With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#101: Constantinople Sends Aid Core Event from The Shores of Tripoli from Fort Circle Games
I have never played a historical wargame on the First Barbary War, which if you didn’t know was one of the first major wars the young United States of America participated in that was situated far outside their sphere of influence in North and South America. Shortly after the end of the American Revolutionary War, commercial vessels of the United States were being attacked and raided by the pirates of the Barbary coast in the Mediterranean Sea. In 1801, newly inaugurated President Thomas Jefferson was eager to put an end to this threat and sent a “squadron of observation” to the Mediterranean to deal with the threat. The Shores of Tripoli covers this conflict and does so using a card driven game mechanic that works really well in this instance. The game is a little deceiving, as at first it appears to be pretty introductory with simple rules and mechanics, but the depth for the game lies in the strategy for each side and the fact that their victory conditions are asymmetric.
There are two decks of cards in the game and each is unique for the side that is using it. The American Card Deck is blue-backed with a picture of President Thomas Jefferson and the Tripolitan Card Deck is red-backed with a picture of Yusuf Qaramanli. Each deck consists of a total of 27 cards and this is divided up between 21 Event Cards and 6 Battle Cards. The Tripolitan Deck also includes 3 additional cards that are used only for solitaire play. There are three different types of Event Cards included in the decks. These include Core Events, Unique Events, and Common Events. Each player has the same number of each of these type of cards with the only difference being that the Americans have only 10 Common Events and 2 special cards that are called Victory Event Cards.
Core Event Cards begin the game face-up in front of the player and do not count against the eight-card hand limit. Core Cards may be played in place of a card in hand at any time during the player’s turn for their event and then are permanently removed from the game. The Constantinople Sends Aid Core Event Card has a condition that must be met in order to be played and that is that Hamet’s Army has captured the city of Derne. This means that this card will have to wait to be played until at least after the Spring of 1804 or even later as the American player must play their Hamet’s Army Created Core Event Card and then invade Derne which will take a turn or two after the Core Event Card is played. This card is a last ditch effort to stop the Americans as they make their eventual drive on Tripoli. The addition of 1 Tripolitan Frigate and 2 Corsairs will beef up the naval defense of the port and the addition of the 2 Tripolitan Infantry in the city of Tripoli will aid in staving off Hamet’s Army.
The Constantinople Sends Air Core Event Card is somewhat of an ahistorical event, meaning that it was possibly available if necessary but the anticipated invasion of Tripoli Harbor by the forces of Hamet never occurred. Following the fall of Derne, Hamet Karamanli’s forces held the city and planned to press onward toward Tripoli, which put immense psychological and political pressure on the ruling Bashaw Yusuf Karamanli. But, before a full-scale assault on Tripoli could take place, U.S. Consul General Tobias Lear negotiated and signed a peace treaty with Yusuf Karamanli in June 1805 effectively ending the First Barbary War. The treaty secured the release of American hostages from the USS Philadelphia in exchange for a ransom, ending the military campaign. U.S. forces secretly evacuated Derne, abandoning Hamet Karamanli’s push to take Tripoli and returning him to exile.
Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon at Derne. Painting by Charles Waterhouse.
In the next entry in this series, we will take a look at Austrian Leader Klemens von Metternich from Congress of Vienna from GMT Games.
A few years ago, we played a very interesting game designed by Stephen Kling of The Historical Game Company called Road to Independence: The American Revolution, 1775-1783. The game covers the entirety of the American Revolutionary War, including the various campaigns and skirmishes on the frontier, and uses custom battle dice. That game was the 2nd volume in that series and recently I heard that Stephen was working on the next volume set in the American Civil War called Road from Disunion: The American Civil War, 1861-1865. We reached out to the designer and he was more than willing to take the time to answer our questions on the game.
Grant: Stephen welcome back to our blog and thank you for being interested in sharing. What is your upcoming game TheRoad from Disunion about?
Stephen:The Road from Disunion: The American Civil War, 1861-1865 is an introductory level wargame covering the American Civil War using the system I designed and used for several previously published games, which were dice rolling games of conquest using special dice, including The French and Indian War published by The Historical Game Company and Road to Independence published by Blue Panther. The game is a strategic level look at the American Civil War and covers all of the major theaters of the war from its outbreak in 1861 to its conclusion and Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865.
The map contains 42 different locations, some of which count toward meeting victory conditions. Custom dice are rolled matching symbols on the dice with those required to conquer each location and its defenses. Event cards are also included that add in some of the historical elements to the conflict and vary play from game to game. This is a follow up game to Road to Independence and uses similar concepts and game mechanics.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
Stephen: I have always had an interest in the American Civil War particularly at a strategic level. It is a massive contest, and I wanted to see if I could design a fun, easy to play game covering the entire war from 1861-1865.
Grant: You are utilizing the same system you have used for 2 games in the past on the French & Indian War and the American Revolution. How did you change the system to take into account the American Civil War?
Stephen: The American Civil War posed some special challenges as I wanted to incorporate concepts like the naval war and what constituted a rebel victory. Special rules were developed for the naval aspects in the game utilizing ironclads for the Rebel player and naval combat for the Union player before an attack by naval move can occur if an Ironclad is located in the Port Location. There are some special rules reflecting the historical constraints as well. As discussed in the design notes, I took a cue from one of the experts who summarized the rebels’ ability to win the war as making it last long enough with enough casualties for the Union to seek peace. A number of these ideas for changes and some others discussed below came about through playtesting.
Grant: What was your design goal with the game?
Stephen: As with the other games in the system, my main goal was to create a light, fun game that could be played in one setting with sufficient political theming. Of course, factoring in rolling special custom dice was always a goal as well.
Grant: What elements do you feel are most important to model or include from the history of the American Civil War?
Stephen: I wanted to allow players to explore various strategic options. There are a number of different strategies the Union player can develop for victory. The Rebel player has the problem of primarily developing a defensive strategy while taking advantage of opportunities to take or retake Union controlled locations to make it more difficult for the Union player to win.
Grant: What major design challenges did you encounter and how did you overcome them?
Stephen: Simply re-skinning the system from the prior games just was not going to work for this design. I wanted to include the ironclads as their role is interesting and could have had a more pronounced effect on the war. Doing that in a way to not add a lot of complexity went through several variations. Integrating some of the aspects of the Eastern Theater and Western Theater ended up in the event cards and simplifying the far west ended up in a Western Territories Location with some benefits based on card play. Simply put, there was just a whole lot of history I wanted to pack into the game without adding a significant amount of complexity. The game also begged for some additional chrome which ended up in some advanced optional rules covering elite units, commerce raiders and Union ironclads.
Grant: What sources did you consult for the historical details? What one must-read source would you recommend?
Stephen: I have a “Further Reading” list in the rules which includes Battles and Leaders of the Civil War in 4 volumes and The Blue and the Gray in 2 volumes for good reading on the entire war. But two of the 8 books in the Further Reading section cover the naval aspects of the war. On that note, I was able to correspond with one of the experts, Professor Neil Chatelain, who gave me some good information on ironclads and in particular the Laird Ironclads building in Great Britain for the rebels and how those ironclads were intended to be used. Of course, it was such an interesting back story, they ended up as a possibility in the game with potential use following their intended use.
Grant: What is the scale of the design? Force structure of the units?
Stephen: The scale is strategic and somewhat abstract. There are no specific army sized units. The entire war is displayed on an 11” x 17” map. There are individual ironclad counters and some strategic defense counters which are essentially garrisons plus control markers. In the advanced rules, there are new “campaign counters” each named for a unit that was elite during the war that can be used for a placement on a Location card to satisfy or help satisfy a required roll, one per theater each turn with a few others depicting further aspects of the naval war and blockade runners. For example, playing one of the blockade runner campaign counters by the Rebel player can result in the loss of 1 attack for the Union player the following turn. The advanced rules not only include the permanent loss of such units if the attack is not successful but the permanent loss of strategic defense counters too if an attack is successful.
Grant: What is the makeup of the various unit counters?
Stephen: Attack counters, strategic defense counters (garrisons), control markers, ironclad counters and a slew of special campaign counters. There are some variant counters too representing armies and navies of England and France.
Grant: What advantages does each side have? How does this change over the course of the game?
Stephen: The Union player has some slightly better Event Cards and gets an additional die upon the occurrence of the Emancipation Proclamation but has the burden of conquering enough victory points and important locations by the end of the game. The Rebel player has enough good cards to muster a good defense and make opportunistic attacks aided by the ability to work on interior lines. The naval game is sort of a mini game within the game which can alter strategy. So, for example, does the Rebel player preselect naval benefit Event Cards and put more emphasis into protecting ports? Too little port protection can trigger a Union special rule whereby the Rebel player loses one attack each turn as long as the specified number of ports are under Union control.
Grant: What is the function of Location Cards?
Stephen: The Location Cards pair with individual areas on the game map but are used primarily for dice rolling and conquest. While the game map is smaller, we added information of the defenses on each Location Card on the corresponding area of the game map to ease analysis for attack considerations.
Grant: Can you show us a few examples and explain how they work?
Stephen: Each of the Location Cards has various icons and numbers in black which indicate the defenses that have to be rolled (conquered) during combat. See below for an in-depth description of how combat works. The Rebel flag in red in the upper left hand corner denotes an important Location for victory. As you can see the icons include things such as Artillery (field cannon), a Fortress (building), Cavalry (with a saber in the center of the image and a horse) and Infantry (with a hat and musket). These symbols coincide with the symbols found on the custom combat dice and the player attacking must roll these results on a certain number of dice to conquer or take the Location Card.
Once a Location is attacked and defeated, the physical Location Cards will be collected from the opponent and added to the tableau in front of the attacking player. Then, the player will add their Control Marker to the Location on the Game Board, unless it is one of their starting Locations, at which point no Control Marker is necessary as it is shown in the Location Box.
There are a total of 42 different Locations and each is assigned value shown in the bottom left hand corner for victory purposes and are named after key and important strategic cities during the American Civil War.
Grant: How does combat work?
Stephen: Land combat is a function of rolling special dice against each Location selected for attack each turn. The Location must have a connection to a friendly Location unless it is a naval attack against a port Location by the Union player. Naval combat is a bit different and simpler. Here is a graphic from the rules that shows an example of combat.
Grant: What is the makeup of the custom combat dice?
Stephen: There are 17 dice, 7 regular die for each player, an Emancipation Proclamation regular die, 1 Rebel Ironclad Availability die and 1 Union Naval Move die.
Grant: How do Ironclads work? Why were they important to include?
Stephen: Ironclads help protect Port Locations from attack by the Union player by naval move. There can be up to 2 ironclads per Port Location. They are all named for important ironclads, and if eliminated, cannot return to play. They enter play by roll of the Rebel Ironclad Availability die each turn and by Event Cards and are placed by the Rebel player at any available Port Location. They can be eliminated by Union die rolls but if they are not, the attack by the regular die cannot happen and the Union attack is a failure. So, they can make Union naval attacks more difficult. Things like the Union Naval Superiority Event and some Event Cards can soften things up for the Union player as the game progresses. I really wanted this aspect of the war included as it was important and is so interesting.
Grant: What is the makeup of the Event Cards? Can you share a few examples?
Stephen: These Event Cards do things such as affect attacks and combat in terms of bonuses or penalties and are usually based on historical events. Here are examples of 2 such Event Cards including 1 for the Rebel player and 1 for the Union player.
Grant: I see where players can preselect a few Event Cards. Why was this important to include?
Stephen: It really added to allowing more strategic decisions. Do you select Event Cards that provide benefits in one theater over another, do you select cards that give naval benefits or the possibility of foreign intervention or concentrate on land attacks, etc.
Grant: What is the role of the Emancipation Proclamation and Union Naval Superiority Events?
Stephen: The occurrence of the Emancipation Proclamation Event allows the Union player an additional regular die representing the addition of men of color to the Union army. The Union Naval Superiority Event guarantees a minimum number of naval moves irrespective of the outcome of the Naval Move die roll and a bonus when combating ironclads. These Events are not guaranteed to happen and only happen in the later part of the game if a successful die roll is made on the first and following turns when eligible. There is also a Union Naval Superiority Rule which allows the Union player to cause the Rebel player to lose one attack each turn as long as the Union player controls 6 of the 8 Rebel Port Locations.
Grant: What are Campaign Counters?
Stephen: This is something entirely new. These counters represent elite units, commerce raiders and Union ironclads. One can be chosen for each theater for each game turn. For land combat, they can only be used for 1 Location attack and can satisfy a required die roll (or part of a required roll if multiple infantry are needed) on the Location’s defense. The commerce raider counters can limit Union attacks, and the Union ironclads can aid in naval combat. These units can be lost in game play, so they have to be used judiciously. These counters are optional along with some other rules like Foreign Intervention Counters and are available in the advanced rules. I think they really add to game play and I am in the process of redoing the French and Indian War game in this system adding applicable elements of the underlying concept.
Grant: What area does the map cover? What are the different theaters and how did you decide to split them up in this way?
Stephen: The map covers pretty much the area of the entire American Civil War. As there were differences in the objectives and the way the war was fought, the map was divided into theaters which are mostly important for where certain Event Cards apply. The division was somewhat arbitrary but made to work the best with the Event Cards.
Grant: What do you feel the design excels at?
Stephen: While this game is a bit more complex than its predecessors, most of the additional pages cover the advanced rules and a more detailed section of design notes. I hope this game provides a fun, thematic experience of gaming the American Civil War. My play testers seem to like the ease of play and the dice rolling making it a wargame but one you can enjoy without a big investment of time and learning the rules. In particular, I hope it provides a lot of strategic options and decisions of the type arising in the war while being able to do it in a few hours. Lastly, I hope it encourages players to learn more about this history.
Grant: What other designs are you currently working on?
Stephen: As you guys know, I have an extensive line of battle/siege games. I just released 2 new ones on the Siege of Ayutthaya and the Siege of Santiago. The Siege of Plevna should be out by the end of the year and an upgrade or second edition of the French and Indian War using the Road from Disunion enhancements is also in the works. Also, my friend Ed Lengel just published a book entitled Atlas: France’s Wars for Empire and Resistance in North Africa, 1827–1934. I had previously published a game on the Battle of Isly from this period, but his book inspired me to bring my design on the Siege of Constantine to the front of the line which should also be out by year end. My game production has been a bit limited with the publication of my latest book, being the guest curator for the Louisiana State Cabildo Museum for the “Gálvez and Louisiana in the American Revolution” exhibition based on my latest book and being extensively interviewed for a documentary on Spain’s role in the American Revolution, as well as related book and exhibition presentations.
Thank you for the look inside this very cool game on the American Civil War. I can feel your passion for the game and its history and believe that this will shine through in the game play experience. Keep up the good work and we look forward to talking with you about your future upcoming game projects.
All good things must come to an end and here we are at the end of our 3 days of gaming at SDHistCon. We had a great time and ended up playing a total of 8 games, with some being full plays and others just having been several turns. But we gamed a lot and that is what we do. Play games!
One thing from last night that I wanted to mention was the Night Market, which allows small indie publishers to get their games out for sale. The inaugural Night Market featured 10 different independent designers selling limited-print-run, self-published historical board games and we had a look around and ultimately purchased Throw Down That Flag: The 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg designed by Liz Davidson and David Thompson. The game is a solo game that centers on the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment during 2 pivotal days of the Battle of Gettysburg July 2 and July 3, 1863. I very much enjoyed this event and wish that I could have bought more but I didn’t have any more room in my luggage.
Now onto today’s events. The 3rd day started with a nice chat with Saul Sanchez from Mexican publisher Malinche Games. Saul is a great guy and we became acquainted with him in 2021 when they launched their first Kickstarter for Patria Libre: The Struggle for Mexican Independence 1810-1821. They are currently working on a reprint of their most popular title Tierra Y Libertad: The Mexican Revolution which I believe will be the 3rd Printing.
I love these small boutique publishers who have these special passion projects that cover lesser known history and allow them to demonstrate their pride for their country. And it’s always great to put a face to a name as we corresponded multiple times over the past 5 years. I wish Saul the best of luck moving forward and encourage you to give their games a look.
We only played 1 single game today but it was a big and long 5-hour experience as we took on The Other Side of the Hill 2nd Edition from NAC Wargames. So what is this game? Well it’s definitely something and is a bit controversial for some because of the subject matter. But it is a card focused board game designed by Carlos Márquez that attempts to simulate World War II from the perspective of internal political and military members and generals of the German High Command. The game starts in 1939 and at this early phase of the war things are pretty good fur the German war machine as they have plenty of resources and men to fight and annex territory to the east to restore Germany to its pre-WWI state and also develop satellite armies and governments in the Balkans, Italy, North Africa, Norway, Finland and the eastern bloc. But as the game wears on and the western Allies organize and enter the war they will attack in North Africa and Italy and then the Soviets will begin pushing back in the east. This will put a strain on resources and production capabilities as the effects of bombing campaigns and strategic warfare will impact production capabilities.
The players represent different political factions inside the Wehrmacht and must struggle for legitimacy and power as the war goes well earning the approval of the Hugh Command and Hitler earning Prestige Points. Germany after all cannot win World War II in the game. Instead, the central question is how long the regime can hold out against the advancing Soviet and Western Allied forces, and which player will come out best during the collapse.
Players will promote and assign historical German generals to different fronts on the board to use their special abilities to win battles and take territory. Victory in battle will earn Prestige, but a single defeat can result in a general’s dismissal. As the fortunes of Germany turn and the war turns sour, players will attempt to fulfill secret Agendacards representing various factions, such as the Old Guard, Professionals or anti-Nazi Dissidents/Sympathizers. Players must balance cooperating against the Allies with sabotaging or undercutting each other to advance their faction’s hidden goals.
I very much like the thesis of this one and the unique approach to the subject matter. But in practice the game is very long. Almost too long and involved and really gets caught up in so much minutiae that it seems to be an exercise in following the steps of the sequence of play and trying to keep it all moving without missing things or making mistakes rather than a grand strategic look at the decisions of the High Command and the operation of the war. It’s just a lot and to me seemed to be a bit overwhelming. Now this was our first play and we only made it through a few turns in the 5 hours we played but I’m just not sure I’m going to get back to it.
The rules were fine but there were some lacking details and more clarity needed. I think the biggest problem with the components was the size of the text. It was very small and damn near unreadable. Now part of that is I’m old and I need my glasses but these were obviously put together by someone who didn’t have this problem.
Overall the game just seemed a bit much and I am afraid might not be worth the effort. Now I am willing to give it another try but am not sure when that will be.
I did very much like the internal competition and petitions of the players to have their particular generals included in the battles as this was a great opportunity to get victories and gain favor. But this changed as a few battles were lost and several generals were dismissed (probably by pistol shot to the head) and the war grew old. There didn’t seem to be as much interest in putting themselves out there and taking the risks. I very much liked this and with the right group this can be a very rewarding part of the game.
In the end we gave up and had a long discussion about the outcome and experience. I think that everyone agreed there was something there but maybe it was too deeply hidden and mired in the due process of the game.
We then went around and stated our goodbyes to friends and compatriots and it was bitter sweet. We are planning to come back next year and we will see them all again but I didn’t want this year to be over. Thank you to SDHistCon and their volunteers. A special thanks to Harold Buchanan as the main organizer and visionary for the con and for his friendship. And thank you to those we played games with over the 3 days. And finally thanks to you all for following along.
It’s been a while since we’ve done one of these! Bored from our recent bouts of co-operative board game drafting, this week’s episode sees the return to the competitive format, where we pit our games against one another, and let you decide who did it best. This week, two player games. Also… did we mention you can win $50 just by voting? Before we revel in democracy, we also talk about Rolling Freight, and Six-Sided Seas.
If you don’t want to miss an episode, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts/Google Podcasts/Stitcher/Spotify, or add our RSS feed to your favourite app. Reviews and subscriptions really help us and would be greatly appreciated! To download the episode directly, click here.
If you’d like to discuss anything in the episode, please do so in the comments below, visit our BoardGameGeek guild, join our Discord, or Facebook Group! Any feedback is also always helpful. If you’d like to show your support for the show, we also have a Patreon with some fun rewards, and a merch store!
Timecodes:
02:35 – Rolling Freight 13:19 – Six-Sided Seas 18:02 – Two player games draft 22:15 – War of the Ring: Second Edition 23:59 – Lost Cities 25:12 – 7 Wonders Duel 25:59 – Android: Netrunner 28:56 – Hanamikoji 29:57 – Sky Team 31:20 – Patchwork 32:17 – Codenames: Duet 33:41 – Hive 35:25 – Twilight Struggle 36:05 – Watergate 39:07 – Toy Battle 39:50 – Compile: Main 1 40:41 – Confusion: Espionage and Deception in the Cold War 44:15 – Splendor Duel
Thank you to Heart Society for generously letting us use What’s On Your Mind, Kid? from their album Wake the Queens.
I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed historical topic, such as espionage or intelligence, and creates a gaming experience tailored around the events to highlight and evoke the difficulties and tension that would have been present. In January 2026, GMT Games announced such a game in Checkpoint Charlie, which is a solo or cooperative game focused on SIS espionage missions in Berlin in the 1960’s designed by Russell Brown. We have posted an interview with Russel and it was very well received and he has now agreed to create a series of History Behind the Cards to highlight the events of the 1960’s Cold War struggle in West Germany but also to share aspects about the game play and how it models the history.
*Note: The cards highlighted in this series and their event text, as well as any pictures used showing any of the various components, are still in the design and development process and as such event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
History Behind the Cards – Checkpoint Charliefrom GMT Games – Card #10 Moscow Rules
“Moscow rules meant watch your back. London rules meant cover your arse.”
This quote from Mick Herron’s book, Slow Horses, may be what many people think of when the term Moscow Rules is used today, but there’s a bit more to it than that. Moscow rules were an unwritten set of procedures – spycraft protocols – to keep in mind when operating on the KGB’s home turf. Moscow Rules may have also been used as a cautionary declaration, a spy’s call to arms. In John Le Carrè’s spy novels, George Smiley lets his colleagues know that exceptional caution is warranted just by saying, “Moscow Rules.”
