Tag Archives: Historical

Review: Epochs: Course of Cultures – 2025

Designer: Jeffrey CCH

I do enjoy a good civilization game. In fact, if one were to casually browse my gaming shelves (an expedition not unlike cataloguing a particularly nerdy wing of the British Museum), one would find no shortage of grand historical ambitions neatly packed into cardboard. Titles such as Through the Ages, Western Empires, and Nations just to name a few sit there rather smugly, silently judging lesser boxes. One might even say, though only after a modest pause for dramatic effect, that I am something of a connoisseur.

I know, more or less, what I want from a civilization game, but I do delight in being surprised by games in this genre, providing something unexpected. This is precisely where Epoch: Course of Cultures emerges, like a well-dressed time traveller stepping out of a slightly unreliable machine. It presents a civilization-building experience that feels comfortingly familiar, yet curiously novel, an impressive feat that would likely earn a small, approving nod from Sid Meier himself. I would even argue this game has done more for the genre itself than the latest PC disappointment, Civilisation 7, though that is not as extraordinary feat as you might imagine it to be. A topic perhaps for another day.

Overview

Final Score: christmas_starchristmas_star christmas_star(3.6 out 5 Stars)

Epoch: Course of Cultures is, at its heart, an action selection civilization builder, which is a wonderfully polite way of saying, “you will spend a great deal of time making big key decisions and then immediately wondering if they were terrible ones.” Beneath the surface, it carries many of the familiar mechanical bones of the genre, but with just enough curious mutations and original ideas to keep things feeling fresh, competitive, and pleasantly tense in that “I may have just doomed my people” sort of way.

Now, civilization games do have a reputation for being… Chronologically challenged. In that context, Epoch sits comfortably in the middle ground. When compared to titans like Through the Ages or Western Empires, a four-hour playtime feels almost refreshingly restrained, like a historical epic that politely ends before your snacks run out. That said, it’s quite the affair compared to your standard board game play time, especially at the preferred 4 player count.

One of the central concepts behind a good civilization game in my opinion, is that it should feel massive, epic.. sprawling even. That approach however, usually comes with several drawbacks, the time needed to play often being one of the primary reasons you rarely get to play them. I love my Western Empires, but getting 5+ players together for a 12+ hour game is exceedingly rare, so it becomes a beloved dust collector instead.

What Epoch does rather cleverly is take a seemingly simple action structure and quietly turn it into something far more devious. On your turn, you’ll do something wonderfully straightforward: play a card representing a development in your civilization, and then choose an action, settling new lands, advancing culture, investing in science, and so on. All very reasonable, yet that play of a card leads to all the actions that include all the core ideas of civilisation building. Production, technology, construction, trade, etc.. All very civilised. And yet, beneath this calm exterior lurks a deeply strategic, wonderfully thinky puzzle that will have you staring at the board as though it has personally offended you.

And there is quite a lot of board to stare at. The game comes with an impressive collection of pieces, icons, tracks, and other paraphernalia that suggest great complexity. But in truth, mechanically speaking, especially by civilization game standards, Epoch is surprisingly approachable. It’s less “arcane ritual” and more “well-organised chaos.”

There is so much built into your action selection card play in Epoch that it feels wonderfully intuitive and powerful each time you pick something. It’s a decision that will pay out over the course of the entire game, making each action central to a larger, grand strategy.

What truly elevates the experience, however, is how tight it feels and how interactive it is in a way modern games in general have been gradually pulling away from. Every action matters. Every decision nudges your civilization forward in a way that feels tangible and earned, with an impact on the other players directly. This subtle but blatant interaction makes you constantly aware of your opponents, because unlike many modern civ builders, Epoch is not afraid to let you go to war. In fact, escalation towards war is one of the core features of the game. Each player’s choices ripple into yours, shaping your next move, whether you like it or not, it’s really only a matter of time before you clash. This is a refreshing change from many civilization games, which can sometimes feel like a group of people politely playing solo games in the same room, with occasional brushes like “oh no, you took the card I wanted”. Here, the interaction is real, the tension is present, and the consequences are just inconvenient enough to be delightful.

Civilization: A New Dawn shares a lot of similarities as a design with Epoch, both games feature an explorable terrain board and an action selection system that drives the game forward, but unlike Epoch, A New Dawn landed rather flat with me and it was the shortage of meaningful interaction between players that I would blame as the root cause for it.

In its own way, Epoch will challenge classics like Through The Ages, though the question remains, where does it rank in the great scheme of this very robust genre? I don’t think you can get away with making a Civilization builder without comparisons, so we will be doing a bit of that in this review.

Components

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_star

Pros: Very flashy and usable.  Things are easy to find the iconography is exceptional.

Cons: There are a lot of pieces to this game, and you’re going to need a larger-than-standard table to play it, especially 4 players.

I consider component quality to be important in a civilization game only because these games are, at their core, sprawling puzzles masquerading as historical progress. You are expected to maintain a bird’s-eye view of everything at all times, an impressive feat, given that your brain is already busy calculating the long-term consequences of a decision you made fifteen minutes ago involving what seemed, at the time, to be a perfectly innocent grain surplus.

Analysis Paralysis is not just a possibility here, it’s more of a lifestyle choice. When a single action can ripple five to ten turns into the future, you need clarity. You need visibility. You need iconography that doesn’t require a degree in interpretive archaeology to understand. In short, you need the game to communicate with you clearly, ideally without muttering cryptic symbols like an ancient alien artefact.

Traditionally, this clarity comes from strong, simple rules, but equally important is how the components themselves convey information. After all, if the board looks like a tax form designed by chaos theorists, no amount of good rules will save you and this tends to be the case in many civilisation-building games.

Fortunately, this is where Epoch positively beams with competence. From the cards to the player aids, from the iconography to the general visual presentation, everything is crisp, readable, and, dare one say, rather attractive. It carries a certain aesthetic familiarity that fans of Sid Meier’s work will recognise immediately, as if the game itself quietly aspires to be invited over for tea with Civilization and not embarrass itself.

And it succeeds. This is a production that balances beauty with functionality in a way that feels almost suspiciously well thought out. You will, after all, be staring at this game for several hours, possibly long enough to begin assigning personalities to your resource tokens, so it’s rather important that the experience is visually pleasant. (There are, one suspects, entire galaxies that have been abandoned for less.)

There is no question that Epoch is a sprawling game with tons of “things” on the board, which can be quite intimidating for the average board gamer. This is rather misleading because, despite the very busy board, Epoch is a pretty straightforward game you might compare to your average Euro in terms of complexity.

Like most civilization games, Epoch isn’t something you’ll casually throw onto the table on a whim. It demands time, attention, and a willingness to explain rules to your friends that may, at some point, sound like you are describing the tax policies of a small but determined nation. However, thanks to excellent organisation and intuitive design, the learning curve is far gentler than it could have been. The same game with lesser components would have been far more complex.

In fact, during my very first play, I already felt surprisingly in control, an unsettling sensation in a genre that usually delights in making you feel like a confused ruler shouting at maps. By the second play, it was all strategy, all the time. And much of that ease comes down to components that are not just well-designed, but designed for use.

Well done indeed. Top marks here, no need to consult the Guide on this one.

Theme

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_star

Pros:  It nails civilization building with class while including things that are often omitted in other Civilisation-building games.

Cons: It’s missing historical figures, with technological progress being a heavily abstracted concept that has little impact on the game beyond resource collection.

I suspect this section can be handled with the sort of efficiency normally reserved for highly competent civil servants and improbably well-organised galaxies.

The theme of Epoch: Course of Cultures is civilization-building and history, and I’m pleased to report that it achieves this with very little fuss and a reassuring amount of success. It looks like a civilization game, it plays like a civilization game, and, most importantly, it feels like a civilization game while you’re sitting at the table making questionable long-term decisions. In short: it does exactly what it says on the tin, which is more than can be said for a surprising number of things in the universe.

That said, there is a small crack in the otherwise polished marble.

One of the great joys of the genre is the sense that each civilization has its own identity. That playing Persia should feel meaningfully different from playing Egypt, beyond simply having a different colour and a slightly more exotic name to mispronounce.

