu schaffen, auf denen wir künftig aufbauen können.“

Verrätst du uns, wie dein Arbeitsalltag aussieht?

„Sehr unterschiedlich und ehrlich gesagt mag ich genau das daran. Es gibt Tage, an denen ich gefühlt von Termin zu Termin gehe und viel im Austausch bin: mit meinem Team, mit anderen Abteilungen oder mit externen Partner*innen. An anderen Tagen habe ich mehr Raum für konzeptionelle Arbeit oder tiefere technische Themen.

Was allerdings tatsächlich zu kurz kommt, ist das Programmieren selbst. Das bedaure ich manchmal, weil mir genau dieser Teil nach wie vor großen Spaß macht. Deshalb versuche ich, mir so oft wie möglich kleine Zeitfenster freizuschaufeln, auch wenn das dann nicht selten in einer ‚Nachtschicht‘ endet. Es ist für mich wichtig, den Bezug zum operativen Geschäft nicht zu verlieren und Dinge auch selbst auszuprobieren.
Außerdem achte ich darauf, auch mal einen Schritt zurückzutreten und mich zu fragen: Sind wir noch auf dem richtigen Weg? Was müssen wir anpassen? Wo wollen wir eigentlich hin? Den Überblick über das große Ganze zu behalten ist ein wichtiger Faktor meiner Position.“

Woher kommt deine Faszination für IT und Technologie?

„So genau kann ich das gar nicht auf einen bestimmten Moment zurückführen. Ich glaube, mich hat schon früh gereizt, zu verstehen, wie Dinge funktionieren und wie man sie verbessern kann. IT bietet da unglaublich viele Möglichkeiten.“

Brettspiele sind als analoges Medium nicht gerade, woran man bei technologischer Innovation denkt. Wieso reizt dich gerade diese Herausforderung?

„Der Gedanke ist absolut nachvollziehbar. In unserem Fall geht es weniger darum, das Produkt selbst zu digitalisieren, sondern vielmehr um alles, was drumherum passiert: Entwicklung, Planung, Produktion, Logistik oder Datenmanagement. Wenn man an diesen Stellen die richtigen Hebel ansetzt, kann man enorm viel bewegen. Und genau das finde ich spannend, in einem Umfeld zu arbeiten, das nicht per se als ‚tech driven‘ gilt und trotzdem enormes Potenzial bietet.

Gleichzeitig hat uns das Internet sehr deutlich gezeigt, was Digitalisierung leisten kann: Sie ist ein Werkzeug, um viele Menschen zu erreichen und miteinander zu verbinden. Für uns bedeutet das, unsere Vision weiterzutragen, möglichst vielen Menschen den Zugang zu Brettspielen zu ermöglichen und neue Verbindungen zu schaffen. Technologie ist dabei kein Selbstzweck, sondern ein Mittel, um genau das zu unterstützen.“

Welche Ziele hast du dir für die nächsten sechs Monate und welche für die nächsten sechs Jahre gesteckt?

„Kurzfristig möchte ich vor allem weiter an klaren Strukturen arbeiten: Transparenz schaffen, Prozesse sauber aufsetzen und Prioritäten klar definieren. Mir ist wichtig, dass die IT nicht nur als Dienstleister wahrgenommen wird, sondern als aktiver Teil des Unternehmens.

Langfristig denke ich weniger in einzelnen Projekten, sondern in Fähigkeiten. Ich wünsche mir, dass wir eine IT-Organisation aufbauen, die stabil läuft, aber gleichzeitig flexibel genug ist, um schnell und unkompliziert auf Veränderungen reagieren zu können. Denn insbesondere der digitale Sektor ist extrem schnelllebig und eine Innovation jagt die nächste. Dazu kommen rechtliche Vorgaben, aber auch sich ständig wandelnde logistische sowie bürokratische Herausforderungen. Meine Hoffnung ist es, dass ich als CTO bzw. wir als IT-Team dazu beitragen, dass Pegasus Spiele technologisch stets gut gerüstet ist und ein Arbeitsumfeld bietet, in dem Technologie zu Kreativität, Wachstum und nachhaltigem Erfolg beiträgt.“

Vielen Dank für deine Antworten!