Moscow Rules could include communicating with extra caution, or in code. It could mean keeping a better eye out for someone following you, or being ready to defend yourself. But at its core, it meant that you were effectively operating in enemy territory and could no longer trust the people and places you once took for granted.
In Checkpoint Charlie, the Moscow Rules Event Card puts all of your assets on high alert, giving them a Tradecraft Marker if they don’t already have one. It also adds the Papers Item to the Mission, assuming that your assets dig deeper into their resources, perhaps pulling out old false identities reserved for emergencies. If you’re playing the campaign game, the Moscow Rules Card is not removed when it occurs, so it can show up on almost any mission.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at ________.
In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am appreciative to Russell and his efforts to bring us these cards and to write these entries to share with our readers. I am also very glad that this topic is being covered in a game and look forward to playing this one day soon.
Big month of games incoming! I was able to easily find games to share with you and I am excited for you to get this one in your inboxes. This month, I was able to find 37 games to share (including the 3 from our sponsor PHALANX and with 1 entry including 2 games), with 20 of those being newly announced pre-orders and 14 being new releases. I was also able to find 5 games being offered on Crowdfunding platforms Gamefound and Kickstarter.
Again this month, we have a sponsor for the Wargame Watch post in PHALANX, who is the maker of fantastic wargames such as U-BOOT, Hannibal & Hamilcar, Freedom!, Purple Haze, Total Domination, Iron, Blood, Snow and Mud,A Very Civil Whist, 1944: Race to the Rhine, Fire in the Sky and more. We have really never had a bad experience with any of their games and have really loved many of them!
They have a lot of great games upcoming and in the pipeline and are always developing new titles for pre-order or funding on Gamefound.
One of their more exciting recent offerings is a group of similar subject games set in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. I personally love PTO wargames and these both look extremly interesting. These include 2 separate titles 1943: Race to Rabaul and Tora Tora Tora!. We did an interview with Volko Ruhnke who designed 1943: Race to Rabaul earlier this summer and you can check that out on the blog at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2026/06/15/interview-with-volko-ruhnke-designer-of-1943-race-to-rabaul-from-phalanx/
Both of these games are beautiful and look very good and you are in luck as both can still be pre-ordered on the Gamefound page listed in the interview or by clicking the picture to the right.
They also have Sovereign: Shōgun, which is a new game in the Sovereign Series that includes one of my favorites in Bretwalda. This game was funded on Gamefound earlier this year and is a massive undertaking with a ton of content and add-ons that can create a massive game, both in its playability and replayability as well as its options for players. You can also still pre-order on the Gamefound page by clicking the picture below.
They have several other projects in the works including Independence, Saga, Lords of the North, Dust in the Wind and Lords of Heaven all planned for near future pre-order/crowdfunding campaigns or fulfillment.
One more thing before we get to this month’s games. Bill Molyneaux does this fundraising calendar of the Battlefield museums and historical sites on the East Coast for Toys for Tots and I wanted to share that with you so you can look at buying one.
1. The Great Escape from Sound of Drums Currently on Gamefound
If you like historical themed games that focus on challenging objectives, cooperative play and teamwork then I have a great game to introduce you to this month. I have known about this game’s existence for a while now. In fact, I saw a prototype last fall while attending Spiel Essen, but recently it was officially announced on Gamefound with a campaign kickoff of October 20th. The game is called The Great Escape and is designed by Philip duBarry, the designer of one of my favorite cooperative historical games in Black Orchestra. The Great Escape is based on a true story and shares the account of the escape attempt by Allied soldiers from the infamous Stalag Luft III POW Camp during WWII. The game is a cooperative or solitaire experience for 1-5 players and is just beautifully produced.
From the game page, we read the following:
On the moonless night of March 24, 1944, Allied prisoners emerged from a tunnel ending outside the fence of Stalag Luft III. They silently crawled the remaining feet over frozen ground to the cover of the surrounding forest. The men who escaped wore carefully-tailored civilian clothes and carried suitcases, intricate identification papers, German money to purchase train tickets, and several days of food.
76 prisoners escaped before the German guards sounded the alarm. A furious effort to recapture the prisoners ensued, and all but three were found. In an unprecedented move and in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, Hitler ordered 50 of the recaptured prisoners to be secretly executed. The escape cost the Germans hundreds of thousands of man hours and countless resources meant for the war, delivering a devastating blow to German morale.
Now the wire waits again. The ground is stark and cold, the guards are watchful, and the forest beyond the fences offers both salvation and deadly risk. Will you dig far enough, plan carefully enough, and seize the right moment before the alarm sounds?
Behind the barbed wire of Stalag Luft III, time is measured in whispered plans, and the constant threat of discovery. In The Great Escape, you and your fellow Allied air force officers must organize the camp, gather scarce materials, craft civilian clothes and forged papers, dig secret tunnels beneath the perimeter, invent ingenious devices, and carefully time your escapes—all while guards conduct ever-more-ruthless searches and the Gestapo tightens its grip. Draw on the unique skills of legendary officers, trade with compromised guards, execute daring Escape Plans, and keep the tunnels hidden. Every action risks drawing Trouble. If the Gestapo locks down the camp before twelve soldiers slip into the forest under cover of night, the attempt has failed. Outsmart the search parties. Carry on the war from behind the wire. Help twelve men escape, and you will have struck a blow that echoes far beyond the fences of Stalag Luft III.
The Great Escape is a cooperative board game for 1–5 players, designed by Philip duBarry. Play time is 60–90 minutes and is recommended for ages 12 and up.
As of November 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised €34,416 ($38,601 in US Dollars) toward its €12,500 ($13,942 in US Dollars) funding goal with 598 backers. The campaign will conclude on Monday, November 9th at 6:00pm EDT.
2. Fix Bayonets! Volume III: 1806: Auerstädt from Tactical Workshop Currently on Gamefound
Last year, I became aware of a new edition of a very interesting looking Napoleonics game series called Fix Bayonets! designed by Frederic Delstanches. That game was 1811: Albuera Second Edition from Tactical Workshop, which was originally released in 2020. Since that time, Frederic has been busy and designed the 2nd volume in that series called 1809: Talavera. Due to the success of these efforts, Tactical Workshop now is embarking on a new project in the series called 1806: Auerstädt that covers the Battle of Jena–Auerstädt fought on October 14, 1806, near Jena and Auerstädt, Germany being the decisive engagement of the War of the Fourth Coalition.
From the game page, we read the following:
1806: Auerstädt is a tabletop wargame that allows you to recreate this astounding asymmetrical battle of the War of the Fourth Coalition, face to face with another player or as a solitaire experience.
Take command of the French III Corps under Maréchal Davout, one of Napoléon’s best commanders, and attempt to reproduce his astounding victory against a vastly superior force! If you like a challenge, you can instead lead the Prussian Royal Army and rewrite history, overcoming your poor leadership and frail morale, by overwhelming an opponent half your size with your mighty manpower and cavalry superiority.
I want you know the backstory of this new boutique publisher and will share that here:
Tactical Workshop is a small, family owned and operated entity that started as non-profit and that we expanded into a small business last year with the success of 1811: Albuera. We are established as a LLC in Orlando, Florida and have an antenna in Yokohama, Japan. We started using the “print on demand” model in 2019 by publishing play aids for various other games then designing our first two boxed games: 1811: Albuera and 1810: Bussaco. Despite good reviews, the games were not selling well due to the very high prices required by the model. The only way to expand was to produce our games using a professional game printer. We successfully launched and funded 1811: Albuera Second Edition in 2025 and 1809: Talavera here on Gamefound. This is our third professionally printed game in the series.
I own the first 2 volumes in the series, and while I have yet to play them because we just received them, I can attest to the production quality and the great amount of components that come in the box.
As of November 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $8,553 toward its $6,000 funding goal with 145 backers. The campaign will conclude on Monday, November 30th at 12:00am EDT.
3. Aces & Armor – Spitfire: Battle of Britain & North Africa from PKB Games Currently on Kickstarter
A few years back, we backed a very interesting looking miniatures based board game set in World War II called Aces & Armor from PKB Games. We played it last year and very much enjoyed the combat system as well as the way units gain experience and become more effective. That game did very well on Kickstarter and PKB Games is back with a new addition to the series called Aces & Armor – Spitfire: Battle of Britain & North Africa that is currently on Kickstarter.
From the game page, we read the following:
Aces & Armor – Spitfire: Battle of Britain & North Africa is a tactical World War II strategy game set across Britain, France, and the North African desert. Players command combined forces of aircraft, tanks, and infantry, including iconic units such as the Supermarine Spitfire, and must use the strengths of their different units and the battlefield terrain to their advantage.
During the game, players maneuver their forces, engage enemy units in combat, and develop experienced units over the course of the battle. Combat takes into account factors such as unit type, attack strength, armor, damage, experience, formation, and terrain, making the positioning and composition of an army an important part of each engagement.
I think that the most interesting part of this new entry into the Aces & Armor Series is the ability to play this entry with the original.
Spitfire can be played as a standalone game for one or two players, or combined with the original Aces & Armor to create larger battles with up to five players. Players compete or cooperate according to the chosen scenario, and win by completing its specified victory objectives before the opposing side does.
The production is also top notch and the miniatures are very well done. I will add here that there is an option to have them pre-painted so they will look that much better.
As of November 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $184,526 toward its $11,172 funding goal with 1,035 backers. The campaign will conclude on Thursday, November 12th at 2:59am EST.
4. Dragon Ships & Iron Knights: Three Battles from the Year 1066 from Legion Wargames
I have always loved the games that come from small boutique publisher Legion Wargames. Their offerings are always on interesting and lesser gamed topics and they always seem to have great looking art as well. I also know that when I buy one of their games, I am supporting a great guy in owner Randy Lein and also the stable of great designers that they have relationships with. This month, I saw a new pre-order game offered in their Customer Pre-Order Program called Dragon Ships & Iron Knights:Three Battles from the Year 1066, which takes a look at 3 separate battles in England and Scotland that had major impacts on the course of those countries. The game is designed by Norm Smith and is a hex and counter game that appears to be more on the tactical level.
From the game page, we read the following:
Dragon Ships & Iron Knights is set of three, 2-player, tactical level wargames covering the battles that shaped the future of England for centuries to come. The game includes the following battles:
The Battle of Hastings
The Battle of Stamford Bridge
The Battle of Gate Fulford
Each battle includes its own map and rulebook and comes with 3 maps measuring 17″ x 22″, 3 sheets of unit counters/markers and 3 player aids.
If you are interested in Dragon Ships & Iron Knights: Three Battles from the Year 1066, you can pre-order a copy for $53.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_DGS.html
5. Traces of Tunisia from VUCA Simulations
This month we get 2 new pre-order games from VUCA Simulations. The first of these is Traces of Tunisia and I am always in the mood for a good North African Theater wargame. The games I have played on this theater are always very, very good and I love the struggle with the harsh North African terrain and the importance of supply. Traces of Tunisia is a part of the Traces of Series of operational level wargames that have included titles such as Traces of War, Traces of Hubris and Traces of Victory. This system works really well and is a chit-pull activation system that keeps you on your toes and always fretting over the order of the chits during any given round.
From the game page, we read the following:
At the conclusion of the North African campaign, German and Italian forces found themselves squeezed into the mountainous, canalized terrain of Tunisia. Facing advancing Anglo-American and Free French forces from the west and British veterans from the east, the Axis fought a desperate campaign of operational counter-strikes and delaying actions to hold the Mediterranean gateway.
Traces of Tunisia puts you in command of this critical operational struggle.
Take control of the Axis bridgehead forces or the Allied armies in a tense operational-level game of command activation, logistics tracing, and maneuvering across compartmentalized terrain.
Allied player: Coordinate multinational forces, leverage expanding air power, manage supply lines, and push rapidly toward Tunis and Bizerte before time runs out.
Axis player: Utilize inner lines, mount dangerous armored counter-offensives, destroy infrastructure, and prolong the campaign to deny the Allies an early springboard into Europe.
Every decision matters—overextend into mountain choke points without logistics, and your spearheads will be isolated; hesitate, and enemy air superiority will paralyze your operations.
The game is designed for fans of Operational level wargames, WWII North African history, chit-pull activation systems and players who value clarity of rules combined with strong thematic immersion.
6. Gateway to Falaise – Caen-Normandy 1944 from VUCA Simulations
The 2nd new pre-order game offered this month from VUCA Simulations is another dandy. The first thing that caught my eye was the beautiful yet simple cover and the way that the smoke and other elements form a camouflage pattern. Just gorgeous! The game is called Gateway to Falaise: Caen-Normandy 1944 and is a part of the Formation Series. The game is designed by Andrew Glenn.
From the game page, we read the following:
Following the D-Day landings, the Allies faced a desperate, grinding war of attrition in the bocage and open fields of Normandy. To break the deadlock and trap the German forces, the British, Canadian, and Allied forces launched a series of high-stakes operational pushes aimed at capturing the strategic hubs of Caen and Falaise.
Gateway to Falaise puts you in command of this crucial campaign—the second installment in the Formation Series.
Command the Allied forces attempting to smash through entrenched defenses, or take control of the German defenders fighting desperately to hold the line and delay the Allied advance.
Allied player: Plan concentrated armored and mechanized pushes, deploy massive artillery and air support, navigate restrictive terrain, and strain the Axis defenses to force a complete breakout.
German player: Utilize superior tactical positions, manage precious armor and elite formations, execute timed counterattacks, and inflict maximum casualties to stall the Allied momentum.
Every decision matters—overextend into prepared anti-tank zones, and your spearhead will be wiped out; hesitate, and the opportunity to trap the enemy slips away.
Built on an engaging formation-based system, the game balances strategic planning with operational friction:
Dynamic formation activation keeps both players constantly engaged and simulates the uncertainty of command.
Combined arms warfare seamlessly integrates infantry, armor, engineering assets, heavy artillery, and air/naval support.
Fast-resolving combat maintains high tension while reflecting realistic unit attrition and tactical consequences.
Streamlined operational rules allow for swift gameplay without sacrificing historical depth.
7. Eagles of 1807 – Volume I: Winter from Fellowship of Simulations
A good Napoleonic wargame is always welcome at my table. The grandiose uniforms, fantastic cavalry charges, focus on experience of soldiers and the like are what I have always thought of first when I think about the subject. Fellowship of Simulations has a new offering this month that is a part of their Eagles of France Series called Eagles of 1807 – Volume I: Winter. This game focuses on 3 major engagements during the winter of 1807 including Pultusk, Golymin and Eylau.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Eagles of France Series is back in force! This master box covers 3 battles. Pultusk and Golymin: December 26th 1806, the two armies are struggling in a sea of mud. They collided in two locations. At Pultusk, Lannes engaged a larger force. At Golymin, the Russians played a delaying action.
Then came Eylau and the bloodbath in the snow.
The game includes these 3 battles, including historical variations and what ifs.
In addition, the full order of battle of both armies for winter 1806 is available. This will allow even more flexibility to test alternative scenarios. Also, unused counters might be used for future expansions with additional battles.
If you are interested in Eagles of 1807 – Volume I: Winter, you can pre-order a copy for €99,00 ($110.29 in US Dollars) from the Fellowship of Simulations website at the following link: https://www.fsimgames.com/en/eagles-of-1807-winter-box/
8. Peace 1905: Ending the Russo-Japanese War from Fort Circle Games
In 2023, while attending SDHistCon in San Diego, we sat down with Maurice Suckling to get a look at his new game called Peace 1905: Ending the Russo-Japanese War from Fort Circle Games. We have enjoyed many of Maurice’s designs including Hidden Strike: American Revolution, Chancellorsville 1863, 1565 Siege of Malta and Crisis: 1914 and very much enjoy how his mind takes a historical event and wraps mechanics around it to create an experience that helps players in understanding the situation. Peace 1905 deals with the negotiations between the Japanese and Russians at the end of the Russo-Japanese War. The game was very good and plays in about 30-45 minutes.
From the game page, we read the following:
By August 1905 the Russo-Japanese War had been raging for 18 months, with over a million soldiers, sailors, and engineers in arms, it had cost the lives of between 100,000 to 200,000 participants and brought death and destruction to civilians. The war had seen the sinking of the Russian Pacific and Baltic fleets, and the great sieges at Port Arthur and Mukden. The world was shaken by the emphatic rise of Imperial Japan as a land and naval power. Russia had been blooded and humiliated.
But Russia was not yet done. Although both sides were financially exhausted it was Russia who continued to funnel troops into the war, while Japan’s manpower reserves were depleted. The war might yet continue, with further loss of life and property, and protracted instability in the Far East. With this would come the risk of further Russian humiliation. Both sides needed a way out. The door to that way out was opened by US President Theodore Roosevelt when he invited delegations of both sides to Portsmouth, New Hampshire – to a peace conference through August 1905. But with the sides so far apart on numerous key issues – the Russian Czar had stipulated no territorial concessions or reparation payments, and the Japanese Emperor wanted exactly those things and much more – what real hope was there that both sides could find a mutually satisfactory resolution?
In history, the answer is found in the Treaty of Portsmouth, a complex and significant diplomatic achievement, for which, for his part in facilitating and assisting, President Roosevelt was the first American to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Peace 1905, you – the players – will have Roosevelt’s assistance, but the work of successfully negotiating is down to you. Will you end the war, and bring a peace your governments approve of, or will the conference end in failure, and the war ignite again?
Here is a link to our interview with Maurice Suckling designer of Peace 1905 from Fort Circle Games during our trip to SDHistCon in 2023:
If you are interested in Peace 1905: Ending the Russo-Japanese War, you can pre-order a copy for $60.00 from the Fort Circle Games website at the following link: https://www.fortcircle.com/peace-1905/
9. Commands & Colors: American Civil War from GMT Games
The Commands and Colors Series is a simplified and introductory wargaming system designed by Richard Borg. The system is fairly simple and uses a deck of Command Cards, which can be classified as Section cards and Tactics cards, that are used to take actions with various groups of units on a hex board that is divided into 3 sections, including the Left, Center and Right. There are also custom Battle Dice that represent hits, retreats and special actions. The units on the field of battle are made up of figures or blocks. The series have volumes representing various different historical periods, including both modern and ancient, and I have found that there is something to like in the series for anyone’s taste. We have played every volume in the series and very much had a good time with the series and its mechanics. It is just a very solid and easy to play system for new wargamers and old. Recently, GMT announced a new entry to the series focused on the American Civil War called Commands & Colors: American Civil War designed by series mastermind Richard Borg.
From the game page, we read the following:
By design, Commands & Colors: American Civil War is not overly complex. Although this version does have slightly more detail than its earlier brothers, the Classic Battle Cry board game from 1999 or Battle Cry 150th Civil War Anniversary Edition released in 2010, yet at its heart, the game is still not overly complex. If you are already familiar with the core game from one or both of these earlier editions, you will recognize most of the rules and game play. Yet, over 25 years since the original design, we have taken the opportunity to once again enhance the game’s historical feel in order to immerse players even more fully in the experience of moving and fighting troops on a stylized American Civil War battlefield.
The game is based on the highly successful Commands & Colors game system, where the Command cards drive movement while creating a “fog of war,” and the battle dice resolve combat quickly and efficiently. Commands & Colors: American Civil War, however, introduces a number of new game concepts and has slightly modified some rule sections, all of which will add additional historical depth. All these enhancements plus the new deck of Civil War Combat cards will provide even the most veteran Battle Cry player with many new play experiences and challenges.
The scale of the game fluctuates, which allows players to effectively portray some of the larger American Civil War battles, as well as smaller size skirmish actions. In some scenarios, an infantry unit may represent an entire brigade, while in others a unit may only represent a few companies of soldiers. Still the tactics of the period that you will need to execute to gain victory conform remarkably well to the advantages and limitations inherent to Civil War Armies of the day and the battlefield terrain features on which they fought.
The battles showcased in the core game scenario battle booklet feature a stylized battlefield map that emphasizes the important terrain features and highlight the historical deployment of forces in scale with the game system. There are 70 new scenarios that complement the group of updated 30 Battle Cry scenarios previous presented.
A word of advice, if I may be so bold. Even the previously-presented scenarios, now with the rule updates and a new deck of combat cards, are totally worth revisiting.
10. The Napoleonic Wars 25th Anniversary Edition from GMT Games
Over the past couple of years, GMT Games has had a focus on bringing back and upgrading several of their most classic games in either Deluxe Editions or the Anniversary Editions. These are not just straight reprints and typically involved new and upgraded components, cover art, board art and rules changes, corrections or upgrades. I own and have played several including For the People 25th Anniversary Edition, SPQR Deluxe Edition and Silver Bayonet 25th Anniversary Edition. These volumes are a great way to get older classic and out of print wargames back into the hands of players both old and new. Recently, GMT announced their newest Anniversary Edition; The Napoleonic Wars 25th Anniversary Edition designed by Mark McLaughlin.
From the game page, we read the following:
The first edition of The Napoleonic Wars was published in 2002. A second edition was published six years later and a double-sized, two-cardboard-map was made available in between. Now, thanks to the tireless work of developer Gareth Williams, who GM’ed the WBC tournament for over a decade, we are ready to bring you a 25th Anniversary Edition that will put an exclamation mark on this game’s history.
Over two hundred competitive games have been analyzed to give birth to what will be the 3rd edition of the rulebook. Likewise, about a third of the cards have been edited for clarity or balance. Six brand-new cards were also added. What hasn’t changed though is the possibility to relive the epics of Napoleon’s conquests at a strategic level with up to five players, each trying to carve up a place for their nation when 1815 comes around or when the infamous Peace Roll succeeds!
A complete graphics redesign by Wouter Schoutteten brings the game to modern standards. We are pulling out all the stops and making no compromises to production quality. The goal has always been clear: this is a deluxe edition, not an overpriced collector’s edition. We want each and every one of you to be able to enjoy this Mark McLaughlin classic at its best.