Epoch gestures in this direction, offering each nation a minor, slightly quirky advantage you can develop over time. It’s a nice touch, pleasant, even, but its impact on the actual gameplay is… modest. So modest, in fact, that you may find yourself forgetting who is playing what entirely, which is rarely a good sign in a game about civilizations and their supposedly rich identities.

These differences don’t meaningfully steer your strategy, nor do they create distinct playstyles. You won’t find yourself passionately debating the merits of one civilization over another, or dramatically declaring, “Ah, but you see, this is exactly what the Persians would do.” Instead, everyone is essentially playing the same game with very slightly different accents.

There is also a noticeable absence of historical figures. No great leaders, no visionary scientists, no wildly overconfident generals making bold claims about invading Russia in winter. It’s a small thing, perhaps, but these human elements often provide a strong sense of connection to history, anchors that make the experience feel less abstract and more alive.

I think Through The Ages is the king of themes when it comes to Civilization builders, mainly because it’s so all-inclusive of the tropes that you hope to find in a Civilization building game. From the people, wonders, techs and buildings, everything has that Sid Meier feel to it, and this is despite the fact that the game doesn’t feature a map at all.

Here, the world of Epoch is curiously… people-less. Civilizations rise, expand, and occasionally go to war, but they do so without the guiding presence of anyone you might recognise from a textbook, or indeed, from a particularly enthusiastic documentary narrator.

It’s not a dealbreaker by any means. The theme works. It lands. But it never quite reaches that smile-inducing moment where everything clicks and you feel like you’re part of a grand historical tapestry. It doesn’t have that “role-playing” aspect of running a personality.

It’s more… a very well-organised spreadsheet of history. Perfectly functional. Just missing a few memorable personalities and faces.

Gameplay

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Solid, streamlined framework that makes the game easy to teach and learn, making it a far more approachable civ builder than the vast majority of its competition.

Cons: It doesn’t really compete with the classics, it’s a fun alternative, but it’s not going to replace anything.

A proper civilization game, in my view, must achieve three things, rather like a good cup of tea, except vastly more complicated and with a higher likelihood of military conflict.

First, it must deliver a genuine sense of growth and expansion. Not just numbers going up (though we do love a good number), but a feeling that your civilization is becoming something distinct. Your choices should matter. Your path should diverge. You should feel, at least in some small but satisfying way, that you are carving your own slightly questionable decisions into the annals of history.

Second, it ought to feel grounded in history, or at least in something that politely waves in history’s general direction. Playing as different civilizations should feel different. Whether you lean into military dominance, technological supremacy, or industrial might, there should be a strategic identity to your choices, and ideally a way to feel quite smug about them when they work.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, it needs to hold up over repeated plays. A civilization game that can be “solved” is about as useful as a guidebook that confidently tells you the restaurant is at the end of the universe but forgets to mention it’s closed on Tuesdays. There must be room for variation, for adaptation, for strategies that evolve based on circumstances rather than habit. There has to be a way for a local meta to form, and the game must have built-in ways to challenge and reforge that meta without expansions. That is the only way to get replayability long-term with a Civilization game.

Now, achieving all of this in a single board game is, frankly, a bit unreasonable. But that is the burden of the genre. When you are competing with giants like Through the Ages and Western Empires, the inevitable closing line of any review tends to be, “It was very good… but X or Y Civ Builder does it better.”

So, where does Epoch land? Well, rather respectably, actually.

It doesn’t kick down the doors of the genre and declare itself emperor, but it does bring enough interesting ideas to justify its place at the table. One of the most notable things it does is reintroduce something many modern civilization games have quietly abandoned: the map.

Not having a map as part of a Civilization building game was a trend created by Through The Ages, and for a time it caught on, which included games like Nations and Age of Innovation, for example. A map brings a much higher level of design complexity, eliminating it is a clean way to avoid some of those traps. It works for some games, but it does feel like something is missing from the experience, even when it works.

It is not just a decoration here. This is, gloriously, a game about actual presence, about being somewhere, owning territory, and occasionally sending small, determined groups of people to stand on it and argue with other groups of people. Much like Western Empires, there is very much a “dudes on a map” experience.

This is important because somewhere along the way, designers occasionally forget that Sid Meier’s Civilization, the grand inspiration for much of the genre, is, in many ways, also a war game. Position matters. Resources matter. Territory matters. And, crucially, these things can be taken away from you by someone who has decided your empire looks a bit too comfortable.

Epoch understands this, it embraces it.

War is present, impactful, and, importantly, expensive. Starting a conflict is not something you do lightly, unless you are either (a) winning and feeling confident, or (b) losing and feeling vindictive. Both are valid historical precedents.

Dudes on a map are handled quite simply with cubes in Epoch, as the actual military strength elements are driven by cards you can purchase. This makes the execution of war simple, but the strategy behind it, when you should do it, how you should do it etc.., that is an entirely different question. Even after several plays, it was not clear to me where war falls in Epoch so far as strategy goes.

There are two main approaches: a more measured declaration that gives your opponent time to prepare, or a full “I have made a terrible decision and will now commit to it immediately” war-monger stance that lets you attack anyone at once. Both options carry consequences, both reshape the board, and both inject the game with a delicious sense of tension.

Now, a brief warning: Epoch has what might be described as an “old-school personality.” Player interaction can feel… direct. Occasionally pointed. At times, even a bit mean. If you are accustomed to modern board games where conflict is more of a polite disagreement than a full-blown geopolitical incident, this may come as a shock. Personally, I think it’s wonderful. But consider yourself warned, this is less pillow fight, more street brawl conducted with spreadsheets.

Perhaps the most elegant part of the design, however, is how it condenses the entire 4X experience, explore, expand, exploit, exterminate, into a single, streamlined core game loop.

You play a card. You take an action. That’s it.

And yet, that one action encapsulates everything: production, development, technology, expansion, trade, governance, and the general sense that you are somehow both in control and one poor decision away from ruin. Each move feels significant. Each turn alters the board in a meaningful way. You are not idly passing time; you are doing things, and they matter.

I especially liked the handling of government in Epoch. Each government type comes with unique benefits ot the exclusion of other possible selections. It’s a tough choice and needs to be made in cohesion with the rest of your general strategy. There is no going back and making a mistake here can be quite costly.

It’s immensely satisfying.

More importantly, it’s intuitive. Unlike some of its more illustrious cousins, Epoch doesn’t require a lengthy lecture on “how to actually play well” after you’ve learned the rules. You understand what you want to do almost immediately. By your second game, you’re strategising with confidence rather than fumbling through historical guesswork.

This is, frankly, one of its greatest strengths as it is often a key weakness in even the best of the civilisation-building genre games. I love my Western Empires, but unless you have played it a dozen times, I’m going to crush you so badly you’re going to think the game is broken, and there is no shortcut to that education but repeat plays. Epoch is clever enough to avoid that problem.

Randomness, another traditional troublemaker in the genre, is handled with a commendable degree of restraint. Yes, the map can favour some players over others (as maps, and indeed life, tend to do), but the advantages are never so overwhelming that you can predict the winner from the opening placement. The game provides enough tools for clever play to overcome a less-than-ideal start, which is exactly how it should be.

That said, no civilization game escapes compromise, and Epoch is no exception.

The most noticeable absence is the tech tree, that beloved web of dependencies where one discovery unlocks another in a satisfying chain of progress. Here, technology is far more abstract. You invest in it, you gain benefits, but you’re not building toward specific unlock paths in the traditional sense. There’s no “research pottery to unlock granaries” moment. It’s more fluid, less structured, and for some players, that will feel like something is missing.

While I was not a huge fan of Fantasy Flight Games, Sid Meiers Civilization, it did include the tech tree in a hierarchy, and that felt quite right to me. You got a strong sense of progress, and “tech advantage” was a concept built into the game.

Wonders, too, lack a certain… well, wonder. Rather than grand, multi-turn projects that define your civilization, they are more transactional, appearing, being purchased, and providing benefits without much ceremony. There is no standing atop your cardboard empire declaring yourself a golden god of architecture. It’s all a bit more… efficient.

