Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul by GMT 2020

February 18, 2022 5 Minutes

My exploration of historical war games continues with my latest GMT games acquisition, Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul. This game takes on Caesar’s infamous campaign against the Gauls from 57 to 52 B.C. covering the conflict from both political and military aspects. A classic David vs. Goliath story in which an Empire with a grand army and charismatic bad guy invades a rebellious scrappy underdog that must fight for survival, the basis for a game ripe with narrative and gameplay opportunities.

This game falls into the CDG war game category and seems to find some of its genetics from a few games I have played in the last few years most notably Washington’s War and Mark Simonitch’s own Hannibal & Hamilcar.

There is no mistaking the similarities, Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is made up of many of the same building blocks.

In C: RvG you take on the role of a leader of one of the two asymmetrical nations, either Rome or Gaul as you fight for control for what is largely modern-day France, parts of Germany, Britain and a few other nations judging from the map and my rather weak knowledge of geography, aka “Gaul” as the Romans called it. While the game is clearly about war and battles are fought on this point-to-point map, the game zooms out to include various political, resource, and logistics of the era with some high-level abstraction.

I really love CDG’s, I think it’s a wonderful way to bring history and theme into a game in a way that does not force historical outcomes and as a whole, while C: RvG is clearly based on historical events, it’s both too abstract and far too dynamic to fall into the historical simulation category of games. In this way, it shares a lot of similarities with other games in the genre using what I think most fans of CDG games will recognize as a tried and true formula while making some minor tweaks to give it a style of its own. With a fantastic presentation thanks to GMT Games always excellent component quality, an awesome historical backdrop and driven by a mechanic I already know and love, C: RvG is a game seemingly tailor-made for me.

To CDG fans even if you never laid eyes on these cards it should be a familiar sight. The dual card usage event vs. operations/action cost is a staple of the genre and is a major foundation of gameplay in Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul.

This is a game where history is a playground and backdrop for what is a kind of general area control game infused with some traditional historical war game concepts like DRM battle resolution (tables), point-to-point movement, chit style defined units and of course most importantly the dual-use card play where you execute cards as either events or for the operations/action points.

While not a historical simulation, that does not mean the mechanics are not infused with history and narrative, they are in many very meaningful ways. There are clear links to historical realities of the time built into the mechanics of the game and reflected in many of the procedures and cards. Still, there was little effort made to build that connection for you in the rulebook and explanation of the game, nothing in the material provided goes to any meaningful depth to explain the history so unless you spend some time researching the period on your own you may not find the connections as meaningful.

Most of the time I could see the brilliance in the design of C: RvG, the great way it integrates the theme into the game, and some of the fantastic back and forth dynamics of the mechanics that create a truly wonderful asymmetrical competition between two opponents. At other times it felt like there were some arbitrary concepts that are here as some sort of tribute to old-school historical wargaming that get under the feet of what is otherwise a very modern game design. This ultimately ends up making the game more complicated, slower and less accessible to non-historical wargamers, while doing little to make it more of a historical simulation, leaving the effort without any real benefit or reason to have made it.

Today we look at this latest entry into the CDG genre to see if this Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul finds room on my shelf among some of my favorites like Washington’s War, Twilight Struggle and Imperial Struggle.

How does this one hold up!? Let’s find out!

Overview

Final Score: (3.85 – Great Game!)

Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is based on the fascinating history of Caesars personal political ambitions in a time when he was not terribly popular in Rome and had many enemies who would have liked to see him fail. He charged himself with securing Gaul to bring stability to the region he ruled over, but because his political position back in Rome was constantly challenged, he needed to be excessively successful in his campaign to keep Rome off his back. As such, his campaign in Gaul was both a bid for military control of the region to subdue the Gaulic tribes, while simultaneously a way to appease his critics back home and grow his wealth and influence. Historically Caesar was such a successful leader, he was eventually able to declare himself dictator Emperor of Rome, a title he held for only a brief time until his very famous assassination. The challenge in this game is to see if the player running Caesar can live up to this amazing historical achievement by one of history’s most famous military commanders.

Ask any war historian and they will tell you that Caesar is second only to Alexander The Great in the ranking of best commanders in human history. This famous painting depicts Vercingetorix, Chieftain of the Gauls submitting to Caesar and Roman rule in 52 B.C. An outcome that in this game is not going to be easy to achieve.

The very first thing I noted about C: RvG is that this brief description is already more information about the history on which this game is based than is provided with the game material. The historical theme and this unique story are quite important to understanding the context of the gameplay and since a lot of effort was put into tieing this fascinating piece of history into the mechanics its absence is a bit confounding. Providing a clear write-up of this history in the rules manual seems like it should have been paramount right alongside gameplay examples. I’m reminded of my recent foray into one of GMT’s other titles, Peloponnesian War and what a considerable and very positive impact the historical write-up for that game had on my gaming experience.

This story, in particular, the politics around it finds its way into the game by the way of victory conditions, card play and the influence token mechanics which are the foundation of the game’s chess match and notably a classic formula in the CDG genre of games.

The player who commands Caesar and his Roman Legions must earn 12 victory points in the course of the campaign (6 rounds) which requires you as a player to replicate much of the exceptional historical success that Caesar had in his campaign in Gaul.

As Caesar, you will need to maintain dominance in Gaul, successfully put down the many Gaulic tribes that rise to oppose you as well as execute successful conquests in Germania and Britannia. The task is not an easy one and the pressure really is on the Roman player to perform, but you are the great Caesar and this is the title of the game so it makes sense that the spotlight would be on the star of the show.

The Gaulic player on the other hand really only has one mission which is to slow down Caesar just enough that he does not score his required 12 victory points at the conclusion of six rounds of play. The interesting historical tidbit is that the Gaulic leaders actually knew about Caesar’s troubles at home, so much of their strategy was actually built around trying to make him look bad politically by stalling his success. This ties into the general strategy of the Gaulic player quite nicely and gives the game a feeling of historical validity even though historical outcomes are never forced through mechanics.

While the goals of the Gauls are quite different, it is no less challenging for them as they must contend with Caesar’s overwhelmingly powerful military might. The Gaul forces are much weaker early on and far less united which leads to the Gaul player’s tactics being about raiding and guerilla warfare with a great deal of emphasis on calculating risk vs. reward. Caesar might be the star of the show here, but the Gauls have a lot of personality of their own in this game, you really feel their struggle and as they engage Caesar’s forces you get a sense of how frustrating it must be to be opposed by such unstoppable might.

The Gaulic player is the presumed underdog in this story, but mechanically speaking, the balance of the game really favors the Gaul as earning 12 victory points over 6 rounds as the Roman player is a pretty tall order. While initially this might sound and feel off, which it certainly did to me, it actually comes out, in the end, making some sense.

This is a game about Caesar, this amazing commander who despite a considerably smaller force and absence of support of his government defied history and was so successful that we remember him as one of the greats. In a sense Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is a kind of challenge to the player running Rome that says “can you replicate this amazing historical outcome as Caesar”? If it was easy, if the game favored Rome mechanically, I don’t think the game would have the same impact and the victory would be a shallow one.

This tilt might be a problem for some players and initially, it definitely was for me, but looking back at my experience with the game, despite the fact that I’m yet after several games to see a Roman victory, I’m drawn to this challenge and excited to try it again. I know it’s possible, I have come close a couple of times and though I could understand how some players might see this as a balance issue (I know I initially did), when you wrap it up in the historical context of this game and how it conveys the theme through its mechanics, it actually kind of works for me and makes sense despite some early frustration with the game.

It is why I mention at the very start here that it’s actually a problem not to include a thorough write-up of this fascinating piece of history in the rulebook. Coming to this understanding and conclusion is really only possible if you have this context and are enthralled with the story behind the game. Without it, Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul comes off as a rather abstract game with a Roman theme that has a fairly sizeable balance problem.

It may appear that Caesar is surrounded by the Gauls and in a lot of trouble, but the reality is that he will wipe the floor with all of these Gaulic tribes even if they formed up against him under a single banner. Caesar’s military might in this game is overwhelming.

There are some intricacies in the phases of play that are important to manage, but at the heart of the game is the strategy phase. In this phase each player draws 8 cards and players take turns playing 1 card at a time and using those cards as either the historical event the card represents or spending the operations/action points to put out influence markers and move armies on the board. A mechanic that should be very familiar to veteran CDG wargamers, but even if you are not, is a very intuitive and simple concept to grasp.

The card play here is excellent as the cards are really well balanced when you compare their operational/action values and the benefits of the events on the card. It’s very often a tough choice to abandon an event that might be key under the right circumstances for the action points it provides. Timing is also quite crucial and because your card draw can range from terrible to amazing, rounds are not always going to be created equal between the players so damage control is often a part of the gameplay here. You must make do with what you draw and a big part of the strategy of this game is understanding how to get the most juice out of these cards.

The battle system in the game is also really important, there is play and counterplay here in how armies move, intercept, avoid battles and fight. As the Gaulic player, you are usually trying to avoid fighting Caesar directly in particular on his terms while as the Roman player you are going to be constantly trying to force battles and sieges wherever possible as it’s absolutely vital that you are removing tribes from the board else you risk getting overwhelmed later in the game. The advantage the Roman player has here is that Caesar’s army is really powerful at least as a concentrated force, but this is a pretty big map so Caesar can’t be everywhere all the time. If he splits his forces, Caesar is vulnerable and the Gaulic tribes may be able to challenge him on the field, but when moving as one force they are unstoppable and any Gaulic tribe foolish enough to try to take them on is going to get wiped out even if they outnumber the Legions.

As such the Gaulic player is forced into a sort of cat and mouse game as he tries to spread his influence and the Roman player is playing a game of wack-a-mole, putting down tribes that spawn at an alarming rate each round. The ratios are really off here which is a big part of the challenge, the Roman player has no hope of keeping up with Gauls inevitable military growth, this is a game of whack-a-mole the Roman player cannot win, but must play. What Rome needs to do is make sure to score the 12 points as quickly as possible and hope they can hang on to enough domination (control) on the board by the conclusion of the game that they do not trigger the auto loss condition (not enough control of the board). This is all possible to do but any Roman victory is going to be incredibly tight and come down to the last moments of the game.

The Gauls also get special leaders later in the game and they become quite critical for the Gauls because sooner or later someone will have to stand up to Caesar.

This is an easy game to learn and teach, so getting to the heart of this gameplay is a relatively short route, but the payoff here will only come to those that understand the unusual approach this game takes to balance. This is a game about Caesar and so deciding who plays the lead role in the story is a key moment and players should definitely take turns doing so. You don’t want to make the assumption that all is fair in this game of war, it kind of isn’t. The gaming experience is fun and exciting for both players, there is depth and strategy on both sides so playing Gaul doesn’t mean you are playing second fiddle here or have some sort of easy victory but in C: RvG the pressure is squarely on Caesar to perform. It’s this player that must score the 12 victory points, the default end game result is that the Gauls win under all other circumstances.

Components

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: Standard operating procedure for GMT Games, great component quality, the whole thing is beautifully done.

Cons: A lack of historical information on the game provided can hurt the chances the gameplay of the game will click for some. Some historical war game traditions should have been abandoned to ease and speed up play.

GMT Games once again publishes to impress with sturdy and beautifully illustrated components that enhance the experience and make you feel like your getting your money’s worth.

The mounted map while very busy and initially a bit confusing is gorgeous with a lot of thought going into various auxiliary areas that expedite gameplay and setup. I think they could have done a better job of making the province borders a bit clearer, but generally, there is very little to complain about here.

The large tarot-sized cards will impress you and you have to appreciate GMT’s inclusion of card sleeves for these cards since locating appropriately sized sleeves for this unique size would likely have been a pain for players. The illustration and fonts used here make them a joy to look at and easy to read and handling the big cards just feels awesome.

All of the tokens in the game are big and easy to handle, so you can leave your tweezers out of this one. I will say however that I don’t think the different properties of the units really add anything to the gameplay, it mostly just slows the game down and forces you to deal with calculations and with extra charts to figure out battle resolutions.

I know its a historical war game design tradition to use chits with detailed information on them to represent historically accurate values for the grander goal of historical simulation, but C: RvsG is really not a historical simulation and the units are so marginally different that it really makes no difference at all to the outcome of the game. A lot of design weight with little payoff here.