The HQ Displays now include a setup visual aid on the back. Each also features a force pool with a painting of their nation’s capital, to remind players of what they are ultimately defending!
While the black and white had its charm, cards now feature full-color artwork from the painting masterpieces of the era.
Nine major leaders such as Blücher, Davout and Bagration join Napoleon and Wellington in having a unique portrait for both their counter and standee. Oh and these leader standees will now be custom-cut!
Whether you’re a veteran of The Napoleonic Wars or you have been waiting a long time for us to reprint it, don’t miss out on your chance to get this acclaimed multiplayer game! Hours of fun await rewriting history!
I am truly impressed by this version of an Anniversary Edition and very much look forward to seeing it in real life. We have played this game once and very much enjoyed it although the balance seems a bit questionable in my mind as France, understandably, is very powerful.
11. Commands & Colors: Ancients Expansion 1: Greece & Eastern Kingdoms 4th Printing from GMT Games
This is the 2nd entry that deals with the Commands & Colors Series and is just a straight reprint, with known errata included as well. And any wargame has made it to 4th Printing should tell you something about the quality of that game. Commands & Colors: Ancients Expansion 1: Greece & Eastern Kingdoms 4th Printing is the next entry in the venerable series to get another reprint and Ancients is one of my favorite entries.
From the game page, we read the following:
Some of you have already discovered that Commands & Colors: Ancients is much more than a game. It is an expandable game system that allows players to fight a host of historical Ancient battles.
The Greeks & Eastern Kingdoms is the first expansion to Commands & Colors: Ancients. The armies of Philip, Alexander and the Successors meet the hosts of Persians, Scythians and Indians to the east. In this expansion, you will find historical scenarios that focus on the hoplites of classical Greece fighting off the invading Persian army at Marathon and Plataea; epic battles from the Peloponnesian War, the rise of Macedon and Alexander’s battles of Gaugamela, Issus and Granicus against the Persians; and battles involving Alexander’s successors. With your Greeks you will be able to turn west and battle the Carthaginians in Sicily, or as King Pyrrhus at Heraclea and Ausculum, battle the Romans.
In this first expansion, we showcase over 20 scenarios (the package includes over 300 new unit blocks and stickers you need to fight out these battles). Now, that is a lot of history, but we can do this because Commands & Colors: Ancients is, by design, a unique historical game system that will allow players to effectively portray stylized Ancient battles that play to a conclusion in less than an hour.
The battle dice resolve combat quickly and the command cards provide an element of luck that creates a fog of war and presents players with both challenges and opportunities for victory. Yet the tactics you need to execute conform remarkably well to the advantages and limitations inherent to the various Ancient units, their weapons, terrain and the history.
12. Commands & Colors: Napoleonics Expansion 1: The Spanish Army 5th Printing from GMT Games
My favorite volume in the Commands & Colors Series is C&C: Napoleonics hands down. I think that the reason for this is the unit variety represented in the game as well as the various extra army expansion packs that were released after the base game came to market. The 2nd Commands & Colors Series reprint offered this month is Commands & Colors: Napoleonics Expansion 1: The Spanish Army 5th Printing
From the game page, we read the following:
The Spanish Army is the first expansion for Commands & Colors: Napoleonics.
At the time of the Napoleonic Wars, Spain was only a shadow of its former power. Spanish troops and leaders, as many Napoleonic historians point out, performed badly on a large number of occasions. Yet there are a number of battles, Bailen, Tamames, Alcaniz and San Marcial where the Spaniards fought valiantly and gained victory. Ironically, the point most historians overlook is the fact that the Spanish armies constituted a threat that the French simply could not ignore. As good as Wellington’s Anglo-Portuguese field army was, that army faced multiple French armies. They could only defeat one French army at a time. The Spanish Armies and the accompanying guerrilla warfare against French troops tied down the remainder, allowing the Anglo-Portuguese army to ultimately emerge victorious.
In this expansion you will find 18 historical scenarios that focus on Peninsular battles fought by the Spanish army from 1808 to 1813, plus all the new units you’ll need to field for these engagements.
1808
Bailén – July 19 1808 Zornoza – October 31, 1808 Gamonel – November 7, 1808 Espinosa – November 11, 1808 Somosierra – November 30, 1808
1809
Medellin – March 28, 1809 Alcaniz – May 23, 1809 Maria – June 6, 1809 Talavera (Spanish Flank) – July 28, 1809 Tamames – October 13, 1809 Ocano (Cavalry Action) – November 18, 1809 Ocano – November 19, 1809 Alba de Tormes – November 28, 1809
1811
Barrosa (French Attack) – March 5, 1811Albuera – May 16, 1811
1813
Vitoria (Hill’s Attack) – June 21, 1813 San Marcial – August 31, 1813 Ordal Cross – September 13, 1813
The quality of Spanish troops varied, from very poor to good, and the Spanish National Unit Reference Card presents a wealth of subtle unit characteristics that set the Spanish Army apart from all other Coalition armies that opposed Napoleon. Command of the Spanish Army, therefore, will truly challenge even the most experienced Commands & Colors: Napoleonics player.
13. Labyrinth 3″ Game Box 2026-27 Reprint from GMT Games
One of the problems with a successful game series is the concept of growth. As a game does well, and more and more copies are sold and the buzz continues to build and grow, the inevitable happens and expansions come out for that game. These expansions not only add new and interesting mechanics and content to an already great game but they add stuff that you must store in the game box. And this stuff can multiply and get out of hand really quickly outgrowing the box that the original game was published in. Such is the case with Labyrinth as it has now had 2 published expansions, including The Awakening and The Forever War, and about a year ago we got the 3rd expansion The Rise of Al-Qaeda announced. 3 game expansions will add up and will not fit into the 2″ original box. So, GMT has offered a reprint of their Labyrinth 3″ Game Box on P500…and the price is very, very affordable.
From the game page, we read the following:
We’ve listened to those of you who asked us to put the Labyrinth 3″ Box back up on the P500 list to help you with storage of the game’s modules. So to accomodate you, and all those players who own earlier editions of Labyrinth and would like to get a deeper box, we are now reprinting a 3″ deep box via P500.
14. SCSDrive on Kharkov: Gallop, Star and the Backhand Blow from Multi-Man Publishing
One of my favorite hex and counter wargame series is the Standard Combat Series from Multi-Man Publishing. The series is a classic with simple rules, typically 6-10 pages of exclusive rules, solid move and fight mechanics and good solid design that always creates and fun and interesting way to take a look at operational level wargames typically set in World War II. We have played about 8 of the games in the series and own many more but it is a staple on our shelves and recently MMP announced the newest volume in the series called Drive on Kharkov. Drive on Kharkov takes a look at 3 separate but related battles on the East Front including the Soviet twin offensives, Operation Gallop and Operation Star, as well as the German counter-offensive referred to as von Manstein’s “Backhand Blow”. Once announced, I couldn’t mash the pre-order button any quicker and you should do the same.
From the game page, we read the following:
Drive on Kharkov is a Standard Combat Series (SCS) game covering the Soviet twin offensives, Operation Gallop and Operation Star, as well as the German counter-offensive (von Manstein’s “Backhand Blow”) that ended the Soviet winter offensive of 1942-43. Intended to cut off retreating Axis divisions in the south and capture Kharkov and the Donbas region, Operations Gallop and Star initially met with good success. However, the hasty nature of the offensives coupled with a poor supply situation slowed progress, and the Axis forces recovered and finally unleashed a counteroffensive that retook substantial ground and set the stage for Kursk, the last Axis offensive on the Eastern Front.
The game covers this pivotal post-Stalingrad dueling offensives at the operational scale. Each turn represents 2-3 days. Each hex is 5 kilometers wide. Soviet units are generally brigades and regiments with cavalry divisions. Axis units are mostly battalions with a few Kampfgruppen (KG) and regiments.
Game specific rules include HQs at the Soviet Army and German Corps level, artillery and air strikes, divisional refits, and mud that hampered operations late in the campaign. This famous battle comes alive with SCS where you can see if you can do as well as a Field Marshal von Manstein or Colonel General Vatutin.
If you are interested in SCSDrive on Kharkov: Gallop, Star and the Backhand Blow, you can pre-order a copy for $45.00 from the Multi-Man Publishing website at the following link: https://mmpgamers.com/drive-on-kharkov-p-471
15. BCS The Breaking Point: Battle of France and Belgium, May, 1940 from Multi-Man Publishing
As affectionate as I am about the Standard Combat Series, I may have a greater love for the Battalion Combat Series as the scale of the game and the way it integrates and connects positioning and supply into the results of combat is just superb. And those dreaded SNAFU Rolls that will get you if you don’t watch out or if you push your troops too far. MMP also announced a new entry to this series called The Breaking Point: Battle of France and Belgium, May, 1940
From the game page, we read the following:
The Breaking Point is a Battalion Combat Series (BCS) game depicting the critical point in the Battle of France. The Phoney War between France and Germany ended abruptly when panzers raced through the Ardennes Forest. France replied, executing their Dyle Plan, by advancing into their neighboring neutral countries to meet the threat . Believing it would take the Germans a week to cross the wooded and rough terrain, the French advanced their reserves hoping to form a cohesive defensive line. The Germans emerged from the Ardennes in two days, setting up a race to the Meuse River. Who will get there first? Will the French arrive in force and stop the enemy from crossing? Will the Germans vault over the river into the French heartland? The decisions and actions ultimately decided the fate of France and Belgium.
The game covers this unique and often misunderstood campaign in splendid detail. Not just focusing on Sedan where Guderian crossed, the game covers the length of the main German drive. It spans from the armored feint north of the Meuse River leading to the biggest tank battle to date at Hannut; to the crossing at Dinant where Erwin Rommel’s initial exploits were demonstrated; to Monthermé where a panzer division was held up by French Colonial troops; and finally to Sedan the French finally met its breaking point leading to the struggle for Stonne, and ultimately the breakout to the English Channel. Game specific rules capture important aspects like bridge blowing, bridge construction, tank breakdowns, Dyle Defensive Plans, and French Battle Doctrine. The intent is to reflect the historic capabilities and limitations of both sides without heavy handed rules or one built on myths.
Extensive research was done, including original French and German sources, to correctly depict the forces involved as well as how each sides’ doctrines drove how they could be used effectively. The French and Belgians fought bravely and were executing a post-WWI defensive strategy. This was compared to the dynamic tactics of the Germans, where brashness and sometimes outright insubordination wasn’t necessarily the winning factor, but rather luck. This fascinating and complex campaign can be explored by players in the way that only BCS can show.
If you are interested in BCS The Breaking Point: Battle of France and Belgium, May, 1940, you can pre-order a copy for $90.00 from the Multi-Man Publishing website at the following link: https://mmpgamers.com/the-breaking-point-p-472
16. Until the Bitter End 3 Print ‘n Play Wargame from Matt White Currently on Kickstarter
Several years ago, we posted an interview with Matt White, who is a very talented graphic artist and budding game designer, that focused on his artistic talents and love of tanks. He has since designed several very interesting small scale print and play wargames, with his most recent series being a World War II tactical wargame series for 1-2 Until the Bitter End. He has had multiple entries in the series including British Airborne versus the German Wehrmacht called Until the Bitter End, Until the Bitter End – US Airborne and Until the Bitter End – Tanks. His most recent offering in the series is called Until the Bitter End 3 and is currently being crowdfunded on Kickstarter.
From the game page, we read the following:
Welcome to Until the Bitter End 3, a World War 2 wargame. This is the third and latest game in the series and a print and play game for solitaire and two-players. This is a standalone game in my series of WW2 print and play games. You don’t need to have played the first games – everything is included (you simply need to print it all out and need a regular six sided dice and a pencil).
The game is quick to setup and play, it takes around 30 minutes to play a game and requires very little space.
Example of the game setup ready to play – one of the smaller scenarios on just one map, with only a few counters needed.
The game sets a small squad of American Airborne against their German enemies in a series of small skirmish scenarios. The game’s counters (or chits) each represent an actual soldier with the gameplay being in the thick of man-to-man combat.
American forces preparing to assault the German defended church.
Key Features
Each counter represents an individual soldier with unique artwork.
Rules and multiple scenarios for 2 player and separate unique rules and scenarios for Solitaire play.
Geomorphic maps and scenarios so you can decide the gameplay length from 30 minutes to a couple of hours.
Third release in the series with a robust and play tested core rule set, with easy to learn mechanics that have depth of tactical play.
Easy to print out and construct with just a few sheets of paper and only a few counters needed to start.
This is a print and play game with the PDF containing all the rules, scenarios, maps, player aids and counters required to play. You’ll need to print them out, mount the maps and counters to card and provide your own pencil and a regular six sided dice. We have kept the maps and counters to a few sheets (of either Letter or A4 size) so very inexpensive and quick to print out and mount.
One of the best parts of these print ‘n play games designed by Matt is the art. He has a real skill and creates some very memorable counters, drawings and maps that create a great deal of thematic immersion into the battles and makes it very nice to simply look at. The games are also great but his art is superb!
As of November 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $1,615 toward its $172 funding goal with 63 backers. The campaign will conclude on Tuesday, November 17th at 4:00pm EST.
17. The Struggle for Union from Compass Games
A good sweeping Grand Strategic wargame is always welcome on my table! I love the experience of managing armies and entire fronts and the decisions that come with that including supply, logistics, politics and even war production and economic issues. And when the game is set during the American Civil War, I am very interested. One of Compass Games new offerings on pre-order is The Struggle for Union designed by Mark Melenovsky.
From the game page, we read the following:
Command the armies of the Union or Confederacy in a sweeping Civil War simulation that blends grand strategy, operational maneuver, and battlefield tactics. Build armies, manage production, and pursue your own path to victory as history unfolds across an open-ended sandbox campaign. Uncertainty reigns supreme. Fog of War conceals enemy intentions, Activation Chits create the friction and delays of command, and distant armies may “March to the Sound of the Guns” to reinforce a desperate battle underway.
When armies collide, the action shifts to an immersive Battle Board where leadership, terrain, reserves, and timing determine victory or defeat. Every battle becomes a dramatic test of skill, nerve, and command. The result is a richly historical Civil War experience where no two campaigns unfold the same way.
The Struggle for Union provides players with more of a sandbox approach to a Civil War simulation. To that end, Basic Resource Points (or Production Points) allow players to build their forces as they see fit and craft their own approaches to winning the game and have fun going down different force pool paths. Another fundamental decision was to enable players to accomplish the historical progress of the war with the least amount of rule exceptions. It was an important aspect of the design to have common rules and tables that governed most game elements, so once players learn them, they can be applied to most game situations.
Best played by 2–4 players, each playing a combination of Union and Confederate Eastern and Western Theaters.
18. Ten Years of Glory: The Tide Turns Against Philip II, 1589-1598 from Compass Games
The No Peace without Spain Series is a very interesting series from Compass Games, which is a family of card-driven, strategic-level wargames designed by Don Herndon and other contributors such as Kris Van Beurden that sets out to simulate major early-modern European conflicts from the late 17th through the mid-18th centuries. There is now a new volume in the series called Ten Years of Glory: The Tide Turns Against Philip II, 1589-1598 that was just announced and it is designed by Kris Van Beurden.
From the game page, we read the following:
Ten Years of Glory is a two-player, card-driven wargame using the No Peace without Spain system, depicting the turn of the tide in the Eighty Years’ War. During ten years (from 1589 to 1598), while the Spanish Empire was distracted by events in France, the Dutch Republic conquered territories which even today are still part of the Netherlands. One player represents the Habsburg family, while the other player represents the Anti-Habsburg Alliance.
The point-to-point map covers the Netherlands and Northern France, the traditional “cockpit” of Europe. Will Henri IV defeat the Catholic League and end the French Wars of Religion once and for all? Will Maurice of Nassau reunite the Netherlands? Where will Philip II send his most trusted and capable general, the Duke of Parma? It is up to you to answer all these questions and more!
During the designer’s research for No Peace for Thirty Years and the Eighty Years’ War (a personal favorite period of history) in general, his eyes were drawn to this little-known period of time, the Ten Years. Immediately prior to this period, the Dutch Revolt had almost been eradicated, and the Dutch Republic reduced to little more than the province of Holland, while after ten Anni Mirabiles, its Stadtholder Mauritz was able to give the Netherlands (almost) its current borders with Germany and Belgium.
Meanwhile, following the assassination of the French King Henri III, his protestant heir Henri of Navarre faces opposition from the Catholic League in a land weakened by the seven previous Wars of Religion. In between these two theaters, the Duke of Parma is governor of the Spanish Netherlands and receives conflicting orders from the Spanish King Philip II, who wants him both to support the Catholic League and defeat the Dutch Revolt. Ten Years of Glory is an asymmetric game. The Alliance player begins with a small section of the map while, historically, they ended with three quarters of the map in their hands. For this reason, the Alliance player is forced to win an Automatic Victory in order to win the game in a grand manner.
19. Brotherhood & Unity: War in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995 Reprint from Compass Games
Not many games out there that cover the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 and this one is a very good game that does just that. Brotherhood & Unity: War in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995 Reprint is now available to pre-order a gain and this game really is worth it. To me, this is a perfect CDG that is made for 2-3 players and should be played by 3 for the best and most immersive exprience.
From the game page, we read the following:
Brotherhood & Unity is a 2-3 player card driven wargame which depicts the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992-1995 (“Bosnian War”). The game shows all of the major events: from the siege of Sarajevo (shown in separate, detailed map), to the ferocious battles for the Posavina corridore, and desperate defense of the Bosniak enclaves. Main features are: Point-To-Point movement system, play driven by Strategy Cards, quick combat resolution (no CRT), streamlined rules and fast gameplay. Interaction between warring sides (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats) creates an intensive and exciting gameplay experience.
Player’s military strength fluctuates based on historical facts, with Serbs starting superior in all aspects, and Bosniaks struggling to organize an effective fighting formation. Military units represent Brigades – standard military formations of the time, ranging from 1500-2000 soldiers. They have different combat and movement values (based on historical data), which forces players to use different tactics for different opponents. Majority of these units are non-motorized infantry formations (moving only several spaces per round), but with the use of special offensive cards players can increase their mobility and surprise the opponents.
The game simulates three distinct sides in the war: Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats – with no clear border separating them. That provides an interesting set of choices to players: to attack or to fortify, whom to ally with, and when to change sides. That leads to many turnarounds and pragmatical alliances with former enemies – as was historically the case.
Each player gets a deck of Strategy Cards, simulating a variety of historical events. The player starts an action round by playing a Strategy Card from his hand. A card can be played as an event (Combat Card, Offensive, Interrupt, Foreign Units and Other) or as one of the game actions (Movement, Attack, Strategic Redeployment, Diplomatic Action or Reinforcement). The events and card values have been carefully created to mimic the historical events and choices. Since each game uses only a part of the available card deck, players can’t be certain which cards will be drawn during the game. That creates a “card fog-of-war” and makes the game more replayable.
Game uses Strategic Will point system to keep track of the victories and losses, and to determine the final score. It is affected by a number of things: capturing or losing regions, capturing or losing key spaces, eliminating or losing units, and as a result of events. One of the most important aspects of the game is capturing player’s own key regions – which were different for each side, and which reflects the different aims the each side had.
20. Eastern Front Operational Battles from Compass Games Currently on Kickstarter
The classic qadrigame is a solid way of getting lots of content into a box and also packaging similar battles with the same rules set in an easy and accessible method. I love these quads and am very glad to see they are still alive and kicking. This month, Compass Games launched a quad designed by John Thiessen called Eastern Front Operational Battles and it includes Pincers, Operation Fridericus, Orel Salient and Operation Rumaiantsev.
From the game page, we read the following:
In May of 1942, portions of the Red Army were to attack the German 6th Army, as mandated by Stalin. This was to be a pincers type attack, enveloping Kharkov. The Germans coincidentally were planning an assault in May against the salient which formed the southern base of the Soviet May offensive. The Red Army struck first, and five days later the German attack commenced. These double offensives are what are covered in “Pincers” and “Operation Fredericus”. As the German Zitadelle offensive of 1943 was winding down, the Soviets launched a major attack of their own on the northern part of the Kursk area. Then on August 3 the Soviets attacked the southern part of the Kursk area. “Orel Salient” and “Operation Rumiantsev” cover these actions.
Eastern Front Operational Battles use the same basic rule set in all four games as one would expect in a quad game. The rules are accessible and straight forward for playability, and at the same time, all aspects, such as movement rates, combat outcomes, and so on, are based on historical analysis. All of the games play at the operational level. Units are mostly regiments/brigades and divisions in the 1942 games, and divisions and corps in the 1943 games.
There are also a few interesting small units in the mix. In the 1943 games, the Germans have a small number of the “animal” units available: Hornisse, Tiger, Brummbar, as well as Ferdinands (later called Elefants). There are a few Hungarian, Romanian, and Italian units that take part in the action. Both sides have a number of armored, motorized, and cavalry units in their orders of battle, so that movement and breakthroughs are frequent possibilities. Headquarters allow units within range to benefit from a number of characteristics. Airpower is represented with players able to give CRT column shifts and to attack various ground targets. Some randomized special events affect play. The system isn’t complex, and there are a few optional rules that are available if players want to add some chrome.
Gamers should find that ease of play and realistic modeling coexist in this system. All four games in Eastern Front Operational Battles can be for two players, and they are also readily accessible for solitaire play.
As of November 1st, the Kickstarter campaign has funded and raised $6,139 toward its $2,500 funding goal with 67 backers. The campaign will conclude on Thursday, November 10th at 8:10pm EST.
New Release
1. Fragile Crown, Hard Battle – Battle of Shrewsbury: July 21, 1403 from High Flying Dice Games
As you have heard me say before, small format wargames on lesser gamed subjects are always welcome at my table. High Flying Dice Games seems to specialize in these type of games and this month have 2 very interesting looking games on vastly different subjects.