Der Beitrag Im Interview – Nico Finkernagel blickt auf sein erstes Jahr als CTO erschien zuerst auf Blog und News.

A few years ago, I came across a new designer named Wolfgang Klein (no relation to Alexander Klein) and his new company Assault Games. They create fantastic tactical level wargames and we have played several fo them and also got a chance to meet both Wolfgang and his friend and partner Erich Rankl. They are currently working on a new edition of their first game called Assault – Red Horizon ’41: Revised Edition and they readying it for a Gamefound campaign yet this spring. I reached out to Wolfgang to get some information about the revisions and changes to the game and he was more than willing to provide a lot of great information.

Grant: Wolfgang welcome back to the blog. It is good to have you on again and I wanted to thank you and Erich for playing Primosole Bridge with us last fall at SPIEL Essen. How has Assault – Red Horizon ’41 evolved over the past few years since its original release in 2021?

Wolfgang: Over the past 5 years, Red Horizon ’41 has evolved significantly through continuous development, community feedback, and extensive gameplay experience. What began with Rulebook 1.0 has gradually been refined into a much more mature and developed system. The new revised edition incorporates years of player feedback, integrates content from various expansions, and improves clarity, balance, and presentation across the entire game.

Over the past 5 years, RH41 has developed considerably, both in terms of the Assault System rules and its graphical presentation. In particular, with Sicily ’43 – Gela Beachhead (Rulebook version 2.0) and its expansion Primosole Bridge, we feel that we gained valuable experience that directly influenced the design of this revised edition and that will assist us in future volumes as well to improve the player experience and simulation value of the game.

Most of all, however, we are grateful for the intensive exchange we have had with our Assault fans over many years. We have remained very active in our forums on BoardGameGeek, and it is there that we have gathered, discussed, and evaluated a huge amount of positive and constructive feedback. With all the great ideas and contributions from our players, we have continued refining the rules step by step.

As far as version 2.5 is concerned, the door for feedback will remain open until the end of the upcoming Gamefound campaign.

In concrete terms, rules have been refined, adjusted, expanded, or removed. All texts have been revised to make them easier and more efficient to read. We have also made a clear step forward in wording and terminology. However, we have not changed the core gameplay mechanics. So players familiar with version 1.0 should still find it easy to get back into the system.

A detailed overview of the changes made to the system can be found on our website at the following link:
https://assault-games.com/assault-living-rules/

Grant: What is the upcoming new edition of the game? How has it changed?

Wolfgang: The upcoming version is referred to as a Revised Edition of Assault: Red Horizon ’41. It is not simply a reprint, but a comprehensive refinement of the system.

Major changes to the game and the Assault System include the following:

• Updated rules from Rulebook 1.0 to Rulebook 2.5
• Integration of rules and content from the TA / OAS (Tactical Air / Off-Board Artillery Support) Expansion
• Revised scenarios and a reworked campaign
• New terrain types
• Updated graphic design and artwork
• Improved components and markers
• New fortifications and obstacle elements
• A box inlay designed for the safe storage of all game components

Overall, the revised edition reflects everything we have learned about the system from our players and through continual play on our end since the original release. I do believe that the system will continue to evolve as other rule clarifications or needed changes come to light.

Grant: How did this opportunity for a new edition arise?

Wolfgang: After the original edition sold out, interest in the game continued to grow. At the same time, years of development, playtesting, and community feedback had accumulated.

In addition, RH41 is something like the core game for the Eastern Front within the Assault System. Our plan is to design an entire series of modules focused on the Eastern Front, and Red Horizon ’41 is the natural foundation for that planned series.

This created the perfect opportunity to bring the game back in a fully refined and improved edition rather than simply reprinting the original version.

Grant: How has the process of working with Sound of Drums been?