War, while excellent in concept, also carries an interesting limitation: it is often too expensive to be used as a precise strategic tool. Instead, it tends to emerge at the extremes, either from a dominant player pressing their advantage, or from a struggling one lashing out in desperation. The nuanced, tactical “check your opponent” war is less common, simply because your resources are usually better spent elsewhere as this is still a game about victory points.

And yet, despite all of this, it works.

The game remains deeply strategic, richly interactive, and thoroughly engaging. Resource management is meaningful, positioning matters, and the sense of building something over time is both tangible and rewarding. It ticks a remarkable number of boxes for a 4X civilization game, even if it approaches some of them from unusual angles.

There is certainly room for expansion, perhaps a bit more depth in certain systems, a touch of refinement here and there, but what’s already here is compelling.

In short: it’s a civilization worth building again.

Replayability and Longevity

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Plenty of reasons to play it several times, lots to explore.

Cons:  There is a cap somewhere, some limit before you shelv it and never come back to it,  this is not an instant repeatable classic.

It may not be entirely fair, but civilization games carry with them a certain grandeur. They are not simply games; they are events. And when you reach for one on the shelf, you are not just picking something to play, you are making a decision of mild historical importance.

That decision, in my experience, is governed by two variables:
How much time do you have, and how many players are involved?

Tell me those two things, and I will tell you which civilization game to play with the quiet confidence of someone who has spent far too long thinking about this.

Many of these “slots” are already occupied by titans.
Large group, plenty of time? Western Empires, no hesitation.
Small group, plenty of time? Through the Ages, a masterpiece.
Large group, limited time? Nations will do the job admirably.

The awkward gap, the one that has always been a bit of a problem, is small player count with limited time. This is the Bermuda Triangle of civilization games, where ambition goes in and slightly disappointing “filler” experiences come out. Sadly, Epoch doesn’t quite solve this particular cosmic mystery either.

Instead, it settles into the 3–4 players, ample time category, which places it in direct, and rather bold, comparison with Through the Ages and Nations, just to name a couple.

Now, this might sound like a dangerous place to be, but here’s the interesting part: Epoch holds its ground surprisingly well.

In fact, it has a distinct advantage. Games like Through the Ages, as brilliant as they are, can be notoriously unforgiving to new players. Your first few games often feel less like building a civilization and more like being politely but firmly dismantled by someone who understands the system better. Nations can suffer from a similar issue.

Epoch, on the other hand, is refreshingly approachable. It’s intuitive. New players can sit down, grasp the flow, and feel competitive far more quickly. With a bit of light strategic guidance, you can have a genuinely good experience right out of the gate, which is, frankly, a rare and valuable trait in this genre.

It also tends to run a bit shorter than both Through the Ages and Nations, making it a strong candidate when you want something substantial, but not life-schedulingly so. And compared to other games attempting to fill this niche, such as various adaptations of Sid Meier’s board game, it stands out as the more compelling option.

Epoch is a very busy game with a lot of levers, it certainly falls into the “heavy” category by most people’s standards, but I would argue for how involved the game looks, it’s considerably simpler than that. If you’re accustomed to playing Heavy Euro’s, you’re not going to find this game complicated at all. It’s actually pretty straightforward.

So yes, there is absolutely a place for Epoch on the shelf.

The more difficult question is: how long does it stay there?

After three plays, I found myself in an interesting position. I hadn’t exhausted the strategic possibilities, nor had I identified any clearly dominant paths to victory. The game is dynamic enough to keep things engaging, but at the same time, the overall experience didn’t vary as dramatically from session to session as one might hope.

The map provides the most noticeable variation, but not to the extent that it fundamentally reshapes your approach. You adapt, certainly, but you don’t reinvent.

My instinct, always a slightly unreliable but occasionally insightful companion, suggests that after perhaps six to ten plays, the game may begin to lose a bit of its novelty.

Now, to be fair, that is not a damning criticism. Most games do not survive more than a handful of table appearances. In fact, if a game sees five plays, it is already outperforming a significant portion of the hobby.

But civilization games are not most games.

This is a genre where longevity is king. Where titles like Through the Ages can be played a hundred times over a decade, and Western Empires, despite requiring what feels like a small lifetime to complete, still returns to the table again and again because of that glorious grandeur.

By that standard, Epoch may fall just short of true immortality.

It is absolutely replayable. It is enjoyable. It earns its place.
But whether it will still be called upon ten years from now, with the same enthusiasm reserved for the genre’s greatest legends, I find unlikely. It lacked that true… umpf! A terrible description, but fans of Civ games know what I’m talking about here.

Conclusion

Epoch: Course of Cultures is, without question, a very good game. If what you’re after is an engaging, strategic experience wrapped in a historical civilization-building theme, and you don’t necessarily feel the need to compare everything to the sacred texts of the genre, then this is an easy recommendation. Particularly for Euro game fans, it delivers exactly the sort of tight decision-making, meaningful trade-offs, and competitive race for victory points that keeps the brain pleasantly occupied and occasionally mildly distressed.

It is thoughtful. It is strategic. It is, in all the right ways, a game that asks you to care about what you’re doing.

However, and this is where we gently adjust our monocle, if you are a full-fledged civilization-building enthusiast, the sort who speaks reverently of Through the Ages and Western Empires as though they were ancient and slightly temperamental deities, then Epoch may feel like it falls just short of true greatness.

Not because it does anything wrong, but because it doesn’t quite ascend to that rarefied level of “instant classic.” It is not, at least not yet, a card-carrying member of what can only be described as the Civilization Building Illuminati, a shadowy group of games that have achieved long-term dominance over gaming tables everywhere, and possibly influence global events (though this is difficult to verify).

That said, there is something important to note: I still very much want to play it again.

Epoch is a very engaging puzzle; there are plenty of moving parts that create depth in the strategy to keep you invested. I think its a good civilization game. It does not, however, dethrone any of the classics in my opinion. It’s kind of doomed to be an alternative to other Civ games I would rather play, given an allotted amount of time. No objections to playing Epoch, but if you ask me “What Civ Game do you WANT to play”, by default answer is not going to be Epoch.

After multiple plays, it hasn’t worn out its welcome. It hasn’t been solved, shelved, or quietly judged. It remains engaging, inviting, and, perhaps most importantly, fun. And in a genre that can occasionally take itself a bit too seriously, that counts for a great deal.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Epoch feels almost tailor-made for digital play. A platform like Board Game Arena would suit it perfectly. Its streamlined action system, relatively low mechanical overhead, and clean structure would likely translate into a smooth online experience, one where a full game might be completed in about an hour, rather than requiring the careful scheduling of one’s social calendar and possibly a packed lunch.

And really, any civilization that can be built in an evening, or a very long lunch break, is doing something right.

So no, Epoch may not rewrite the history books of the genre. But it absolutely earns its place among them, and for many players, that will be more than enough.

In Theory: The Historical War Game Genre

This blog has always been a colorful tapestry of wildly different gaming topics, by design, not by accident. But even within that eclectic mix, clear dividing lines emerge. One of the most distinct is the rift between the broader board gaming community and the niche but passionate world of historical strategy and war games. These aren’t just different genres, they’re almost different cultures within the hobby.

That said, I’m living proof that this divide is more imagined than real. Like many supposed boundaries in gaming, it’s built more on perception than truth. While it’s easy to think of historical war gamers as a cloistered sub-group with their own sacred tomes and hex-filled rituals, the reality is far more fluid. Just as many historical gamers dabble in mainstream modern board games, there’s a growing curiosity among general board gamers about the mysterious and complex world of historical strategy.

But let’s be honest, crossing the bridge from mainstream games to historical war gaming can feel like stepping into another dimension. It’s far easier to move from heavy war games to general board games than the other way around. This is because historical games tend to be deep, dense, and unapologetically complex as a default. What a seasoned wargamer might casually call “light,” most hobby gamers would label “brain-melting.”