The first is Fragile Crown, Hard Battle – Battle of Shrewsbury: July 21, 1403, which takes a look at the Battle of Shrewsbury between rebel forces of the Percy’s and Lancastrian’s.
From the game page, we read the following:
The rule of Lancastrian King Henry IV was precarious following his overthrow of his cousin, King Richard II in 1399. Richard had assumed the English crown at a young age following the sudden death of his father, the Black Prince, leading to Richard becoming the heir to the English throne following the death of his grandfather, Edward III. However, his regency fed the young king’s paranoia and narcissism, turning Richard II into a feared tyrant that bankrupted the realm and brought it to the brink of civil war. Henry’s usurpation of his cousin’s rule was seen as a liberation by many. However, the Percy family resented the Lancastrian house’s rise to power, as well as King Henry IV’s seeming reluctance to support them in the face of growing Scottish incursions and damaging raids into their estates.
Henry Percy, nicknamed “Hotspur”, at first supported Henry IV’s takeover of the English throne and was a long friend of his eldest son and now Prince of Wales, Henry V. In 1402 Hotspur won a major victory against the Scots, capturing many of their nobles and the Scottish King. King Henry IV demanded that all the Scottish nobles and King be turned over to him so he could arrange some sort of peace treaty. Hotspur, who had not been paid by either Richard II or Henry IV for his part in defending the realm (the monarchy was broke and Parliament reluctant to pay the bills), badly needed the ransoms his high-born prisoners would fetch from the Scots. By the summer of 1403, Hotspur’s patience was at an end and Hotspur and his supporters rose in revolt. The rebel forces of the Percy’s (about ten thousand) and Lancastrian’s (about fourteen thousand) met near the town of Shrewsbury and fought in one of the bloodiest battles in English history. Can you do as well or better than your historical counterpart?
If you are interested in Fragile Crown, Hard Battle – Battle of Shrewsbury: July 21, 1403, you can order a copy for $20.95 from the High Flying Dice Games website at the following link: https://www.hfdgames.com/shrew.html
2. Falling Skies – Operation Rolling Thunder March-December, 1965 from High Flying Dice Games
The 2nd game offered this month from High Flying Dice Games is a modern wargame that deals with airpower and the bombing campaign in Vietnam called Falling Skies – Operation Rolling Thunder March-December, 1965. I just love these type of airwar games that focus on routes and avoiding SAM’s and the like as they always create a very tense and interesting experience as you go about trying your best to avoid detection and attack.
From the game page, we read the following:
After the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed on August 10, 1964, full American intervention in the Vietnam Conflict was inevitable. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, believed they had a war winning strategy with massive air strikes against targets in North Vietnam and the “Ho Chi Minh Trail”, the route through Laos and Cambodia that funneled men and material to Communist forces in South Vietnam. Dubbed Operation Rolling Thunder, phased airstrikes against targets that progressively worked their way closer to Hanoi and Haiphong, would convince the North Vietnamese government of the futility of waging war against South Vietnam and encourage them to seek a negotiated peace settlement.
Trusting that the policy of regulated and judicious use of force that was used successfully in the Cuban Missile Crisis would also lead to victory here in Vietnam, Operation Rolling Thunder was launched weeks before the first US ground troops were to land at Danang. However, the historical result was far from what was anticipated in Washington, DC, and presaged the frustration and tragedy of a war that would last another ten years, America’s defeat and humiliation, and the fall of South Vietnam.
If you are interested in Falling Skies – Operation Rolling Thunder March-December, 1965, you can order a copy for $20.95 from the High Flying Dice Games website at the following link: https://www.hfdgames.com/skies.html
3. First Man in Rome – Strategikon Book II: The Civil War and the Fall of the Republic from Thin Red Line Games
If you are a monster wargame fan then you are probably familiar with Thin Red Line Games and the genius behind the madness Fabrizio Vianello. They are a small but passionate publisher and my favorite thing about them is that Fabrizio speaks in his military jargon so fluently that it is such a thematic boost to the games they produce. Over the past couple of years, we have posted interviews with Fabrizio covering their Cold War Gone Hot games called Die Festung Hamburg and In a Dark Wood as well as the first game in a new Ancients series called The Fate of All: Alexander’s Campaign Against the Persian Empire. Following along in that Strategikon Series is the new volume called First Man in Rome that was recently published.
From the game page, we read the following:
Citizens, the creation of the great mosaic depicting the beleagured civil war between Caius Iulius Caesar and Cneo Pompeius Magnus continues!
As already discussed in the Senate, we intend to represent the entire civil war, from the crossing of the Rubicon in 49BC to the defeat of the last Pompeian forces in Spain in 45BC. So it’s not just a glimpse of this epic confrontation, but the whole struggle for the greater good of the Res Publica.
I can now share some details on the map, almost at its conclusion. The map will be probably divided in six parts, each one with the size of a “standard” map. Due to the enormous extension of the conflict, the scale has been increased from 30km to 60km per hex, and the rules will be adjusted accordingly.
If you are interested in First Man in Rome– Strategikon Book II: The Civil War and the Fall of the Republic, you can order a copy for €150.00 ($167.19 in US Dollars) from the Thin Red Line Games website at the following link: https://trlgames.com/prodotto/first-man-in-rome/
4. Song for War: Mediterranean Theater from Invicta Rex Games
While attending Buckeye Game Fest in the spring of 2022, we met two new designers who had a very cool looking prototype copy of their new game setup in the War Room called Song for War: Mediterranean Theater. Chris Helm and Seth Stigliano were really nice guys who obviously had put a ton of time into their game and it was immediately evident that this was going to be a different experience. Unfortunately, because of our crazy schedule of events and already committed to games, we were unable to sit down and play the game but got a crash course into the design as well as a good look at the awesome components.
The game had an initial Kikcstarter that they pulled and made some changes to with a 2nd Kickstarter in April 2025. The campaign funded and it is now available for purchase. I got my copy last week and it looks really great.
From the game page, we read the following:
Song for War is a tabletop strategy game based in the contested regions of southern Europe, north Africa, and the Mediterranean Sea during World War II. Representing one of four nations, players must work together as the Allies (US or Great Britain) or Axis (Germany or Italy). Players have the option to set strategy, move units, attack and defend as individual nations or simultaneously as the Allied or Axis team. Innovative mechanics allow players to deploy their land, sea, and air units strategically as combined forces, with faster units moving first and more often, followed by heavy units with stronger firepower. Take strategic objectives, control shipping lanes and resupply, deploy new technologies and units, and recreate historical events to defeat the enemy and win the day.
One of the best parts is the asymmetry built into the design for each of the nations. This gives the game some feeling of reality versus everyone just having the exact same units with the exact same abilities. I also am really interested in each nations’ special units and want to see how these things work and feel as the game is played.
Fellow content creator Zilla Blitz did a preview for the game in 2023 and you can check that out at the following link:
If you are interested in Song for War: Mediterranean Theater, you can learn more about the project on the game page at the Invicta Rex Games website at the following link: https://www.invictarex.com/songforwar
Be aware that the link wasn’t working as of yet but should be functional shortly.
5. 1066: Year of Destiny from Legion Wargames
As mentioned above, I love Legion Wargames and their games as they are just good! The 2nd game they had this month was called 1066: Year of Destiny and covers the chaotic wars around successors to King Edward in January 1066.
From the game page, we read the following:
1066: Year of Destiny is a three player game covering the various claimants to the crown of England following the death of Edward the Confessor in January 1066.
The players fulfill the roles of Harald Hardrada, Harold Godwinson and William of Normandy. The game is split into 4 phases each of which is designed to illustrate a key component in determining who takes the crown.
Firstly there is a Pre-Invasion Political Event phase (PIPE) which is designed to showcase the political intrigue that took place prior to the death of Edward. During this phase the players can gain additional support from other leaders and regions and, crucially, they can gain additionally legitimacy from various monarchs, religious bodies and events. Many events are outside their control; death of the Aethling, Scandinavian Wars and the activities of Tostig but they will also be crucial. This simple game preamble will provide an infinite variety of starting points to be played out on the map itself. In addition this phase can be a time of acquiring operational and tactical chits to use advantageously later.
Legitimacy is central to the game. Unless a player gains an automatic victory then a players legitimacy level will be key in determining who has won the war. As well as during the PIPE phase it can also be changed by winning and losing battles and by taking controlling of areas on the map.
However before the Operational phase there are the perils of the sea crossings. When to sail is a crucial decision by both William and Hardrada. Go early and the weather should be kinder, go later and you can recruit more troops. Lady luck, in the form of stormy seas can destroy the best laid plans, in addition the prevailing winds can prevent you invading, even when you are ready to go (as occurred to William). If a crossing goes badly wrong, or you lose an early decisive battle your claim lies in shreds. Don’t despair – ‘Become a Dane’. A player can abandon their attempt, as William or Hardrada, and instead take up the cause of Sweyn of Denmark and try and gain the throne for the Danes (they historically invaded in 1069). It won’t be easy winning as the Danes but it means you are still in the game.
The first week in September is a dangerous time for Harold as the Fyrd stand down to collect the harvest, is this the time to strike? , will the weather conditions be in your favour. In the operational players move around the map of England to gain control of areas and improve their legitimacy as well as deciding when to strike to win a decisive battle against one of the two opponents. The operational phase is a real ‘rock, paper, scissors’ problem. How to square the problems of keeping your forces concentrated to win battles, spreading them out to take control of areas whilst keeping them feed without turning areas into wastelands.When battle is joined them the action is transferred to a battle board where the individual characteristics of the differing armies is highlighted. The longer you stay on the battlefield the bigger the loss if you are defeated; often the losses from pursuit are greater than the losses from the battle itself. Winning and losing battles result in big legitimacy swings which can decide the game.
Never before has this iconic campaign been gamed with all four key facets illustrated (politics, invasion, operational campaign and battles). There are a number of very good battle games but not much for the operational phase and nothing showing the political interplay or the perils of the sea crossings themselves. The victory conditions for each player differ slightly, requiring differing strategies for each side. Sweyn of Denmark is waiting in the wings. The game system will determine if he arrives or not. Leave London inadequately protected and he will take it and without it neither William or Harold can win a decisive victory.
6. Bear Trap: The Soviet-Afghan War, 1979-1989 from GMT Games
A few years ago, GMT announced a very cool looking game designed by Paul Daniels covering the Soviet-Afghan War from 1979-1989 called Bear Trap. The game was described as a block wargame that used a similar system to what was used in the design for Sekigahara: The Unification of Japan.
From the game page, we read the following:
Bear Trap is a quick-playing, low-complexity 2-player block wargame covering the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989).
In the Soviet–Afghan war, Insurgent groups—including the mujahideen—fought a guerrilla war against the Soviet 40th Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) government. The game begins shortly after “Operation Storm-333” was executed at the end of 1979—in this coup, Hafizullah Amin (General Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan) was killed, and Babrak Karmal, a Soviet loyalist, replaced him. By putting the Brezhnev Doctrine into practice, the Soviets sought to prop up the sympathetic local government and “solve the Russian Ice-lock Problem” while the Insurgents sought to expel the secularist government and foreign invaders.
Although the two sides in this conflict were fundamentally different in a variety of ways, they also faced some parallel challenges. For instance, they struggled to maintain loyalty. For the Soviets and the DRA, the DRA armed forces merely offered an opportunity for a paycheck, and there were cases where conscripts in the Soviet Army defected to the Mujahideen (e.g. Kazbek Hudalov). For the Insurgents, propaganda, threats, and promises to family drew would-be combatants away, as did injuries suffered from landmines and attacks on villages. Both sides also struggled to puncture the fog of war, not being able to secure reliable intel about force deployment and strength. And both faced various challenges around supply, communication, and coordination. Both sides needed to react to shifting strategies and developments over this decade long Cold War proxy war, where the landscape upon which it was fought presented many unique challenges.
Bear Trap is a spiritual successor to Sekigahara—building on the same core system. In both games, each player has their own deck of cards; players spend cards from their hand to activate areas or in combat to commit units to battle. This means fans of Sekigahara will find learning Bear Trap easy, but the feel and experience of the games are highly divergent. In addition to the difference in topics covered, other differences include:
In Bear Trap, forces are represented by blocks, stickered side hidden from the opponent, and the orientation of a block determines its disposition (i.e. the orientation of a block dictates whether it’s mobilized, fortified, disordered, poised to offer fire support to a battle initiated by friendly units, or ready to ambush enemy units). The orientation of a block also determines which battles it can join, whether card play is required to commit it to battle, and whether it can be moved or activated.
Bear Trap features an area-based map, rather than the point-to-point style found in Sekigahara.
The sequential combat system popularized in Sekigahara is utilized in Bear Trap, adapted to suit the setting. This includes the use of ‘loyalty challenges,’ making Bear Trap simulate the proneness of (for instance) Afghan forces to defect.
Bear Trap is, like Sekigahara, first and foremost a 2-player game—but Bear Trap includes a unique solo mode, built around a card assisted flowchart bot.
Bear Trap has fewer blocks than Sekigahara, and each player has fewer card types (‘suits’) in their decks.
Bear Trap introduces ‘strategy’ cards—powerful event cards. Although it would be misleading to label Bear Trap a deck-building game, players will add 2 cards from a pool specific to their side each time they reshuffle their deck.
Bear Trap is not a “clone” of Sekigahara—they are very different games with differences in topic, feel, and mechanism, despite having an underlying shared game system. Bear Trap is also a more asymmetric game than Sekigahara. Although Bear Trap is a slight step up in complexity (relative to Sekigahara), the mechanics remain simple, and Bear Trap can be completed in 2-3 hours.
7. Battle Line: Medieval 2nd Printing from GMT Games
Following on in this reprint trend this month, Battle Line: Medieval2nd Printing is now shipping. This is one of those famous classic wargames designed by Reiner Knizia that is very well thought of but that is a smaller, card based game that is portable and very approachable.
From the game page, we read the following:
Now in its 12th GMT printing, designer Reiner Knizia’s Battle Line is our #2 all-time best-selling game! This new re-themed version of Battle Line is a two-player strategy card game built around the theme of Medieval warfare. This Medieval-themed version of Battle Line features 60 beautiful new cards by illustrator Roland MacDonald, as well as 10 full-color tactics “wildcards” that give players extra flexibility and choices and help make each new battle wildly different from the last.
Battle Line: Medieval takes about 30 minutes to play. To win, you must create powerful formations along your side of the line of battle that are superior to those of your enemy. Victory goes to the player who wins 5 of the 9 battle flags (an envelopment) or three adjacent flags (a breakthrough). Based on Reiner Knizia’s original design published in Germany as Shotten-Totten,Battle Line: Medieval enhances and expands that game system to give players even more tactical options and gut-wrenching decisions.
Battle Line: Medieval is a beautiful game that will delight competitive strategy game players and also serve as an great introductory game for new or young gamers.
I own the Deluxe Edition of this one, which was released in 2018 and it is a beautiful monster with around 6 full counter sheets and 6 double sided maps with 19 scenarios. There is a lot of game here! I have only played the game on Vassal though with a few of the scenarios and have really enjoyed it. I must admit that this one is very deep and there are a lots of rules and exceptions based on the different units that are included in each scenario. I do feel that the rules could use some work but that concern does not sway me away from saying this system and the game itself are fantastic!
The game system really emphasizes the important role of command on the ancients battlefield. Leaders are the most important counters in the game and consequently without leader’s order, the player will find that their very powerful and important phalanx and legions will not be able to take any actions, even moving closer to the enemy.
One of my favorite rules from the game is the all important initiative. When in battle, the player will hold the initiative if you force your opponent to act first and can react on every move. Also, leaders are activated in their initiative rating order from lowest to highest. Leaders can issue individual orders up to their initiative rating to the units in command radius, or if specifically called for in the scenario, activate a whole line of units. Leader may also gain momentum, trying to take turn after the turn if passing their initiative checks. The game is really very playable, with some exceptions for rules that just are not as clear as they need to be, but this system takes into account what was most important on the battlefields of the ancient world.
From the game page, we read the following:
We are proud to bring SPQR back in print in a new and expanded 5th Edition. This edition will not only include the scenarios from the Barbarian module but also the six scenarios of The Hammer of God module published in C3i magazine and an updated version of the Battle of Pydna originally published in the SPQR Player’s Guide. Perhaps the most significant change to the original SPQR and Scenario Pack scenarios is the inclusion of the setups to play with the Simple GBoH 2nd Edition rules!
The game will feature a new edition of the rulebook incorporating all known errata and numerous clarifications based on player feedback. Known errata on the Player Aid cards have been addressed. The Game Turn Track Display will be replaced by a Rout Point Tracking card (which includes a Game Turn Track) in the same style as that in Great Battles of Julius Caesar. There are no changes to the maps. Minor errata on a few of the counters will be addressed and the counters associated with the early C3i Marathon scenario will be replaced with counters for the Pydna scenario along with additional counters to eliminate several counter substitutions.
Due to the increased content, the most significant change to the components is a restructuring of the previous edition’s three scenario/module books into three scenario books arranged chronologically.
I will play SPQR at anytime and I know that there are other games out there that have a better following but for me Herman and Berg were a magnificent team to create these very interesting and unique scenarios.
9. SPQR Deluxe 5th Edition Update Kit from GMT Games
If you already own SPQR (and let me tell you that you should and we will need to talk later), and feel that you are going to miss out with these improvements, then never fear! GMT Games has you covered with their SPQR Deluxe 5th Edition Update Kit.
From the game page, we read the following:
The SPQR Deluxe 5th Edition Update Kit allows owners of the 2008 and 2018 printings of SPQR Deluxe Edition to use the maps and counters from those games with the new content (see the SPQR Deluxe 5th Edition listing for details).
Components:
One Rulebook
Three Chronological Scenario Books (The Rise of Rome, The 2nd Punic War, and Rome and the Successors)
10. Small Battles of the American Revolution Volume I: The Battle of Cowpens from GMT Games
While attending the World Boardgaming Championships 2 years ago, I was able to meet up with Dave Stiffler (acting as Developer on the project) and Bruno Sinigaglio who is the designer to get an early look at the upcoming debut release in the Small BoAR Series called The Battle of Cowpens.
I didn’t get any pictures because they didn’t have the components along to show but learned a lot about the design and how it changes the Battles of the American Revolution Series from GMT Games. First off, the scale is the major difference as it is 1/8th of the scale used in the normal series. This means 25 yard hexes and 2-3 men per counter. They also have included both rifle fire and musket fire which is a change as musket fire is simply an abstracted part of the close combat mechanic in BoAR. They also have added some new mechanics to account better for things like morale and being shaken or even shattered.
But then recently I got a chance to play the game in its final form while attending the Gaming the American Revolution 250 Camden Event put on by GMT Games and it was absolutely golrious.
From the game page, we read the following:
Two critical battles were considered turning points in the American Revolutionary War: the Battle of Saratoga in New York and the Battle of Cowpens in South Carolina. The Battle of Cowpens was a catalyst to a series of events that led eventually to the surrender of the British at Yorktown. Small BoAR Volume I, The Battle of Cowpens, puts players directly into the milieu of this decisive contest.
The goal of the Small BoAR design concept is to include small yet critical battles that otherwise do not fit the scale of the historically simulating and highly successful Battles of the American Revolution (BoAR) system designed by Mark Miklos. This new system, aptly termed Small Battles of the American Revolution (Small BoAR), was designed by Bruno Sinigaglio working closely with Mark Miklos to preserve the continuity and popularity of the original Battles of the American Revolution game system.
Although extremely important to the history of the Revolutionary War, the Battle of Cowpens involved slightly over 1000 participants per side. In the Battles of the American Revolution system, which represents 100 men per strength point, this would equate to only ten or so combat factors per side. The scale for the battle of Cowpens, on the other hand, is 12 men per strength point, or one-eighth that of the BoAR system. The map scale is also correspondingly reduced to 25 yards per hex from the BoAR scale of 200 yards per hex. The time scale is approximately four minutes per turn as compared with one hour per turn in BoAR.
I think that one of the best parts of this new series, aside from the size and scope of the battles covered being smaller, is that they have not just rested on their laurels and reproduced the BoAR System but have added new mechanics and elements to better deal with these battles and to model the smaller scale battles.
Although Army Morale, the game-within-the-game in BoAR, is faithfully preserved in Small BoAR, and the Small BoAR sequence of play resembles that of BoAR and will look familiar to anyone who has played games in the original series, certain novel elements appropriate to the new scaling have been added. These include:
The ability to designate cavalry units in reserve
Artillery Fire conducted both offensively and defensively
Simultaneous ranged musket Fire as a complement to ranged rifle fire
A Cavalry Reserve Phase where units designated in Reserve may charge after the normal Close Combat Phase
And Opportunity Card Management
We recently did a video interview with designer Bruno Sinigaglio and here is a link to that video:
If you are interested in Small Battles of the American Revolution Volume I: The Battle of Cowpens, you can order a copy for $75.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1140-the-battle-of-cowpens.aspx
11. Cards & Command: The Western Front – United Kingdom vs. Germany and Cards & Command: The European Theater – United States vs. Germany from Jason Smith (Self-Published)
As I was finishing up this post, and still looking through the internet for anything I could find, I came upon a really interesting looking little WWII card based wargame called Cards & Command. I love a good card based game and started to check out their shop and it looked to be really pretty good and I very much loved the art style and graphic design. The game is designed by Jason Smith and self published so you won’t find any big website with glitz and glamor. But, the game does look really pretty interesting and there are 2 separate games including Cards & Command: The Western Front – United Kingdom vs. Germany and Cards & Command: The European Theater – United States vs. Germany. I bought copies of both of the games and they should arrive here in about 10 days.
From the game page, we read the following:
A World War II strategy card game designed for ages 14+. Take command of a World War II battlefield as you lead either the German or British forces in an intense battle of strategy, tactics, and firepower. Deploy infantry, tanks, artillery, and air support, outthink your opponent with clever manoeuvres, and make every dice roll count as you fight to eliminate the enemy commander.
