Designer: Mark Herman

In recent days I have played quite a bit of Mark Herman’s classic Washington’s War yet despite the game being number 15 on my top 20 games chart I did back in February 2022 and No. 6 in my Top 10 War Games I did in 2020, I’m yet to do a proper review on it. It’s a long past due oversight that I really wanted to correct and so here we go!

Mark Herman is a brilliant designer, a statement I make without hesitation and he made a big splash as the founder of the influence struggle and historical CDG war game genres in a single game called We The People in 1993. This led to a number of what are now considered classic historical war games in their own right that used these mechanics like Twilight Struggle, For The People, Empire of the Sun and Paths of Glory just to name a few. It was, to say the least, a pivotal moment in game design history that lead to the release of Washington’s War which is for all intense and purposes the 2nd edition of We The People.

It would not be an overstatement to point out that while We The People sparked an evolution in the historical war game category, breathing life into two different genres of historical war games it remains wildly underrated. Washington’s War, its follow-up, is really no different, in my mind it is one of the most criminally underrated games in all of board- gaming sitting in a shockingly disgraceful 730 on BBG as of this writing.

Washington’s War is a game about the American founding father’s struggle to create a new nation out of 13 fledgling colonies as they opposed the British Empire in what has got to be one of the most fascinating pieces of history there is. The Revolutionary war is chock full of extraordinarily interesting personalities, political struggles that make The Game of Thrones look like child’s play and some of the most vicious military engagements in all of American history. Washington’s War manages to squeeze all of that history into a game that is easy to teach and learn while remaining streamlined to precision.

I love the influence struggle and CDG category of historical war games, my collection is full of them, but Washington’s War is the only game in my collection that I feel comfortable in pulling out with just about anyone. Whether you are a Eurogamer, casual dabbler, or a serious historical war game fan, you will fall in love with this games incredible back-and-forth tension. It is not just a great historical war game for historical war gamers, it is just good gaming period by any measure.

Now I have played my hand a little here, clearly, I’m a fan but given the accolades it has already received on my site over the last few years, I don’t think it should come as a surprise to my more frequent readers. The devil is in the details however and while I would describe this game as a good time in a box, I think it’s fair to say I owe more of an explanation to this review, so let’s dig into the revolutionary war!

Overview

Final Score: (4.2 out 5) Great Game!

Washington’s War is an asymmetrical influence struggle CDG (Card Driven Game) war game. That is a mouthful, but given that We the People, the 1st edition of Washington’s War effectively created this style of game, it’s perhaps reasonable to explain what it actually is even if we have already watched this genre evolve over the years in so many other games.

In Influence Struggle CDG’s like Washington’s War, players take turns playing cards which they use to execute actions on a point-to-point map. In our case the map of the eastern United States where the revolutionary war takes place. One of the key elements here is control of different areas via influence tokens called Political Influence in Washington’s War which represents the political control the Americans or British have in an area in any of the 13 colonies.

The object of the game is to have sufficient political influence markers in each of the colonies to control them and essentially whichever player controls the most colonies by the end of the game will win the game. Technically the US needs to control 7 colonies while the British only needs to control 6 of them to win.

The catch is that there are also generals and armies on the board who can take these areas by force, so part of the game is also using actions to move armies around and engage in battles to force your influence onto the board.

The different cards also have event effects, special actions players can take when playing a card. These events represent different actual or hypothetical events from revolutionary war history. There are also several unique conditions and phases in the game like Winter Attrition for example that represents the harshness of the winters and the complexity of keeping standing armies in the field in this era. These various unique conditions create the challenges players must contend with as the war progresses.

Suffices to say that description is probably insufficient to really get a feel for the game, but I think what is most important to understand is that this game like all influence struggle CDG’s is about board control, timing, and about the back and forth tension between players as they vie for power on the point to point map. Since We The People, we have seen many games in this genre that leverage this mechanic, most famously Twilight Struggle. Washington’s War however takes a much more rules-light and less restrictive approach to this style of play.

Most notably, players share a deck and cards don’t have as many multiple uses as many games in this genre do where a card is both an event and an “ops value”. Instead, cards either are events or are actual ops cards (1, 2, and 3 ops). This makes the decision matrix for Washington’s War much simpler, in fact, in the influence struggle genre, it actually makes Washington’s War one of the lightest and most approachable games in the genre.