Take complexity ratings on BoardGameGeek as a perfect example. Twilight Imperium, a game known for its epic length and interstellar sprawl, clocks in at a weighty 4.33 out of 5. That’s pretty high, unless you’re a historical war gamer. Compare that to Empire of the Sun, a game steeped in the Pacific Theater of WWII, which sits at a 4.39. At first glance, a marginal difference. But in practice, these two games are judged by entirely different standards. Empire of the Sun isn’t just complex, it’s an Everest of a rulebook, dense with nuance and requiring perhaps a hundred hours of study even for experienced players. Its 45-page manual is printed in a font size small enough to make a lawyer squint, functionally the equivalent of a 90- to 120-page standard rulebook.

Twilight Imperium is an exceptional game, and I would easily quantify it as an amazing war game, but it does not fit into the historical strategy/war game genre as historical war gamers define their own genre. Being about a war is not enough.

To a hardcore historical gamer, Twilight Imperium might feel like a breezy afternoon diversion, perhaps a 2 or 2.5 on their personal scale of complexity.

My point is this: complexity and depth are relative concepts, deeply tied to experience and exposure. The world of historical war games isn’t just more intricate, it’s built differently, with its own traditions, expectations, and design philosophies. From minimalist components to standardized presentation styles, these games often look arcane and intimidating, which, let’s face it, they are, but there’s a strange elegance beneath the surface.

Today, I want to share a bit about my own journey into this fascinating world and offer some practical advice for those curious enough to dip their toes into the deep waters of historical strategy and war games. Whether you’re a seasoned Eurogamer looking for a new challenge or a curious newcomer intrigued by the lore of real-world conflicts, this one’s for you.

Some Encouragement & Reality

Speaking as a fairly typical board gamer who took the plunge into historical strategy and war games, let me offer a little encouragement and a dose of reality.

First, if you’re going to dive into this subgenre, you’ll need to be self-sufficient. These games often require solo setup, self-directed learning, and more than a few hours of quiet study. This isn’t a genre where you crack open the box, skim the rulebook, and dive in with a buddy over pizza and drinks. Technically, sure, you could try, but you’re more likely to spend the evening fumbling through obscure mechanics, wondering why nothing makes intuitive sense.

But here’s the twist: that’s part of the fun.

There’s something uniquely satisfying about deciphering a complex historical war game on your own. You’ll set it up, stumble through turns, cross-reference rulebooks, and gradually bring the simulation to life. It’s a solo endeavor at first, almost like reading a dense but rewarding novel. Once you understand it, you’re ready to teach it, not from the rulebook, but from experience. And if that doesn’t appeal to you, it’s probably a sign this genre may not be for you. This hands-on, slow-burn learning process is the hobby.

Twilight Struggle is perhaps the most famous example of a cross-over hit that lives in the historical strategy/war game category and is beloved by serious war gamers, yet has found considerable popularity in mainstream gaming. It’s an exceptional game.

Second, and this is crucial, understanding the actual history behind the game is often key to understanding the game itself. Most historical war games fall into the “simulation” category. That means the mechanics aren’t just arbitrary, they’re grounded in real-world events, logistics, and military doctrine. At first glance, some rules might seem bizarre or even unnecessary. But once you dig into the history, why that mechanic exists, what it represents, it starts to make sense. The design isn’t just about gameplay; it’s about reenactment, grounded in research.

In this way, learning a historical war game often involves learning history. If you find yourself fascinated by the “why” behind a game’s structure, why supply lines matter, why political will ebbs and flows, why reinforcements arrive late, that’s a good sign you’re in the right place. If that level of engagement sounds exhausting rather than exciting, though, you may want to reconsider.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these games exist in a kind of ecosystem. There’s a lineage of mechanics, design principles, and influences that connect them like branches on a tree. The most complex games often build on systems introduced in earlier, simpler titles. There’s a generational progression, what some call “design DNA.”

For example, jumping straight into Empire of the Sun might be biting off more than you can chew. But games like Washington’s War or Paths of Glory share many of its core mechanics in more digestible forms. They act as stepping stones, easing you into the deeper waters with familiar rules and systems. You’ll find that learning one game helps you understand the next, especially when they come from the same designer or design school. This might be a familiar concept to general board gamers because in kind of works the same way in the mass market. We sometimes call certain games “good introduction games”, for example, Ticket To Ride or Settlers of Catan are often mentioned as good first dives into the larger world of boardgaming. The only difference is that in historical strategy and war games, this tends to be a lot more specific to the target game you want to reach.

That’s why doing a bit of homework goes a long way. Look into game families, designer interviews, and community recommendations. You’ll often find that designers openly discuss their influences, and discovering these connections can help you choose games that fit your current skill level and interests, driving you towards your target game. It’s like crafting your own war gaming curriculum.

In short, historical strategy and war games reward research, patience, and a thirst for learning. If that excites you, then you’re in for a deeply rewarding journey, one filled with rich history, complex mechanics, and a surprising sense of discovery. Your path into the genre won’t just be about finding good games, it’ll be about uncovering stories, systems, and strategies you might never have encountered otherwise.

First Venture

If you’re curious about diving into historical war games, my strongest recommendation is this: start solo. In fact, consider beginning with a game designed specifically for solo play. There’s no better way to test the waters and see whether this niche is more than just a passing curiosity for you.

Thankfully, historical war gaming has a rich and well-established subgenre of solo titles, offering a wide selection of accessible, thematic, and deeply rewarding experiences. Many of these solo games are purpose-built for solo players, meaning the learning curve is often smoother, the rulebooks more forgiving, and the gameplay tailored to your pace.

Even better, these solo titles tend to hover at the lower end of the complexity spectrum, making them a fantastic entry point into the genre. You’ll find more flexibility in terms of theme, length, and mechanics, letting you ease into the broader world of historical strategy gaming without being thrown into the deep end. The best part of solo play is that you can just leave your game up and pick it up whenever the mood strikes you, and that is a huge advantage over trying to put a game night together.

A perfect place to begin is Dan Verssen Games (DVG), a publisher renowned for its high-quality solo-only catalog. DVG has something for almost every historical interest and play style. Want to explore the Age of Exploration? Try the brilliant card-driven 1500: The New World. Curious about command-level warfare? Look into their Leader Series or Field Commander Series, where you take the reins of historical figures or tactical roles across conflicts ranging from the Napoleonic era to modern-day battlefields.

Field Commander Alexander is a fantastic example of a straight to it solo historical war game. It gives you the sensation of control over vast armies as you attempt to achieve conquest in the footsteps of one of the greatest war generals in history.

Whether you want to be a fighter pilot flying missions in the Pacific, a WWII submarine captain, or Napoleon himself masterminding a campaign across Europe, there’s likely a DVG game that covers it and does so in a way that feels personal, strategic, and surprisingly educational.

The key benefit to this solo-game approach is that whatever game you pick, you’ll be laying the foundation for future success in the genre. You’ll learn how historical rulebooks are structured (spoiler alert: they’re different), how to use playbooks and reference sheets effectively, and how certain core mechanics, like zones of control, operational cost cards, influence conflict, supply lines, and turn-based simulation tend to repeat across games. This familiarity becomes invaluable as you graduate to more complex titles and multiplayer experiences.

Starting with solo war games, I think is the best way to go, but let’s talk about the alternative starts, low complexity multiplayer games.

Entry Level Historical Strategy and War Games

One of the most common misconceptions about historical strategy and war games is that they’re defined solely by their connection to real-world events. But in truth, it’s not the historical theme that sets this genre apart, it’s the design philosophy, mechanical complexity, and simulation-based approach that distinguish it from the broader board gaming world.

Take Axis & Allies, for example. It’s a well-known game with clear historical ties, and while it shares some surface-level traits with war games, it doesn’t fully belong to the historical war game genre as enthusiasts define it. It straddles the line, a gateway, perhaps, but it’s ultimately a different kind of experience.

So, while it might be tempting to use cross-over titles like Axis & Allies or Memoir ’44 as stepping stones into deeper waters, the truth is that they offer relatively little in terms of preparing you for the complexities and conventions of true historical war games. These lighter games often strip away the very mechanics that define the genre: logistics, command structures, political abstraction, and long-term strategic depth.