Wolfgang: I would describe it as a very special journey. We have now been working in cooperation with Sound of Drums for 3 years.

What makes this collaboration different from the traditional designer–publisher model is that we at Assault Games work with Sound of Drums on equal footing while maintaining our own independence.

The goal of this cooperation was to free ourselves from the typical publishing tasks such as production, logistics, and distribution, so that we could focus more fully on developing the Assault System and expanding into future opportunites. In many respects, this has worked very well. In other areas, there are still things that can be improved.

Sound of Drums, and Uwe Walentin in particular, has worked very hard to keep our backs free for designing by carrying the responsibility for taking care of the worldwide distribution network, logistics, and shipping. From my point of view, that works very well. Uwe is also a highly knowledgeable and perceptive figure when it comes to wargame design, and he has become an important advisor for us. His experience in the games industry helps us do things the right way — and focus on the right things.

One area of the cooperation where we have made major progress is in the structuring and preparation of our print files. I would especially like to thank Marc von Martial (Art Director at Sound of Drums) on this point. Thanks to his templates, we are now able to turn our designs into print-ready files in a much shorter time. That has been a tremendous help for Sicily 43, Primosole Bridge, and now also RH41 Revised Edition.

In the end, I would say that our journey is not over yet. Sound of Drums, like us, is still a young company, so there are new challenges every day. But as the saying goes: “Everything will be fine at the end of the road. If it is not fine yet, then the road is not over.”

Grant: Why have you wanted to amend or revise these various items in the game?

Wolfgang: We started the Assault System a long time ago as a new tactical game system, and from the very beginning it was clear that both the rules and the content would continue to evolve over time. Other systems refer to their rulebooks as “Living Rules,” and that is very much how we see the Assault System rules and the game as a whole.

At the same time, it is important to us that we do not do this alone. We want to actively involve our player base in the further development of the system so that it can become the best game system possible. Standing still is simply not an option for us.

Many of the changes were driven by years of gameplay feedback from the community and by our own experience with the system. Over time, we identified:

• areas where rules could be streamlined
• components that could be improved or added
• visual elements that could be made clearer

The goal was always to improve clarity, usability, and gameplay flow without changing the core identity of the system.

Grant: How has the graphic design specifically evolved? Who is the artist?

Wolfgang: The most visible aspect of the game’s development is undoubtedly the graphical redesign and the addition of new visual features. Michael Grillenberger, supported by Marc from Martial, once again did outstanding work, just as they did on Sicily ’43 and Primosole Bridge. I would like to thank them both once again for that work.

The map artwork in particular will immediately catch the eye. We have raised it to the same high standard seen in Sicily ’43 and Primosole Bridge, which creates an even greater sense of immersion.

Overall, the graphic design has been significantly refined compared to the first edition. Maps, symbols, counters, and other visual elements have been redesigned to improve readability and consistency. Vehicle artwork has also been updated, and the game’s entire visual language has been unified to create a stronger overall identity.

Grant: How does the artist’s style fit with your vision for the system?

Wolfgang: The visual style supports the core philosophy of the system: clarity, immersion, and functionality.

The artwork strikes a balance between historical authenticity and tabletop readability, which is essential in a tactical wargame where players need to process information quickly. In that sense, the artwork helps reduce the players’ workload so they can focus fully on the game and on the tactical situation on the battlefield.

Grant: How have the visual presentation for various things such as elevation levels and terrain changed in this new edition?

Wolfgang: One major improvement is the integration of visual symbols directly onto the maps. Last year, we conducted a survey among our players because it was important for us to understand what they thought about the idea of including symbols on the map boards. The result was extremely close.

Many players were concerned that such symbols might reduce immersion. Because we take those concerns seriously, we decided on a more subtle compromise. Elevation levels and some terrain rules are now represented with discreet graphical indicators, allowing players to understand the battlefield layout more quickly without constantly consulting the rulebook.

That, in turn, makes things much easier for the players.

Grant: How have those changes made the game even better?

