As a matter of principle I pride myself on the fact that I’m a diverse gamer who always keeps an open mind to any game, but for the past 15 years since Twilight Struggle released I have resisted it simply because I honestly have no interest in the cold war at all. Having lived through the tail end of it myself, even as it was happening I barely understood it nor cared to know anything about it.
Yet I find myself somewhat obligated to try it as a writer for a gaming blog to play games like Twilight Struggle that are universally hailed as masterpieces, in particular a game that held on to the number one spot on Boardgamegeek for years and still ranks in the top 10 today 15 years after its release.
Finally after years of avoiding it I gave it a try, first by playing the digital version and now the physical version. Today we review Twilight Struggle, 15 years behind schedule!
Overview
Final Score: (3.35 out of 5 Stars)
Designer: Ananda Gupta, Jason Matthews
Twilight Struggle is thematically a game about the cold war in which players via for power over a map of the globe in a “struggle for global supremacy. Always on the brink of nuclear war, players manipulate and maneuver the abstracted concept of influence on the board as they try to dominate entire regions from the America’s to Southeast Asia and everything in-between.
In more practical terms its a game about victory points, scored through a wide range of methods but most notably through the scoring cards that reward control on the map. Each round players can play only a single card at a time from their hand in a back and forth battle to manipulate the board and events on the global stage in their favor. This process is further complicated by the fact that there are American friendly cards and Soviet friendly cards in the single deck from which both players draw cards. Hence as an American player for example you will at times be forced to execute events on cards that benefit your opponent and vice versus, leaving much of the games strategy to timing. Any given card can be super powerful or super weak, depending on when it is played and much of the strategy and sort of high level thinking behind the game lives in this space of assessing when exactly that is.
The game largely comes down to who can best balance the benefits and drawbacks of the cards, timing of when they are played and smart positioning of your influence. There is some luck to the game as players take some of the more riskier moves like waging mini wars in different regions, performing coups or trying to win the space race, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a skilled player will always win against a lucky player, hence the luck can be mitigated entirely through tactical and strategic game play.
Twilight Struggle is an award winning game and I have no trouble understanding why. Its a game that is incredibly simple to learn how to play, yet bottomless in terms of depth of strategy and gameplay, it is very much like a game of chess where learning the rules of the game is just the beginning of what is a much larger world that surrounds the mechanic.
There is of course more to it then this brief description but it suffices to say that the game looks far more complex then it is, though it has the look of a war game it most certainly is not one and the basis of its duel use card mechanic is a tried and true one responsible for some of the best games on the market today in the genre of historical war games.
The only question that remains is does Twilight Struggle really earn its keep with me, or is it like many of the top 10 contenders on Boardgamegeek overrated?
Components
Score: Tilt:
Pros: Its a beautiful game, plain and simple, capturing via colors and art perfectly and the innate feel of the cold war.
Cons: Like most GMT games, the cards are of such high quality stock that they are almost too stiff to shuffle.
GMT games is probably not known for high quality components, though it should be! In fact they should be famous for changing the reputation of historical simulation games and war games in this regard, as the more commonly known “chit games” have always been notoriously poor quality. Back in the day when a lot of these types of “token based” war and simulation games where made they were known for having really shitty components, poorly written manuals for really complex games, lack of “color” and artistic style. They focused on gameplay but never components. GMT has changed all that and shown that you can have the best of both worlds.
In fact, some of the GMT games on my shelf like B-17 Flying Fortress Leader and Empire of the Sun are among the most beautiful table decorations I own, with some of the highest quality components I have ever seen in a game. Twilight Struggle (current printing) benefits from this change and GMT provides truly high quality, gorgeous components for the game with an artistic flair that just fits. Yet their wise enough to understand that I want to pay for a game, not fancy miniatures, something that has grown incredibly tiresome in today’s gaming market where games are five times as expensive then they need to be just to have some plastic representation that serve no purpose in the game-play at all. This annoys me to no end and I’m glad GMT understands that good components does not mean wasting my money on pointless and usually unnecessary plastic sculpts while simultaneously ugly components devoid of any art or style, are just as distracting and disturb enjoyment of the game. The middle ground they found is exactly what I like to see in games today.