Memoir ’44 is a great title and gives you a small taste of the historical war gaming genre but nothing you learn from this game will prepare you for a typical historical war game in the true sense of the meaning, at least as defined by fans of the genre.

Another important thing to note is that most historical war games are two-player experiences. While multiplayer options do exist, and can be excellent, they’re generally not ideal for beginners. Learning is much easier in a one-on-one setting, especially when both players are invested and focused. For that reason, nearly all the entry-level games I recommend fall into the two-player category. You’ll want a dedicated partner, someone who’s equally curious (or patient enough to let you teach them).

Now, let’s say solo play isn’t your thing. You’re ready to dive headfirst into the genre with a partner at your side. Great news, there are entry-level titles that can ease you in without sacrificing historical depth. In no particular order, here are a few strong candidates I wholeheartedly recommend…

Washington’s War by GMT Games (Designed by Mark Herman)

When it comes to introducing newcomers to the world of historical strategy and war games, Washington’s War is my go-to recommendation, and for good reason. It strikes a near-perfect balance of accessibility, thematic familiarity, and mechanical depth without overwhelming new players.

Here’s why it stands out as an ideal entry point:

1. A Familiar Conflict
The American Revolutionary War is one of those historical topics that most people already have at least a basic grasp of. Names like George Washington, the 13 Colonies, and the Boston Tea Party are common knowledge, even for those who aren’t history buffs. That shared understanding smooths the learning curve and creates a sense of immediate connection with the game’s theme.

2. Elegant Simplicity
From a complexity standpoint, Washington’s War sits firmly in the “low” zone, no matter who’s doing the judging. But don’t let that fool you; it’s rich in educational value. The game introduces several core mechanics found throughout the genre: point-to-point movement, influence/control mechanics, operational vs. event card play, the use of Generals, and Command Units (CUs). Each of these concepts is presented in a streamlined, easy-to-learn form, offering a solid foundation for more advanced titles down the line. These are concepts you’re going to run across in this sub-genre of gaming all the time.

3. Playtime That Respects Your Schedule
Perhaps most importantly, Washington’s War is relatively short by historical war game standards. A full session typically runs about 2–3 hours, a far cry from the all-day marathons many games in this genre demand. That makes it easier to get to the table, easier to find opponents, and easier to revisit regularly.

In short, Washington’s War is a masterclass in approachable design. It captures the essence of historical conflict in a digestible, compelling format, making it, in my opinion, the ideal starting point for anyone curious about stepping into the world of historical strategy and war games.

A bonus here is that this is a Mark Herman game, a name you will become intimately familiar with as you explore this sub-genre of gaming, as he is one of the most prolific and influential game designers in historical war gaming, both past and present.

Sekigahara: The Unification of Japan by GMT, designed by Matt Calkins

In the realm of historical strategy and war games, there’s a subgenre-within-a-subgenre known as block games, and if you stick with this hobby, you’re bound to encounter them. These games use wooden blocks to represent military units, adding elements of fog of war, hidden information, and elegant visual design. Block games are a staple of the historical war gaming scene, and among them, Sekigahara stands tall.

Not only is it one of the best block games ever made (in my opinion), it’s also one of the best historical war games, period (again, in my opinion).

What makes Sekigahara so approachable is how streamlined and intuitive it is. It distills the core mechanics of block games into a clean, smooth-playing experience without drowning players in exception-based rules or overly complex interactions. Better still, it’s a card-driven block game, which makes combat resolution dramatically simpler than many of its dice-based cousins. There are no convoluted CRTs (Combat Results Tables), no constant rulebook flipping. Instead, combat unfolds through card play that adds both tension and strategic depth, all while keeping the gameplay fast and accessible.

And let’s not overlook the setting, feudal Japan, one of the most fascinating and dramatic periods in military history. Sekigahara puts you in the middle of the legendary struggle for control of Japan, fighting to become the next Shogun in a civil war that shaped the nation’s destiny. For anyone who loves samurai warfare, clan intrigue, or grand tactical decision-making, this game delivers.

Beyond the theme and mechanics, Sekigahara does something very important: it teaches you how block games work, the hidden information, the maneuvering, the structure of turns and battles, all in a digestible, elegant package. It’s the kind of game that draws you in with beauty and theme, then teaches you the deeper rhythms of the genre without you even realizing it.

If you’re curious about block games, or just want a fantastic two-player strategy game with historical gravitas and refined design, Sekigahara is an absolute must-play. It’s not only a superb introduction to block games, but it may be the best in the genre.

Holland ’44 by GMT designed by Mark Simonitch

If you’ve spent any time in the historical war gaming world, the name Mark Simonitch probably needs no introduction. He’s a legendary designer known for his brilliant card-driven classics like Hannibal & Hamilcar, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, and Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul—games that blend historical drama with elegant card-driven strategic play. But Simonitch is equally renowned for his work in another cornerstone of the hobby: hex-and-counter wargames.

Among his acclaimed World War II series, which includes Normandy ’44, France ’40, and Ardennes ’44, among many others and my personal favorite is Holland ’44: Operation Market-Garden. It’s the standout title in a consistently excellent lineup.

There are three things that really make this game stand out in my mind as an excellent choice to explore hex and combat warfare on the tabletop.

First, the rules system is intuitive and elegant, especially for the genre. It features core mechanics like zones of control, step losses, terrain effects, and combat results tables, but without the kind of overwhelming complexity often associated with traditional hex-based wargames. It uses a familiar “I go, you go” turn structure, and everything is presented in a clean, logical format that helps you ease into the broader world of hex-and-counter design.

Second, learning Holland ’44 doesn’t just teach you this game, it opens the door to an entire series of similarly structured titles. Once you’ve grasped Simonitch’s system, moving on to other battles in the same line, not limited to but including Normandy ’44, Sicily ’43, Salerno ’43, and more, feels like a natural progression rather than starting from scratch. You’ll already understand the basic rhythms, and each game simply layers on new historical flavor and scenario-specific tweaks.

But the real heart of Holland ’44 is the fascinating historical battle it simulates: Operation Market-Garden, the bold Allied attempt to seize key bridges in the Netherlands in late 1944. The scenario is filled with tension, tight decision-making, and a delicate balance of aggression and caution. The interplay between airborne landings, armored thrusts, and critical chokepoints creates a dynamic and suspenseful experience.

This isn’t a quick game, it will take 4-5 hours so you’ll want to dig in, focus, and commit. But in return, you get a deeply strategic, highly replayable, and richly thematic battle that captures the ebb and flow of this ambitious WWII operation. There’s a unique narrative tension to it, driven by risky gambits and critical timing, especially around bridges and river crossings, that makes every session memorable.

If you’re even remotely curious about the hex-and-counter style of war games, Holland ’44 is a fantastic place to start. It’s approachable, richly historical, and part of a broader system that rewards your time and effort with an expanding world of connected titles. Simonitch’s series isn’t just a masterclass in design, it’s a gateway to a whole new level of historical gaming.

Conclusion

Hopefully, from this article, you got some advice, tips on a few good entry points to the sub-hobby of historical strategy/war games and perhaps found something to research further.

Game selection is, in the end, a personal thing, and I think it would be criminal for me to leave you with just entry-level options without slipping in some of my personal favorites. So in this final bit, I will leave you with a few more entries to consider. These aren’t exactly entry-level games so you will want some experience before diving into these, but I consider them absolute staples of the genre.

Imperial Struggle by GMT Designers Ananda Gupta and Jason Mathews

You’ve probably heard of Twilight Struggle, it’s a titan in the board gaming world, consistently ranked among the top 10 on BoardGameGeek. And while it’s a phenomenal game, it’s not my pick for newcomers to historical strategy games. Instead, I’d point you to a different title from the same acclaimed design duo: Imperial Struggle.

Where Twilight Struggle distilled the Cold War into a tense, card-driven duel of influence, Imperial Struggle goes broader and deeper. It covers the century-long global rivalry between France and Britain, spanning four major wars from the War of the Spanish Succession to the American Revolution. This is a game of world-spanning conflict, military, political, and economic, played out across Europe, North America, the Caribbean, and India.