Whether a tribe has a 4 or 5 strength made no difference, the vast majority of the units had a move of 3 and a battle rating of 1. In the end, the game would have been much simpler if all of this micro chrome was removed and you had basic stats for each unit type (tribes, Roman legions) and cut out the DRM charts for a simpler battle resolution system. I know this is a historical wargaming tradition, but this is not a historical simulation game and this negligible sacrifice would have done wonders to expediting gameplay and making this game more approachable and table friendly. The tokens are unnecessarily busy as a result, it forces you to do a lot of stack peeking and makes accessing the board state more tedious again with virtually no payoff for the effort.

The rulebook is full color and very well written, this game is a snap to learn with a really good play example that clarifies the game well beyond necessity which is greatly appreciated.

I was quite disappointed not to find more information about the theme and history in this rulebook. Caesar’s campaign in Gaul is a fascinating narrative and since so much of this game’s gameplay logic is driven by this history, not including a good write-up as a reference for what the game is based on actually hurts it a great deal. Sure we all have the internet, but this game really needs players to connect the mechanics to the story else it’s easy to come to the wrong conclusions about the decisions in the design, in particular the way the game is balanced.

The component quality here is top-notch, I docked the score a little just to encourage GMT games and remind them that they publish historical war games. I found it odd that they stuck to their historical war game roots in the component design in particular the “chit tokens” where it gave very little payout to do so, yet omitted any real mention of the historical context of the game where its absence really hurts the chances of players understanding the “why” of the design which is so important here.

Theme

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: A really nice connection between mechanics and theme, just the right amount of historical reference without sacraficing gameplay.

Cons: Unescessary granuality in certain places that adds little to the games theme or gameplay but come at the high price of increasing complexity and playtime significantly.

The historical theme in C: RvG shines through in the gameplay even if none of the material included in the game actually explains what this history is about. This might or might not create a dilemma for you as you play, if you know and understand this history then the theme will click, if you do not and you don’t take the time to discover it on your own, you might find the game quite disconnected and perhaps even abstract.

The Theme in C: RvG shines through in two unique ways. On the one hand is the history itself which is built into the procedures, mechanics, cards and general gameplay. On the other is the theme of a big historical figure, Caesar, with his overwhelming force fighting against the scrappy underdog, the Gaulic tribes. This David vs. Goliath tone shines through in the gameplay and you really have this sense of one player representing “The Empire” and the other “The Rebellion”. I think in fairness, C: RvG is less a historical simulation and more a thematic representation of Caesar’s campaign, but I think this works to the benefit not the detriment of the game.

Regardless of which part of these two cores you hang your hat on, the game has a very immediate and present personality. These are two very asymmetrical sides that play wildly differently and require very different strategies while also creating definitively different sensations for the players depending on which side you command.

As the Roman player you have a major advantage on the battlefield thanks in no small part to the leadership of Caesar himself which you are almost certainly going to identify as the “you” in this game and his elite legions which combined give you this wonderful sensation of power and control. Wherever you send Caesar and his forces, your opponent is going to be scrambling and most likely running scared and for good reason, the Gaul have little to no chance of standing up to you.

Playing as the Romans you are going to define how the story of this game plays out, what the focus of the game will be and where the important historical events of your game will take place.

As the Gaul player you are mostly just trying to survive and slowly spread your influence into the flanks of the overwhelming Roman forces hoping to expose weaknesses. In many ways you are looking for the Roman player to make a mistake, to spread himself a bit thin, to leave some part of their holdings exposed and striking when the opportunity comes. Fortunately for the Gaul, It is almost mandatory for Caesar to take risks if he has any hope of scoring the needed victory points as the Roman player has some pretty difficult-to achieve victory conditions. It isn’t a question of if the opportunities present themselves, but how well you leverage them when they do.

This theme is not only historically valid but the sensation very vivid. You are going to experience this game on a personal level, Caesar isn’t just your “leader”, he is definitely you. The same is true of the Gaulic tribes, when they get subjugated by the Romans, it stings, you are going to want payback.

Resources on both sides are going to be unpredictable and they come in the form of cards you draw. I’m not sure how much historical validity there is in the cards themselves, I would say they are more thematic than they are historical. They are called events, and some do have some links to history but these cards are more of an expression of the theme and period than they are of specific people, places and actual events in most places.

With cards like “Veni Vidi Vici” and “Glory and Liberty”, they are clearly meant to bring out the sensation of the theme more than act as a representation of anything historically specific. There is no flavor text or historical references on the cards either so any link you make to the history here is abstracted at best. Again here having a more detailed level of understanding of the history can help you make the connections and I would encourage any players to seek these details out on there, it’s worth the effort.

Dropping cards like Glory & Liberty, The Reach of Rome or Constant As The Northern Star at the right time has devastating consequences for your opponent, but timing is everything and the temptation to just use the action points is unrelenting. This game leaves you feeling like you always wish you could do more with a turn of play.

Some might find issues with that, I did not. The theme even in historical games does not need to always be about simulation and I’m glad it is not in this case. When you play “The Reach of Rome” it makes you feel powerful, it expresses the game’s narrative and articulates the event in story terms even if there is no real association to an actual historical event.

The historical simulation here is generally quite light even when it does appear in the game. Winter for example is something you have to contend with. The German migration, the arrival of Vercingetorix, dealing with supply lines, and appeasing the politics of Rome are all parts of the game that connect with the historical realities of the period and act as representations of the simulation of history.

I’m not sure historical wargamers are going to feel this is enough of a link to appease their appetite for historical gaming, but like Twilight Struggle, Washington’s War and Imperial Struggle, CDG’s in this genre are usually more focused on bringing satisfying gameplay in a thematic rich game, not necessarily on forcing historical accuracy or bringing simulation to the table. This is why some of these games cross over and gain more general acceptance from the gaming community outside of the niche historical war game market. For better or worse Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul, takes this approach and though I think the theme here is rich, full of flavor and exciting, a historical simulation this game is not.

What I loved about my experience with C: RvG is that the core story comes across. If you read the history about this period and then play the game, you are going to make the connection and cross the narrative bridge. It’s not a replication of the history, but it certainly nails the spirit of the themes behind it creating an engrossing and highly addictive game that will have you talking about the events of your game as if they were in fact historical events. For me personally, that is the definition of nailing it as far as themes go, historical simulation be damned!

My only complaint here which ties into the components and mechanics as well is that the designer reached out for historical simulation granularity in some places like the design of the units (chits) around which the combat system is created. Each Gaulic tribe for example has a historically accurate name and their historical strength is estimated.

This creates unnecessary complexity to which you would really need to dive pretty deep into personal exploration of the history before any of it would have any relevance to you. I could understand adding such details in a hex and counter style historical war game where battles and war are center stage, but in a game this abstract, such details don’t add anything to the theme or narrative of the game. The difference between these units are also so minor that they actually matter very little to the outcome of the battles or game in general. All you get for your trouble is a much slower resolution with much busier-looking tokens that require extra explanation and increase the general complexity of the game. I think had this been simplified the game would have a dramatically reduced playtime that would be calculated in hours.

Gameplay

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: A tried and true formula for a CDG that creates a game with a ton of potential that will get you excited.

Cons: Its a bit long. Some players will not appriciate this games unique approach to balance.

When I first learned the rules for Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul the amount of potential I saw had me really excited. The rules were intuitive, there were some really great design decisions that were going to make this one a lot easier to absorb and honestly, one of the best rulebooks I have read in a while, I read it once and went into the example play session with confidence.

There is a lot to love in this game mechanically in particular in the elegance of the actions you can take on your turn which have a simple pecking order that very quickly get you from “how do I play” to “what do I want to achieve”.

Each round you play a card and execute it for the event or the action. Even though you have 8 cards in your hand, the cards that are not in the color of your faction are simply operations points. Unlike games like Twilight Struggle, you don’t have to worry about the impact of playing the other factions card as there is none. The event cards you have become what you build your strategy around and the way the cards are worded, what each card does, is both clear in language and purpose with rare exceptions.

The effects of events vary but they are usually an extension or some sort of play on the actions you take when spending operation/action points. There are unique events of course and they vary in size and scope, but when you are looking through your hand of cards it’s not particularly difficult to understand their purpose in the game. Simply put, you will catch on quickly.

Generally, the game revolves around 2 core gameplay elements. Moving armies around to put them in favorable strategic positions and putting out and flipping influence markers to gain dominance in the many provinces in the game. Rome has a particular interest in this as the domination of provinces is a key path to scoring points. As the Gaulic player, you are naturally trying to keep up and block dominance if you can, but you are also trying to block the path of the Roman expansion and/or slipping behind enemy lines to cause trouble so it’s not always just about getting dominance yourself.

One important rule is that the Gaul player can put their influence tokens anywhere in Gaul, they do not need to build connections and maintaining supply lines is very easy for them as they have strongholds scattered around the map to where they can trace their supply lines.

The Roman player, however, must maintain connections when placing the influence tokens unless an army is present hence they either place them where their armies are positioned or connected to an existing influence token. The Roman player will also at the end of every round winter their combat units, which mechanically amounts to spreading them out on the map. In the conclusion of a round, they get an influence marker in each neutral location where their armies are stationed giving them a kind of influence explosion at the end of each round of play.

Its also important to note that military units can remove influence tokens on the map by using 2 movement points, so as an army walks over an influence token they can spend their MP’s to eliminate an opposing token. In this way, the Romans also have an advantage as Caesar’s army has 5 movement points compared to the typical 3 movement points of Gaul tribes.

The rules for this unique asymmetrical mini-game do not exactly have an equilibrium in how it all plays out. I don’t want to claim it’s unbalanced, because the balance of the game is on a higher level that goes beyond this mini-game, but the Roman player will typically end up with more influence on the board than the Gaul player at the end of a round. The position of these tokens however is far more important than the count and so the strategy here is really about play and counterplay, but the Gaul player must do their diligence in these exchanges.

Now the issue for the Roman player is that despite all of these mechanical advantages in getting influence out on the board and removing enemy influence, the Gaul player has a clear tilt in their favor in this game. The main reason here is that Caesar has a lot more to do with his armies than simply walk around the map killing tribal armies and flipping influence tokens. Performing these duties will score him points, but you still lose the game unless you score exactly 12 and there simply isn’t enough points to score through a combination of domination of provinces and destroying tribes to win. You will eventually have to perform one or potentially both of the big military campaigns into Germania and/or Britannia in order to win.

As such you need to move your main army up north leaving all of Rome lightly defended giving your opponent an opportunity to reign havoc. When people on the BBG forums complain about the balance of this game, its this very aspect of the game to which they are referring and though I think I disagree with the term unbalanced as I believe the difficulty of this challenge is intentional in the core design and thematic premise of the game, I do get the argument.

The reality is that most games will be won by Gaul, this is not a terribly fair competition as the Roman player is the one that has to create a winning condition for themselves, the Gauls technically start the game off already winning and they will win the game unless the Roman player can match Caesars brilliant historical success.

The complexity of the strategic discussion about how to win as Rome in C: RvG is not lost on me, it’s a subject of much debate on the BBG forums and these discussions are spawned from the begrudging complaints about lack of balance in the game.

There is a lot more going on in this game, too much to really evaluate every detail but what I like is that most of the procedural stuff has historical context, is mechanically straightforward and gives the game added flavor.

Having to roll to see if Caesar shows up on time to continue his campaign in Gaul may seem arbitrary but is actually historically accurate as Caesar was sometimes delayed in Rome after the winter no thanks to wine and women I would imagine.

The way Roman soldiers would boldly spread out deep in Gaul territory during winter when they set up camp was historically true, Caesar liked to send a message to the Gauls showing them how little he feared and respected them as a threat. This mechanic has the desired effect of intimidation because the Gaul player will find himself losing territory each round in a way he can do little about.

The way tribal armies are subjugated as towns are taken over by overwhelming forces, resulting later in rebellions that Ceaser would have to put down is also a historically accurate feature. This is handled by the submitted box mechanic where units are placed temporarily and the revolt mechanic the Gaul player can trigger to put them back into play. If this is well-timed it can have a significant outcome on the game and even produce some fascinating historical results as these things did actually happen.

All of these details do a lot to enhance the historical connection to the game but more importantly, all of these mechanics have an impact on the results of the game and create notable events and changes in the situation on the board that keep you focused on strategy. These mechanics create memorable moments and really service the enjoyment of the game.