Wolfgang: Quite simply, these changes make the Assault System much more accessible and easier to play. The need to search for information is reduced, and the overall handling of the game becomes smoother.

In particular, readability, gameplay flow, and ease of learning have all improved. Players can now interpret terrain and elevation at a glance, which speeds up play and reduces rule lookups.

Grant: How have the graphics for the vehicles changed?

Wolfgang: The vehicle illustrations have been updated and refined, providing clearer identification and a more consistent visual style across all units. I think Michael also worked on them simply because he really enjoyed doing so.

These changes enhance both the historical feel and the table presence of the game.

Grant: Can you show us some examples of the new graphics as compared with the old?

Wolfgang: Certainly — here are a few examples:

• Updated vehicle illustrations
• Revised terrain
• Redesigned damage and smoke markers
• Improved map graphics

These updates create a much more cohesive and modern visual presentation compared with the first edition.

Grant: What new terrain features have you included in the system? Why were these important to include?

Wolfgang: The revised edition introduces several new terrain types:

• Wheat and crop fields
• Steep slopes
• Covered trails

These elements are closely tied to the historical landscape of the Eastern Front, particularly the region around Białystok in the summer of 1941. Large expanses of wheat and crop fields dominated the countryside and often influenced visibility and movement for advancing troops. During the opening phase of Operation Barbarossa, German and Soviet forces frequently fought across agricultural land where tall grain could provide concealment but also limit observation.

Steep slopes and covered trails reflect the natural terrain features of the area, which included rolling ground, wooded ridges, and narrow rural tracks. Such features often shaped the movement of infantry and vehicles, creating opportunities for ambushes or concealed manoeuvres.

Including these terrain types allows the game to better represent the tactical realities soldiers faced during the early battles around Białystok, while also expanding the range of strategic options available to players.

Grant: What are the new Fortifications & obstacle elements? Can you share examples of these counters?

Wolfgang: The system now includes additional fortifications and obstacle elements, allowing players to represent defensive battlefield preparations more realistically. These counters reflect the kinds of improvised and field-built defenses commonly used by Soviet forces in the border regions during the first days of Operation Barbarossa.

In June 1941, Soviet units attempted to delay the rapid German advance by establishing temporary defensive lines, often using field entrenchments, tank barricades, and hastily constructed obstacles. Barricaded roads and reinforced firing positions were typical features in defensive positions around key crossroads and villages. Although many of these defences were incomplete because of the speed of the German attack, they nevertheless influenced the course of local engagements.

By incorporating such fortifications and obstacles, the game is able to reflect the defensive measures historically present on the battlefield. These new counters expand the tactical possibilities in scenarios and campaigns, while also helping to recreate the atmosphere of the chaotic and desperate fighting that characterised the opening days of the campaign around Białystok.

Grant: How will the box be changed for this revised edition?

Wolfgang: The revised edition features an improved box design, including:

• A box inlay designed for sleeved cards
• A transparent lid for better organisation and visibility of components

These changes were made to improve both storage and usability for players. Many players prefer to sleeve their cards to protect them during repeated play, particularly in games with frequent handling such as card-driven tactical systems. The redesigned inlay ensures that sleeved cards fit comfortably inside the box without bending or compressing them, allowing players to keep their components protected while still maintaining a compact storage solution.

The transparent lid also helps players organise and identify the different components more easily. Counters, cards, and markers can be seen at a glance, which speeds up setup and makes it easier to keep the game organised during play. For a system that may include multiple scenarios and campaign elements, quick access to components is especially useful.

Overall, the improved box design reflects feedback from players of the original edition. By making the storage solution more practical and user-friendly, the new edition aims to make preparation, transport, and long-term storage of the game more convenient.

Grant: I know that you have covered this concept but I would like a bit more detail? Specifically, how have the overall rules for the game changed?

Wolfgang: The rules have evolved from Rulebook 1.0 to version 2.5, and possibly eventually to 3.0.