What makes Imperial Struggle such a strong entry in the influence control genre is how approachable and intuitive it feels, despite its enormous scope. The rules are tight, the turn structure clean, and the gameplay rhythm, once grasped, flows naturally. It’s the kind of game that feels complex in concept but smooth in practice. Within just a few turns, you’ll find yourself fully immersed in maneuvering fleets, shifting alliances, and managing colonial tensions without feeling overwhelmed. You’ll be thinking strategy, no rules absorption.

Even better, the mechanics aren’t overly esoteric. Even if you’re not a die-hard historical gamer, you’ll find the systems relatable and digestible, in many ways more so than its older sibling Twilight Struggle which relied heavily on deck memorization to play it successfully, creating a very high strategic learning curve. The decisions in Imperial Struggle are meaningful, the board state ever-evolving, and the replayability is immense thanks to shifting event dynamics and strategic depth.

I absolutely love this game. It’s one of the crown jewels of my collection, ambitious in design, elegant in execution, and endlessly rewarding to play.

Paths of Glory by GMT designed by Ted Raicer

An absolute classic in the historical war game genre, Paths of Glory was originally released in 1999 and has been consistently updated and refined ever since.

In this game, you command the entirety of World War I from start to finish, using a brilliant card-driven mechanic on a point-to-point map. The claustrophobic nature of trench warfare, the unreliable timing of allies, and the unpredictable escalation of the war are all captured with exceptional nuance; every session unfolds differently.

There are no set routines, no default strategies, no predictable scripts. This is a war you fight on instinct. Yet every decision, every troop movement, every card play, every offensive, is deeply impactful and often dramatic.

When you make a mistake, the consequences are disastrous. When you succeed, you feel like a genius. It’s a game that pulls you in emotionally, and I’ve never met anyone who played it just once. Paths of Glory is practically a self-contained hobby, thanks to its addictive, immersive nature.

It remains one of the finest historical war games ever made and one of the few that captures the full scale and horror of World War I.

Paths of Glory is to historical war games what Agricola is to Euro games, a sort of complex but timeless classic that you could almost say you should play at least once in your life.

The U.S. Civil War by GMT designed by Mark Simonitch

There are only a handful of games I would call a “complete experience” or the “final word” on a historical subject, and The U.S. Civil War is one of them. In my eyes, it’s a masterpiece: a sweeping, deeply nuanced simulation of the entire American Civil War, capturing both the complexity and the inevitability of its outcome.

This game fully embraces the asymmetry of the conflict, as both sides struggle with unsolvable logistical nightmares while fighting a war that often feels impossible to win. It’s not just a historical re-enactment, it’s a “what if” engine. The game asks you: What would you do differently? It gives you the freedom to try, and yet, the more you play, the more you find yourself making the same agonizing decisions the real generals made. It feels like history asserting itself, no matter what path you choose.

That’s the magic of The U.S. Civil War. It’s not only a strategic challenge, but an experiment in inevitability. The simulation is so tight and evocative, it teaches you why history unfolded the way it did, not by telling you, but by letting you live it.

It also happens to be an excellent solo experience. With no hidden information, it becomes a pure strategic exercise, where you’re simply trying to outthink yourself on both sides of the conflict.

This is one of my absolute favorite games. If you’re at all interested in Civil War history, this is the game to play. It’s the crown jewel of the genre.

Empire of the Sun by GMT designed by Mark Herman

The coup de grâce of historical war games, Empire of the Sun is nothing short of a masterpiece. Without question, it is, in my opinion, the greatest board game ever designed, across all genres. It is the final word on what truly brilliant game design looks like.

But brilliance has a cost.

Empire of the Sun is also one of the most complex, demanding, and mentally taxing historical war games in existence. It stretches the very definition of “depth” until it feels like there’s no bottom. A card-driven, operational-level, hex-and-counter simulation of the Pacific War, it pushes the boundaries of what is reasonable to ask of players.

And yet, if you persevere, if you navigate the labyrinth of rules and begin to grasp not just how the game works, but why, you reach a moment of sublime understanding that is unlike anything else in gaming. It’s not just rewarding. It’s transformative. Finding someone else who also knows how to play Empire of the Sun feels like discovering a secret society.

The simulation is extraordinary. Like The U.S. Civil War, you are free to rewrite history, but in Empire of the Sun, the possibilities are endless. You can change the war. Improve on it. Explore it. Reimagine it. The game practically dares you to study history, to go beyond the table and into the depths of books and documentaries, simply to keep pace with what it’s offering you, and each real-world discovery you will be able to apply the game. The simulation is so realistic that real-world knowledge applies.

It is, for the right player, pure bliss. But I won’t pretend it’s for everyone. In fact, I suspect most players will never make it through the rules—and that’s okay.

But if you ever find yourself searching for the ultimate challenge in historical gaming, Empire of the Sun awaits. One of the finest board games ever made, and a towering monument to what this hobby can achieve.

Hope you enjoyed the article, this one was for my historical war gamer readers who I’m almost certain will disagree with just about everything I said, but so it is with historical war gaming. Lots of opinions, lots of personal investment. Finding your own games and routines is a big part of the magic show, so go out there and explore!

Top 10 Gaming Experiences Of 2023

2024 was a great year for gaming for me, but as I started this list originally set to be the best games fo 2023 I realized that a lot of the games that I played weren’t technically games released in 2023. Hence, this year, the list is more about my top 10 gaming experiences rather than the top 10 games of 2023.

I did however create a small section at the end of the article talking about some 2023 releases that I thought where worthy of note.

Ok enough foreplay, let’s get into it!

10. Eclipse: Second Dawn For The Galaxy

I picked up the 2nd edition of Eclipse on a whim, not so much because I felt the 1st edition was so great, quite to the contrary, but because there was so much positive word on this follow-up that I had to try it.

I’m glad I did, 2nd edition Eclipse is a great game, a vast improvement over 1st edition and it hits a sweet spot in the area of science-fiction-based galactic civilization games with an epic feel.

I think to understand what I mean about sweet spot you have to understand that I love my Twilight Imperium when it comes to this genre, it’s my go-to game for science-fiction civilization-building games. This comes with a BIG but, as it is a six to eight-hour game that is pretty difficult to get to the table with a structure that doesn’t exactly speak to my and many other gaming crews universally. In fact in my group we so very rarely play Twilight Imperium at this point, it’s collecting a lot of dust, to such a degree that were it not among my favorite board games of all time I might consider cutting it from my collection.

Twilight Imperium 4th edition without any question in my mind is a much better game than Eclipse, but it’s such a massive all-day event that it is difficult to get to the table. Case in point, it was not played in 2023 at all!

Eclipse 2nd edition on the other hand hits a lot of the same highlights as a game for me but it does it in under 4 hours, or less even if you have a group that knows the rules well.

More than that it’s a game that gets right to the meat of the action from turn 1, there isn’t a whole lot of posturing and political pre-gaming in the game like there is in Twilight Imperium, which means it’s a lot more of a game than an experience. TI4 is very much an event-focused gaming experience but Eclipse manages to be a board game you really can just pull out and play like any other. This puts it in a unique position in my collection.

I still don’t think it’s anywhere close to as good a game as Twilight Imperium is, to me TI4 remains the king of science-fiction-based galactic conquests and civilization-building games, but Eclipse is much easier to get to the table and it is a very fun gaming experience.

For fans of the genre, I think this discussion is well-known and common. Suffice it to say if you’re a fan of Civ-Builders, this is one of the best ones around as it finds that all-important middle ground that allows it to hit the table without a lot of fuss.

9. Viticulture

Strangely enough, this game was on my shelf in shrink wrap for the better part of 3 years before I got it to the table. This year I finally managed to pull it out, learn how to play and get it to the table.

I was very pleasantly surprised by this one. This is a very solid worker placement game with a lot of variation both in strategy (ways to win) and calculation of moves (planning ahead). The game rules were really clear so even when learning to play on the first pass, you are immediately deep-diving into the possibilities, there was no major learning curve. Almost as if all previous experiences with other worker placement games apply and you’re just playing kind of a different take on the same core principles common in all of these types of games.