One key drawback of the game is that it’s just a bit too long. The box says 3 hours, I’m averaging about 4 to 4.5 and a game could easily be 2 hours with some very minor streamlining to the design. In some places, it’s just a bit overcooked, in particular in how combat units are designed and how combat works. It’s just a lot of unnecessary mathematics and granularity that adds very little to the theme, strategy, or general gameplay. It has the feeling of a captcha login that requires you to play a find waldo game to prove you are human. I get what it’s trying to achieve, but it’s just mostly annoying and gets in your way of what you are actually trying to do and I’m not entirely sure it serves any purpose beyond that.

I had my ups and downs in the assessment of this game, but running through it six times at this point both solo and against opponents, I still feel compelled to have another go so it must be doing something right. The gameplay in C: RvG creates tension, feels like you are making meaningful strategic choices and you can trace your decisions to success and failures you had in any given game. In my book those are all elements for which this game should be praised.

Replayability and Longevity

Score:
Tile:

Pros: Exciting gameplay will drive your addicition to pull this one out repeatedly.

Cons: The length of the game and watching Rome get crushed repeatedly might be seen as a challenge or a balance problem which challenges the longevity of the game.

One of the biggest weaknesses of C: RvG is that at its core, one faction (The Gauls) is going to have a much easier time winning than the other (Rome). After playing this game more than half a dozen times no one I have played with nor myself, have been able to produce a Roman victory. At one point I had played the game five times and introduced a player who had never heard of the game and despite a first-time play he still mostly crushed me as the Gauls.

My initial impressions of the game were very good, this was an exciting and very clever game mechanic that really does a great job of enticing you to play, but once you make this ugly discovery, the competitive joy turns into a pretty frustrating and rather boring experience. It isn’t until you recognize that as a game, this is a feature, not a flaw, that it redeems itself.

This is a game about Caesar, about his exploits, and only by making it a real challenge, ensuring that a victory as Caesar has weight and is something to be proud of, would this game have the legs that it does. If it was easy to win as Caesar, or even if the game was really well balanced, I’m not sure I would still be trying to figure it out today, I think it would already be sitting on my shelf as a puzzle solved collecting dust. It’s this challenging strategic puzzle that has me wanting to play it again.

C: RvG’s approach to balance is unique but addictive and I love the fact that the learning curve is quite low given how robust the strategic depth is.

Sadly, I don’t think everyone will have that epiphany, in fact judging by the comments on BBG forums, I’m fairly certain most do not. This leaves the question of whether or not this game has legs with or without this sudden realization and acceptance.

The short answer is, not really. Unless you can accept this fundamental design idea and appreciate it for what it is, this game is going to feel like an unbalanced game where whoever plays Gaul will probably win and that won’t be fun and you won’t be tempted to keep playing.

For me this makes rating the longevity of this game difficult because I had my moment of revelation, so I’m excited to have another go, I’m an eager beaver ready to face getting crushed as the Roman in hopes of finding that rare path to victory. I recognize however that this will be hit or miss with gamers, not everyone will find joy in this approach to balance.

I split the difference and gave this one 3 stars.

Conclusion

Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is a great entry into the CDG genre of games for me, but I can really see why it might not be for everyone given its quasi intentionally imbalanced gameplay and the truth is that my initial experience with the game was pulling me into that negative space as well. I stuck with it and found myself challenged and engaged to try to find a solution, a story some of my opponents shared with me so I don’t think I stand alone in this.

Caesar: Rome v. Gaul poses a question, can you be as successful as Caesar was historically? The answer is yes you can, but it’s hard as hell and you are going to lose a lot while you try. I can see how crushing your opponent repeatedly as the Gauls might get boring but I think the intent of the game is that players swap sides and each have a go at this prize.

I would however argue that it’s not easy to win as the Gauls either, I mean, I haven’t seen a Roman victory yet, but I play with very competent gamers and every opponent I had pointed out that, they could see some of the advantages they had in this game, but there were plenty of times in the course of play that they were strategically stumped and could see their victory slipping through their fingers. I didn’t hear any complaints that it was boring to play the Gauls from my opponents and though I kind of felt that way the first time I played them, I think this stems from the fact that playing as Caesar has a lot to it, so your first showing may not be terribly impressive.

Personally, I really enjoyed the Roman spin on the genre and I found this game to be very approachable and easy to teach which is a big bonus. As a comparison, I put this game somewhere between Washington’s War and Twilight Struggle on the complexity scale. It’s closer to Washington’s War in its approachability and ease of learning, but with a bit more complex card play though not quite as in-depth as Twilight Struggle.

You can argue that the execution of balance could have been more fine-tuned and I could understand such an argument, but for me this game finds a home on my shelf, In particular given I have multiple requests in my queue from friends who want to have another go at this one.

I recommend this one with explicit caution about the way this game is balanced, hopefully, I have illustrated this unique setup in this review so you know what you are walking into. For me personally, this is a great game, it’s a keeper.

Best of List

My Top 20 Best Games of All Time 2021 Edition

February 11, 2022 5 Minutes

That’s right, what once was a top 10 list now becomes a top 20 list! It is time once again to update the favorites list, its been about a year since I did my last Top 10 Best Games back in January last year and I followed up that list with the Back 20 best games of all time list in March.

I never thought I would get to a point where I have played so many games that it would be difficult for me to trim down my list to a top 20 but here we are and I can say it was not easy. I had to cut pretty deep, it hurt, a lot of really great games did not make this list that I consider great games!

This year one change I made is how I temper the list. Namely, I have made it a point to affect the scores of games that I have not played in a long time. The way I see it, if you’re going to be on my top 20 favorite games of all time list, you need to be something that I push to get to the table.

Alright, enough setup, here we go!

20. Shogun (Dirk Henn version)

The contrast between the quiet, contemplative planning phase and the outrageously chaotic execution phase make this one of the most memorable quasi Euro historical war games in my collection.

Shogun is one of those games where a lot of people will argue is not a war game, while others may adamantly insist that it is. All I will say is that it’s an area control game, there are battles and winning is all about managing chaos, if that isn’t war then I don’t know what is.

Based very abstractly on the civil war conflict of medieval Japan, this is a pre-programming game where you define your actions with limited knowledge about which order actions will be executed in. During the execution phase, this very chaotic game uses a cube tower to resolve conflicts by taking armies represented by different colored cubes, tossing them into the tower and the winner is whoever has the most cubes that come out. This tower traps a lot of these cubes and if you know anything about statistics and the laws of chaos, you know that this is probably the closes thing you will ever come to true randomness in a game. You can have fights where 10 blue cubes go up against 2 red cubes and the battle results are 2 blue cubes and 7 red cubes. Its chaos personified.

I know it’s not everyone’s bag but I have always said that this game wins on-table atmosphere. It’s really the craps of war games, you gamble but the cube tower is just one of those game elements that gets everyone out of their chair. I love this game, always have and while it’s at the tail end of the list it beats out quite a few worthy contenders for the spot.

19. B-17 Flying Fortress Leader

This game is a guilty pleasure for me, I have my reservations about some of its mechanics and execution, but it wins on the theme in a big way and for a solo game that is critical to its success.

Given that the game is set up on my table several times a year like clockwork, I knew this one was going to appear on this list somewhere. B-17 Flying Fortress Leader by Dean Brown of DVG games to me is a very biased favorite, a game about creating a narrative in my head on a topic I’m very fond of. I don’t actually know if it’s a “good game” in the practical sense though I gave this one a very generous 4 out of 5-star review mostly driven by the success of the theme. This solo game is certainly not without its blemishes and I would not proclaim it to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I have quite a few house rules and corrections I have created and use when playing this game which shouldn’t be necessary for a game I rate so highly. The nice thing about running a blog without a comment section is that I don’t have to listen to people telling me how wrong I am! Though I’m not sure I would vigorously disagree with such statements.

Warts and all I love this game, with a bit of house rule love I find it has a deep meaningful core with intriguing gameplay, challenging scenarios and an uncanny ability to create vivid stories. This is a slightly complex game so I always recommend that if you are completely new to historical war games and solo gaming that maybe you start with something a bit lighter, but it’s a great graduation gift for yourself when you reach that point that you feel ready for something with some meat on its bones. In particular, if you’re like me and find World War II aviation engrossing.

18. War Of The Ring

There is nothing like the feeling of an epic scale game that captures a story, War of the Ring is the best of its kind.

War of the Ring plunges to number 18 after enjoying years in the top 10 of my lists. It takes a dive because honestly, it has been on my top 10 list for more years than I care to admit and I can count on one hand the number of times I have played it in recent years. It’s just hard to justify a game on this list that collects dust on my shelf most of the time.

That said I still think it’s an amazing game, both from a thematic standpoint and a mechanical standpoint, this is a highly engaging and very traumatic 2 player game tailor-made for Lord of the Rings fans of which I count myself among. The challenge is getting it to the table and there is a lot standing in its way.

It’s a fairly complex game, it’s for 2 players only, it’s quite long, has a very extensive setup (It takes a good 30-45 minutes to setup) and none of the rules are natural or intuitive so pretty much every time I have wanted to play this game I found I had to learn it from scratch. It’s just a real pain to get to the table and while I do think the payoff is so worth it, because it really is amazing, I find these days there are lots of amazing 2 player games on my shelf that are just much easier to get going.

I love it and I keep it on this list because I hope that someday some Lord of the Rings fan will come to me and pull it off my shelf and say “let’s play”. I will do so gladly and without reservation. The War of the Ring wants to be played, it needs to be played, it’s my precious!

17. Field Commander Napoleon

Solo games often boil down to solving puzzles and Field Commander Napoleon certainly falls into that camp, but there is enough to solve here that it will keep you busy for a long time.

When I discovered DVG with B-17 Flying Fortress, I simultaneously discovered the wonderful world of solo and historical war games and given how much I liked B-17, I googled “best solo historical war games” and Field Commander Napoleon popped up on a number of top 10 lists. I had just come off a stint with Napoleon Imperium which introduced me to Napoleonic era history and I was ready for more so I took the plunge.

I’m so glad I did because all of the accolades and fandom this game has produced is justified, it really is a fascinating and sometimes very challenging solo game. It not only confirmed that DVG games which focuses primarily on historical solo games knows what they are doing but it permanently swung the door open for me on solo games in general which I have been exploring ever since.

This is simultaneously a tactical and strategic game that really places you in a position to solve puzzles across several scenarios that make up the whole of Napoleon’s career. It does a great job of conveying the unique problems in the different types of campaigns Napoleon embarked on while also ensuring the mechanics remain fun and approachable as it maintains its link to history. The only drawback of this game is that once you solve these puzzles the game loses some of its steam and unlike B-17 I haven’t come up with any interesting house rules to revive the game. The good thing is that I have a really poor memory so I expect given enough time I will come back around to this one and re-experience it again. Great game, well worth the investment as these scenarios are going to take some serious hours of playtime before you discover all the nuances that will lead you to easy victories. Pro-tip, the strategy is probably not what you think it is and it’s why you are losing!

16. Star Trek Fleet Captains

I have introduced this game to people who went from “I hate everything Star Trek” to “but this game is awesome”. For a game to be so good that despite its overwhelming focus on theme it can turn your head even if you hate the theme is amazing, never seen that happen in any other game in my 30+ years playing board games.

I would say that this game much like War of the Ring is a bit of a dust collector in my collection, but unlike War of the Ring it actually is quite intuitive and easy to get to the table in theory, but what it requires is that you know some Star Trek fans. My friends, god love them are not such people and while they tolerate my Star Trek fandom and occasionally humor me and play Fleet Captains with me, they do not get the same enjoyment out of this game as a fan like me does.

This game is Star Trek in the box, it is hands down one of the most thematic and narrative board games I have ever played. It captures the feeling of the Star Trek TV shows perfectly, there is no doubt in my mind that only a true Trekie could have made such a game with so much attention to detail and love for the genre infused within it.

I adore this game, I play it every chance I get which is to say, not very often but it never lets me down when I do and it’s actually so good that even my friends who proclaim loudly “Star Trek sucks” admit that the game is actually pretty fun and that to me is evidence of just how well put together this Fleet Captain is.