With quick setup, fast-paced turns, and endless strategic possibilities, Cards & Command delivers the thrill of commanding a WWII army without the complexity of a lengthy war game.
Cards & Command is the ultimate WWII strategy card game — and the perfect gift for any history buff or board game lover.
Game Features
– Fast-paced gameplay — sessions typically last 15 minutes to 1 hour
– 2–4 players — battle head-to-head in Germany vs. the United Kingdom, or team up for 2v2 warfare
– Compact box — easy to take anywhere and play on the move
– Authentic WWII-inspired units — command iconic tanks, aircraft, infantry, and specialist troops
– Tactical depth — combine unit abilities, positioning, reinforcements, and dice-based combat to outmanoeuvre your opponent
Choose Your Army
United Kingdom
Command British forces and deploy iconic WWII units, including the legendary Spitfire, the formidable Churchill tank, and elite Special Air Service troops.
Germany
Lead German forces into battle with powerful units such as the fearsome Tiger tank, the Bf 109 fighter aircraft, and Fallschirmjäger paratroopers.
United States
Lead American forces into battle with iconic WWII units, including the versatile Sherman tank, the powerful P-51 Mustang fighter aircraft, and elite US Army Rangers. Use American firepower, tactical coordination, and combined-arms warfare to take control of the battlefield.
Germany
Command German forces and deploy formidable WWII units, including the fearsome Tiger tank, the Bf 109 fighter aircraft, and Fallschirmjäger paratroopers. Use powerful units and calculated tactics to break through enemy defences and eliminate the opposing commander.
Choose your side, build your army, and prepare for battle. Every unit has a role to play, and every decision could turn the tide of war.
If you are interested in Cards & Command: The Western Front – United Kingdom vs. Germany and Cards & Command: The European Theater – United States vs. Germany, you can order copies for $39.00 each from the Cards & Command Etsy Shop at the following link: Cards and Command
12. Firepower Strike Volume 1: The Siege of Midpoint Station Hammer Bastion from Blue Panther
In July 2019, in the “Before the Plague Times” when life was simpler, I had the pleasure of meeting designer Keith Tracton at the World Boardgaming Championships in Pennsylvania. He was showing off his new game at the time World At War 85: Storming the Gap and it was a thing of beauty! Since that time, we have seen Keith design a follow up effort to World at War 85 in the Blood and FuryExpansion and he has a Sci-Fi wargame called Raider Drop Zone. Recently I caught wind that he was working on another Sci-Fi wargame with Blue Panther called Firepower Strike Volume 1: The Siege of Midpoint Station Hammer Bastion, which is set in the same universe as his Raider Drop Zone.
From the game page, we read the following:
The Firepower Strike Series offers epic-scale two-player stand alone science fiction ground combat games. The series, set in the Firepower Pass universe, pits ground forces of the Terran Corporate Consolidation against the aggressive Procyonese Concordat and their alien allies, the Kraken.
Hammer Bastion shows one quadrant of the assault on the crucial walled-and-shielded starport of Midpoint Station, currently enduring its third siege–this time by the Procyonese Concordat First Line Army forces aided by curtain-wall-climbing, Kraken “Dragoon” warriors.
As the Terran command your mission is to simply defend the northwestern walls of Midpoint Station, centered on the Hammer Bastion.
As the Procyonese commander, you must coordinate a massive ground force to assault and overcome the Hammer Bastion’s formidable defenses, with the ultimate objective of destroying the station’s central spire containing the station’s critical shield-projecting tower.
If you are interested in Firepower Strike Volume 1: The Siege of Midpoint Station Hammer Bastion, you can order a copy for $85.00 from the Blue Panther website at the following link: https://www.bluepantherllc.com/products/hammer-bastion
13. Flames Across the Valley 2nd Edition from Bill Molyneaux Games
There is a need for introductory wargames in our hobby that can be used to teach the concepts of wargames to new players. Very few designers focus on this area but Bill Molyneaux is one of those as he has designed several very good introductory wargames over the years including Bloody Mohawk from Lock ‘n Load Publishing, Savage Wilderness from Lock ‘n Load Publishing, Battle of Brandywine from Fast Play Wargames, Horns of the Buffalo from Fast Play Wargames and most recently The Battle of Wyse Fork from Bill Molyneaux Games (with codesigner Kim Meints). Recently, he has worked on a 2nd Edition of one of his early games from 1993 with a new designer named Ron Toelke called Flames Across the Valley 2nd Edition.
From the game page, we read the following:
October 1780. The American rebels and the British army battle for control of Scholarie, New York. Whoever captures this settlement can turn the tide of the war. The fate of New York is in your hands.
The New York frontier, a place of peaceful valleys and rich farms, has been the scene of savage warfare since the beginning of the American Revolution. British soldiers, dispossessed Loyalists, and their Indian Allies seek to bring fear and ruin to the “breadbasket” of the rebellious American colonies. The settlers and their families, with the aid of some Continental soldiers, struggle to preserve their homes from the invaders.
Flames Along the Valley recreates the raid on the Schoharie Valley in October, 1780, by British forces under Sir John Johnson. Three forts guard the valley, places of refuge and defense. Can the forts be taken and destroyed, the defenders scattered? Will the militia and Continental troops stand fast against the enemies of liberty? Can the invaders be prevented from burning every barn and house in sight? Return to the cold and snowy day of October 17,1780 to once more do battle.
Flames Across the Valley: Second Edition is a reworking of the game that was first released in 1993 by Chatham Hill games and Ron Toelk. This “second edition” was started by Bill Molyneaux and the late historian Paul A. Supley, whom this game is dedicated to. Mr. Molyneaux would like to thank Mr. Ron Toelk for the right to use his work for this updated version.
As usual, thanks so much for reading along and sticking with me this month as I navigated through the many websites and game pages looking for new and interesting games to share.
Finally, thanks once again to this month’s sponsor PHALANX!
If you want to read more ratings of historical leaders like this, I strongly recommend you subscribe to the blog – all new posts in your inbox right when they go live!
Some caveats ahead: The presidents will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as president, but includes their life after holding the office (in which they will still be regarded in the public eye as (ex-)presidents).
Now, to the system itself: There are three policy field categories (foreign, domestic, and economic policy) and three more general ones (vision, pragmatism, integrity). A president can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the president is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the president increase US influence in the world and the security of Americans at home? Did the president wield US power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected (the latter counting for a greater deal in times of US power being great)?
Domestic policy: Did the president increase the liberty of Americans to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the president promote domestic security and shape the framework for fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the president facilitate the prosperity and economic security of Americans (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the president’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the president have an idea of what the United States and the world (the latter counting for more in times of US influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the president’s policies steer the United States (and, if applicable, the world) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the president succeed in seeing his policy through from inception to completion? How well did the president manage the support from Congress, society, the administration, the media (the latter counting for more in more recent years)?
Integrity: Did the president understand the office as a means to benefit himself, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the president respect the boundaries of the office?
Wilson’s Life
Receiving and Providing Education
Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born on December 28, 1856 as the son of a Presbyterian pastor in Staunton, Virginia. Wilson grew up in several states of the American South before, during, and after the Civil War. He would be the only American president who had been a citizen of the Confederacy.
Wilson became a lawyer, but found it not to his liking. Instead, he pursued graduate studies in political science with a dissertation on Congressional government at Johns Hopkins University. His PhD, awarded in 1886, makes him to this day the only US president with such an academic distinction. Even though Wilson had never bothered to take a trip from Baltimore to Washington, D.C., to see the object of his study in action, his dissertation was well received. Atypically for a southerner, he advocated for a strong federal government. At the end of his graduate studies, Wilson married Ellen Louise Axson, who came from a southern clergy family like himself.
Wilson’s academic career led him to teach at several universities. Eventually, he became president of Princeton University in 1902. He took the university out of the grip of Presbyterian traditionalists, appointed the first Catholic and Jewish professors, but worked vigorously against the enrolment of Black students. Wilson turned Princeton into one of America’s leading teaching and research institutions, fueled by the large contributions of outside donors which he attracted. At the same time, Wilson advocated – in often fiery rhetoric – for the independence of the university; a contradiction he could never resolve. Both his administrative reforms and his powerful oratory aroused interest in him political circles; and Wilson put out feelers to the Democratic Party.
To the Presidency
The Democrats, perennially shut out of national office since the Civil War, were in dire need of fresh candidates. Wilson seemed like an ideal fit to party bosses due to his reputation as a natural conservative with progressive credentials. He ran for governor of New Jersey in 1910 and was the first Democrat to be elected to the office in 18 years.
Woodrow Wilson was consistent in his support for labor reforms.
Anyone who believed Wilson to be a conservative at heart was swiftly disabused of the notion once he took office. He directed his energy to labor, electoral, and education reform. Within his first two years in office, Wilson had gained nationwide fame as a progressive leader.
That made him a contender for the 1912 presidential election. His campaign was ably run by the Texas businessman Edward M. House, and Wilson entered the 1912 Democratic National Convention second only to Speaker of the House James “Champ” Clark. When Clark gained the support of New York’s Tammany Hall political machine, that threw the liberal wing of the party, led by three-time presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan, into Wilson’s arms. Wilson gained his party’s nomination and went on to run against a split Republican Party in the general election: Incumbent president William H. Taft represented the party’s conservative wing, former president Theodore Roosevelt mounted a progressive challenge. As the Republican vote split, Wilson’s 42% of the popular vote were enough to give him a landslide victory in the electoral college.
Edward M. House ran Wilson’s election campaign, would conduct European diplomacy on Wilson’s behalf during and after World War I. He took great liberties in his diplomatic assignments and would be summarily sacked.
Reforms and Interventions
Wilson started the presidency where he had left off the governorship – with an ambitious domestic reform program. To clinch the reforms, he broke with the tradition that separated the executive and legislative branches of the American government: Wilson was the first president to appear before Congress since John Adams, a precedent which has since become standard practice. In another momentous move, Wilson focused his efforts to build legislative majorities on mobilizing his own party (which held both the Senate and the House), ignoring the Republican opposition. With these measures, Wilson enacted far-reaching economic reforms:
He replaced tariffs with a federal income tax as the chief source of federal revenue.
He established the Federal Reserve system to stabilize the heretofore decentralized, fragile American finance world.
His Antitrust Act clarified that unions and collective bargaining did not constitute a breach of freedom of contract.
Other Wilsonian reforms were less progressive: Wilson introduced segregation in several federal institutions including the Navy Department and the Post Office.
The worst imaginable day for Woodrow Wilson: Having to speak not one, but two people of color with opinions!
Wilson’s belief in a racial hierarchy also carried over into his foreign policy. During his presidency, the United States intervened in Mexico (twice), Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti (where a new constitution imposed on the country reintroduced the forced labor of corvée). The most momentous of these interventions took place in Mexico, where a US-backed coup had brought the authoritarian Victoriano Huerta to the presidency shortly before Wilson’s own accession to power. Wilson opposed Huerta and first imposed an arms embargo on Mexico, then landed forces in the Mexican port of Veracruz. The intervention did not shift the political situation in Mexico, and US forces left Veracruz after seven months of occupation in November 1914.
Wilson’s rhetoric accompanying the intervention was based on lofty principles, but he applied them rather flexibly: He argued both for imposing and for lifting the arms embargo with the “standards of neutrality”; and he justified both beginning and ending the intervention on moral grounds – the former with his commitment to constitutional government, the latter with Mexico’s right to national self-determination.
Self-determination – easy to define in the Americas (no intervention in other countries’ domestic affairs), but a thorny issue in the often ethnically diverse European countries at the Versailles peace negotiations.
Neutrality, Honor, and Prosperity
While the United States had been busy in Mexico, a much bigger conflict had erupted in Europe – the Great War. Over the next years, Wilson pursued a course which would allow the United States to maintain three competing objectives – neutrality, honor, and prosperity.
Wilson was driven by an honest desire to keep the United States out of the war. That did not mean that he was indifferent to its outcome. His sympathies lay clearly with the Allies. Every few months, his administration launched a peace initiative which would invariably come to nothing as they demanded very different things from the belligerents: The Allies were given the idea that Wilson wanted them to win victories before a peace should be negotiated, the Central Powers presented with unacceptable demands (like the cession of Alsace-Lorraine from Germany to France as a precondition for a peace conference).
Honor was an even trickier business than neutrality. Wilson demanded that the belligerent parties adhered to the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War (which none of them had ratified), but in practice complied with the British violations of the Declaration – the harassment of neutral (including American) trade and the blockade of the German coast – while he denounced the German violations – submarine warfare. When a German submarine sunk the British ocean liner Lusitania shortly before it arrived in Liverpool with its cargo of ammunition for the Western front as well as over a thousand passengers – 128 of them American citizens – Wilson was outraged. He declared in a note to the German government that he would hold Germany responsible for any damages to American citizens and property. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned after the incident, believing Wilson endangered American neutrality with his hardline insistence on German (but not British) respect for trade rights.
“Global Trade” is a mildly isolationist strategy card in Versailles 1919: You focus on industrial growth (icon to the left), your own national happiness (third icon from the left), and try to not have the world blow up (bonus for regions with low unrest, icon to the right).
That brings us the third leg on which Wilson’s stool rested: While he never mentioned prosperity (much unlike neutrality and honor), it was a major motive for his wartime policies. In August 1914, Wilson had publicly opposed bonds for the Allies to be raised by American banks, but when the banks started issuing them, he did not contest it. Consequently, the American economy was effectively mobilized for the Allied cause: US goods were bought with money from US bonds. Allied victory thus became a national interest for the United States to see the bonds repaid.
In the short term, Wilsons’s hard line was successful. He forced Germany to comply with his notions of naval law while the American economy boomed from the war trade to the Allies. America reaped all the benefits of the war at none of the costs.
That made Wilson a strong contender for re-election in 1916. The Democratic Party touted his foreign policy success with “He Kept Us Out of the War” (a slogan which had been adopted without consulting Wilson). Still, Wilson’s main advantage of 1912 – the split Republican field – had evaporated. To beat his Republican opponent Charles Evans Hughes, he had to make inroads in states where Democrats had not fared well over the last decades. As Wilson feared that the new women voters in many of the western and midwestern states might take objection to his marriage to Edith Bolling Galt – just a year after his first wife Ellen had died – he tried to balance it out with publicly supporting women’s suffrage. While we do not have electoral statistics by gender for 1916, Wilson’s strong showing (for a Democrat) in the West and Midwest indicates that his strategy worked. In the end, Wilson’s victory in California by the hair’s breadth of 3,773 voters decided the presidential contest in his favor.
Women’s suffrage remained in the waiting room for a long time thanks to Wilson.
Into the War
In Wilson’s second term, his three-way balancing act between neutrality, honor, and prosperity became ever more precarious. One of them had to give – and the most likely candidate seemed neutrality, whose meaning Wilson had stretched beyond recognition anyway. Ironically, that happened just as Wilson made his first attempt to put pressure on the Allies (by withholding bonds if they did not agree to a peace conference).
Germany, unaware of any rifts between the US and the Allies, played the elephant in the diplomatic China shop again in January 1917: The German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann secretly instructed the German embassy in Mexico to sound out the Mexicans for an alliance in case the United States entered the war. Two weeks later, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in the British home waters again. Wilson felt he could not honorably back down from his hardline position of American trade and travel rights which he had taken in 1915, and broke off all diplomatic relations to Germany. A few days later, British naval intelligence relayed the contents of the “Zimmermann Telegram” to Wilson. Its release helped inflame American public opinion against Germany, but the essential decision had been made already: America would enter the war as an “associated power” on the Allied side. Congress voted in favor of a declaration of war at Wilson’s request on April 6, 1917.
Militarily, the United States was a dwarf in 1917. Safe itself due to large oceans and weak neighbors, its armed forces had been minuscule since the end of the Civil War. Expanding and training them would take time. And economically, the awesome might of America had been mobilized for the Allied cause anyway. Thus, the American war entry mattered little for the course of the war in the short term.
It did, however, have immediate domestic repercussions: On the one hand, government spending exploded. The expenses which the federal government accrued in the 19 months of war from April 1917 to November 1918 would exceed those of almost 130 years since the founding of the country. And Wilson cracked down on perceived opponents of the war: The Espionage Act made interference with military operations or recruitment illegal, which in practice meant that any kind of anti-war activism could – and often did – send the protester to prison. “Illoyal” publications were banned from postal transport which made them practically unavailable at any distance from their printing.
Preparing for the Post-War World
In the meantime, the war raged on. Wilson’s initial lofty rhetoric of a “war without victory” by which the world would be “made safe for democracy” had been largely superseded by the gritty requirements of military buildup and diplomatic compromises with the Allies. The day-to-day realpolitik of the Allies suffered a heavy blow when the October Revolution took Russia out of the Allied coalition in late 1917; and Wilson was subsequently also replaced as the leading visionary by a certain Vladimir Lenin whose radical rejection of imperialist war (along with capitalism as a whole) proved popular with the European masses after three years of carnage – and they set Russia to seal a deal with Germany and leave the war for good.
The second-worst imaginable day for Woodrow Wilson: Having to speak to a person of color with opinions and being usurped as the leading thinker on peace!
Wilson countered by laying out his vision for the post-war world before Congress on January 8, 1918: The Fourteen Points contained a mix of specific territorial changes and universal principles – the freedom of navigation and trade, disarmament, the rejection of secret diplomacy, and the founding of a “general association of nations”.
Wilson’s views condensed into one strategy card: Bonuses for containing Germany, self-determination to various nations, having Japan and Italy sign the Treaty of Versailles (and presumably joining the League of Nations), and for controlling issues pertaining to the League of Nations.
By summer 1918, American forces had arrived in Europe in substantial numbers. They contributed to turning the tide on the Western Front, and their ever-growing numbers (which matched the British and neared the French) and excellent supply situation convinced the German High Command that the war could not be won anymore. The German generals abandoned the sinking ship. Their civilian successors applied for a peace on the basis of the Fourteen Points.
Wilson, meanwhile, urged the American voters to consider the 1918 midterm elections as a plebiscite on his policies, especially the post-war order he had formulated. The voters soundly rejected him by giving majorities in both houses to the Republicans for the first time in eight years.
Germany and the Allies agreed to an armistice on the Western Front on November 11, 1918. While Germany’s new parliamentarian leaders dealt with the turmoil in their new republic, the Allies met on the outskirts of Paris to negotiate the peace treaty, chief of them the “Big Four” France, Britain, Italy, and the United States. Wilson attended the Versailles negotiations in person, which made him the first US president to leave the country on official business. After he had alienated the Republicans by his adversarial rhetoric before the 1918 midterms, he snubbed them even further by not including a single Republican senator in his delegation.
All of Wilson’s political goals merged at the Versailles peace negotiations. He wanted a new world order which would provide for long-term peace: “I am playing for a hundred years hence”, he told those who asked him why he would forgo short-term American gains. And the US was indeed different as the country did not angle for territorial enlargement – unlike the other major countries, which sought colonial expansion (especially Britain and France in the Middle East and Africa) or direct annexations of regions bordering their mainland (especially France along the Rhine and Italy in the Alps and on the Dalmatian coast). Wilson held mixed views on the territorial changes in Europe, but supported colonial expansion, especially where it benefitted European imperial powers rather than imperial Japan (another expression of his racial views).
Japan, the only non-white major nation at the Versailles peace conference, pushed hard to include a racial equality clause in the League of Nations. Wilson would have none of it.
Make no mistake: The US had direct material interests at stake as well. On the one hand, Wilson’s interest in free trade aligned with American business wanting to sell goods in the European markets, on the other, American finance expected the war bonds to be repaid. In the view of the European debtors, that required large reparations from Germany, so that the vanquished would pay for the costs of the war.
The Iron Bank… er, J.P. Morgan will have its due.
Wilson’s most cherished goal, however, was the establishment of that “association of nations” outlined in the Fourteen Points. In an ironic repudiation of the other principles of the Fourteen Points, Wilson engaged in the secret diplomacy horse-trading of Versailles, making large concessions to the wishes of the other Big Four nations for territorial enlargement, to get them to agree to what would become the League of Nations.
Here the card does not quite grab the nuances of the issue: The “One State, One Vote” camp at least partially had a special notion of it – Britain pushed hard (and eventually was confirmed) in securing a vote not only for its European part, but also for the four settler dominions Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, as well as for its colonial possession India. Wilson, a supporter of the British Empire, was sympathetic to this arrangement.
In June 1919, the negotiations were concluded and the Treaty of Versailles presented to Germany. The Germans engaged in some naïve protests and then signed anyway, as the only alternative of resuming hostilities was utterly impossible for the country. Wilson’s task now was to convince his own countrymen that America must join the League of Nations.
The Struggle for Ratification
Initially, popular support for the League was high in America. However, the Senate which needed to ratify the Treaty for America to join the League was not on board with Wilson:
A small part of the senators, the “Irreconcilables”, was adamantly against the Treaty. Some of the Irreconcilables were adherents to America’s traditional isolationist foreign policy, others came from (or were supported by) groups which had been against the United States’s entry into the war (chiefly German-Americans and Irish-Americans), a third subset were Republicans eager to get back at Wilson for the hostility he had shown them at least since 1918.
A larger, but not sufficiently large group were Wilson’s loyal supporters, who wanted ratification of the Treaty without any changes.
Lastly, the largest group were not opposed to the Treaty as such, but wanted changes which would confirm Congress’s sovereignty on foreign policy decisions, ensure that no territorial mandates could be forced on the United States, and that the Monroe Doctrine would be confirmed and its interpretation left to the United States alone.
The fear that America could be forced into militarily intervening on behalf of the League enraged the skeptics of the Treaty of Versailles, but Wilson was adamant on the issue.
Wilson once more relied on public pressure. He embarked on a speaking tour to advocate for the Treaty. When a bipartisan majority of senators, led by Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, put forward a proposal for a Treaty with amendments in November 1919, Wilson rejected it, and the proposal could not find a two-thirds majority in the senate against Wilson’s allies and the Irreconcilables. By then, Wilson had suffered a stroke and was physically unable to partake in competition for hearts and minds in either the Senate or the public arena. The Treaty of Versailles would never be ratified, and America never joined the League of Nations.