That said, it wasn’t boring. There are a lot of really clever combinations, it was a very tight game rather than your typical super point structure where one guy has 200 VP’s at the end of the game and another 350. Everyone in our games was in the running with the winner edging out by 2-3 points typically. The game is available on boardgamearena.com which is a great bonus.

Very competitive and interesting game, didn’t overstay its welcome, in fact, it felt kind of short which adds to the pressure of scoring points as soon as possible as much as possible as you could as you can see way in advance that the game would end in a few turns.

Just a good solid, worker placement game well worth getting with plenty of replayability. Great stuff, highly recommended.

8. Sekigahara: The Unification Of Japan

This one was on my must-try list for a very long time, several years at least. I had heard so many good things about it and it checks all my boxes as I love anything based on Medieval Japan, I love war games, I love two-player games, I love card-driven games and I have for so long wanted to try a block game. I was very excited when the game was finally reprinted and became available and snagged it up.

Sekigahara is a part strategy but mostly a tactical game about positioning and outthinking your opponent with a lot of timing-based master planning built into it. It isn’t just about getting your armies in place, but it’s about making sure you have the right cards, at the right time for the right battle.

It’s one of those games where you need to have a plan for the hand of cards you are dealt and the right strategy for the unit position. It’s not enough to have one or the other, this game is all about timing things perfectly.

The game moves at a neck-breaking pace, which is awesome for a war game as you can sit down and play two or three matches back to back. I would say each game lasts at the most two hours and if you have two players that know the rules, you can finish a match in under an hour.

It has a static start, but the dynamics of the game create a lot of variability as so much of the game is focused on the cards in your hand. There is a kind of veteran learning element to the game, if you know the deck and you know the map you are going to have a big advantage over a novice but by the same token, the learning curve is quite short so it doesn’t take long for you to get to a point where you are dissecting the games core properties.

I would not recommend this game to all gamers universally, I think it’s important that you enjoy competitive war games and have a healthy love for card games, as this game does not apologize for being kind of a straight-to-it card-based war game. It’s that, if that is not your thing, this game does not offer or cater to other aspects of board gaming, if it is, this game is right up your alley.

Definitely one of my favorite new additions to my collection in 2023.

7. Vampire: Prince Of The City

This is a bit of a strange one, as it is a game released back in 2006 and it was a completely random unprompted purchase by a member of my gaming crew which made its debut at our yearly big board gaming weekend.

My gaming crew loves all things Vampire The Masquerade, originally a role-playing game made by a company back in the 90’s called White Wolf. The world of darkness is the setting in which Vampires live and these days there are quite a few new games that have come out for this universe including Vampire: The Masquerade Heritage which came out in 2020, Vampire: The Masquerade Chapters (2023) and Vampire: The Masquerade – Vendetta (2020) just to name a few. All great, modern games, but Vampire: Prince of the City is an older model.

Vampire Vendetta, another game in the world of darkness is a much faster and more mechanically driven take on a similar concept. To date, this remains one of my favorite Vampire The Masquerade-based games.

Vampire: Prince Of The City is a game about controlling a modern-day city from behind the scenes through the manipulation of politics and economics. Vampires don’t play by the rules of course, they indoctrinate their pawns using supernatural methods.

In the game you represent an elder vampire that uses influence to take control of areas on a map and the only other competitors are other elder vampires (other players). Players collect “assets” that help them to do this more efficiently of course, which can range from collecting people, equipment or unique strategy cards.

The game is quite long and has quite a bit of diplomacy between players in which they plot against each other, sometimes working together and sometimes betraying each other. The goal of the game is to come out on top, but the game is structured in a way where if two players decide to gang up on you, things are going to become difficult if not impossible. The driving force is of course that when two players work together, often one of them comes out of it better than the other, leading to the inevitable betrayal and restructuring of alliances.

These politics which remind me a lot of the classic game of Diplomacy, are really what pushes the game forward far more than actual mechanical actions players take which is a style of play that is really right in my gaming crews wheelhouse.

The point is that this is not a game you win on mechanics, it’s a game you win through political and diplomatic manipulation between the players, in a lot of ways, its a game of psychology.

This is a very long game and this is probably the only black mark against it and notably one of the key complaints from most reviewers. Its an event-style game but I would say if you are into games that cause heated debates and player-to-player diplomacy, this one brings that sort of playstyle to the table in spades.

Fantastic game in my humble opinion, with a great theme, but not for the faint of heart. This is a bit of a pig that is going to take some time to get done, but so well worth it in my opinion. Exactly the sort of vampire-focused experience that represents the world of darkness setting on which it’s based.

6. Spirit Island

I say this all the time, I’m not a huge fan of cooperative games typically, except when I am and then I love them. A great example is Lord of the Rings LCG, it’s one of my most played and beloved games that I have collected like a total fanatic.

Spirit Island is warming up to be another exception for me. I have only played a couple of times, but this game is just so well designed, so tight, so difficult, and handles the cooperative element so well.

My biggest problem with cooperative games is that when I play, I often feel like I don’t need the other players to win and/or I need the players to do very specific things under my instruction in order to win, so when they take unoptimized actions that cause us to lose (even when I know better) it annoys me. This covers most cooperative games and it’s why generally, I do not enjoy them.

Spirit Island is different because it is far too complex and has far too many moving parts, not to mention unknowns like other player’s cards to a point where micro-managing each other as players is impossible. You just have to rely on each player to handle their own business and leverage their own strategy and ask for help when they need it.

This means that each player has to create and execute their own approach to the game which is supported by the fact that each spirit in the game is asymmetrical. Everyone must be generally aware of high-level events and be ready to assist others who run into trouble why dealing with the problems on their side of the board.

This setup is quite fantastic in particular in the scope of the game’s very high level of difficulty and increably diverse dynamics. There is so much going on in this game, so many different strategies thanks in large part to the huge diversity of “spirits” players can select. Each spirit has its play style, its special powers and power cards.

It’s a really deep and very long game, a gamer’s game essentially, definitely not for the dabbler. There is a big learning curve both to learn how to play and how to play well. There is also a lot of levels of difficulty so you’re never going to find a way to “beat” the game, its replayability is effectively unlimited.

Fantastic game in my book, definitely deserving of all the awards and praise it has received over the last couple of years since its release. Highly recommended, but only for the truly fanatically hardcore and highly dedicated gamers, this is not something you pull out on family board game night.

5. Lord Of The Rings LCG

My all-time favorite solo and cooperative game.

Like almost every year since I started collecting, Lord of the Rings the LCG has been a central part of my weekly gaming routine. It’s a rare week that I don’t pick up a game or two of LotR LCG, it has been and continues to be one of my favorite games to pull out.

Now I normally play this cooperative game solo, but this year I managed to get a few multiplayer games going and like me, my gaming crew enjoys this one as well. Of course, the big fun of this game is getting super into it, building your own decks, creating your own solutions to the countless quests that have been released for this game as well as doing the big campaign. Not everyone gets into the game on that level and frankly, as a dabble it’s okay, but this is a game for fanatics who are ready to do serious deck building and that means collecting. Still, it’s a lot of fun to play on any level and pretty easy to do as this game has a pretty low learning curve.

I have talked about this game so many times on this site, I don’t see any reason to say more, just have a browse, there are plenty of articles about this one. I love it and true love lasts forever!

4. Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul

The card-driven influence control genre which at this point has become quite broad is one of my favorite in board gaming. This includes games like Washingtons War, Twilight Struggle and Imperial Struggle just to name a few.

I have introduced this particular one to several people this year, members of my gaming crew as well as my brother-in-law who is a bit of a board gaming dabbler.

Each time this one comes out, it gets solid reviews across the board from everyone which is more than I can say for all other influence control games that tend to be a bit more niche. Not to say that this is the best of the bunch, in my opinion, it’s not, that honor falls to Imperial Struggle. What I find to be the core reason this one tends to do better is that in Rome vs. Gaul thanks to its dichotomous sides, one being (Rome) far more difficult to play and succeed at and one (Gaul) being much simpler, it works great for introductions.