If you and your friends are Star Trek fans, this is a no-brainer, it is THE best Star Trek game ever made but no I have not played

15. Washingtons War

Washington’s War is a really great entry-level historical war game, not only because it’s easy to teach and learn, but because it retains a depth of gameplay that keeps it interesting even for serious war gamers.

One of three of a growing list of Mark Herman games breaking into my favorite games of all time list, Washingtons War appears to be a kind of bastard child of a light historical war game and a distant cousin to Twilight Struggle but what it really is, is a successor to Mark Hermans long time classic We The People. I’ve never met anyone or heard anyone suggest We The People needs a re-print, so this successor really is a replacement for the game and though I have never played We The People it must be doing it justice.

For me personally, the game’s history or lineage really doesn’t matter, for me Washingtons War is my go-to game for introducing casual board gamers into the wonderful world of historical war games. The rules are simple, the strategy exciting but not overwhelming, the subject matter is a piece of history most people are already somewhat familiar with and the game is really pretty usually surprising non-historical war gamers who often think all historical war games are hex and counter ugly ducklings. This one helps me get them to convert to the dark side from which there is no return.

This is not the only reason however Washington’s War finds its way to my list, its true genius and secret is that it’s actually a deep and meaningful strategy game that you can explore repeatedly and it always finds a way to surprise you. Actually, my favorite thing about this game which I believe I have gotten quite good at is that new players pick up on it really quickly and can present a very good challenge, often beating me on their first playthrough despite my experience with the game. It’s a thing of beauty that a game like this is so approachable, easy to pick up yet represents the historical war game genre so well.

14. Twilight Struggle

I have never had a game on my best of list that dropped in its ranking because I played it too much until now.

I think most would argue that this stone-cold classic belongs much higher on everyone’s list, especially mine and to be honest with you a few hundred plays of this ago I would agree with you. There comes a time when you have played a game so many bloody times that you are just sick of it and I do not fault Twilight Struggle as a game for that. For nearly a year I was playing this game 2-3 times a week, plus an additional 2-3 games a night using the iPad app. Playing TS was a daily routine and passion.

Suffices to say for me it is played out for now and drops on my list out of sheer exhaustion. Like a retired boxing champ, it has nothing to be ashamed of, I played this game more times in a year than the rest of my collection combined times five! It’s an awesome game that gets shelved for all the right reasons!

13. Tide of Iron

It looks and feels like a heavy world war II tactical game, without that uncomfortable eliteness required from most games in the genre. This is an approachable game anyone can learn to play, but it is a historical war game, no doubt about it.

Tide of Iron has a bit of a strange history with me. When I first got it, I had only a mild affection for it, but it was long before historical war games really found their way into my collection in a big way. I got it because it was a Fantasy Flight Games release and I was something of a Christian T. Peterson fanboy for a while. Twilight Imperium and Game of Thrones (both the board game and card game) were among my favorite games of all time for a very long time. Tide of Iron however never really achieved particularly great heights for me and sort of fell off my radar becoming a coffin box dust collector on my shelf.

Then one day, after I got into historical war games I decided I was going to shop around for a really good squad-level world war II tactical game. I searched and searched and ran across Tide of Irons and realized, shit I already have that game. Pulled it out with a buddy of mine and realized that not only is this a great game, but it’s actually a really great game. Played it twice, three times.. got really into it and it sort of became “the” tactical world war II game for me and I never actually bought anything to replace it to this day.

I still love this game because it’s both a challenging and visual treat, it’s fairly easy to teach and learn, plays relatively quickly and has a crap ton of fan-made content thanks to an awesome community that latched on to this game for a time. For that reason, Tide of Iron comes out of retirement and finds its way back to my best of all-time list. I won’t dirty the waters here and say it’s the best squad-level tactical world war II game out there since I have played a total of ZERO others, but I do think it’s a fantastic game in general.

12. Peloponnesian War

My latest love affair, I can’t get enough of this one, another Mark Herman design for me to obsess over.

Every year when I make this list, there is some game that appears on the list that I recently played or I’m currently playing and its position on the list becomes inflated due to my current infatuation with the game. Sometimes these games stick and stay on the list becoming permanent residents, often they drop down or even drop off the list with the same ferocity as their arrival. I’m not going to apologize for that, but I will warn you that Peloponnesian War is definitely my current love affair.

I absolutely adore this solo game, it services all of my personal G spots as far as games go from really unique design, clever mechanics and deeply rich narrative. It’s my current obsession and while such infatuation often comes and goes, it’s worth pointing out that it’s simultaneously the 3rd Mark Herman game I have tried and the 3rd Mark Herman game to make my all-time favorite list. The guy never lets me down. I did a review of this one recently if you want some more detail.

11. 1830: Railways and Robber Barons

This is a deeply flawed game that requires quite a bit of intervention but when you play with the right variants it’s pure gold.

This classic Francis Tresham has been around since the mid 80’s and it has been fueling my passion for board games for years. I guess I’m saying that I loved this one before it was cool even though I’ve only just recently introduced it to my gaming crew here in Sweden. It was in semi-retirement before that for about a decade.

I love train games, but I would be lying if I said I love train board games. My love for train games largely comes from PC game examples, most notably the Railroad Tycoon series by Sid Meier. This game scratches that itch and though I always warn people that the hype about this game’s legendary status is a bit overcooked, it is a really awesome, very cut-throat and often mean-spirited board game that most people have a love it or hate it response to.

When I introduced it to my crew here in Sweden, it was immediatetly proclaimed a must play in Hassela game which might not mean much to my readers, but our yearly Hassela weekend retreat is a very serious, arguably almost religious matter in our group, so 1830 should be honored!

It’s a long game and there are many variants for this game both official and unofficial. I consider its status on this list assuming a very strict adherence to certain variance I believe elevate this game from a “meh” to an “aha”! One of these days I’m going to have to write an article on the proper way to play this game if you want to get the most out of it, but suffices to say its status on this list comes with that caveat.

10. Ikusa (Shogun)

While many gamers consider dice chuckers like RISK to be beneath them, to me Ikusa is KING of such games and I always say, if you don’t like chucking dice, you are in the wrong hobby.

While I won’t claim Ikusa (Originally Shogun) by Milton Bradly was the first board game I ever played, it is the first board game I played from which I emerged a fully Knighted board gamer. It is my grail game, my birthing chamber.

Now I have played all of the Milton Bradly game masters series classics extensively including Axis and Allies, Fortress America, Conquest of the Empire and Broadsides & Boarding Parties, I loved them all but only Shogun (aka Ikusa) makes the list because to me its the only one that still holds up by today’s standards. I could make an argument for Axis and Allies, but for me that game has been completetly replaced by Larry Harris’s latest brain child War Room (more on that later).

Suffices to say my absolute favorite historical period is medieval Japan, I love a good dice chucker and I love a game with hidden actions, so Shogun fits into that wheelhouse-like glove. This one still sees play today and I almost always bring it out when someone comes up with the crazy idea to play RISK… my answer is… ok you want to play RISK, let’s play RISK but let’s do it proper like.

9. Dune Imperium

I have played this one so much I had to sleeve the cards because I was wearing it out. This is a tight package that never disappoints and you don’t need to be a Dune fan to love this game, but if you are, it’s just a cherry on top of the experience.

Dune Imperium was definitely a contender for the best game I played in 2021, though it was released in 2020. While I still argue that Empires: Age of Discovery is the single best worker placement game in existence, Dune Imperium takes the worker placement genre in a whole new direction with added card play and direct confrontation mechanics that elevate it far beyond your standard Euro games.

It just gets so many things just right. The really tight worker placement mechanic forces painful decisions. The execution of the card building mechanic is perfect, making it just important enough, but not so important it overshadows the rest of the game. The tension-building battle mechanic between players at the end of each round really brings contentious gameplay to this Euro. Finally, the fact that the Dune franchise was used as the theme here just fits perfectly contrary to most Euros that feel like the theme is an afterthought.

Brilliant design, worthy of any game table whether you are a Euro fan or not, this game breaks out of the rut the Euro design space has been in for the last couple of years rehashing the same boring mechanics over and over.

8. Twilight Imperium

I easily have over 100 games under my belt with the 3rd edition of this 4x classic, I have been playing for over a decade. It always has and likely always will be the ultimate 4x sci-fi game, I have never seen any other come even close to matching it.

Twilight Imperium 3rd edition was my number one pick for many years back to back. This was a game I played extensively with a regular six-man group meeting as often as once per week over the course of several years to play the game. I don’t want to toot my own horn too much, but we were basically masters of this game. We played so often that we knew this game intimately and to such a degree that a typical game for us would only take 2-4 hours, which is saying a lot as the average playtime for most groups exceeded 6 hours.

Twilight Imperium 4th edition came out but by then my group had played this game so much it just didn’t have the same impact on us as many fans of the TI series. That is not to say that we didn’t like the game, we did and we do, in fact, I would argue that 4e is a big improvement and is overall a much better game. We never however got into this new version of the game nearly as much and now only play it once or twice a year for old times sake.

Still, TI ranks pretty high on my personal list, it is the unquestionable king of 4x grand strategy board games and knocks all other contenders out of the ring with minimal effort (I’m looking at you Eclipse!). It is the definitive experience in this genre with levels of depth that exceed expectation by any measure. This is not just an event game but it’s a lifestyle game, the sort of thing that you can build an entire gaming group around. Love it, always have, always will.

7. Empires: Age of Discovery

Bright, big and elaborate, Empires: Age of Discovery is a deluxe visual treat, but that is just a bonus here, this is easily one of the best worker placement games you will ever play.

Age of Discovery has been on my shelf since the gorgeous deluxe reprint was released and though I don’t play it often because I find its best at maximum player count giving this one an event game status, we do play it at least once a year at our annual board gaming retreat in the summer.

Worker placement games are a big thing in my gaming group, though this affection is not usually led by me, but rather certain mega fans of the mechanic in my gaming group. The result is that I have played countless worker placement games over the years and despite all of that available comparison I still think Empires: Age of Discovery is the single best worker placement game I have ever played.

Competitive, not just in a “race” way most worker placement games boil down to but in a more confrontational way. It has a very challenging puzzle to resolve in particular if you play with a full spread of 6 players. Above all else its ultra-simple to teach so really any six players will do, most people get this game right away and can play it reasonably competitively on their first go.

If you like worker placement games and you haven’t played this one yet, you are in for a treat!

6. Through The Ages: A New Story of Civilization

It looks like a Euro game because it is one, but that is just one of Through The Ages many layers. This is a deeply strategic game that has countless paths to victory.

Through the Ages is without question one of my all-time favorite games to get to the table, not only because I love civilization-building games, but from a design perspective I think this is one of the most intriguing and exciting mechanics in board games. I play this game at every opportunity but it drops on my all-time favorite list because it has two inherent and related problems that make it tough to get to the table. The length of the playtime vs. player count.

This is a game that takes 8+ hours to play which puts it square into the “event” game space. Simultaneously this game is best with 2-3 players, which isn’t much of an event. For me personally, with the size of my gaming group this is a real problem area. If I’m having an event at my house where we are going to spend all day playing a game, its unlikely I would end up with such a small player count. 4-6 players is far more typical, more if word gets out.

The result is that this game gets played once in a blue on those rare occasions when I have an event day at my house and we end up short on player count. It happens and I love it when it does, but not often.

That is not a flaw of the game, its just the reality of my compatibility with this game. I love it, its awesome and I have no guilt or reservations about putting it into my favorite games of all time list. There is an ipad/iphone app for this one, its perfect replication of the game, its a great way to try it out.

5. Empire of the Sun

Empire of the Sun is a very complex game and is not recommended for the uninitiated, even among serious historical war games this one asks for a lot. Once you learn to play this monster, however, you will not be able to deny its brilliance.

My instinct is to put this one much higher on the list, from a perspective of appreciation, design and sheer experience, this should be in the top 3 of my top 10 list but I have to be a little pragmatic here and say that Empire of the Sun is very difficult to get to the table. Strictly speaking I play it often, but I do so solo and since its not really a solo game, putting it in competition with games that I actually do play with other people just feels wrong.