The Final Years
Wilson prepared for another presidential run in 1920 (the Twenty-second Amendment limiting presidents to two terms would only be passed under Harry S. Truman). His party, however, had enough of him and chose Ohio governor James M. Cox as their candidate – a mixture of a turn from Wilson’s policies and the simple truth that his poor health made him barely able to discharge the duties of his office in the present, let alone for another four years. Wilson, undeterred by his defeats in 1918 and 1919, framed the 1920 election once more as a plebiscite on his policies, specifically the League of Nations. The American voters had enough of them and gave the Republican party in the person of Warren G. Harding the presidency and enlarged its majorities in both the House and the Senate. The end of Wilson’s presidency also marked the end of the Progressive Era of sweeping in the United States.
Isolationism, or, as Wilson’s successor Warren G. Harding phrased it, “normalcy”, consisted in a retreat to domestic happiness (right), a booming economy (left), and not getting too involved with other countries (bonus VP for self-determination icons and Japan and Italy not signing the Treaty). Notice that Self-Determination appears both on this strategy card and the 14 Points one, which represent diametrically opposed views within American politics.
Four years later, Woodrow Wilson considered another presidential run. Yet just a few days after he had laid out his program, he died on February 3, 1924.
The Rating
Foreign policy:
Woodrow Wilson really pushed America on the global stage with the entry into World War I. From then on, no matter of great importance in the world has been decided without the United States, very much in line with Wilson’s programmatic thinking. His practical policies, however, were disjointed. His interventionism in Latin America infringed on the locals’ freedoms (up to the point of practically reintroducing slave labor in Haiti), but did not come at a high cost for the United States. The entry into World War I, on the other hand, prioritized export opportunities and especially the travel rights of the affluent few over the lives of the American soldiers who then had to defend those rights and opportunities. Despite all these costs, it is hard to find a positive foreign policy outcome for the United States besides its increased global stature.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
John Maynard Keynes is well-known for his scathing criticism of the economic provisions in the Treaty of Versailles, but he also had a few choice words for Wilson’s negotiating skills at Versailles: “[T]he President had thought out nothing; when it came to practice his ideas were nebulous and incomplete. He had no plan, no scheme, no constructive ideas whatever for clothing with the flesh of life the commandments which he had thundered from the White House. He could have preached a sermon on any of them or have addressed a stately prayer to the Almighty for their fulfillment; but he could not frame their concrete application to the actual state of Europe. […] [H]is mind was slow and unadaptable. […] There can seldom have been a statesman of the first rank more incompetent than the President in the agilities of the council chamber.”
Domestic policy:
By 1920, most Americans were less free than they had been eight years before. Wilson’s expansion of segregation shut down opportunities for African Americans, his wartime policies of censorship and oppression limited the traditional American freedom of expression. Women’s suffrage, the great enfranchisement, was brought about during Wilson’s time, but his support for the cause was minimal.
Rating: 1 out of 5.
Economic policy:
Wilson’s early economic reforms (federal income tax replacing tariffs, the Federal Reserve System, and the Antitrust Act) benefitted consumers, workers, and the economy as a whole. Later, Wilson’s interpretation of neutrality meant that the United States enjoyed a long war boom as a supplier of goods to the Allies. This prosperity came with risks, as it relied on the Allies winning the war and eventually being able to repay their loans, which would become a major matter of contentment after the war and endanger both the American and the global economy.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Vision:
Wilson redefined the presidency. He strengthened the executive and established the president as lawmaker-in-chief, a change which has held up until today.
He looked far beyond the day-to-day issues of politics. While his idea of a liberal internationalist global order was discredited when he left office, and remained so for the next twenty years, it was rehabilitated by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. As these later presidents had more political common sense than Wilson, they were able to form them into a bipartisan consensus which only eroded in recent years.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Pragmatism:
Wilson parlayed his electoral triumph in 1912 into a sweeping reform agenda, which he got through Congress by mobilizing his own party and cowing the opposition with the force of his public oratory. He later found out that there were limits to speaking from the bully pulpit. His electoral success ran out in 1918, and his stubborn intransigence made it impossible for him to reach compromise in Congress. Wilson would rather be right and achieve none of his goals than concede a little and receive a lot – a distinctly unpolitical trait for a politician.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Integrity:
Wilson was driven by an honest commitment to better his country, and through the means of it, the world. His practical politics were not always this clean. His appointments were often based on loyalty rather than merit, he treated his political opponents as enemies and traitors, and he clung to power even when his health limited his ability to discharge the duties of his office to the point that even his cabinet pondered if to declare him unfit.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Overall:
Woodrow Wilson was one of the greatest visionaries in the White House. The completion of his visions was left to others due to his own lack of political skills. The great principles for which he strove – prosperity for all, free trade, eternal peace – were mixed with his authoritarian tendencies and his hostility to his political opponents as well as non-whites. His presidency contains the sublime and the ignoble, and calling it middling is charitable.
How would you rate Wilson? Let me know in the comments!
Further Reading
The most recent full-length biography of Wilson is O’Toole, Patricia: The Moralist. Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made, Simon & Schuster, New York City, NY 2018.
For a snappy, but nuanced biography, see Berg, Manfred: Woodrow Wilson. Amerika und die Neuordnung der Welt. Eine Biographie [Woodrow Wilson. America and the Reshaping of the World. A Biography], C.H. Beck, Munich 2017 (in German).
As always when it comes to American presidents of the 20th century, see the respective chapter in Leuchtenburg, William E.: The American President. From Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015, pp. 70-116.
The Twelfth Battle is a solitaire wargame that simulates the Central Powers offensive in Italy that began on October 24, 1917, with an all-out assault around the town of Caporetto. Using gas and stormtroopers, German and Austro-Hungarian formations assaulted the Italian defensive lines along the Isonzo River and around the town of Caporetto, creating a huge breach in their positions. Hundreds of thousands of Italian troops, demoralized and fatigued from the first eleven attritional battles along the Isonzo, were made casualties or surrendered.
Trench Raid is a single-player game set on the Western Front in World War One. The player assembles a group of 10 raiders and plots their course on a map towards the enemy lines on the other side of No Man’s Land. With 12 different raid objectives and 20 random events that can take place during the crossing, no two playthroughs will be exactly the same.
The game also includes rules for campaign play — whether their raid was successful or not, the soldiers who make it back to their trench lines relatively unscathed will steadily get better at raiding, learning through experience how to survive.
I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed historical topic, such as espionage or intelligence, and creates a gaming experience tailored around the events to highlight and evoke the difficulties and tension that would have been present. In January 2026, GMT Games announced such a game in Checkpoint Charlie, which is a solo or cooperative game focused on SIS espionage missions in Berlin in the 1960’s designed by Russell Brown. We have posted an interview with Russel and it was very well received and he has now agreed to create a series of History Behind the Cards to highlight the events of the 1960’s Cold War struggle in West Germany but also to share aspects about the game play and how it models the history.
*Note: The cards highlighted in this series and their event text, as well as any pictures used showing any of the various components, are still in the design and development process and as such event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
History Behind the Cards – Checkpoint Charlie from GMT Games – Card #9 Daily Military Train
This is one of the cards I added to Checkpoint Charlie based on conversations with my local coffee shop spy, John (see Card #7). I had assumed most significant traffic from West Germany to Berlin used the autobahn corridor from Checkpoint Alpha at Helmstedt, across East Germany, to Checkpoint Bravo in Berlin. However, the military trains, of which there were three – American, French and British – ran every day, back and forth along roughly the same corridor as the automobile traffic. The US Military Duty Train, which my friend John rode, let out at the station in Charlottenburg and is the basis for this Event Card. It was primarily used by US military personnel, but other people associated with the military could get permission to ride.
Cars full of East German police, or vopos, kept vigilant watch over the autobahn access route, but it was more difficult to keep track of the train and whether western passengers were jumping off illegally somewhere in East Germany, or East German citizens were boarding the train as it slowed for one of its scheduled stops along the way, getting free passage into West Berlin. To solve this problem, all doors on the train were chained and padlocked for the duration of the four-hour journey across East Germany. In Checkpoint Charlie, the Daily Military Train Event assumes that the KGB has been tipped off to the arrival of some interesting person or item on the next train and move to intercept. Charlottenburg Safehouse is placed under surveillance and the Nugget Marker, already detected, is placed there. This can be a useful diversion for your assets, or it can draw KGB agents right into the center of your mission.
The Berlin Military Train operated by the Royal Corps of Transport.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Moscow Rules.
In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am appreciative to Russell and his efforts to bring us these cards and to write these entries to share with our readers. I am also very glad that this topic is being covered in a game and look forward to playing this one day soon.
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#99: Truman Doctrine from Twilight Struggle: The Cold War, 1945-1989 from GMT Games
Twilight Struggle is a 2-player game simulating the forty-five year ideological struggle known as the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States which can be played in 2-3 hours. The entire world is the stage on which these two countries “fight” to make the world safe for their own ideologies and way of life. The game starts right after the end of World War II in the midst of the ruins of Europe as the two new “superpowers” of the world squabble over what is left and ends in 1989, when only the United States remained standing.
The map is a world map of the period, where players abstractly move units and exert influence through the placing of Influence Markers in an attempt to build local support and gain allies and control for their superpower. The beauty of the CDG system used here is that each decision of whether to use a card for the event or the operations value is a struggle as if it is the other side’s event, it might go off hurting you very badly. There are mechanics to allow for the ignoring or cancelling of some of the best cards for your opponent in a side game within the game called The Space Race as well as nuclear tensions, with the possibility of game-ending global thermonuclear war (Shall we play a game, anyone?). I have played TS about 30 times and love it more and more with each sitting. The game makes me sweat, cringe, jump with joy and bite my fingernails. To me, a game that can do all of that in one sitting is worth the price.
The Truman Doctrine is an Early War U.S. 1 Op Event Card that removes all Soviet Influence from a single country in Europe where the U.S. has presence. This means that the U.S. at least has 1 Influence in a space and the space must be uncontrolled. I think that players should be judicious and patient with this card and do not rush to play early in the game on Turn 1 or Turn 2 if Europe is stable and the USSR has minimal presence there. The best way to use the card is to wait for a window where you can do the most damage in a key Battleground space where each side has been fighting for control by placing Influence there such as in France or West Germany on the last action round of a turn or playing the card during the Headline Phase to wipe out stacked Soviet Influence as a precursor to bumping up your own Influence there for control. The Truman Doctrine card is such a nice booby trap in many ways and the proper use of it can be very efficient and give you a leg up in Europe.
The Truman Doctrine was a United States foreign policy established by President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947, which pledged that the U.S. would provide political, military, and economic assistance to democratic nations threatened by external or internal authoritarian forces. President Harry S. Truman asked for $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey. “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,” Truman declared. “If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world — and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.”
In asserting that the U.S. would intervene in faraway conflicts, President Truman dramatically reoriented U.S. foreign policy. The writing of this ground-breaking message went through multiple stages. In his memoir, Truman noted that the State Department’s first draft of the speech “was not at all to my liking.” Rather than asserting a new foreign policy doctrine, the State Department writers had “made the whole thing sound like an investment prospectus.” Truman returned the draft to Secretary of State Dean Acheson “with a note asking for more emphasis on a declaration of general policy.”
The State Department complied, and included a general policy statement in the next draft. But Truman was not satisfied. “It seemed to me half-hearted,” he recalled. President Truman “scratched out” what he deemed equivocations. For example, Truman replaced “should” with “must” in a key sentence that read “I believe that it should be the policy of the United States…” According to Truman, “I wanted no hedging in this speech.” Because this speech “was America’s answer to the surge of expansion of Communist tyranny,” it “had to be clear and free of hesitation or double talk.” A total of eight drafts of Truman’s speech to Congress are featured on the Truman Library’s website. Many include handwritten comments and corrections. Combined, they give readers a sense of the tremendous effort that went into drafting the Truman Doctrine as well as the importance a single word can make when crafting foreign policy.
Truman delivered his address on March 12, 1947. Over the next several weeks, Congress debated the merits of Truman’s proposed foreign policy. On April 22nd, the Senate approved the legislation to provide assistance to Greece and Turkey. The House followed suit, approving the bill on May 9th. On May 22, 1947, Truman signed the bill into law. According to President Truman, the enactment of his bill “served notice that the march of Communists would not be allowed to succeed by default.”
Strategic level American Civil War on a postcard. The map of the Confederacy is divided into areas. The U.S player must strangle the Confederacy and reduce their will to continue fighting. Players use a standard deck of playing cards to activate armies (three Confederate and up to six Union) for movement and combat. Units can fight enemy armies in the same area. Combat is done by rolling 1D6, adding combat strength (for the Union) or Resistance Level (for the Confederates) and comparing results. Highest result wins. Losses are taken in retreats or in step losses. There are up to eight turns, each of which is six months. The key mechanic is the Confederate Resistance Level (CRL). As Union armies occupy areas, the CRL falls. If the CRL falls to zero before the end of turn 8, the Union player wins, otherwise the Confederate player wins.
Morgan’s A’ Comin’ is the fourth game in the Pocket Battle Games Series from LPS, Inc.
Rebel raider John H. Morgan defies orders, crossing the Ohio River in the summer of 1863 to bring war to the Yankees! All across the Midwest his incursion results in numerous alarms, property damage, and Union fears that he will link up with Robert E. Lee. While the raid succeeds in diverting a small Union army away from Bragg, the fierce pace and determined Union resistance wears the invaders away to little more than a small band, all being captured in the end. Could Morgan have tipped the balance on not one, but two fronts?
During the summer of 2019, we were introduced to Maurice Suckling and his very interesting design Freeman’s Farm 1777 from Worthington Publishing and really enjoyed the mechanics and how they all came together to create an interactive and interesting look at the Battle of Saratoga during the American Revolution. I was very impressed with Maurice and his appraoch to design and we have followed him every since and played many of his great designs. including Hidden Strike: American Revolution, Chancellorsville 1863 and 1565 Siege of Malta and Crisis: 1914. In this entry in the Best 3 Games with…Series I wanted to highlight the games of Maurice Suckling and share those that I have had the best experience with.
3. Freeman’s Farm 1777 from Worthington Publishing
Freeman’s Farm 1777 is the first in the Battle Formations Series from Worthington Publishing that are designed for both solitaire and two players. The focus of the system is on the individual formations that appeared on the battlefield and places the players in the role of overall commander to make decisions about which formations to activate and how to use those formations to position themselves to attack the enemy. The key to these decisions is the morale of those formations as each command utilizes one of their levels of morale and if pushed too far, through attacking or being attacked, the formation will be forced to take a morale test to see if it will break.
There are a couple of things that I really liked about this one as I felt it told the story of the style of fighting of the time and incorporated some elements that were very important. This series has centered the focus on formations and how they can interact with each other on the battlefield. It simply looks at how the relative positioning of the formations opens up opportunities for attack or provides advantages or disadvantages to one side or the other. If you are above an enemy formation on high ground or have a superior firing angle on a formation in battle, shouldn’t you gain an advantage? And furthermore, if you are relatively inexperienced green forces and are facing the smoking gun barrels of your enemy’s cannons, don’t you think that your attempts to return fire will be less effective than if firing with hardened troops from cover? This spatial element is a major inclusion in the design and really feels right and makes your choices as commander that much more difficult as you decide how to activate your troops to take advantage of the situation. I really have enjoyed this spatial relationship during my plays of the game and think that the approach is very novel.
The other element that I really enjoyed was the concept of morale. The design has the player controlling several different Formation Cards that represent their troops on the battlefield and each has their own set of actions they are able to take. The key for these Formation Cards is that each time they are activated through the play of the corresponding Activation Card they have to pay for this activation. The payment comes in the form of paying 1 point of Morale from the Morale Track by moving the cube marker down one space. The formation may also lose Morale as they attack and are attacked throughout the game. The moment that a formation’s morale reaches 5 on the Morale Track they have to conduct a Morale Test to see if they will break and leave the field. This Morale Test is conducted by rolling a single d6 with any modifiers from Tactics Cards that the player controls and then comparing that result to the current Morale of the formation (i.e. where the Morale marker is currently on the Morale Track). If the die roll is higher than the marker location, the formation has failed the test and becomes broken. If the roll is equal to or less than the marker location, the formation passes the test and remains on the battlefield. Each successive reduction in the Morale of that formation will trigger another test which will be harder and harder to pass as the number decreases. Soldiers spend their strength and will to fight in each skirmish and as they are pushed more and more, and in the face of losses and exhaustion, reach a point where their will to fight is gone and they break. I like how the design dealt with this issue and it feels right.
The game uses wooden cubes, disks and sticks to mark formations on the board and it looks like those pictures in text books showing the location of troops during these historical battles. This was a nice thematic touch for me and helped me to get into the mind set of a Revolutionary War battle.
I wrote a series of Action Point posts covering the various aspects of the game. You can read those at the following links:
Action Point 1 – Game board that represents the locations and roles of both sides’ formations as well as their relative positions on the battlefield.
Action Point 2 – Formation Cards and how the Activation Cards are used to command and how Morale Tests work.
Action Point 3 – Momentum Cubes and how they are used to purchase the all important Tactics Cards.
Action Point 4 – Examples of combat and discuss the way the dice are used.
Here is a look at our video review of the game:
2. Chancellorsville 1863 from Worthington Publishing
While the next game on this list uses the same system, this entry in the series is definitely improved and matured and I very much liked the blind movement aspect which was added. Chancellorsville 1863 covers the Battle of Chancellorsville during the American Civil War using a similar system to Freeman’s Farm1777.
At the start of the game some units on each side are visible, which is mostly because they are adjacent (units adjacent to enemy units are always visible on the main map.) Other units are hidden, placed on spaces on their respective mini map hidden behind a screen, in one of a variety of spaces. The mini map is a smaller representation of the main map, with the same movement arrows and nexus points but with the same scale for ‘spaces’ so the same blocks fit on both maps. Each side has their own mini map. If units move into a space on the mini map that is adjacent to a space occupied by a unit on the main map, that unit becomes visible and is transferred to the main map.
There are also some spaces found deep inside the enemy’s lines of communication and moving onto those spaces on the mini map compels an immediate transfer to the main map. In addition, there are some spaces where the lead Union units are visible. This represents Jeb Stuart’s cavalry tracking the Union advance on the Confederate left. This added aspect really makes the game and creates a sense of tension for the players as they simply don’t know where all of the enemy units are located and have to play for those units coming up on their rear even as they are engaged in major battles along the front lines.
Activations are also slightly different from the Freeman’s Farm game as each side only has 15 activations per game but each activation card identifies at least 2 commanders to activate and move. This is very necessary because the Union side has more units to move, and farther to move them to put pressure on objective locations. This has been balanced with the addition of fortifications that allow the defender to set one die per combat at the number desired. This makes for some very interesting decisions about whether to attack or not and how. I have really enjoyed this one as the system is obviously evolving and introducing new elements. I am glad that the designer has decided to take the system to the next level as there are lots of opportunities and applications to various battles for the system.
Crisis: 1914 is a game of international brinkmanship meaning if you back down too soon, you lose. If you back down too late you lose. But you have hawks and doves in your cabinet and in your government, and out of these conflicting views you must somehow formulate a coherent response to the crisis to win the day and prevent war. The game is played with players building a tableau of event cards that will score them a certain number of points, some building off of each of the type of cards played, with some of the cards increasing the Tension level of Europe at the time. If the Tension gets too high The Great War will break out and the player causing it by the play of a card will lose with the others winning based on their total Prestige Points. It sounds really simple, and the game is not overly complex, but there is a lot of strategy to how you play your cards, when you play them and how are you are willing to push your luck each round.
There are 3 concepts at the heart of Crisis: 1914 including Prestige, Tension and Diplomatic Pressure. Diplomatic Pressure is how you score Prestige and reflects the skill at which you play your cards to keep your faction moving ahead of the others while simultaneously balancing the level of Tension. Tension is how you lose. Every card has a DP value and you apply DP by playing cards. The player with the most Diplomatic Pressure at the end of a turn earns Prestige points. There are other ways of scoring Prestige points too, but this is the most important one. Prestige is how you win. The player with the most Prestige at the end of the game is the winner.
I have played this one 3 times now and and I cannot wait for the next opportunity to play. It is best with 5-players so make sure you get the right group and give yourselves a chance to really learn the game as each faction’s deck is completely asymmetrical and repeated plays will help you understand each faction’s strengths and strategies. While this game is not necessarily a wargame, but more of a war themed Euro game with a bit of negotiation and tension as you build your tableau of cards, we had a great time with it and really feel that the game is a bit under the radar of folks and should be one of those games that is played at conventions as it seats up to 5 players and is really quite good.
Here is a link to a RAW video we did after our 2nd play while attending Buckeye Game Fest in 2024:
There you have it. My Best 3 Games with…Designer Maurice Suckling! He has done so many good games and the narrative and historical immersion of all of them are top notch. He is definitely a designer to keep an eye on and I know that he has multiple games currently in design including Rebellion: Britannia from GMT Games, Peace 1905 from Fort Circle Games (we played a prototype of this one at SDHistCon a few years ago and it is top notch) and The Emperor’s Choice from Worthington Publishing (I played a short game of this at WBC and it is very good).
What are your favorite games from Maurice Suckling?
Der Zweite Weltkrieg hat sich festgefahren und die Atombombe soll die Wende für die United States bringen. Risse in der Realität waren dabei nicht eingeplant. Welche Macht aus diesen Rissen entweicht, ist zunächst nicht klar. Doch was sich dann ereignet, kann nur göttliche Fügung sein.