Key changes include:

• Integrated expansion content
• Clarified rules
• Streamlined mechanics
• Improved structure and organisation

Since the release of the original rulebook, the system has gradually developed through playtesting, player feedback, and the addition of expansion material. Earlier supplements introduced new mechanics and scenario elements that are now fully integrated into the core rules, allowing players to access the complete system without needing to consult multiple documents.

Another important goal of the revision was to clarify rules that had previously caused questions during play. Certain mechanics have been rewritten with clearer wording and additional examples, making it easier for players to understand how the system works in practice. This also reduces ambiguity during gameplay and allows players to focus more on tactical decision-making rather than rule interpretation.

The revised rulebook also streamlines several mechanics. While the core gameplay remains unchanged, some procedures have been simplified to maintain the fast-paced flow of the system. The intention was not to make the game less detailed, but rather to ensure that its mechanics remain intuitive and efficient during play.

Finally, the overall structure of the rulebook has been improved. Sections are now organized more logically, making it easier to locate specific rules during a game. Together, these changes reflect the natural evolution of the system and aim to provide both new and experienced players with a clearer and more accessible ruleset.

Grant: How have these changes improved the gameplay?

Wolfgang: The revised rules make the game:

• Easier to learn
• Smoother to play
• More balanced

Over the years, extensive playtesting and feedback from players helped identify areas where the original rules could be improved. Ambiguities in certain mechanics were clarified, and procedures that occasionally slowed down gameplay were simplified. As a result, the revised rulebook presents the system in a more accessible and consistent way, allowing new players to learn the game more quickly while still preserving the depth that experienced players expect.

The streamlined mechanics also improve the overall flow of play. Turns progress more smoothly, and players can focus more on tactical decisions rather than consulting the rulebook. This is particularly important in a fast-moving tactical system set during the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa, where battlefield situations changed rapidly and decisions had to be made under pressure.

In addition, the revisions helped refine the balance of the system. Through years of scenario testing and community feedback, certain interactions between units, terrain, and combat mechanics were adjusted to ensure that engagements feel both challenging and historically plausible. Together, these improvements create a more polished and engaging gameplay experience while remaining faithful to the original design of the system.

Grant: What is the timeline on the release of this new revised edition?

Wolfgang: The revised edition is currently in active preparation, and our immediate next step is the upcoming Gamefound campaign which is planned to start in May 2026. The campaign preview page is up and you can see that at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/sound-of-drums-gmbh/assault-red-horizon-41-rev-edition

 As mentioned before, feedback on Rulebook version 2.5 will remain open until the end of that campaign.

Our goal is to use this period to gather final community input, complete the last refinements, and move the project into production in the best possible shape. A more precise release timeline will be shared as soon as the campaign and production planning are finalised.

Grant: Last but not least, what is currently in the design kitchen for Assault Games?

Wolfgang: Well, I think Assault Games might become a never-ending story. We will keep working on it as long as we continue to enjoy it—and that could still take a very long time.

Joking aside, we are very active when it comes to new ideas. I actually talked about some of this in our most recent SITREP (a bit of self-promotion here):

We have started publishing a development roadmap so that everyone can see what we are currently working on and what might be coming in the future. Of course, the roadmap only shows the official topics we want to share publicly—and yes, there are also a few unofficial ideas we are exploring behind the scenes.

To give you a small glimpse of what might be ahead, you can already see a draft cover for our upcoming Normandy journey. And that’s not all—there are several other things in development.

Thank you so much for your time in answering our questions Wolfgang and I look forward to future games from Assault Games and Sound of Drums.

If you are interested in learning more about Assault – Red Horizon ’41 Revised Edition, you can visit the Gamefound previews page at the following link: https://gamefound.com/en/projects/sound-of-drums-gmbh/assault-red-horizon-41-rev-edition

-Grant

Riemi und Dr. G. Ame wollen es wissen: Was bedeutet dieses Jubiläum? Vor 25 Jahren steckte das Internet noch in den Kinderschuhen. Im Jahr 2000 nutzen das WWW erst rund…

The post Interview: Gründer Michael Weber über 25 Jahre Reich der Spiele appeared first on Reich der Spiele.