I love this game and actually enjoy playing it a great deal solo but the complexity of this game, the sheer challenge to learn to play it correctly is so extreme that its nearly impossible to find an opponent willing to put in that effort. Its a real bummer because this IS one of the best games I have ever played. It hits my hobby table 3-4 times a year like clockwork and even as I write this mini assesement I’m itching to play it. Its deep and meaningful strategy combined with its amazing narrative telling of the Pacific Theatre is unmatched. I love this game but I acknowledge the complexity here is a real problem and takes an effort few are going to be willing to make. It just asks too much from a player, sometimes even a bit too much for me.

4. Paths of Glory

I play Paths of Glory quite a bit, far more than any other heavy and more serious historical war game on my shelf. I never tire of it, its considered a classic in the historical war game community and I can understand why.

While considerably less complex than Empire of the Sun (what isn’t), Paths of Glory too is a very heavy game. I have been fortunate however that I have a regular partner for this one so I actually play it a couple of times a year as well as playing it solo a couple of times a year.

It actually has a lot of similarities to Empire of the Sun, in a way it’s like a World War I version of a similar core concept. It’s also a card-driven game with multiple usage cards driven by operational level play. It uses point-to-point movement rather than hex movement which simplifies it a great deal but it also generally has a lot fewer rules, in particular much fewer exception rules.

Generally, it just flows better and while it also requires a bit of dedication to learn to play, like Empire of the Sun the payoff here in terms of highly addictive and challenging gameplay merged with a fantastic narrative is unmatched. This is the definitive World War I game, though I will be the first to admit I have not actually played any others. I suppose it’s the same situation as Tide of Irons, I found THE World War I game so I sort of stopped searching.

If my recommendation counts, this is an amazing historical war game, or you know, you could listen to the 2 decades of fans praising the game instead.

3. Imperial Struggle

I can’t say I agree with the tagline “spiritual successor to Twilight Struggle”, but I do think this game stands on its own two feet and is without question one of the best games on my shelf.

This new arrival to the list debuts quite high, but while I can blame infatuation for Peloponnesian Wars entry to the list, this recent arrival has already proven its stamina well beyond a one-night stand. This member of the Twilight Struggle family absolutely blew me away the first time I played it, but dozens of plays later I’m an even bigger fan. It just keeps getting better every time I play it and because I found myself a regular partner I get to play this one quite often and at peek competitiveness.

There is no question in my mind that Imperial Struggle is here to stay and though it falls into the Historical War Game genre (arguably) and it does have a very fascinating theme based on a really interesting piece of history, this game is really all about deep and meaningful strategic gameplay. That is its center, that is what makes it an unsolvable puzzle that is refreshed with every replay. Easily the single best game of 2020, I have no reservation about its appearance this high on the list.

2. Lord of the Rings The Living Card Game

I find myself apologizing for liking this game to a lot of my friends who don’t really get my obsession with this one. I don’t know what to say, sometimes a game that just does it for you.

Lord of the Rings The Living Card Game has been at or near the top of my all-time favorites list since its debut and my introduction to it back in 2017. I own almost everything for this collectible card game, most years it’s my often played game and there are times when I go months at a time playing 2-3 games a night. I generally play it solo, but I do enjoy it with two or small groups.

This is a very strange entry on my list and I feel I like I make this general disclaimer every time I talk about this game. It is the opposite of me. Generally speaking, I don’t like collectible games, I usually hate CCG’s in particular and I can count on one hand minus some fingers the number of cooperative games that I have enjoyed.

This one is an exception on all counts which I think illustrates what I consider the better half of my personality and approach to the hobby, an ability to try anything and keep an open mind. When my friends roped me into trying this one I was not excited, but after a few rounds, Lord of the Rings LCG became an immediate obsession.

Deeply challenging, highly dynamic, constantly evolving and wildly immersive this game has it everywhere it counts. I honestly can’t get enough and while there are times when I think to myself… ok I’m done with this now, a few months go by and it’s back on my table. It comes around again and again. Love it!

1. War Room

There is no doubt in my mind and I say this without reservation, this is the single best board game in existence.

Finally, my absolute favorite game of all time (at the moment), War Room by Larry Harris. Man I love this game!

I did a first impression and review of this game, so if you are interested in why this game is such a revelation for me, that is about as detailed an explanation I can offer.

The short version is that this is a mega event game that is tailor-made for me and my group’s style of play. Strategically it’s on a grand scale covering the entirety of the World War II military conflict. It uses hidden orders (pre-programming) which I think just does wonders for strategy games in my opinion. It has a tactically minded resolution system without being overwhelming allowing combat resolution to move at a reasonable pace with a simple enough system that everyone can chuck dice and enjoy it. Most of all however it’s thematically rich with big events taking place every round inspiring narrative imagery and creating stories at the table you’ll be talking about long after the game is over.

I recognize and acknowledge that this is not going to be a game for every type of player or every type of group, but for me and my friends, this just tickles every desire and hope we have for a great event game. It’s big, broad, deep and exciting all wrapped up in an obscenely over-the-top visual presentation that’s simply fun to be around. I’m not going to say always and forever, but I have my doubts about this one being challenged for the top spot anytime soon.

The Fallout

Several games drop off my radar and I always like to leave some commentary as to why.

The Song of Ice and Fire is perhaps the greatest tragedy in gaming. A miniature game that went from the best on the market to a complete and utter clusterfuck inside of a year. Me and my group still enjoy playing it using the old rules and old balance the game had though we have our complaints there as well, but the updated rules and changes that have been made to the game are a complete disaster. The game is outright broken under the new rules and CMON as a publisher leave lot to be desired releasing everything not weeks or months but years behind schedule.

Vampire: The Masquerade Heritage also leaves the list though this should not surprise anyone given that it’s a legacy game. Once you have played through it once, it’s pretty much over permanently and you will have no reason to play it again and even if you wanted to you have to purchase a new copy. It was a nice fling and I did enjoy my time with it, but it never had any hope of being a permanent resident on the list.

Board Game Reviews

Peloponnesian War by GMT Games 2019

February 7, 2022 5 Minutes

Designer: Mark Herman

Both Mark Herman as a designer and GMT games as a publisher have become regular sightings on my gaming table for the past couple of years. As I add my 6th GMT game and my 3rd Mark Herman design to my shelf I can’t help but point out that all of these games fall into the must-own, most highly rated parts of my collection. One hit after another both GMT games and Mark Herman can do no wrong as far as I’m concerned.

Peloponnesian War tackles the classic Greek war between Athens and her allies in the Delian League and Sparta and her allies in the Peloponnesian Confederacy between years 431-402 BC. Now if that doesn’t ring a bell and you have only the vaguest idea of what I’m talking about, don’t fret, you aren’t the only person who had better things to do in history class than pay attention. Everything I knew about the Greeks, Athens and Sparta I learned from movies like The 300 and Troy when I started with this game. I did not walk into this one with some sort of affection for the period or any clue what it was about. I picked this game up because it was a solo game, a Mark Herman design, and a GMT publishing. That was reason enough for me. Regarding the subject matter, I just kept an open mind and dived in. Historical war games are about discovering what you are interested, not making assumptions about what you are not.

Still, like all of Mark Herman’s historical war games, him being a historian and expert in the subject, he provides you within the confines of this game a wonderful history lesson and so when you are done playing this game you will know far more than before you started.

Peloponnesian War has a reputation as being a highly complex solo game with a steep learning curve and a very high level of challenge. Even Mark Herman mentioned in an interview that despite being the designer and fan himself, has a losing record in the game.

Simultaneously intimidated and excited, I enter the world of the ancient greeks… THIS … IS… SPARTA!

Overview

Final Score: (4.55 out 5) Great Game!

Peloponnesian War has the look of a traditional point-to-point strategic war game with a large map, chit tokens for units, dice, and a very procedural structure with lots of phases that drive the gameplay along one step at a time all in an effort to bring historical simulation to the table. This assessment tells only part of the story however because while it is definitely a deep, meaningful historical war game, casual players need not apply, it prioritizes the story of the period and events of the setting over the minutia of historical war game mechanics. In a sense, it’s a game about broad strokes so that the narrative and history rises above the typical chart-based hex and counter historical simulation specifics.

The feel of the game I think will break expectations for historical war game fans mechanically as it’s equipped with a number of unique properties that really diverge from other war games you might have played before. This should not be a surprise to anyone in the hobby given the designer is quite famous for leading rather than following, but this particular game is so unique that using common game referencing like “it’s like X game” is simply not possible here. This may ultimatetly be a good or a bad thing.

For example, being a solo game you are playing against the AI, a fairly standard approach, but one core feature of the game is at different points there is a possibility that you will switch sides, taking over one of the two nations at war with each other (Athens and Sparta). This means that all of the progress in the war, all of the success you have had, even if you potentially brought the game to the brink of a victorious conclusion thanks to a well thought out strategy, it is all handed over to the AI and you are given the terrible situation you have created yourself to deal with. This very traumatic twist creates a unique atmosphere in the game that demands a completely different approach to the concepts of winning and strategy. You want to do well, but not so well that if you switch sides you won’t have an alternative path to victory when you take over for your current opponent. It really is a fascinating concept, unlike anything I have experienced before and dare I say, brilliant. In fact, so brilliant, after having played with this mechanic I’m actually shocked it hasn’t become a staple of solo game design as it solves a major problem solo games have which is providing players with the type of challenge only a human opponent can provide.

Peloponnesian War’s scope is quite wide and zoomed out. Being a game about broad strokes, big plays, and important events means control is intentionally hindered in many ways. In the course of a single round, sweeping changes may take place on the board and while you make the decisions on this grand scale, your ability to control these events, in particular, the outcomes is quite minimal. You can put the pieces together, formulate a plan but in a sense, the execution of that plan is not going to be followed to the letter as you might want it to be. This feature of the game takes some getting used to.

For example, when you give an army instructions to attack and besiege a city 20 spaces away as part of a brilliant strategic move, there may be several routes the army can use to get there. Some of the routes may be tactically smarter and perfectly safe, while others are fraught with danger and risk of being intercepted and destroyed by enemy forces. You do not get to pick your route, this is left to random chance presumably reflecting the absence of intelligence in the period and the idea that you are the leader of the nation giving orders, not the commander leading the troops. This lack of true control means the game is often very chaotic, sometimes the plans go off without a hitch just as you intended, other times the route taken leads to disaster leaving you to deal with the fallout.

This lack of control is a staple of this game, as a player, you are a sort of a god-like entity that offers guidance to the nation you lead, but in the end, the commanders and armies you instruct have a will of their own. The output is the narrative, the story of the history you are playing a role in creating but often simply sitting back and enjoying as a spectator nodding in approval or shaking your head in dismay. The fact that you sometimes switch allegiances gives you a kind of unique ownership of this entire narrative. You see the game from an unusual perspective because while you care what happens to Athens since you currently represent them, you are also deeply concerned for your opponent, Sparta, because next round you might be forced to switch and they may be yours to lead.

A common sight for a historical war gamer, map, dice, rulebook, chits and chit cup. It looks like a duck, but it certainly does not quak like one.

Don’t let any of this broad strokes and lack of control talk fool you however, this game is deeply cemented with real historical gaming, Mark is no slouch in ensuring that the granularity of events of this period are all here both mechanically infused in the gameplay and through the usage of actual event tables on which you will roll as time passes. I’m no expert in the subject so I can’t exactly tell you why King Sitalces of Thrace changing sides is an important feature of the games events nor why there are so many allied Athens units stacked in the city of Larisa, but I can say all of these things have a considerable impact on the strategy you will employ and the outcome of the game you might have.

All of this culminates into a unique gaming experience that is Peloponnesian War, a game of broad strategic decisions in an ancient period of land and naval warfare, fraught with traumatic and often unpredictable events with an uncanny ability to provide you with deep and meaningful historical connections.

Components

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: A typical GMT production which is code for “knocked it out of the park.”

Cons: You would have to be a pretty petty person to find a problem here.

I’m going to keep this short, GMT made this game so you know that the quality of the components is tough to beat, in particular in the historical war game market.

The gorgeous mounted map is cotton candy for the eyes, the tokens are perfectly aligned, sturdy and well-illustrated, the player aids are all well designed and on good stock paper.

The rulebook is well written and concise, making it easy to learn from, reference and follow during gameplay all done in a nice logical order. The playbook is excellent with very thoughtful examples that cover most situations you may find yourself in during play. The game comes with a number of unique scenarios including the full campaign and there is a well-written strategic overview of the entire war provided in the playbook that gives you a great starting point and context for the history.