More importantly perhaps is the fact that Washington’s War has few exception-based rules, which is very commonly seen in historical war games and is by far the primary reason in creating a division between mainstream and historical war games. Historical war gamers love their “historicity” (made-up word, I know). What it means is that historical war gamers have a far higher tolerance for heavy rules implementations and rules exceptions as long as those rules breathe historical simulation into the game and this road can go quite deep in many historical war games. Washington’s War, while it certainly is historical, does this more with core rules rather than exception-based rules. What this boils down to is that though Washington’s War has not really become a mainstream game, there actually is no reason for it not to be. This, like any other board game, has straightforward rules that anyone can learn and is actually a lot simpler than many if not most Euro games mainstream gaming communities readily play.

That leaves the question, what is it about Washington’s War that has prevented it from crossing over to mainstream gamers as Twilight Struggle did? Is there a problem?

Components

Score: 
Tilt: 

Pros: GMT is a great publisher that never has never disappointed me and in Washington’s War they once again nailed it.

Cons: Looks deceptively like a complex war game which it most certainly is not, hardly a complaint but my explain why it’s not as mainstream as it deserves to be.

As a courtesy to the reader, I will make this brief, this is a GMT production which means that by default all components are top-notch quality. From the gorgeous and sturdy gameboard to the thick card stock and counters, everything is made to last with a wonderfully clear presentation.

The rulebook is super clean and precise, the game includes a playbook that is so good you can almost learn how to play the game without reading the rulebook and just following along with the playbook. Finally, the game has the best reference cards I have ever seen in a game, so well thought out that once you play one turn of the game you aren’t likely ever going to have to reference the rulebook again as the reference sheets have everything you need to play the game on them.

Short and sweet, the components of the game are pitch-perfect. Nothing is overcooked, it’s just right, no complaints from this reviewer.

Theme

Score: 
Tilt: 

Pros: Washington’s War has just the right amount of nuance to breathe life into the fascinating history of the revolutionary war without overwhelming you with rules “chrome”.

Cons: Veteran historical war gamers looking for a deep and/or complex revolutionary war simulation may not find what they are looking for here.

When it comes to the historical war game themes, it’s always a matter of taste on how much simulation, replication and historical accuracy a person wants in their game. I’m of the opinion that a good historical war game will allow you to play inside a historical period, but keep the scripted elements of the game to an absolute minimum. I don’t want to replicate history or follow along some historical path forced on me by the mechanics of the game, I want to be put in a position to make the same decisions the commanders and leaders of the time had to make and ultimately find my own path to victory in a sort of alternate history of the subject matter.

In this vein, Washington’s War is ideal because while the game has all of the elements of the revolutionary war including the important personalities, events, locations and abstracted conditions of the period, how the game plays out is not going to reflect the actual history of the revolutionary war. From the very first action to the last, you are going to inevitably change history.

Despite this a-historical execution, the game still captures the period perfectly from the asymmetrical sides and unique conditions they had to contend with to the interesting political events and personalities involved all making an appearance in the game. What changes are elements like when the French join the war if ever, or when if ever the declaration of independence is signed. Does Washington get captured during the war? Does the continental congress get dispersed? Do the British win or lose the south, can they use their dominance of the sea to win the war? All of these aspects of history are thrown off their axis in some form or another, many historical events may or may not ever take place and much of what does and doesn’t happen in your version of the revolutionary war history will depend on card draw, dice and most important decisions you make as a player.

I found the game to be extremely thematic, hitting the high points of the revolutionary war in particular in the way the Americans struggle to have a military that can face the British, the difficulties of the Americans to bring the French into the fight and the tough challenges of trying to control a country that was really quite divided on the subject of independence. Washington’s War feels like a game on the revolutionary war in every regard, yet doesn’t impose the history on you for posterity. It allows the a-historical outcomes unapologetically and as far as I’m concerned, this is exactly what I want out of any historical war game.

I found that every game of Washington’s War played out wildly different while always maintaining these struggles that were part of the history of the period. More importantly, however, these struggles are imbued into the mechanics so they feel natural rather than scripted, nor are they infused with a lot of exceptions to force the subject. Certainly, you are going to make some of the historical decisions as did the founding fathers because they make sense, but often I found myself in what-if moments, the execution of which is exciting and tense and triggers discussions with your opponent about the history of the game.