A review copy of Zenith was kindly provided by Hachette Boardgames UK. Thoughts & opinions are my own. Zenith is a tight, hugely enjoyable head-to-head duel that’ll have you trying to do all-too-many things at once. It’s an exercise in plate-spinning that I think most people will really enjoy and wish they’d tried sooner. VERDICT players 2-4 | playing time 25-35 mins…
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#98: The Balkan Wars from Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations
Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 is a massive card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games, which are both grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The game is quite grand and ambitious as it covers 70 years near the end of the Victorian Era and the Progressive Ear and sees quite a lot of global change and competition between the great powers of the time. The game is a Card Driven Game and uses Action Cards as a type of currency to spend for their Command Points or the printed event to take actions such as recruiting armies and navies, industrialize, moving fleets and armies around the globe, influencing minor powers and establish colonies in Africa, India and the Pacific Ocean. The cards are all tied to the history of the period but the game can be played very much as a sandbox allowing players to explore strategies by trailblazing new horizons or following history.
Before we dive into today’s chosen card The Balkan Wars, I want to first make sure you know about Mandatory Event Cards in the game and how they work as they work slightly differently from normal Action Cards. Mandatory Event Cards are all lime green colored and bear a large block “M” just under the CP Value listed in the upper left hand corner. Mandatory Events, as the name suggests, must be played for their events. However, when playing a Mandatory Event Card, players trigger the event and also receive the CP to spend on various actions. The events on Mandatory Event Cards are always resolved first before the CP are utilized. If a Mandatory Event Card is discarded, the event will immediately trigger. There is no way around these cards and they are included in the game to drive the action historically and interject the various special circumstances that drove the rise and decline of these Victorian Age empires. The player that discarded the card resolves the event as if they were the active player. If two such Mandatory Event Cards are discarded in the same impulse the events are resolved in turn order.
Some of the events that occurred historically prior to 1914 were ultimately precursors to The Great War in many ways. The Balkan Wars were two conflicts fought in 1912 and 1913 that stripped the Ottoman Empire of almost all its remaining European territory and directly set the stage for World War I. The Balkan Wars saw similar levels of carnage as machine guns and artillery equipped with hydraulic recoil mechanisms were used in large numbers. Politically, they highlight the volatile nature of international politics in the Balkan Peninsula and are included as a Mandatory Event to ultimately drive up the World Tension Track on a path toward the outbreak of World War I. When played, the World Tension Track will increase by +1 and if the Ottoman player controls any territory in the Balkans other than Istanbul, or has Diplomatic Influence with countries, they will have a chance to lose their control there as a result of the chaos of the First and Second Balkan Wars. If these checks fail, and they will incur a -1 DRM for each Ottoman Army that is located anywhere in the Balkans, non-player armies will be placed in those locations and will increase the difficulty for the Ottomans to gain a foothold in this area. According to the designer Michael Lorino, mechanically this event causes all kinds of trouble in the Balkans, as intended. Similar to the Mandatory Event Card Empire of the Sun, the original event was a bit more involved and had players fight an actual war. In an effort to keep the game in the playable zone, he decided to abstract these wars through a die roll.
I very much enjoy the concept of a Mandatory Event, although they are never convenient for someone at the table as they typically have negative effects for at least 1 faction. But I very much like the approach taken here with The Balkan Wars with the -1 DRM for control of a territory and its thematic connection with the Ottoman Empire’s presence in the region generating tension and setting off these Balkan Wars.
A Bulgarian postcard depicting the Battle of Lule Burgas.
The Balkan Wars were two conflicts that took place in the Balkan states in 1912 and 1913. In the First Balkan War, the four Balkan states of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria declared war upon the Ottoman Empire and defeated it, in the process stripping the Ottomans of their European provinces, leaving only Eastern Thrace under Ottoman control. In the Second Balkan War, Bulgaria fought against the other four combatants of the first war. It also faced an attack from Romania from the north. As a result of these wars, the Ottoman Empire lost the bulk of its territory in Europe. Although not involved as a combatant, Austria-Hungary became relatively weaker as a much enlarged Serbia pushed for union of the South Slavic peoples. The Balkan Wars set the stage for the July Crisis of 1914 and was a prelude to the First World War.
We have put out several pieces of content covering Imperial Elegy and find it to be a fantastic game. These include written posts and videos. You can visit those by following the links below:
Unboxing Video:
Video Review:
Summary of Solitaire Bots presented by our friend James:
I do love a good Napoleonics wargame and The Conquerors Series from Shakos is really very good as we have played a few games over the years. They have a new volume in that series on Kickstarter that is designed by a tandem of great designers in Brian Asklev (Baltic Empires from GMT Games and 1812: Napoleon’s Fateful March from VUCA Simulations) and Fred Serval (A Gest of Robin Hood and Red Flag Over Paris from GMT Games as well as A Very Civil Whist from PHALANX) called Napoléon 1870: The Collapse of the Second French Empire from Shakos. This game is set in a different period but uses the same system to tell the story of the collapse of the Second French Empire during the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870’s. We reached out to Brian to get some answers to our questions and he was more than interested in working with us.
Grant: Brian welcome back to the blog. What is your new upcoming game Napoléon 1870 about?
Brian: Thanks – Its nice to be back As the title hints at its about the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and covers the opening weeks of that war.
Grant: Why was this a game that you wanted to design?
Brian: As a Frenchman and a Dane, Fred Serval (my co-designer) and I talked about how the wars of German unification (vs. Denmark in 1864, Austria in 1866 and France in 1870) are massively overlooked in our hobby, and we decided to go about to fix this.
I am a sucker for conflicts which had a decisive impact on history as well as wars where the belligerents have very asymmetric strengths and weaknesses at both the tactical and operational levels so 1870 fits this bill perfectly. The 2nd Schleswig War in 1864 would also fit this bill but is a far less interesting topic for a game due to its static nature. This leaves out 1866 and I might just return and do that campaign in this series
Grant: What does the subtitle “The Collapse of the Second French Empire” mean?
Brian: The opening battles in August 1870, which led to most of the French army being trapped and besieged at Metz, was a crippling blow to the French Second Empire under Napoleon III (nephew to the way more famous Emperor of the First Empire, Napoléon Bonaparte). His attempts to salvage the situation led to the remaining part of the army and the emperor himself being trapped at Sedan and France becoming a republic again on September 4th.
Grant:Why does TheConquerors Series work for this battle in the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870’s?
Brian: It’s a very flexible system so it can easily be adapted to different periods. Its fatigue system and uncertain movement system is perfectly suited to show some of the difference between the French and Prussian armies in this campaign
Grant:What unique challenges to this well-tried and highly acclaimed campaign system are explored here?
Brian: We have added Objective Cards which allow each player to secretly draw one of their sides 5 Objective Cards before play begins. This card then lists some additional ways of earning VP’s for your side and thus you will play differently in each game depending on what you are trying to achieve besides the usual VP’s for losses and controlling specific locations.
In addition, Event Cards allowed us to add some aspects, such as logistics, which we felt was underrepresented in previous games in the series. As the Event Card use in the system is so flexible we could add this without any additional rules to the series as such.
Grant:Who is your co-designer on this effort? What has their experience brought to the table?
Brian: Fred Serval of Red Flag over Paris and A Gest of Robin Hood fame. We work very well together and find it easy to build upon the ideas of the other as well as stop those ideas that only worked well in our heads In addition, he has a lot of knowledge about the period as well as being able to read and understand French sources.
Grant: What was the division of labor between the 2 of you?
Brian: The design started when we lived in the same town and saw each other regularly, so it was easy for us to have brainstorming sessions and test ideas so we only divided the labor between us for the design of the various scenarios once we were sure the main scenario and the decks worked as we wanted them to. Besides this we decided it would be best if Fred did the translation into French
Grant:How does designing a game in an established system work? Any constraints on your thoughts for the battle?
Brian: I love designing in established series as I have a solid framework from the start and can do all my reading and thinking from the perspective of the series ruleset. This was also how I started as a designer (with GMT´s Musket & Pike Series). In many ways I am probably more of a tinkerer than a designer as I always start with one or more established systems as my basic framework and then expand, merge and tweak those gradually until I end up with something that is very different from my starting point.
If a suitable system is chosen for the conflict the designer seeks to model there should be few constraints apart from the basic parameters of the series in terms of what it does, and what it does not, focus on. One of my only critiques of The Conquerors Series is the lack of logistics and supply rules as I really like such rules both as a player and as a designer (as anyone who has played 1812: Napoleon´s Fateful March will know). Luckily, The Conquerors Series is very flexible and as noted above, we could easily represent the logistic challenges of the war by the inclusion of Event Cards.
Grant:What did you need to make sure to model from the Franco-Prussian War?
Brian: We needed to include and highlight the asymmetry of both of the armies involved: The French had a massively superior rifle called the Chassepot that in and of itself could have won them the war, while the Prussians had far superior artillery. In addition, the French command was very chaotic and disorganized while the Prussians were remarkably well organized and planned considering they were technically the defending side in the war.
Grant: What sources did you consult to get the historical details correct? What one must-read source would you recommend?
Brian: Fred and I consulted several sources, with Fred having the major advantage here of being French speaking. We actually made our own draft versions of the decks and then compared to see where we agreed and where we differed in our choice of focus. To me this was my favorite part of the design process as its very enlightening to see how another person interprets the same source info into card effects and special rules. I would recommend Geoffrey Wawro´s The Franco-Prussian War as a good one-volume book on the conflict.
Grant: What is your overall design goal and thesis with the game?
Brian: My main design goal is always to produce a game that is a solid model of the historical conflict, show players their historical counterpart´s objectives as well as the restrictions they operated under, while being capable of producing plausible alternative outcomes.
When designing in an existing series I naturally adopt that series’ focus and design philosophy, so here we have a system that excels at showing a lot of the friction of war that commanders have little control over and must continually adapt their plans to. Movement rates and combat performance are never certain and both sides have plenty of events that interfere in the operations and capabilities of the other side as well as Must-Play events that can upset the plans of both sides. Historically everything went badly for the French as they were horribly unprepared for the war they started. Within a few days it was obvious that they had to change their overall plan from one of advancing into Germany to one of saving their army from destruction.
I wanted the game to represent this and give the French a chance of winning a sudden death victory by advancing into Germany and repelling their advance forces (and thus shaking up the internal cohesion of the Prussian alliance with the other German states), so the Prussian player is forced to act with some caution in the early phase.
Poor French planning & coordination (represented by initial fatigue levels, pesky Prussian Event Cards and low movement values on their cards) will then often create a situation where the French are in danger of being outmaneuvered and encircled and this next phase in the game will often see the French army trying to fall back in good order and utilize its defensive advantages.
Grant: How does combat work in the design?
Brian: Combat in this series is simple, smooth and elegant. Each side draws a number of cards from their deck and checks the symbols in the bottom corner to see how many losses and fatigue points they cause to the opponent. The number of cards you draw depend on the number of units you have present, their strength and their Fatigue levels. Good defensive terrain as well as unit specific bonuses (clearly shown with icons on the units) may increase the number of cards you draw as well. The two decks are intentionally different. The French deck causes more losses to represent the effect of their Chassepot rifle while the Prussian deck causes more fatigue to represent their superior breechloading artillery.
Grant: What is the area covered by the board? What strategic challenges does it present?
Brian: The game covers only the first phase of the war and thus covers the area of France from (and a bit beyond) the border to Prussia in the east to the area just west of Metz. The fortress of Metz is a key terrain feature on the map and a lot of the late game revolves around it. In game terms it is impassable for the Prussians who have to go around it and control the areas behind it to besiege it. But Metz is not the only VP area on the map and the Prussians have to advance along several axis as well as prevent the French from advancing into their rear and capturing the VP areas inside Prussia. Depending on the Objective Cards drawn for each side some areas may have their VP value further increased, which will make them more important.
Grant:What role does Fatigue play in the design? How do you track this aspect?
Brian: Fatigue is a critical aspect of the system and each unit´s Fatigue Level is tracked on an off-map display which also serves to track its current strength. The Fatigue Track goes from 1 to 8. If a unit´s Fatigue Level goes beyond 4 you draw one less card for the unit in battle, and at the end of the turn if will lose a strength point. If Fatigue reaches 8, the Cohesion of the unit collapses completely and it is eliminated. Players can discard cards at the end of the turn to recover 1 or 2 Fatigue Levels on a unit and units that do nothing for a full turn get to remove all their Fatigue at the end of the turn.
Grant: How does the game use cards? Can you share a few examples with us and explain how they work?
Brian: The series uses cards for movement, combat, Fatigue recovery and for events during your own and the opponents turn, so it is very much a card driven system
Whenever you wish to move a stack you declare who is moving and then draw a card – the number in the upper-right corner is the stacks movement points (with some modifiers from leader presence and the size of the stack)
The icon in the upper left corner show when a card´s event (the text in the middle) is playable:
Cards with a sabre icon are battle events that are (as the name implies) playable during battles.
Cards with your side´s flag are playable when its your turn to move units while cards with the opposing side´s flag are playable in their turn.
Cards with their title in a blue box are played at the start of the turn and generally add reinforcements or effects that last throughout the turn.
Cards with their title in a red box are played immediately and usually represent bad stuff, outside the control of the historical commanders, happening. This could be bad weather but also logistical problems.
The icons in the lower right section show how many fatigue points you get to remove from a unit if you discard this card at the end of the turn while the icons in the lower left section shows how many losses and fatigue points you cause if this card is drawn to resolving a battle.
Disclaimer: The cards below are low-resolution images from the pre-proofreading so they contain small errors that have already been corrected. Blue background cards are from the French Deck while grey background cards are from the Prussian Deck.
Grant: How is victory obtained?
Brian: Victory is obtained by capturing VP cities and causing losses as in the other games in the series. In addition to that we, as mentioned above, added Objective Cards that give players options for scoring additional VP’s by fulfilling the conditions on them.
Grant: What are some general strategies for each of the sides?
Brian: The French are definitely the weaker side in this campaign and will be fighting to prevent their army from being destroyed and the Prussians from placing Metz under siege. But on a unit-on-unit basis the French are usually superior, especially when defending, and in the early game have a chance to inflict enough losses on the Prussians to win a sudden death victory. So the Prussians are on a tight schedule and have a lot to do – but also have to be careful in how they to it.
Grant:What different scenarios are included?
Brian: The main scenario covers the period from the start of the war up to encirclement of Metz and then we have a short scenario covering the battles on the border in the opening days of the war and a short scenario covering the battle of Mars-la-Tour and Gravelotte.
Assuming we reach all the stretchgoals, there will also be a hypothetical scenario covering the same period as the main scenario but assuming the French command and logistics were better planned and organized. All the scenarios come in a fixed setup version and a free setup version.
Grant: What do you feel the design excels at?
Brian: I think we achieved our goal of showing the different strengths and weaknesses of the two armies. The French, with their accurate and long-ranged Chassepot rifles, will usually cause more losses than they suffer but be forced to fall back to prevent their units’ cohesion from collapsing under the weight of the effective artillery and superior numbers of the Prussians.
Grant:What other designs are you currently working on?
Brian: WAY too many!
I am working on a new Operational level game series with Fred Serval which will include little gamed topics on a vide variety of conflicts in the 1900-1990 time frame. Once we launch this series, we will likely be able to put out titles quickly as we already have several games that are ready to go now.
I am both designer and developer on 3 new games in VUCA Simulation’s Marshals & Quartermasters Series, which currently only consists of 1812: Napoleon´s Fateful March but will soon include games on the 1813 German campaign (by me), 1814 invasion of France (by Pete Manning), 1796 in Italy (by Antonello Salvatucci) and 1812 in Iberia (by me).
For Academy Games I am (hopefully) finalizing games in the Birth of Series on the Vietnam War and the 2nd Punic Wars. The latter is a co-design with Jose Rivero.
I am also working on new games in VUCA Simulation’s War Chronicles Series I started with Thirty Years of Misery that is just coming out now. One of these will also be a co-design with Jose Rivero on Al-Andalus (medieval Spain).
Lastly, I am also doing final testing on The 38th Parallel in Bellica 3rd Generation’s criminally overlooked Campaign Commander Series
If you want to learn more about the game, you can watch this preview video put together by co-designer Fred Serval for the Kickstarter page:
I love a different style and focus of wargame. A game that takes a look at an important but somewhat obscure or rarely addressed historical topic, such as espionage or intelligence, and creates a gaming experience tailored around the events to highlight and evoke the difficulties and tension that would have been present. In January 2026, GMT Games announced such a game in Checkpoint Charlie, which is a solo or cooperative game focused on SIS espionage missions in Berlin in the 1960’s designed by Russell Brown. We have posted an interview with Russel and it was very well received and he has now agreed to create a series of History Behind the Cards to highlight the events of the 1960’s Cold War struggle in West Germany but also to share aspects about the game play and how it models the history.
*Note: The cards highlighted in this series and their event text, as well as any pictures used showing any of the various components, are still in the design and development process and as such event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
History Behind the Cards – Checkpoint Charlie from GMT Games – Card #8: Loudspeaker Wars
The Berlin Wall in the 1960’s was an interesting place. When approaching from the west (actually the south if you were at Checkpoint Charlie), you could walk right up to the wall and peer over. There are stories of East Berliners parking their cars against the wall because a small strip on the western side was actually still in Soviet Territory, and the West Berlin police couldn’t give them a parking ticket. If you were an East Berliner, approaching within fifty meters of the wall would probably get you shot. In either case, if you were close enough to the wall to see over it, you were likely to see propaganda from the other side. Most of this was billboards and banners on the eastern side, but the west had its fair share of slogans supporting democracy and the allies.
The Loudspeaker Wars card commemorates the times when this war of propaganda became audible as well as visual. An ongoing battle between vans equipped with high-powered speakers began when East Germany rolled them up to the wall and began blasting propaganda at deafening volumes. When formal complaints failed, the west responded with their own loudspeakers at the wall, making it almost impossible to carry on a conversation anywhere near them. This became known as the “Noise Offensive,” or the “Loudspeaker Wars.” It continued, on and off, for years.
In Checkpoint Charlie, this card makes intelligence operations at the wall very difficult (removing all Intel Cubes there) and also attracts a crowd of gawkers in the form of a Demonstrations Marker. In addition, if Mayor Brandt is active in the mission, he immediately moves to the wall to take part in the back and forth.
In the next article in this series, we will take a look at Daily Military Train.
In my opinion, this game looks extremely interesting and I am very much excited to learn more about it. I am appreciative to Russell and his efforts to bring us these cards and to write these entries to share with our readers. I am also very glad that this topic is being covered in a game and look forward to playing this one day soon.
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#97: Prudence from 1989: Dawn of Freedom from GMT Games
1989: Dawn of Freedom is a fast paced game simulating the end of the Cold War in 1989 as the Berlin Wall fell under pressure from the people as during this year a series of democratic revolutions ended the 40 year Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. 1989 simulates the political, social and economic aspects of these revolutions using a card-driven system similar to Twilight Struggle. I have really very much enjoyed my plays of 1989 and those plays are increasing as the game has been placed on the very cool and user friendly online platform Rally the Troops!
Any game that has cards is focused somehow on attacking those cards or at least minimizing access to them or to taking a turn away from your opponent by causing them to have to discard one of their cards or to do something else with that card. But there are some type of cards that will limit your opponent’s cards and their effectiveness by imposing a penalty on them. That is the case with our next card in this series from 1989: Dawn of Freedom called Prudence. The card is very simple as it imposes a -1 Ops penalty on all cards played by your opponent for the Operations Points for the remainder of the turn. All cards still will retain at least a 1 Op value but others will be reduced. The play of this card as an Event or for the juicy 4 Ops that it conveys is a real choice and players need to understand the value in the card. If played as the first card play of a turn, the penalty can impose up to a -6 Ops loss to your opponent over the course of the turn. So you have to somewhat do a cost-benefit analysis when you play the card and decide if it is best played for the Event or for the Ops. The later the turn goes, the less impact and utility the Event will have and you must gain a return from this valuable card if used for the Event. 4 Ops cards are rare and you must come out on top or your game will suffer.
President George H.W. Bush frequently used the word “prudence” to describe his cautious, restrained approach to foreign policy during the historic collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War. Prudence meant calculating risks and weighing long-term consequences rather than reacting with flashy, immediate emotion. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Bush famously refused to publicly dance on the wall or gloat, despite pressure from political rivals like Senator George Mitchell. This was a measured and conscious choice to deescalate the tensions and fall out from the fall of the Berlin Wall as Bush feared that openly humiliating Soviet leaders or the Soviet military might provoke a hardline backlash or cause Moscow to halt troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe.
As you may know, comedian Dana Carvey popularized a famous caricature of George H.W. Bush on Saturday Night Live, using the catchphrase “Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent” to lampoon the President’s cautious speech patterns and deliberate style. While critics sometimes mocked his caution as a lack of a grand vision and understanding of his place as the Leader of the free world, historians often credit his prudent diplomacy with managing a peaceful transition out of the Cold War.
I very much enjoy the thematic connection of this card with the Event. The play of this card, which is a choice as it has a 4 Ops value and could be used in a different manner to forward the player’s interests on the game board, mimics the restraint and choices before President Bush. I think that in today’s world, this type of restraint is sorely lacking and if present at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, could have sparked further decades of struggle as the Cold War would have continued to freeze the 2 Super Powers into an ongoing and pointless ideological fight.
We posted a full review video and you can watch that at the following link:
A new series, and we have seen how well series have done at GMT Games, a new designer and a new concept to wargaming (lane battler), I think that this game has great potential and it happens to be focused on one of my most favorite wars to game – the Vietnam War. Iron Triangle: Search and Destroy Operations in the Vietnam War is designed by Darren McGuire and takes a look at the struggle between the United States military and the Viet Cong insurgents as they fight over control of three key “lanes” or regions. I am very much excited about this one and reached out to designer Darren McGuire for some additional information.
*Note: The pictures used in this interview showing the various components and cards, are still in the design and development process and as such rules,event effects and text might still change prior to final development and publication.Also the art and layout of the cards are only for playtest purposes at this point and the game will enter the art department as it nears publication.
Grant: Darren welcome to our blog. First off please tell us a little about yourself. What are your hobbies? What’s your day job?