I tried to come up with something to complain about to make this section a more interesting read but GMT kicks ass and takes names in the component department. They get their usual 5-star rating. They are as dependable as a German train schedule!

Theme

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: A wonderful execution of theme that brings the history to life in coordination with the mechanics ensuring the history matters.

Cons: The switching side mechanics are not going to be everyone’s bag and infiltrate the narrative in your head, I say here and now, you will either love it or hate it.

While theme in most historical war games is vital, in Peloponnesian War and really any ancients game it can be hard to convey a sense of time and place given the rather rudimentary and sometimes hard to imagine way in which war was fought not to mention how critical the politics and logistics of war were to the effort. You certainly can and must abstract much of the detail here if you are intent on including everything that was historically relevant to the period, but simultaneously the game must be fun and playable. The connection between theme, history and the game mechanics needed to be quite tight, a little too much of one and not enough of the other, and suddenly the game stops making sense. I’m happy to report that in Peloponnesian War, this balance is struck quite flawlessly resulting in a deep and rewarding historically accurate theme.

The Peloponnesian War in general was a unique conflict in that it was fought between one nation (Athens) which was a major naval power and the other a major land power (Sparta). This conflict was further complicated by the fact that Greece and the surrounding landscape are a mixture of critically positioned city-states spread out over many coastal areas and islands. The Peloponnesian War map does a great job of giving this part of the world personality. When you first look at it your eyes will bug out, but after a few plays of this game, you will be dreaming about opening moves due to the brevity of possibilities, all in line with the core historical theme of the game.

This map is big and busy, but unlike so many historical war games I have played with big maps, there is very little space wasted here. Depending on events and circumstances, any part of this map might become important.

The fact that you have this naval power vs. land power in conflict creates a unique strategic problem where one side could decisively win every naval engagement and raid coastal cities unopposed, while the other could do the same on land with little resistance. It really explains why Athens built the long wall of Athens for example, without it the Spartans would probably have little trouble just marching in and sacking the city. Suffices to say many details like this are included in the mechanics to make sure the logic of the history and its relevance is reflected in the gameplay, while simultaneously balancing the game so that you feel this struggle.

The situation is further complicated by the politics of the era, various betrayals, rebellions, personalities and political upheavals that all crept up on the greeks in this period. Again, this needed to be included not only for historical accuracy and context but to shake up gameplay and bring the theme to life. Much of the heavy lifting here is done through the events table on which you roll between rounds, but there are also other subtle historical realities built into some of the exception mechanics like the handling of Syracuse, the importance of keeping trade routes open to Byzantine or like the rebellion mechanics just to name few. None of these exceptions complicate learning or running the game as they are simple to implement, but they infuse the game with historical accuracy and force you to deal with the same problems both Athenians and Spartans had to contend with during this period.

Finally, there was the general logistics of ancient warfare, it was both an expensive and complex matter to field an army requiring a great deal of coordination and leadership. It is a key feature of the historical theme here that balancing the books really meant the difference between victory and defeat. Moving units is expensive and if you don’t have the cash, raising levies is impossible. Except of course for Spartans that fight as a way of life, ready to go into the field in the name of Sparta. All these finer historical points find their way into Peloponnesian War making the game feel alive and creating this exciting historical narrative, but again always infusing the mechanical hardship on you that will drive decisions.

To gaming fans, historical or otherwise what I can say about Peloponnesian War’s theme is that it shines through at every turn. You can read the historical outline in the back of the playbook and find yourself experiencing those historical stories in the game as you play it. I don’t think from a thematic perspective you could ask for more out of a boardgame. It fires on all pistons and nails the history square in the chin.

Gameplay

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: Highly dynamic full of very difficult gameplay challenges makes this game a serious addicition you will have trouble shaking.

Cons: This design breaks expectations and traditions fearlessly, the result may be too much of a departure for historical war gamers who are this games only identifiable audiance. The movement mechanic is really fiddly.

The word on the street about Peloponnesian War is that its mechanical complexity was quite high and I recall being a little intimated even though the box proclaims it a medium weight 6 out of 10 on GMT’s complexity scale. Having learned and played the game several times, I think GMT judges this game quite well. It is fairly complex and there is quite a bit to learn but it’s not the monster it’s made out to be. I would not recommend it for casual gamers or even those outside of the hobby as a first go at historical wargaming, but for those of us used to the structure of historical war game rules, this one is not going to stump you.

Peloponnesian War is a very procedural game and really if there is anything difficult about moving through these steps it’s understanding their impact, the cause and effect of the actions you take during the decision points of the game and how that alters what happens during the more automated steps that you walk through. It can take a bit of time to fully grasp.

This is the part that is going to be challenging, though I don’t consider it a “learning the complexity of the rules” challenge as these steps are easy to execute, but rather a “depth of the strategy in the game” challenge. This game can feel on the surface, at least at first, to have rather simple decision points, but there are many layers here that are interconnected and if you want to be successful at the game you really need to have a good grasp of these connections.

The first two games I played of Peloponnesian War I lost the game with 0-10 points and that is assuming you aren’t counting negative scores because in that case, I was like -100 points. Getting your head around the strategy actually requires you to understand both the mechanics and the actual history really well which is both brilliant and exciting that this connection is so tight.

In Peloponnesian War most of the phases of the game are quite fixed and are largely about resolving the decisions you made during the most important phase of the game (The Operations Phase).

In the operation phase the only decision you are making is which objective you want to claim (which city-state to attack essentially) and how you assemble the army prior to the attack. Your leader moves around the board picking up military units and when your army is the size you want, you move towards the objective either besieging a city or attacking an opposing army.

This simple decision however is complicated in a number of unpredictable ways that create all of the risk vs. reward in the game because of how this game responds to your actions.

For starters, your army can be intercepted by the opponent many times before you get to your target, hell even before you are done assembling your army. Different units have different rules for interception (Hoplites, Calvary and Naval units). It would be easy to avoid these interceptions if you had full control over the route your armies take, but you do not. The route you must take is always the shortest route to your destination and if there is more than one shortest route you roll dice to randomly determine which one your army will take. This is a feature not a problem with the game, you have to contend with the will of your commanders.

Any destination you choose for your army is going to have multiple paths to get their which will be determined randomly with a die roll. This absence of control may frustrate more tactically minded players.

These interceptions, however, are not 100% reliable either, it is pretty much a 50-50 shot that you are intercepted by any skirmish force and it doesn’t mean your army will be stopped even if intercepted. A skirmish takes place which might result in some minor loses but your army will keep moving unless this skirmish escalates to a battle and you lose that battle. If you win, you keep moving anyway.

This means that as your army moves to its destination which notably could be anywhere on the board as their are no movement limits (a turn is a representation of 2 years of time) there is a risk of interceptions, skirmishes, and even full battles.

Clever fans have created a routing tool which faucilitates the often fiddly random determination of routes. You can find it here Route Finder, It really helps speed up gameplay.

This is where much of the strategy takes place because setting up these interception spots is the only method of controlling and preventing your opponent from getting where they need to be. Key city-states on the map are choke points and in a historically accurate fashion, these places become vital to your strategy. Corinth, Thebes, Piraeus and Byzanthium, all names you might have heard mentioned in the history of this period are critical places you will be keeping a close eye on and fighting over often.

This is only the tip of the strategic iceberg here because while the area control element of Peloponnesian War creates deep and meaningful contemplation, it isn’t as simple as deciding where to put your units.

Athens and Sparta are asymmetrical nations, their positions, strengths and ultimately routes to victory are quite different. What you can do with each is limited really by their unique circumstances, benefits and drawbacks. Certainly, you can say the game is simple, find a way to siege and conquer the opposing nation’s capital but as was the case in real history here, the goal is much easier to express than is to achieve it.

For the Spartans to besiege and conquer Athens is virtually impossible, in fact, all sieges automatically fail due to The Long Wall of Athens. This wall that connects Athens to Piraeus (a coastal city) means Athens can indefinitely hold out when sieged as long as they can maintain a trade route to Byzantium. Naturally, you might think that it’s then as simple as besieging Byzantium but for the Spartans this is not easy as the Athenians is a naval power and Byzantium can only be reached by sea. Since Athens controls the seas such an endeavor is unlikely to succeed in particular since the AI’s defense strategy will kick in and make that a priority to defend.

Its no great wall of china, but the long wall of Athens gave the Athenians an unbreakable defense. Before you can siege Athens successfully you will need to remove this advantage.

This is just one example of the strategic problems you face when playing the Spartans, but illustrates how the game mechanic is in perfect harmony with the historical realities and noteably how the AI is just clever enough so that it responds appropriatetly to your actions.

The Athenians don’t have an easy go either. The Spartans are a land power, they can not only bring far larger numbers to any land battle, but are considerably better warriors in the field so even a small force of Spartans can whoop a larger force of Athenians in the field.

The Spartans don’t have long walls, but they don’t need them as Sparta is nestled in a land space not accessible via the coast rendering Athenian naval power meaningless in any attempt to conquer it. This means that in order for the Athenians to conquer Sparta they have to win an unwinnable land battle!

What this all boils down to is that neither side has the option for a quick victory, they must first change the circumstances of the advantages that the opposing nation has. As a player, you must weaken your opponent by leveraging your advantage (Naval or Land power as the case may be) and grind them down so that an opportunity opens up for that big push against their capital.

There are a number of ways as a player you can do this. Raiding your opponents unprotected city-states which at any given moment are going to be most of them. Causing rebellions and helping them spread will widdle down their strength as well. Creating choke points that will halt the opposing army’s movement and circumvent their efforts to do the same to you. Finally going after your opponent’s source of income will also slowly bring them down.

The Athenians coastal raiding can chip away at Spartan Bellicosity, but beware, as is historically accurate, after the inevitable armestice that will likely appear in your game at some point, the Spartans will get some naval power of their own.

There are also a number of special rebellion triggers for both nations, the Athenians are a bit more suseptable as the Delian League is a bit more fragile, but the effects of such rebellions are also less impactful. The Spartan Helot Rebellion is much harder to trigger, but the consquences are devistating. Certainly both are goals for you if you really want to hit the opponent where it hurts.

The issue of managing your strategy well however is far more complex than simply coming up with a good military plan not only because at any point you might need to switch sides.

Each nation has a two very important properties called Bellicosity and Strategy Confidence Index, two scary sounding words with simple meaning behind them.

Bellicosity is a nations will to fight, in role-playing terms, their hit points. Once a nation is at 0 Bellicosity at the end of a turn they surrender and the game is over. The Strategy Confidence Index is a measure of how well the nation is doing in the current turn, this number can be positive or negative. This property goes up when you win battles/sieges and down if you lose. The SCI affects the Bellicosity at the end of each round, raising it or lowering.

These two properties are linked and part of the gamist element of Peloponnesian War, unquestionably the key to a winning strategy. Understanding how and why is a critical part of the game, but it’s the mechanics surrounding these two properties where I think some historical war gamers might see a serious problem with the game.

Each nations strategy matrix is used to track the various properties for the nation, which includes the AI strategic decision making plan. I don’t talk much about the AI in the review because it is a very simple system and not your true enemy… in case you’re wondering, you are the actual enemy AI in this game.

The important piece of the puzzle to know here is that in order for you to win (as a player) you must score at least 150 victory points. It doesn’t actually matter which nation is defeated in the story of your game per say, dropping your opponent to 0 Bellicosity doesn’t mean you’ve won the game, it simply means the game ends. You win if you have 150 victory points in that moment, else you lose regardless of which nation wins the actual war.

Each nations Strategy Confidence Index at the end of each turn will raise or reduce each nations Bellicosity, which means that if you are winning battles with one nation, the other nations will to fight is reduced, but because Bellicosity is more a timer for the end game condition rather than a victory condition, unless you have scored sufficient points, crushing your opponent could mean you are rushing to an end game condition which will result in you losing the game anyway.

As such, a big part of the meta strategy of the game is controlling these properties, trying to create the conditions in the game regardless of which nation you are running that will result in the game ending when you have 150 victory points. I say meta strategy because this part of the game has virtually nothing to do with the historical element of the Peloponnesian War or your strategy on the map or success with running any particular nation. You are trying to earn victory points and you have to do it in a fashion that doesn’t end the game prematurely. Their is a kind of equallibrium you must maintain and your strategy goes beyond that of a historical conflict and its more about manipulating the game to ensure you, not Athens or Sparta, come out on top.