One of the ways Washington’s War really comes to life as a historical game is the uncertainty of the conflict. There are never any breakthrough moments in the war, there is a lot of attrition, a sort of push and pull where no matter where you push and win, it always results in you having to pull back somewhere else. This creates great tension in the game, really giving you that sensation of being an underdog as the American, while making you feel powerful as the British. Yet despite this, the game has incredible balance, even within the constraints of the asymmetrical feel each side has and despite Americans being the underdogs and the British being big and powerful, the game never gives the impression that either side has a leg up in the final outcome of the game (war). It is a war that either side can win and strategy plays the predominant part in that outcome, which feels both historically accurate and makes for a great gaming experience.

Finally and I mean this as a complement and not a negative comment, the game doesn’t overdo the history. Mark Herman designs very often are so regimented when it comes to history and while in many games like Empire of the Sun which is the driver for the game and ultimately what brings you to the table, Washington’s War relies far more on the strategic play to pull you in. Historical it certainly is, but this is a streamlined machine that introduces the history in subtle ways, while it remains far more a game than a simulation throughout. There are almost no exception-based rules in the game that try to force historical elements on you, which is not often the case with historical games and certainly not Herman’s designs. Mark takes a light-touch approach in Washington’s War and strangely it’s this distancing from exceptions that makes the game feel more historical and thematic, as it all just becomes more accessible.

General Washington for example is represented as a strong commander for the Americans and comes with a special ability allowing him to avoid some winter attrition penalties. This is a very subtle special power and it’s easy to remember because Washington is a unique commander, the game is named after him after all. It’s one of the very few exception-based rules and it kind of just makes sense and is logical enough to be easy to remember.

I really love this approach and I’m reminded of the fact that while I love games like France 1944 and Empire of the Sun, two other Mark Herman designs, I often wish I could play lighter versions of those games that still capture the same historical principles and strategic elements without being so complex and filled with exceptions. Washington’s War really nails this streamlined, more direct approach and I think the result is a far more enjoyable and notably more accessible game which ultimately lets the theme actually flow a lot better. You could almost say that there are fewer interruptions to the enjoyment of the history of the game thanks to a lighter rules approach.

If there are any flaws in the theme and mind you this requires one to get very nit-picky is that the CDG mechanic uses the one deck approach. This means both players draw from the same deck and that British and American events when drawn by the opposite player ultimately get discarded for 1 ops actions as they cannot be used for the event. There are a lot of really cool events in the game that simply never see the light of day in any given game as a result simply because of who drew them and while there is a mechanic in place where opponents can pick up discarded event cards, it typically doesn’t happen as players usually plan out their entire turn based on the cards they do draw. I personally prefer CDG’s where each asymmetrical faction gets its own deck as seen in countless games like Twilight Struggle, Empire of the Sun and Paths of Glory for example. The result of such a setup is that you are always drawing cards relevant to you, and more events hit the table which brings into the game more of the history and ultimately the theme of the game.

I would put this complaint in the minor quibble category based on personal preference rather than an actual issue with the game. It’s just a me thing.

As a whole, I think Washington’s War nails the theme beautifully in this game. It’s just the right amount of rules to get the theme across, there is a lot of attention to detail in the history even though all the various conditions and unique elements of the period are handled very subtly. I’m sure there are games on the revolutionary war that are far more detailed and make better historical simulations, but I think Washington’s War was aiming to be more high-level and abstracted and in approaching the design in this way, it has made this historical game a lot more approachable and easier to get to the table. I don’t think it really sacrifices anything critical with this approach and while I could understand that more serious historical gamers might be looking for more chrome, as a guy who plays in both casual and serious fields, I found this game highly thematic and fun.

Gameplay

Score: 
Tilt: 

Pros: As a fan of CDG influence struggle games, I’m like a moth to a flame here, I adore this genre and this game.  It’s a fantastic introduction to the genre, perfect for newcomers.

Cons: Washington’s War is based on the We The People formula which while great and revolutionary (pun intended) is a bit dated compared to how the genre has evolved. 

As simple of a mechanic Washington’s War is, there is tremendous weight in the strategic gameplay of the game, in fact, I would argue that the complexity of the game is quite high when you consider the deployable strategies possible here.