Last month, as I was trolling the internet, I came across a new solitaire game from the guys over at War Diary Publications called Battle of the Bismarck Sea designed by Allyn Vannoy. Battle of the Bismarck Sea is a solitaire wargame that uses individual ships and flights/squadrons of aircraft. The Player assumes the role of General George Kenney, Commander of the 5th U.S. Army Air Force, with the mission of intercepting the Japanese effort to reinforce its ground forces on the island of New Guinea. I am always into a good Pacific Theater of Operations game and I reached out to Allyn to get some inside information about the design.

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

Allyn: I’m retired, having worked 18 years for Intel as a program manager. Presently, I work for a minor league baseball team in the summer, an affiliate of the Arizona Diamond Backs, and volunteer two days a week at the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon, both in the Archives and giving tours of Howard Hughes’ Spruce Goose; I also write (freelance) for a number of military history and gaming magazines.

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

Allyn: During Covid, I started getting back into gaming, having become interested in Avalon Hill games in the 60’s and as an early subscriber to S&T Magazine. I enjoy the challenge of trying to turn history into a game—a teaching tool—in the process I learn more and hopefully, understand more.

Grant: What is your new game Battle of the Bismarck Sea about?

Allyn: The Battle of the Bismarck Sea, 1943, was the 5th Air Force’s attempt to interrupt the Japanese effort to reinforce its ground forces on the island of New Guinea. The Player must utilize the limited resources available and determine their application over the 10-week period that operations are conducted. The results of these efforts will be borne out in the effectiveness of air operations.

Grant: What games gave you used for inspiration for your design?

Allyn: I hadn’t seen anything like this design; I wanted to make something new and hopefully unique.

Grant: What is important to model or include in a game about the Air Naval combat in the Pacific during WWII?

Allyn: The most important thing to understand is how to organize and implement an air strike force to accomplish the mission given.

Grant: What type of research did you do to get the historical details correct? What one must read source would you recommend?

Allyn: I tried to locate good and detailed sources:

Arbon, J. and Christensen, Chris. The Bismarck Sea Ran Red; Walsworth Press, Marceline, MO, 1979.

Birdsall, Steve. Flying Buccaneers: The Illustrated Story of Kenney’s Fifth Air Force; Doubleday, NY, 1977.

Henebry, John P. The Grim Reapers at Work in the Pacific Theater: The Third Attack Group of the U.S. Fifth Air Force; Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, Missoula, MT, 2002.

Jablonski, Edward. Outraged Skies; Doubleday and Co., Inc., Garden City, NY. 1971.

McAulay, Lex. Battle of the Bismarck Sea; St. Martin’s Press, NY, 1991.

Recommendation: McAulay’s book, Battle of the Bismarck Sea.

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

Allyn: The design initially focused just on the single action that occurred on March 2-4, 1943, but there was a larger struggle that began in January 1943—that Allied commanders realized they needed to adapt and change their forces and tactics if they were to meet the challenge they faced. Once the design was expanded to a 10-week time frame it became more complex, but also more interesting. This also required more research into the changes that took place within the 5th Air Force.

Grant: What is the scale of the game?

Allyn: Unit scale: single ships and flights (3-10 planes) of aircraft.

Time scale: 10 Command/Support turns, each of one week; 13 Operational turns, over a two day period.

Ground units represent 200-300 personnel.

Grant: What are the different units that the player has control over?

Allyn: The Japanese units include transport ships, destroyers, ground units (presenting the troops and equipment carried on the transports), and fighter aircraft. These are controlled by the Bot. The player controls the Allied units: a mix of aircraft—reconnaissance, heavy bombers, medium bombers, and fighters, and also PT boats.

Grant: What does the concept of Endurance mean for the player? What does this model from the 1943 campaign?