In a way you can say that as a player you don’t care who wins or loses the war, you care about your scoring conditions. Now one important additional point here is that if you force a nation to surrender you do score some bonus points, but the value of these points is based on how quickly you did it. You earn 200 points divided by the number of game turns it took for you to make that happen. So if you force a surrender of a nation in turn 3 for example you would score 67 points (rounding up). That may be enough to bring your total to 150 points and you could potentially win, but if the game goes long, say 8 rounds you would only earn 25 points, not likely to put you over the top. As such, winning quickly and effectively with one nation might be a good strategy, but if it fails, you might have weakened the oppossing nation so much that when you switch (a very likely occurrence if you are very successful with a nation) you might have defeated yourself!

Now if your doing math and you know there is a maximum of 10 turns in the game and you must score 150 points, you can roughly calculate that you will need to win 15 battles/sieges since each battle earns you 10 points. The issue is that when you lose a battle or siege you lose 15 points. So for every 2 battles you lose you have to win 3 battles to make up the points.

Suffices to say, if the nation your running is forced to surrender, the likelihood of you winning is pretty slim, so you still need to end the game by ensuring the nation your running is victorious. Its not an absolute necessity, you win if you have 150 points either way, but its hard to put numbers like that on the board without those end game bonus points. The fact that you risk switching sides by winning battles and raising your current nations SCI which acts as a modifier to the roll to determine if you switch… Well, lets just say that shit gets pretty bloody complicated and I realize as I attempt to explain all this I am probably confusing you more than helping you understand. All I can say is that Its a brilliant mechanism that will have you scratching your head trapped in an infinite state of analysis paralysis. To me, the mark of a great game.

Personally I absolutely love this aspect of Peloponnesian War, to me, its what makes this such a great game. That said I can totally understand how a historical war gamer, accustomed to playing a game that rewards military strategy and tactics exclusively might see this meta, gamist approach and element as a major flaw of the game. I would warn anyone considering Peloponnesian War to really consider if that sort of mechanic works for them. It is in fact a common complaint about the game in reviews and the merits of this meta mechanism is often debated on BBG. I do understand both side of this debate and I would argue that this structure and mechanism is what makes this game absolutely brilliant, but certainly very non-traditional.

There are many awesome solo games that follow traditions and meet expectations like Enemy Action: Ardennes for example which also include exciting and unusual mechanics. Being traditional yet fresh is not mutually exclusive. Peloponnesian War however is a pretty big departure from such traditions, enough so that it may be a problem for some historical war gamers.

I haven’t touched much upon the gameplay differences in the various added scenarios of the game nor the two player variant which I’m yet to try. In fairness, to me those things are just bonuses, remove them and my opinion or this review would not change one bit. I will say that expanded content like this is appreciated and one day Im sure to get to it, but I play this game for the main campaign. I have completed a total of 4 games before writing this review, enough to form an opinion and write the review but not even close to enough to put it on the shelf. In fact as I write this review the game is setup behind me on my hobby table and frankly I rather be playing it than writing this article!

Replayability and Longevity

Score:
Tile:

Pros: The dynamic nature of the game creates a wide variation of challenges that keeps you coming back for more.

Cons: The high difficulty of the game might be a turn off for some and replayability really hinges on your affection for some of the unusual mechanics and approach this game requires.

Historical war games very often have a limited shelf life because they are built around very specific starting conditions and the dynamics are often limited to preserve the historical context of the game. Peloponnesian War does not suffer from that even though the main campaign does in fact have a fixed historically accurate start.

The game is simply to dynamic, a single activation in the operation phase can have lasting effects that echo all the way to the last turn of the game. The events are randomly generated and the order in which they appear has huge impact on the outcome of the game, but perhaps above all else is that the side switching mechanic can completetly alter what happens because you as a player are going to influence the game far more dramatically than the actual AI.

This game I believe will have very good longevity, its both addicitive, challenging and narrative. I’m not sure which of those properties I appreciate more. I do believe however that not everyone is going to find themselves as enthralled by Peloponnesian War like I have been. There are some pretty unique elements to this game that put it in a class of its own and such breaking of tradition I think will be rejected by some players.

Once your familiar with the game you might seek out other players to learn about their experiences which further reveals just how dynamic this game is. I look at this situation and all I have to say is… how the hell did that happen!

Historical war game fans looking for a traditional war game in the Peloponnesian War era should know that traditional is not how I would describe this game at all and if that is what you are looking for, one play of this and you are going to wonder what all the fuss is about. It takes an open mind to like this game, a willingness to accept it as a game, less so as a simulation even though it does a great job as a simulation, its just that it does it in a way you are probobly not expecting or accustomed to.

The replayability of this game hinges on your excitement to try to solve this complicated meta puzzle of switching sides, scoring points and dealing with the asymetrical nations. That may feel a bit distant from more traditional historical simulations in which the gameplay is strictly about the simulation itself.

The game is also brutally difficult, if the designer of the game can’t play it well enough to have a winning record, it is unlikely you will either, so be prepared to lose a lot. I’m 4 games in and I haven’t even come close yet.

Conclusion

What I’m going to say in this conclusion now is going to be the most controversial and contradictory thing I have ever said in a review but here goes. This is one of the best solo games I have ever played, I fell in love with this concept almost instantly and I think it’s just pure genius. Mark Hermans approach to game design just speaks to me and though most would argue that Empire of the Sun is his masterpiece, a claim I have made myself in the past, I honestly think Peloponnesian War might actually be his Mona Lisa.

That said, I struggle with the idea of recommending this game to historical war gamers, though strangely enough I would not recommend it to Euro gamers, Ameritrash gamers, casual dabblers or any other “grouping” of gamers you could think of.

This game strays a bit too far outside of the box of standard historical war game design and expectations. It spits in the eye of tradition and established nuances. It is its own thing, a white elephant living in a space outside of the norm. There are players who are going to love this game and you might be one of them, but I honestly don’t know how to categorize this game in a way that would allow me to target a specific group of players or a specific style of game and say “this is for you”. The fact that I think it’s brilliant is not going to change the reality that many gamers will play this game and simply not get it and I get that, I understand why that might happen with this game.

All I can say is that its a risk that you might not enjoy this game despite the fact that to me personally its a bloody revelation. Its games like this that keep me coming back to this hobby again and again. As a board game fan I want something that surprises me and does something unique, this is why I’m constantly buying and trying new games. It doesn’t happen often but every once in a while a game like Peloponnesian War comes along and just blows me away and reminds me why I love this hobby. You might share that reflection if you try it, or you might not.

I thought long and hard about this conclusion as I find it to be kind of unfair to the reader and so I fall back to my general advice about the board gaming hobby. Explore… that is what this hobby is all about. If this game intrigues you, don’t over think it, buy it and give it a try.

News, On The Table

On The Table: January 2022

February 1, 2022 5 Minutes

This year I’m kicking off a new article series and what you are reading right now is the inaugural article for that series. On the Table will be a monthly column where I will discuss various gaming topics based on what I have been involved in, in the previous month.

This will include impressions about games I played, new arrivals that I have unboxed, games on the horizon that sound exciting, conversations and discussions I’ve had with the community, designers, and publishers as well as hot topics in gaming. It’s going to be a smorgasbord of gaming-related topics covering all genres, styles, and types of games.

I think that is enough of an introduction, let’s get into it.

New Aquisitions

This month I picked up four new games.

Western Empires

The first acquisition of the month was Western Empires by 999 games. This was a gift of sorts. I received a Christmas present from my work (100 bucks to Amazon) and I took the opportunity to pick up something I probably would not have bought for myself under normal circumstances (aka my own money).

I have always been really curious about the cult following that surrounds Francis Tresham’s Civilization franchise, but I passed on the very expensive Mega Civilization that came out a few years ago and while Western Empires effectively represents half of Mega Civilization (Mediterranean Half), it’s still a very expensive game and one that I think is going to be extraordinarily difficult to get to the table with my gaming group in particular.

This is a 12+ hour-long game for 5 to 9 players and while I will say that my gaming group is incredibly flexible and generous with their time, this one pushes some boundaries that even my very tolerant gaming group will probably not want to cross. Even if they did, this one would be in competition for the rare opportunity for an all-day slot, games like Twilight Imperium, Through The Ages and War Room. It would not be easy to justify it myself, let alone talk the rest of the group into Western Empires.

I did set the game up on my hobby table, read through the rules and took the time to test drive some of the mechanics, kind of standard operating procedure for me to determine if and how I would like to pursue the game (or not). In the case of Western Empires, while I don’t want to rush to judgment and I did find plenty to enjoy with some head nods of understanding why this game has such a following, I have determined that the likelihood of this one qualifying for that rare all-day event slot is pretty slim.

I just wasn’t blown away by it, it was an interesting game and I really can understand why it has a following, but the game despite its scale and scope really felt to me like something that might be interesting as a 2-3 hour game but not as 12+ hour event game.

The biggest interaction in the game is trading commodity cards reminiscent of Settlers of Catan where you are trying to complete sets to get enough resources to purchase Civilization advances, with this rather nasty setback mechanic driving the hostility in those trades via the Calamity cards. It’s a civilization game where you’re constantly getting knocked back by these calamity events, undoing your efforts, but because you really have minimal control over what calamities you get (sometimes non at all with non-tradeable calamities), the game felt a bit dated to me, a sort of throwback to the games from the past where stuff just happened to you, often determining for you wether you win or lose. I supposed that is because it is a game engine designed in the 80’s, so I’m not sure what I expected, but I think it suffices to say that I can think of at least 5 better civilization games out there that are much better and take considerably less time to play than this one.

It’s a curiosity buy, not every game on my shelf ultimately makes my table and I’m certainly not discounting the possibility of making it happen sometime in the future, but for now, I think this is a pass for me, I have bigger fish to fry!

Endeavor: Age of Sail

Next up is Endeavor: Age of Sail by Burnt Island Games, I picked this one up from a recommendation by a friend of mine. It was a very pretty-looking game that was actually quite cheap but it was a bit of an impulse buy, I did zero research relying on the recommendation entirely.

We got this one to the table (see below), so I will cover the gameplay there but the one thing that struck me about this game was the production value. Just an amazing game visually, with sturdy components, well organized in the box with inserts. All I have to say is that as a gamer with high expectations, for a 65 dollar game to give you this much value in the box, it really put a smile on my face.

Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul

Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul by GMT games, designed by Mark Simonitch of Hannibal and the 44′ series fame was a game I knew I would acquire at some point, it actually sneaks in just in time in January as I got word it was coming at the tail end of the month, it hasn’t even arrived yet.

This game has won a few awards and nominations as do most of Mr. Simonitch’s games, but it comes highly recommended by a few of my favorite board game reviewers and I think it will be a perfect follow up to Imperial Struggle for me and my buddy who have been exploring 2 player historical games. I love the subject matter, it is a real steal at 50 bucks and seeing as so far in the world of historical war games CDG’s have been my bread and butter, I’m excited.

Peloponnesian War

Another GMT title for my shelf, Peloponnesian War by famed designer Mark Herman is a game I was never really expecting to play, but when it arrived at my doorstep, I honestly found myself quite excited at the prospect of yelling awesome shit like “This is Sparta!”

Thus far every single Mark Herman game I have tried has become an obsession for me (especially Empire of the Sun), the guy can do no wrong so I feel quite comfortable walking into this one. I will say, I know nothing about the Peloponnesian War that wasn’t included in the clearly factual documentaries the 300 and Troy, so I’m hoping that Mark provides me with a much-needed history lesson on the subject through this game.

This is a solo game and I have been slowly acquiring solo games over the last couple of years in no small part because of the Pandemic and so far my experience though isolated to DVG leader and field commander series have been very good. This game has a very unique mechanic from what I understand where you actually play both sides of the conflict, switching sides when you play too well with one of the sides of the war. Intriguing concept, really looking forward to giving this one a go.

On The Table This Month

With the pandemic getting worse and worse in Sweden by the day, restrictions have remained quite light nonetheless, and because pretty much everyone is vaccinated in Sweden, my gaming buddies and I have forged forward throughout January fearlessly and continued to game in person.