It’s a bit like chess where you can learn the rules easy enough, but becoming a good chess player is a considerably more robust topic.

For one Washington’s War is a very tight game, it’s really about very subtle motions where placing a token in one place rather than another can have a profound impact on the outcome of the game. That is not to say it’s sensitive to mistakes, but rather that each action really matters. You rarely make irrelevant decisions, every move and counter move is important and the whole thing just feels like it has weight behind it, adding to the tension and attrition.

In any given round for example as the British player, you may have the ops cards necessary to move a couple of units, place a couple of tokens and perhaps play an event. That is not a lot of activity in the big scheme of things, but because the game is relatively short and exactly when the game will end dynamic, these decisions can be quite critical and impactful. In fact any round after the 4th round requires you to be vigilant because the game can end quite abruptly so you need to make sure at the end of each round you are in a winning position.

The game doesn’t have this 3-4 rounds from now I will be in a position to win approach to strategy. You need to effectively be winning at the end of every round of play.

Rounds can end because there are cards in the deck that if drawn must be played which define when the game will end and this starts after the 4th round. The tension this brings to the game is awesome.

Generally, the game is about playing cards and taking actions, so the sequence of play is quite simple and like most influence struggle games it’s about having the most pieces on the board you can muster in the right places. You need to control a certain amount of colonies to win and control of a colony is defined by how many political control markers you have in each colony.

The difficulty of this is that each colony has a varied number of spaces that can be controlled, some like Virginia have more than half a dozen, while others like Rhode Island have a single space that defines control of the colony. This means that while more is clearly better, where you put your influence is equally vital. There is a trade-off between controlling a colony with a lot of tokens, which can make it more difficult to take away from you, and colonies that have a small number of control points which are more volatile and more likely to trade hands during the game.

Adding to the mix of this go-like game of point-to-point area control are the armies of each side and the generals that lead them. These armies move about the board forcing their will onto territories and the only method to control their ability to project power by your opponent is with their own armies.

This is where the “war” element of the game comes to fruition and again it’s handled in a simple and elegant manner. The factors that go into the effectiveness of an army are easy to calculate, there is ways to surprise opponents with cards and the dynamic factor of the dice makes outcomes calculable but not reliable. More than that, losses are generally minimal, battles can be won and lost, but armies are not easily dispersed so winning a battle does not mean you sort of breakthrough and dominate an area, but rather just push your opponent back in what really is a war of attrition.

There is also difficulty in moving armies and this is very asymmetrical and historical. The British have larger and more powerful armies, but they require a higher OPS card to move them, so you are likely going to move them less often. Meanwhile, the Americans have smaller, generally weaker armies that require lower ops cards to move, meaning you are likely able to move them more often. America’s military agility is further supported through two special rules, their ability to intercept and retreat, allowing them to intervene and avoid British attacks.

This game of cat and mouse creates a tense and very thinky mini game where each player is thinking less about outright crushing the opposing military, as this is highly unlikely to happen, and more about trying to position their military in the most optimal points on the map to exert power and control, adding to the influence struggle theme rather than overwhelming it.

Finally, there are a few other elements in the game that I like to refer to as “historical conditions” that create challenges for the players to overcome.

Winter attrition already mentioned, creates a real headache for the American player who is constantly having to contend with their armies dispersing between rounds. There is the struggle to get the French into the game which is pretty vital for the Americans as it brings into play the ability to blockade ports and a much-needed French command with French armies.

For the British the struggle and often the frustration is really dealing with the reality that with the right hand of cards you could really bring the fight to the American’s but the high maintenance commanders can only be moved with higher ops cards, typically 3 ops which means that you really have to plan way ahead and around their stubborn refusal to cooperate with your plans. You are simply never going to have the cards to do exactly what you want and your circumstances continually get worse as the war progresses. Ideally, you want to win this game as early as possible as the British because it gets tougher and tougher as time goes on.

The event cards are a mechanical layer here and while I would say the impact of these cards varies from “meh” to “holy shit”, generally their inclusion is more about infusing the game with theme than it is about strategy. They certainly can play a significant role in the plan of a particular round when drawn, but usually, you are trying to squeeze the events into your strategy rather than building a strategy around the cards if that makes sense. In fact, generally speaking, that is usually how all of the cards in the deck are used. You have a strategic plan and you are trying to use whatever you draw to make that happen, rarely if ever does your hand dictate your plan.