Allyn: Endurance is the amount of time that aircraft can remain airborne. This models the range of aircraft from their bases to the target area. In the initial design, a series of range arcs were used for the individual aircraft types. It was quickly realized this would make for a very complex game. To address playability, aircraft range was changed to consolidate to a single arc (a line on the map) for medium bombers and P-38 fighters, and set Operational turns to 3-hour periods.

Grant: What decisions do they have to make about their assets use and management over the campaign?

Allyn: The game is conducted in two parts: a Command/Support Sequence and an Operational Turn Sequence.

The Command/Support Sequence is a one week period that allows the Allies to receive resource points and reinforcements, then decide how to apply the resource points—rebuilding units, modifying tactics, and determining how to find a convoy at sea.

The Operational Turn Sequence is a two day period where the convoy is moving along convoy routes as the Allies attempt to identify it and then determine the organization of strike forces in an effort to sink it and prevent Japanese forces from reaching Lae, New Guinea.

Grant: As a solitaire wargame how does the Bot behave? What are its priorities and decision points?

Allyn: The Convoy, when dispatched from Rabaul, advances towards its destination (Lae), with random events impacting its progress. The rules introduce the Fog of War that the player must overcome in order to first find the Convoy and then disrupt and attempt to destroy it.

As for decision points, there are several. How are resource points to be spent? When and how to go after a convoy? What assets to use in a given sortie?

Grant: What type of an experience does the Bot create? 

Allyn: Designing a solitaire versus a 2-player game presents a whole different set of challenges. Can you design a Bot that will maintain the player’s interest and also challenge them? It should create variety; i.e., when and where will a convoy attempt to make a run; as well as a certain level of anxiety as certain elements are unknown until they can be revealed.

Grant: What are Resource Points and what do they represent?

Allyn: Resource points are the player’s currency and represent personnel, equipment (aircraft), and training.

Grant: What are Resource Points used for?

Allyn: The Resource Points are used by the player to improve tactics, provide replacements for losses, strengthen forces with personnel and equipment, and to launch air attacks. They are the real currency of the game and the player has to use them wisely to do well.

Grant: What is the layout of the board?

Allyn: The board includes the map (the area between New Britain and New Guinea); the turns tracks (for both Command/Support and Operational Turns); the Convoy Display (for air-sea combat); displays for the ships (transports and destroyers) and for tracking victory points and resource points. 

Grant: How does combat work?

Allyn: Combat is based on the attack strength of the units for air combat, air-to-surface, and surface combat. The result of a die roll is compared to a unit’s combat strength, and if it’s equal to less than that number (combat strength), a hit is made on the opposing force.

Grant: How are bombers and fighters used in combat?

Allyn: Bombers are used to try and sink the ships of the Convoy. Heavy bombers operate separately from medium bombers, as they drop their bomb loads from altitude, with limited chance of success, while medium bombers engage Japanese ships at low altitude (mast-high approach). Fighters are used to engage the Combat Air Patrol aircraft that the Japanese dispatched to provide air cover for the Convoy.

Grant: How is victory obtained in the game?

Allyn: Victory is based on the number of Japanese troops that fail to reach Lae—by sinking the ships and their cargo of personnel and equipment, they are removed from participation in combat operations on New Guinea.

Grant: What do you feel the game models well?

Allyn: The fog of war; the challenge to figure out how to build and prepare the needed forces, and then how to employ them to accomplish the mission (sink the enemy shipping).

Grant: What has been the experience of your playtesters?

Allyn: Comments led to a major change in design—moving from a single mission to a 10-week campaign and all the elements associated with that larger picture/time frame.

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

Allyn: That it offers two layers to the player experience – organizing and building forces, then utilizing them to execute missions.

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

Allyn: Operation Tidal Wave, the USAAF Ninth Air Force strike on Ploesti, Romania, August 1, 1943.

If you are interested in Battle of the Bismarck Sea, you can order a copy for $30.00 from the War Diary Publications website at the following link: https://wardiarymagazine.com/products/battle-of-the-bismarck-sea

-Grant