Darren: Hi Grant, I live not too far from Glasgow in Scotland, which is a board gamer’s delight, by which I mean, plenty of rainy days and dark evenings. By day, I work as a Quantity Surveyor (Cost Engineer) on major water infrastructure projects, dealing with cost control, commercial management and contractual disputes, so it’s excitement all round! Away from work, my wife and four children keep me more than busy.
As you may have guessed, my main hobby is board gaming, which has now expanded into board game design. Unfortunately, my best ideas seem to arrive in the middle of the night rather than at my desk. When I’m not thinking about games, you’ll usually find me following Glasgow Celtic, the best football (soccer) team in the world…well, Scotland at least. Other interests include noodling away on my guitar and getting out for the occasional hike.
Grant: What motivated you to break into game design? What have you enjoyed the most about the experience thus far?
Darren: I am relatively new to board gaming, having played regularly for only four or five years. My growing interest in historical games was sparked by Rodney Smith’s discussion of Cuba Libre in the Discovering the COIN series. After learning and playing the game, and later watching a documentary on the Cuban Revolution, I became fascinated by how game mechanics can represent the political, military and social dimensions of historical events.
This experience led me to appreciate game design not just as entertainment but as a way of communicating history. My interest in creating games developed further through roleplaying games, particularly the Basic Roleplaying system, which inspired me to write and run a Second World War-themed scenario. Seeing others enjoy something I had created was highly rewarding and encouraged me to pursue game design more seriously.
What I enjoy most about design is the iterative process, watching an idea evolve through testing, refining it based on feedback, and carrying lessons learned from one project into the next.
Grant: What is your upcoming Game Iron Triangle about?
Darren: Iron Triangle is a 2-player card battler game about the struggle between US and Viet Cong forces in the III Corps region of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Players compete across a series of Operations while also managing the wider military, political and social factors that shaped the conflict.
The US player must balance military success with the need to maintain stability and support for the South Vietnamese government. The VC player, meanwhile, seeks to undermine government authority through guerrilla warfare, hidden infrastructure, and the careful preparation of the Tet Offensive. While battles are fought over individual Operations, success ultimately depends on how effectively players manage resources, control territory, influence Public Opinion and pursue their broader strategic objectives.
Rather than focusing solely on military confrontation, Iron Triangle aims to capture the asymmetrical nature of the war, where political legitimacy could be just as important as success on the battlefield. The result is a fast-paced experience in which decisions can have consequences beyond the immediate fight.
Grant: Why was this a subject that drew your interest?
Darren: I have always been fascinated by David versus Goliath conflicts, where a seemingly weaker side challenges a much stronger opponent. The Vietnam War particularly captured my interest because it was a conflict I initially knew very little about. Like many people, my early perceptions were shaped largely by Hollywood films, but after becoming interested in historical conflict through board gaming, I began to realize there was far more nuance and complexity to the war than popular culture suggests. The more I explored the subject, the more intrigued I became by the political, military and human factors that shaped the conflict.
Grant: What is your design goal of the game?
Darren: My goal is to create a fun and engaging game that feels thematic within what is traditionally quite an abstract genre. I want the mechanics and player decisions to reflect the realities of the conflict, so that the theme is expressed through gameplay rather than simply through artwork or historical flavor text.
Beyond providing an enjoyable experience, I hope players come away with a greater appreciation of the unique challenges faced by both sides in this part of the Vietnam War. The conflict was not decided solely by battlefield success. Political support, public opinion, hidden infrastructure and competing strategic priorities all played important roles. Capturing these tensions within an accessible and entertaining game has been one of the central objectives of the design.
Grant: What from Search and destroy missions in Vietnam was most important to model?
Darren: Two aspects were at the forefront of my mind. The first was capturing the cat-and-mouse nature of search and destroy operations through the card play. These missions were rarely straightforward engagements; instead, they involved a constant struggle to locate, pursue and evade the enemy.
Equally important was ensuring that the tactical outcomes of these operations were connected to their wider political and societal consequences. In Vietnam, success on the battlefield did not always translate into strategic success. Capturing that tension between military achievement and its broader impact on public opinion, political will, and the course of the war was therefore a key design objective.
Grant: What sources did you consult about the details of the history? What one must read source would you recommend?
Darren: The principal sources I consulted were:
The Vietnam War: An Intimate History by Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns
Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975 by Max Hastings
The Tunnels of Cu Chi by Tom Mangold and John Penycate
Of these, I would recommend The Tunnels of Cu Chi as essential reading. The book argues that the Cu Chi tunnel network became one of the most powerful symbols of Viet Cong resilience and ingenuity, demonstrating why overwhelming American military superiority alone could not guarantee victory. That theme had a significant influence on the design of the game. Mechanics such as tunneled cards, Tunnel Bases, and the creation and use of caches are intended to reflect the hidden infrastructure that enabled the Viet Cong to survive, recover and at times overwhelm a conventionally stronger opponent. Capturing this asymmetry between military power and insurgent resilience was one of the central goals of the design.
Grant: What is the goal of the game?
Darren: The VC player seeks to undermine the local population’s trust in the South Vietnamese government. To achieve this, they must win Operations, carefully manage their resources, and, most importantly, plan and execute a successful Tet Offensive.
The US player, meanwhile, has two paths to victory. The first is through attrition, exposing and neutralizing enemy forces. The second is through pacification, placing pacification chits on regional tracks to strengthen government influence. Whichever strategy they pursue, they must contend with the fallout of scorched-earth tactics, maintain control of pacified areas and disrupt the enemy’s Tet Offensive preparations whenever possible.
Grant: What is the layout of the board?
Darren: The operations are divided across three regions, with players contesting one operation in each region during every round. Running alongside these battles is a strategic layer represented on the board, which tracks the overall situation across the theatre. This includes the level of control within each region, regional stability, public opinion, and refugee generation. As a result, success in individual operations can have far-reaching consequences, forcing players to balance short-term military objectives against their broader strategic and political impact.
Grant: What are the “lanes” and how do they work?
Darren: The three lanes represent the key operational regions north of Saigon: War Zone C, War Zone D and the Iron Triangle. Each lane contains a dedicated deck of Operation Cards representing historical Search and Destroy missions conducted in that region during the period.
During each round, players will contest one Operation from each region, fighting simultaneous battles across all three lanes. The outcome of these Operations will influence the wider conflict, affecting the various tracks and areas of the main board. Success on the battlefield can shift regional control, impact public support, alter available resources and shape each side’s broader strategic objectives.
Grant: How does the game use cards? How are the player decks asymmetrical?
Darren: Each player commands a unique deck of cards representing the units, tactics and capabilities available to their side. These cards are committed to Operations, where players compete for control and the rewards those Operations provide. Every card has a strength value and a special action that can be utilized when played.
The game’s real asymmetry lies in how the VC player can deploy their cards. VC cards may be played in one of three states: Exposed (face-up), Concealed (face-down) or Tunnelled (face-down and rotated). This system forces the VC player to balance protection against flexibility. A Tunnelled card, for example, is much harder for the US player to expose and inflict attrition upon, but it requires additional effort from the VC player to reveal and activate its ability.
These mechanics give the VC player multiple strategic options. They can bluff with hidden forces, launch surprise attacks, prepare units for future engagements or hide powerful cards for the decisive end-of-round reveal. The US player, meanwhile, is rarely certain of the strength or composition of the forces they are facing, creating a constant risk that an attack may not go as planned.
To counter this uncertainty, the US player can resort to scorched-earth tactics, exposing and neutralising enemy forces through attrition. However, this approach has consequences. Such actions generate refugees, a resource that can ultimately be exploited by the VC player to advance their own objectives.
The card system is therefore central to how the game’s theme is reflected in its mechanics. Through hidden information, bluffing and the constant tension between searching for the enemy and avoiding detection, it captures the cat-and-mouse nature of the conflict and the uncertainty faced by US forces throughout the war.
Grant: What different type of cards are included?
Darren: There are several types of cards in the game. The Operation Decks form the core of the conflict, with each card detailing the rewards available for successfully completing that mission. These rewards can include gaining regional control, destroying enemy caches or bases, reducing public opinion or generating refugees, all of which contribute to the wider strategic situation on the main board.
Each faction also has its own unique deck containing units and tactics, with cards featuring different strength values and special abilities. These decks reflect the contrasting approaches employed by the US and VC forces and provide players with meaningful tactical decisions throughout the game.
Currently in development are Commander Cards, which can be employed throughout the course of the game. Each commander provides powerful advantages but also introduces specific drawbacks, requiring players to carefully consider who is best suited to lead their forces at any given stage of the conflict.
Also in development is a dedicated solo mode, being designed by Joe Dewhurst. This system includes a bespoke bot deck for each faction, aiming to deliver a challenging and thematic opponent that captures the strategic priorities and character of both sides.
Grant: Can you show us a few examples of cards and describe how they work?
Darren: Here are a few examples that highlight the key decisions and interactions players will encounter during a round.
Operation Cards
Players battle over three Operation cards during each round. The rewards gained depend on the final Strength differential between the opposing sides.
For example, on the Operation shown above, if the VC player ends the round with a Strength differential of 3 or more, they move the control marker on the Warzone C Region Track one space toward Saigon and remove one US Firebase.
Action Cards
Infrastructure symbols indicate that the Operation takes place in a populated area. When the US player uses Scorched Earth actions, such as Zippo Raids, Refugees are generated as a result of the destruction.
In this example, the Zippo Raids Card generates two Refugees for each Infrastructure symbol shown on the Operation Card and allows the US player to destroy two Caches from the VC supply.
The card also gives the US player the option of playing it rotated to its lower-strength Pacification side. When played this way, the US player may place one Pacification chit on a Region Track if the Tet Offensive has not yet occurred, or two Pacification chits if it has.
This creates an important strategic decision for the US player. They can use the card’s high Strength value to help win the Operation, potentially generating Refugees that the VC can later exploit, or they can focus on Pacification to reduce the effectiveness of VC Tax actions and move closer to their alternative victory condition.
The Ambush Card from the VC Deck illustrates the different states in which a card can be played. It may be played face-down (Concealed or Tunnelled) or face-up (Exposed).
The Attrition symbol represents a key objective for the US player, who seeks to expose and exploit these cards as part of their Attrition victory condition. The US Activation symbol indicates that the card’s action may also be triggered when it is exposed by a US card effect.
This gives the VC player meaningful agency. They can play the card face-up to gain the action immediately, play it face-down and activate it later in the round, or use it as a bluff to lure the US player into exposing it.
These are just a few examples of how the decks interact. The game includes numerous ways for players to influence and counter each other’s cards. K9 Units can negate the US Activation effect, Hueys can move cards and place Firebases, Tunnel Rats can flush out Tunnelled cards and locate Caches, Booby Traps can eliminate Tunnel Rats and Supply cards can place Caches on Operations to increase Strength.
Together, these layered interactions ensure that every card choice can have lasting consequences, creating a tense and highly interactive contest between the US and VC players.
Grant: How are the cards concealed by the VC player? What does this represent?
Darren: VC cards feature symbols indicating whether they can be played face up, face down, or either. Face-down cards represent concealed forces, while rotated cards represent units operating through tunnel networks.
The VC player must use Action Cards, such as Manoeuvre, to flip or rotate cards already committed to a lane. This creates a constant balancing act between revealing powerful effects, such as Ambushes and Night Raids, and protecting the valuable Attrition symbols contained on those cards.
These mechanics also enable bluffing. For example, a low-value Booby Trap Card can be tunnelled, encouraging the US player to believe it is a high-strength Support Card with significant Attrition potential. The uncertainty forces the US player to carefully consider where to commit resources and when to challenge concealed threats.
The VC player must also decide whether to play a card face up and immediately benefit from its effect but exposing it to US attack, or instead commit it face down from the outset and save its reveal for a decisive moment later in the round. This flexibility reflects the hidden nature of VC operations and rewards careful planning and deception.
Grant: What challenges for the US are created by this concealment?
Darren: Attrition is a key US victory path, but many VC Attrition symbols remain hidden on concealed or tunnelled cards. To succeed, the US player must reveal and engage these forces while making difficult decisions with incomplete information, risking costly overcommitment if hidden threats prove stronger than expected.
Military operations can expose VC units, destroy bases and uncover caches, but they often generate Refugees, which the VC can exploit to gain cards, add Tet tokens or reduce Regional Stability. As a result, the US player must constantly balance immediate military success against longer-term political consequences. These mechanics create a tense contest of information and deception, with the VC concealing their strength while the US works to uncover and eliminate hidden assets before they can affect the wider war.
Grant: What is the Tet Offensive draw bag? How is it built?
Darren: The Tet Offensive was the watershed moment of the Vietnam War. Although it did not bring the conflict to an immediate end, it fundamentally altered US strategy and set the conditions for the gradual withdrawal of American forces. Capturing the importance of this moment was a key design goal.
The Tet Bag is one of the most important systems in the game. Following recent design changes, it no longer acts as a simple end-game decider but instead serves as a mechanism that can greatly influence the course of the war. At the start of each round, the VC player secretly decides whether to launch the Tet Offensive by selecting one of two cards: one commits to the Offensive and the other acts as a bluff. This creates uncertainty from the outset of the round, as the US player must react without knowing whether a major offensive is truly imminent. The VC player may retract their decision during the round, but doing so becomes increasingly expensive as the cost in Caches rises with each turn that passes.
The bag begins with three US tokens and two VC tokens, but its contents constantly evolve throughout the game. The VC can add tokens through Infiltrate actions and by exploiting Refugees created by US operations. The US player, meanwhile, can remove tokens through Round-Up actions and through Attrition in an attempt to limit the impact of any future Offensive.
The primary way for the VC to influence the draw is through the accumulation of Caches. These can be generated through Tax Actions or received as end-of-round supply from the North. When the offensive is launched, the number of available Caches determines how many Tet tokens can be added to the bag, while Tunnel Bases deployed to region tracks act as multipliers, increasing the number of tokens generated from those Caches. Control of key regional spaces provides additional opportunities, with certain track positions allowing a player to add Tet tokens at the end of a round if the Offensive is launched.
If the VC player commits to the Tet Offensive, the appropriate tokens are added to the bag at the end of the round and five tokens are drawn at random. Each VC token drawn reduces Public Opinion by one step, while each US token drawn increases Attrition by one step. This can create a dramatic swing in the strategic situation. Even if neither victory condition is immediately met, the outcome of the draw can significantly alter the state of the war and shape the decisions available to both players in subsequent rounds.
The timing of the Offensive is therefore a critical consideration. The VC player must decide whether to launch early with limited preparation or delay in order to strengthen the bag’s odds while risking discovery or disruption. The US player, meanwhile, must balance efforts to contain the insurgency on the ground against the need to manage the growing threat represented by the Tet Bag. This creates a constant strategic tension that mirrors the historical conflict.
Grant: What is Public Opinion? How is it changed?
Darren: Public Opinion represents the local population’s perception of the South Vietnamese Government and, by extension, the effectiveness of the US-backed war effort. Managing Public Opinion is crucial, as it forms one of the key strategic battlegrounds in the game.
The primary driver of Public Opinion is Regional Stability, which is determined by the position of Control markers on the regional tracks. As the VC expands its influence and gains control across a region, Stability declines, reflecting a population that increasingly doubts the government’s ability to maintain order and security. Conversely, government control and stability reinforce confidence in the existing regime.
Beyond regional control, both players have additional means of influencing Public Opinion. The VC can erode support for the government by achieving decisive victories in key Operations, demonstrating its strength and undermining confidence in official authority. A successful Tet Offensive can also significantly damage Public Opinion, representing the political shock caused by the scale and visibility of the attacks.
The US player is not without tools of their own. Through Pacification actions, they can improve conditions within contested areas, securing spaces on the regional tracks and creating opportunities to increase Public Opinion. By achieving key objectives and restoring Stability, the US player can demonstrate progress and strengthen support for the South Vietnamese Government.
Grant: What is urban infiltration?
During the build-up to the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong infiltrated towns and cities across South Vietnam, embedding cadres among the local population. These operatives remained hidden until called upon to conduct terror attacks, sabotage missions, or support the wider offensive once it began. Their ability to operate covertly within urban areas was a key factor in the scale and surprise of the 1968 Tet Offensive.
This aspect of the conflict is represented in the game through a dedicated VC Action card. When played, the card allows the VC player to add a Tet token to the Tet Bag, reflecting the gradual preparation and expansion of the underground network in advance of the Offensive. While the immediate effect may seem modest, repeated use of these actions can significantly alter the balance of the eventual draw.
Grant: How are bases used and what benefits do they bring?
Darren: Bases are another important asymmetrical element of the game. While both factions use bases to influence control of the battlefield, there are significant differences between VC Tunnel Bases and US Fire Bases that reflect their distinct approaches to the war.
In general, bases are deployed to a Regional Track adjacent to a Control marker through the use of Action Cards. Once in play, they allow a player to either reinforce their position or exploit success in an Operation.
A base can be placed defensively on a Region Track between the player and the Control marker. In this position, it acts as a buffer against enemy advances. If the opposing player wins an Operation and would move the Control marker towards their side of the track, the base absorbs one of those control shifts before being removed and returned to its home space. This allows players to protect hard-won gains and makes regional control more difficult to reverse.
Alternatively, a base can be deployed aggressively between the Control marker and an opponent’s side of the track. This represents a player anticipating success and positioning assets to exploit a breakthrough. If the Operation is won, the Control marker effectively leapfrogs the base, allowing it to advance further than it otherwise would. In this role, the base accelerates territorial gains, helping a player press their advantage.
When a VC Tunnel Base is used offensively, it is flipped to its exposed side, representing increased activity and a greater risk of detection. Exposed bases are significantly easier for the US player to locate and destroy.
This creates an important strategic dilemma for the VC player. Tunnel Bases are not only valuable for influencing regional control but also contribute to the Tet Offensive system by acting as multipliers for Tet tokens generated through Caches. Committing them aggressively can produce short-term gains on the board, but doing so risks losing assets that could have a major impact on a future Tet Offensive. The VC player must therefore balance the need to consolidate territorial gains against the benefits of preserving their network for a decisive political strike later in the war.
Grant: What role do refugees play in the game?
Darren: Refugees represent one of the key consequences of the counterinsurgency strategies employed during the war. Population displacement was frequently used to separate the VC from the rural population and disrupt their support networks, creating both military opportunities and political challenges.
The US player has access to powerful Scorched Earth Action Cards. These are high-strength cards that can be used to destroy VC Caches and generate Attrition, helping the US pursue one of its victory conditions. However, such operations can also displace civilians, creating Refugees as local communities are caught up in the fighting.
When a Scorched Earth Card is played, Refugees are generated based on the concentration of the local population in the targeted area, represented by infrastructure symbols on the Operation cards. For each Refugee generated, a Refugee token is placed in Saigon.
While these operations can successfully disrupt VC activity, the resulting Refugees create opportunities for the VC player. On their turn, Refugee tokens can be spent in several ways:
Recruit – Draw additional cards,
Infiltrate – Add a Tet token to the Tet Bag, helping prepare future offensives.
Destabilise – Reduce Regional Stability, further undermining confidence in the South Vietnamese Government.
This creates a difficult strategic dilemma for the US player. Aggressive operations may achieve important military objectives by destroying enemy resources and inflicting Attrition, but they can also generate conditions that the VC can exploit for political and organisational gain.
To counter this, the US player has access to Resettlement Action Cards, which reduces the number of Refugees in Saigon. These actions represent efforts to restore stability, provide support for displaced civilians, and mitigate the wider consequences of military operations.
The Refugee mechanic reinforces one of the game’s central themes: success on the battlefield does not always translate into strategic success. Players must consider not only the immediate impact of their actions, but also the longer-term political and social consequences that can shape the course of the war.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
Darren: For the VC, victory is achieved by reducing Public Opinion to the bottom space of its track. This is accomplished through the rewards gained from winning Operations and by successfully planning and executing the Tet Offensive.
The US player has two possible routes to victory. The first is Attrition, achieved by exposing VC forces, revealing Attrition symbols on their cards, and capitalising on those symbols. Successfully pacifying individual regions and repelling the Tet Offensive also support this strategy.
The second route is Pacification. If the US player can fill all the spaces on the lower half of each regional track with Pacification chits, they have successfully stabilised the countryside and strengthened support for the South Vietnamese government. Achieving this level of security and political control results in a US victory.
Grant: What type of experience does the game create?
Darren: The aim is to create a fast-paced and tense experience in which both players must balance the military, political and social aspects of the conflict. While Operations provide the focus for direct confrontation, victory depends on managing a range of competing priorities rather than simply overpowering an opponent.
The game is not intended to be a straightforward tug-of-war over territory. Players must constantly weigh short-term gains against long-term objectives, deciding when to commit resources, when to accept setbacks, and when to focus on the wider strategic situation. Success comes from understanding how the different systems interact and adapting to an ever-changing battlefield, creating a game that rewards careful planning while still maintaining a constant sense of pressure and uncertainty.
Grant: What are you most pleased with about the design?
Darren: I am most pleased with how I have taken a relatively abstract style of game and made it as thematic as possible, capturing not only the military aspects of the conflict but also the political and social factors that shaped it. I am also very happy with the recent design changes, which have expanded the game’s scope and increased the decision space for both players. In particular, turning the Tet Offensive into a flexible strategic option rather than a fixed endgame event has created more meaningful choices for the VC player, while adding greater uncertainty and tension throughout the game. Overall, these changes have made for a richer and more engaging experience without losing sight of the historical themes I wanted to explore.
Grant: What other designs are you working on?
Darren: I have several other card battler designs at various stages of development, covering topics such as the Eastern Front, the Arctic Convoys of the Second World War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Russo-Chechen War, the latter of which served as a precursor to Iron Triangle. Each design approaches its subject in a very different way, and I am hopeful that the lessons I have learned during the development of Iron Triangle will help me refine and strengthen these projects.
I’d just like to finish by saying thanks for taking the time to reach out and for the opportunity to talk about Iron Triangle.
Anmelden