Endeavor: Age of Sail

I don’t want to say too much about this one as I’m writing a review for it, but spoiler alert, I really liked it. This is a very quick-playing, thinky euro that has you taking on the roles of managing a symmetrical European nation in the age of sail as you attempt to explore and ultimately conquer the newly discovered world. That is thematically, like most Eurogames, this is a point salad and the theme, while certainly fun and well layered, is not exactly poised to make this one feel historical.

I would not fault anyone for thinking this is a long, complex Euro game, it certainly looks the part, but this is a fast and very tight game.

It is a very tight game about scoring points as you would expect from a Euro, but unlike a lot of really heavy and excessively long Euro games that typically overstay their welcome with me, this game takes about an hour, hour and a half max with setup and teaching. It’s engaging, very pretty, has a lot of quality-of-life mechanics that make it easy to learn and play. My first impression is really good and the deluxe version I got comes with a bunch of expansion content so there is plenty to explore beyond the base game. For a 60 dollar game, this was one that impressed the hell out of me. If you got your eye on it and you are looking for a shorter Euro game that is really engaging and full-bodied giving up nothing with its short playtime, this is the game for you.

Be warned however it touches on the topic of slavery and I know some are rightfully a bit sensitive about that, but it handles the subject matter respectfully without getting PC about it. I appreciated that, slavery happened, it’s part of human history and I don’t t think games in a historical context should pretend otherwise, to exclude it from the game would mean we are pretending it didn’t happen which I think is worse. I played this one with my 13-year-old daughter as well as my gaming group, it brought up the subject and triggered a conversation about history, exactly what you want it to do, even lightly themed games like this one.

Smartphone Inc

Smartphone Inc by Russian designer Ivan Lashin did not impress me coming out of the box. A game about managing cell phone companies was already a rather odd topic for me that did not register. The very plain and milky-looking gameboard did little to sell itself and the bearded hipster on the box did not score any points either. I went into this one unexcited expecting a long boring Euro.

I love being wrong!

It looks like a prototype, but this game actually has a very sleek design that facilitates gameplay that you will come to appreciate.

Not only was this a very fast-moving, very cerebral game with mechanics the likes of which I have never seen, but it instantly gripped me and justified every design decision that had me initially questioning this one. The game space I thought was so boring looking quickly turned into one of the most functional and well-thought-out gameboards I have seen in a long time, facilitating not only gameplay but teaching and learning. The topic (cell phones) also immediately grew on me, in particular in the context of an economic game where you research technology, set competitive pricing for phones, manufacture them and try to sell them while competing against other players. Coming off 1830 Railways and Robber Barons, this one had that same sort of cut-throat economic competition feel that made me fall in love with the 18xx series.

Really fantastic game that made a real impression on me, can’t wait to get this one to the table again soon.

Corvus Belli Infinity

Infinity is a miniature game by Corvus Belli and I have a buddy of mine who is a big miniature gaming fan and he has a tendency to talk my gaming group and I into new mini-games all the time using a variety of unscrupulous tactics. In the case of Infinity I got an army starter from said friend for my birthday… well played sir.. well played.

It took some time to get this one to the table as is the case with most miniature games, but I finally managed. I have to admit I was not terribly excited about the event which is a bit odd really. I do like miniature games, I love science-fiction, the mini’s are actually really awesome (I shit you not I have werewolves with machine guns in my army) so really I’m not sure why I wasn’t more excited about it.

You had me at werewolves with machine guns!

In any case it turned out to be a really fun, very easy to learn game with a metric-fuck-ton of options and choices. This mini-game had one of the things I really like about mini-games, lots of options, but simple gameplay. In that way it reminded me a bit of what I loved about Star Wars X-Wing where each time you played it, you could really change up your army list and do something wildly different with the same units you already have.

This is a really fast game, its a bit of a dice chucker, stuff dies fast and furious and it just makes for a really entertaining evening. Now I will admit I’m super spoiled, my friends are miniature game fanatics so when you show up to their house to play these games they have massive, elaborately decorated tables with tons of very fancy terrain and all the fixings. All I have to do is show up, hell they even glue and prime my mini’s for me so they really make it easy on the guy.

I had a lot of fun, miniature games go hot and cold for me, sometimes I love them and get really into them (Looking at you Songs of Ice and Fire) but often they disappoint me and make me feel indifferent towards the hobby (again I’m looking at you Songs of Ice and Fire) because of how poorly managed most of the mini-companies are. I’m sure we will be running this one more in the future and I think I’m genuinely looking forward to it. I don’t see me expanding my collection, but the army box I have is plenty to keep me entertained with this one for a while.

I will say this about Mini Games in general. Do your research, this is an expensive hobby and you don’t want to step into it willy-nilly.

Circadians: First Light

Circadians: First Light from Garphil Games by designer S J MacDonald more widely known for his “Of West The Kingdom” series of games that include Paladins, Architects and Viscounts of The West Kingdom is yet another twist on the resource management Euro-centric games. We have a fan of these games in the group, so now again one shows up and we give it a whirl.

I have played quite a few of these at this point and I think it’s fair to describe them as very busy, thinky and generally heavy euro games that always come with a lot of really smart and unique mechanics. From a design perspective, I have to hand it to Mr. MacDonald, he creates a lot of really cool stuff. Circadians First Light follows in that tradition, but to be frank, of all the games from this style and designer I have tried, this is my least favorite so far.

Some gamers will look at this and get excited, I look at this and question my life choices.

That is not to say that it was bad, it actually wasn’t, it was just fine, but it’s just not my personal style of gameplay to begin with, so these games never really wow me, even the really good ones. This game, like all of the games in this series, are just a bit too long for what they are (Euro-Centric Resource Management Games), generally, there is a lot of complexity so it takes quite a bit of effort to learn and I find in my gaming group we typically play these games one time, then never hear from them again, a fate I think Circadians: First Light is destined for.

These games just don’t make a lasting impression, but I have to say I don’t think it’s because they are bad games, I do find them quite clever, but they are just complex enough that if you play them once, the next time you play you pretty much have to learn the rules again. For a game like that to come back, it needs to build up more excitement on the first run and I just find that these games don’t do that, at least for me. The games just don’t sink in and I have felt that way about every one of the “Of the West Kingdom” games I have tried and this one falls into that same pit.

It does use a clever dice chucking worker placement mechanic reminiscent of Kingsburg which I think is actually kind of fun, but there is a lot of very busy, paralysis analysis inducing “stuff” going on in the game that left the experience a bit flat. It was ok, but I doubt we’ll see this one again anytime soon.

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader designed by Dean Brown of DVG games is without question one of my favorite solo games. Now that said, I have to admit I don’t own that many solo games, so my list for comparisons is very small.

For me B-17 is just a blast to play, it’s super thematic, it has a very scalable difficulty level, has lots of depth and really tells a story which I think is fundamentally the most important part of a solo gaming experience. A good solo game unlike other types of games does not live and die by its mechanics, it does so by its ability to give you a narrative and trigger your imagination and B-17 Flying Fortress Leader really does that for me.

B-17 is a fairly complex game definitely not for the faint of heart, but in my eyes it’s brilliant and the narrative it brings to life is unmatched. The fact that it’s a solo game that you can play whenever you feel like it, especially in times like these is a gamers prayer being answered.

It had me reading books, watching documentaries and exploring the fascinating world of World War II aviation triggering an interest I never even knew I had.

This is a wonderful game, I play it all the time, in fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if it appeared in the On The Table articles pretty frequently as Its setup on my hobby table quite often second only perhaps to Lord of the Rings LCG.

Paths of Glory

I realize as I’m writing the first On The Table article that I own a lot of GMT games! The classic Paths of Glory by GMT Games graces my hobby room once again as I take on an online opponent using vassal in a PBEM game.

It took nearly the whole month of January to finish, me and my online counterpart both use the same method to play online. We use vassal to maintain the game state and deliver our moves, but both of us have the real game setup on our hobby tables so we don’t need to do everything digitally and we get to play with the real components.

I’ve run out of ways to praise Paths of Glory so instead just look at this pretty map!

I have praised Paths of Glory so many times it seems unnecessary to do so again, it’s an amazing historical war game that deserves every accolade anyone has ever given to it. I can’t get my local gaming buddies to try it as it is quite complex and it has “chits” which most of the members of my local gaming group have an aversion to, but I adore this game, it’s THE definitive historical war game on World War I, accept no substitute!

Other games that hit the table

Just a quick hit list of other games that hit the table this month.

Talisman 4th edition. I play this one with my daughter quite frequently, she loves it and it keeps her gaming so I don’t mind playing it. It’s a bit of a long game but with two players you can get it done in an hour and a half, so not too bad. Fun little adventure game, nothing I would play with my gaming group but it’s a perfect family game and it beats the hell out of playing fucking Monopoly!

Condottiere is a common filler in my gaming group and it hits the table this month. I won, but it was a tight, down-to-the-last card kind of ending. This is a trick-taking game with a twist that I think belongs in any gamers collection, if you don’t own it, you should!

Game of Thrones: Hand of the King Another one I play with my daughter often. I actually like this one as a filler, but It hasn’t made it to my regular gaming group yet. It’s kind of an abstract game with a slapped-on theme, but it’s clever, easy to learn and fast, great filler.

On The Horizon

Of course, there are four new games that have been added to my collection so I see at least a couple of those hitting the table in February. I have also kick-started my gaming groups ongoing Vampire The Masquerade campaign, my group and I will have our first session after the last Pandemic hiatus, very excited about that one.

I’m keeping tabs on another Dean Brown solo game from DVG that is currently on kick starter called Spruance Leader which is going to be another game along the lines of B-17 Flying Fortress Leader except for this time you are a commander of a naval task force during the cold war. Very excited about this one.

This is the player board from Spruance Leader. I suppose it’s fair to say that this either does it for you or it doesn’t, for me personally this has got me hoping up and down in excitement.

In February I’m hoping to kick off a big all-day event to play War Room, the amazing super game by Larry Harris in which we will be trying some of the 2nd edition (reprint) rules that update the game and aim to address some minor issues.

I plan to do two reviews this month, though I’m concurrently writing about 5 reviews right now, so we will see which of those shapes up. I will leave it at that, no spoilers!

Side Note: I get asked this a lot so I thought I would slip it in here and answer the question. Some of my readers want to know if I accept review copies or make money on the site. The short answer is yes on review copies, no on making money. I don’t typically note which games I review that are review copies as I’m indifferent to that, I don’t ask people to send me review copies, but when they do I happily review them. I do not make any promises or guarantee’s about how the review will come out, in fact I typically communicate very little with publishers in general, I like to keep my distance from the business end of gaming. Generally, however, I don’t like doing negative reviews so if I really hate a game that was sent to me as a review copy, I would send it back and I don’t review it at all out of respect for the designer. I personally only want to have a positive influence on game sales, not a negative one. I will occasionally make an exception when I’m trying to make a bigger point about something, but those are rare. I do not however accept patron or payments of any kind, gaming and this blog are hobbies for me and I have no ambition of turning it into a business. It’s something I do for fun.

Ok that is it for this month, hope you found the article informative and entertaining! If you have any suggestions or comments feel free to email me at gamersdungeon.net@gmail.com.

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replayability and Longevity

Conclusion

Share this:

20. Shogun (Dirk Henn version)

19. B-17 Flying Fortress Leader

18. War Of The Ring

17. Field Commander Napoleon

16. Star Trek Fleet Captains

15. Washingtons War

14. Twilight Struggle

13. Tide of Iron

12. Peloponnesian War

11. 1830: Railways and Robber Barons

10. Ikusa (Shogun)

9. Dune Imperium

8. Twilight Imperium

7. Empires: Age of Discovery

6. Through The Ages: A New Story of Civilization

5. Empire of the Sun

4. Paths of Glory

3. Imperial Struggle

2. Lord of the Rings The Living Card Game

1. War Room

The Fallout

Share this:

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replayability and Longevity

Conclusion

Share this:

New Aquisitions

Western Empires

Endeavor: Age of Sail

Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul

Peloponnesian War

On The Table This Month

Endeavor: Age of Sail

Smartphone Inc

Corvus Belli Infinity

Circadians: First Light

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader

Paths of Glory

Other games that hit the table

On The Horizon

Share this:

Dedicated To All Things Gaming