What can I really say about the gameplay in Washington’s War other than that it’s absolutely fabulous? It’s just such a great tense game, with easy-to-understand mechanics, and lots of great history full of surprises, twists, and turns. It’s just a really fantastic gaming experience, nailed down to a 2-3 hour 2-player game that just works in every way. It’s game design brilliance.

I have no complaints about this game at all but know that my love for CDG-driven influence struggle games likely makes me a bit biased here. I love this genre of games and Washington’s War is one of the most approachable and satisfying takes on this genre out there. It certainly does not replace my love for Imperial Struggle, which I consider the current ranking champion in this genre, but this one is so much easier to teach and learn. I think it’s the best way to introduce new players to the genre.

Longevity and Replayability

Score: 
Tilt:  

Pros: The game is very dynamic offering endless replayability, you aren’t ever going to play two games that resolve the same.

Cons: The simplicity of the design is a benefit for the purposes of introductions, however all but the most casual of gamers are going to graduate from this one rather quickly.

Washington’s War has a static start and that might give the impression that there is a limited number of plays built in that once you expire them you will have seen everything there is to see.

This is categorically false and I say that from having played this game at least a dozen times at this point. The dynamics of this game are a combination of decisions and strategies implemented, cards drawn and dice rolled. There is just no way two games will ever repeat or even appear similar to each other. Despite the static start, this game is a dynamic rollercoaster, whereas a player you will find yourself trying to unravel countless puzzles this game presents.

There is a lot of replayability here and there is no doubt in my mind that like many games in this genre including the famed Twilight Struggle, this is a game you can play over and over again and always make new discoveries.

Now in terms of longevity, for me personally, after a dozen plays while I’m always ready to go for it again, I find that anytime I have taught someone Washington’s War, my urge is to take the next step with them into more involved and complex CDG influence struggle games.

This game is light and as a veteran gamer, I enjoy complex games and it’s what I want to be playing. Washington’s War for me is a great way to introduce new players to the wonderful world of historical war games and in particular to the CDG influence struggle games, but it is not the final frontier and I want to graduate new players to more robust games. I feel the longevity of this game for most historical war game fans is going to be limited to using it as an introduction to historical war games, game. I would be surprised if two veteran historical war gamers would find the game enough of a challenge long-term.

That said, I do think more mainstream and casual gamers would find this game very satisfying long term. I hope that doesn’t come off as elitist and rude, but the term “complexity” means something completely different in the world of popular mainstream gaming and historical war gaming. As a historical war game, this one is feather-light, but I think compared to most modern-day board games, it would be generally considered a medium, perhaps even heavy weighted game on the complexity scale. The rulebook is 23 pages, practically a pamphlet for modern historical war games but quite heavy if this were say a Euro.

Conclusion

Among historical war gaming geeks like me and fans of Mark Herman’s work, Washington’s War is by many considered his masterpiece, his Mona Lisa. I would personally argue that this honor goes to Empire of the Sun, but certainly, Washington’s War is one of his stone-cold classics, there is no denying it.

Washington’s War is easy to learn and teach, it’s nuances offer a much deeper level of strategy than the mechanics suggest and it does a wonderful job of capturing the theme of the Revolutionary War without being a hard simulation. All of these things combined make Washington’s War an amazing gaming experience and an excellent addition to any fan of the CDG & Influence Struggle genre of games.

I would also make an argument for this game to get more mainstream attention, it certainly has all the hallmarks that have made other CDG’s like Twilight Struggle such smash hits and really I find it surprising that Washington’s War lives in general obscurity. I will say it again for posterity, this is not just a great historical war game, this is just a really great game period and you should not let the stigma of historical war games frighten you from trying it. Any fan of Twilight Struggle will find themselves quite at home in Washington’s War, in fact, I would argue this is a far better and much easier entry point into the genre than Twilight Struggle is.

If there is anything to complain about when it comes to Washington’s War, I’ve certainly missed it. It fires on all cylinders as far as I’m concerned, I give it my highest recommendation for pretty much anyone looking for a great, tense 2-player game, historical or otherwise.

Designer: Mark Simonitch

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.