The end result is that the first-time experience is fun for both players (experienced and novice) and creates a great competitive game. This tends not to be true about most influence control games that have many specialized strategies. Typically when teaching someone something like Twilight Struggle, as an experienced player you are going to crush your opponent the first 5-10 games before they catch on.

That however I don’t think is the only thing that separates Rome Vs. Gaul. I think it has a cool historical theme, looks amazing on the table and has very clear winning conditions that are easy to grasp without a heavy chrome layer of exceptions. It’s just a very intuitive design, a great competitive take on the card-driven influence control genre.

Its main flaw is that once both players become experienced with the game you will find that winning as the Rome player becomes exceedingly difficult, there are just too many almost impossible-to-overcome Gaul strategies so the game tends to be a bit unbalanced when two players of equal skill are playing the game. I find the game needs some house rules to correct this.

That doesn’t change my opinion about it as I find most of the time when I pull it out I’m dealing with a new or less experienced player and this game is great for that purpose.

Highly recommend this one if you are a fan of CDG influence control games like Twilight Struggle and Washington’s War in particular.

3. Great Western Trail

I play a lot of Great Western Trail, mainly because it’s available on Boardgamearena.com. As of this writing, I have played 110 games with 35 victories. That is a lot of Great Western Trail and most of that I did last year which means I was averaging several games a week.

I think a big part of the reason I like Great Western Trail is that each time you play you must be adaptive. There is no winning formula, the circumstances of each game are different and what your opponents are doing matters a lot in this game which is not always, in fact, rarely the case in Euro games like this. This is a game where after 110 games, I can still get completely crushed because of circumstances and risky moves that did not pay off. It’s really what I love about the game, it remains a challenge to win no matter how much I play it.

The interaction between players in Great Western Trail is subtle but profound and I think it does a great job of being simultaneously easy to learn but deep strategically. I think its one of the most unique and intriguing Euro games that has come out this side of the decade.

It’s without a doubt my current favorite, chill back and play game and I find every time I go to boardgameareana.com for a fix, this is the one I reach for. I own the hardcopy as well and every time I pull it out with my friends or family it lands well.

Just a really good all-around board game for all occasions. It’s my go-to Euro game.

2. War Room

The truth is that my gaming group and I play War Room once per year on my birthday since I got it a few years back. It’s become something of a tradition at this point but this one never disappoints. I can remember the details of every game of War Room I have played and it’s always a great time.

This is not a particularly deep game, it is, for the most part, a bit more complex version of RISK or Axis and Allies and while I know some people take it quite seriously as a war game, for me, this is just a good time in a box. For my gaming group it’s more of a fun party game where we play war for the day, roll some dice and come up with new inside jokes that will play out for the rest of the year.

I do love War Room as a game though, I do think it’s a fun strategic puzzle and there are plenty of great/difficult decisions to make and you can in fact get pretty serious with it. Given how long and huge it is, this is not a game you just spring on a group, so I can understand why many group give it this serious treatment. This is an event where you have to arrange food, snacks, and drinks and make a whole thing out of it, because 12 hours is about the average play time. It’s essentially a kind of party war game to me.

I love it, it’s been my favorite board game of all time since I discovered it and I think that will remain to be true for a long time.

1. Empire Of The Sun

Empire of the Sun is a very complex game and is not recommended for the uninitiated.

There is no question that all my really serious and competitive gaming in 2023 was done with Empire Of The Sun. I have completely abandoned any hope of ever getting this one to the table with my local gaming group, it’s just too big of a commitment for them and it’s too niche so this year I went online to search for opponents.

I found plenty and ever since I have had several active games going online over vassal of Empire of the Sun and it has become an absolute obsession for me. This highly complex game with a massive learning curve only works when you have two players completely dedicated to not only learning how to play but enforcing those rules with impunity.

I found exactly such opponents and I have been overthinking this one for the entire year and it’s been an amazing experience.

While War Room is my favorite game of all time, Empire of the Sun is the best game design I have ever run across. Mark Herman is a genius in my book and I have said it before, but this is the Mona Lisa of his career.

In Empire of the Sun you execute World War II in the Pacific Theatre as either Japan or the Allies in extreme detail on an operational level. It boasts an intimidating 50 page rulebook with a ridiculous amount of chrome for what I can only describe to be one of the best simulations you will ever experience.

I do not recommend this to anyone except the most dedicated fan of war games. This is not something you dabble or “learn to play”, this is the equivalent of studying chess as a hobby. You will spend hundreds of hours studying every unit, every detail of the map, and every rule that governs the game and creates endless strategies for you to test. It’s exhilarating if you are into that sort of thing, it’s a complete nightmare of a board game if you are not.

I love it with a deep passion.

2023 releases worth a mention

I’m not the sort of gamer that chases the cult of the new anymore and I find that my gaming selections are more based on what I already love than chasing the dragon. That said there were a few interesting games that came out this year and I think they deserve some mentioning for better or worse.

Hegemony: Lead Your Class To Victory

This one is gaining a lot of momentum in the gaming community, slowly climbing the boardgamegeek ladder and for good reason. Without question one of the most interesting designs on an unusual subject. It’s an asymmetrical game where players work together to develop a functioning society represented by each player acting as a part of the government or social order. Based on politics and economics, this is a game about governing, a combination of cooperation and competition. It made my must-buy list in 2023.

Star Wars: The Deckbuilding Game

I know, we need another deckbuilding game like we need a hole in our head, but ever since Star Wars Destiny tragically ended, finding a replacement for it has been something of a desire I suppose. There are a few games actually in the works, but this one made its debut in 2023 and it certainly looks to be the frontrunner.

Great art, simple mechanics with a straight to it approach in the competitive dueling space.

Deck building games of course require the game to have longevity, which is the most difficult element to asses at the start of a games run. Star Wars Destiny for example started out on fire in terms of popularity, but petered out quite quickly and didn’t survive its adolescence. A common problem in the collectable card game space, a fate that may very well be in this games future.

That said, I’m always hopeful and this one certainly has my attention.

Washington’s War by GMT games 2010

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.

I will be the first to admit that We The People lacked the visual appeal of a mainstream game, it certainly does look the part of a complicated historical war game. This likely contributed to its shockingly underrated status.

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.

Twilight Struggle is a mainstream hit coming out of the historical war game universe, but it’s really odd to me. It’s a complex CDG based on the Cold War that has a fairly steep learning curve. It wouldn’t even be in my top 3 CDG influence struggle games I would recommend as an entry point into the genre.

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star(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.

The war plays out on a point-to-point map like many influence struggle games, but Washington’s War definitively falls into the “War” category of games where some influence struggle games have a more debatable status in that regard. In Twilight Struggle for example you do not move armies about the board and engage in battles.

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_star

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.

It’s fair to remind readers that GMT is a historical war game publisher and while the component quality is definitively top-notch, rarely do we see miniatures in GMT games. This is largely a courtesy to keep costs down and the result of game pieces in historical war games having information on them relevant to gameplay as is the case with the cut-outs in Washington’s War. This is not a flaw, but a feature.

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

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.

Don’t get me wrong, I love my Empire of the Sun and wouldn’t change a thing about it, but there are countless “if this then that” exception rules that make even playing the game correctly a real struggle sometimes. Washington’s War is a straight-to-the-point type of game that avoids the more common “chrome” direction most historical war games take.

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star christmas_star

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.

The armies and their commanders on the board have a considerable impact on this influence struggle game, making it definitively a war game.

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.

The event cards in the game have varied effects and their usefulness usually depends on the developing situation on the board, sometimes they can have a big game-changing impact, and sometimes they are worth more as a 1 ops action than actually using them.

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_star 

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.

There are many influence struggle CDG war games like Washington’s War, all of them benefit from the road paved by the evolution of the genre since We The People initially set the standard. It’s perhaps no surprise that as time has gone on, deeper and heavier variants have come out. Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is a great next step after Washington’s War before moving on to even more robust games like Imperial Struggle.

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.

Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul by GMT 2020

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.

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star (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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_star

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

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: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tile: christmas_starchristmas_star

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.