The mounted gameboard is astonishingly colorful, wonderfully illustrated and incredibly useful (for gameplay) in terms of organization and layout. It makes playing the game easier, faster and makes grasping its concepts simpler, serving not only the aesthetic but practical purpose for the game. I love that and GMT should be commended for how well thought out the game-board is. Somehow they managed to capture the color theme of the cold war as one might imagine it with the deep dark blood reds of the Soviets and the cool, clean blues of the Americans. This is a game-board you will just love owning, giving you that warm fuzzy feeling of money well spent.
The cards and tokens in the game are also of the absolute highest quality you can get, truly made to last with a lot of thought going into the legibility and usability of both, not overwhelming them with art and color but ensuring that each component has thematic weight and recognizably. In fact after a few plays of Twilight Struggle I can tell you what each card does just by the picture and I have the memory capacity of a goldfish. Unfortunately GMT has a tendency to make the card stock too rigid, they are actually difficult to shuffle.
I would not consider component quality a huge must for a game like this, but the fact that the components are great is a huge boon for the game, I love being surprised and impressed by something unexpected, it carries a lot of weight with me.
Finding opponents for Twilight Struggle can be difficult, but there is a digital version of the game that can help with that.
Theme
Score: Tilt:
Pros: Its difficult to imagine a game capturing a theme better, this is the cold war in a box.
Cons: Your interest in the theme will have different mileage, its not exactly the most interesting of subjects.
I walked into Twilight Struggle with very limited if any understanding or interest in the cold war, yet after playing the game I have found myself engrossed in the subject going so far as reading books on the topic. To me, when a board game not only teaches but creates interest in a subject, its an automatic win in the theme department and Twilight Struggle has certainly done that with a very large, nuclear bang.
Twilight Struggle does an amazing job of creating that anxiety of the cold war in which there is a constant move and counter move as was often the case historically between the Americans and the Soviets. That feeling of being limited to what you can do out of fear of the ultimate consequence. There is a kind of sense of scale as well and the weight of players actions create a constant re-assessment in trying to understand the “why” of each play. Every card play, reveals something about your opponents strategy, yet you can’t help but imagine the world in which these events take place thanks in large part to the clever way in which cards and history are linked.
Because each card represents an actual event in history and the draw deck is broken down into early, mid and late war cards gradually shuffled into the main deck, their is a kind of progression through history that you feel through the cards as they are played. Even the focus of what regions are important, the fluctuations in where the influential political battlefields are and the places were it all takes place breathes life into the thematic and often historically accurate feel of the game, yet it is not scripted and each game you play you get a truly unique alternate version of history.
I think Twilight Struggle has done an incredible job of bringing the theme of the cold war to life, in particular in making you feel that anxiety of the era. Its truly an amazing sensation that even now I find difficult to describe but as I write I can’t help but to nod my head in agreement and understanding of why this game was both so popular, highly rated and won so many awards. Its a beautiful coordination between theme and game-play deserving of all its accolades.
Gameplay
Score: Tilt:
Pros: The card mechanic is brilliantly done, with lots of difficult decisions and interesting strategies to explore while being relatively easy to teach the rules.
Cons: The game favors the soviets and the game suffers from an overwhelming expert syndrome problem that can make it difficult to induct to players.
Twilight Struggle is hardly the first game to make use of the card driven “operation costs” mechanic we see in the game at its core, but what is surprising is that a game with this mechanic could become such a hit with the general gaming public. Topping the charts on BBG (boardgamegeek), Twilight Struggle has achieved considerable acclaim considering its historical war game roots.
Though Washington’s War might look more complicated, it actually is at about the same complexity level to learn, yet much simpler game to get your head around the strategy and may actually be a better choice for inducting players into the genre of card driven historical war games.
We see this mechanic in classics like For the People, Washington’s War and Empire of the Sun, attributed largely to the wonderful designer Mark Herman. Yet Twilight Struggle somehow manages to improve on the concept mainly by simplifying it down to its basics and implementing it in a simple way mechanically while gripping tightly to the reason for its existence, that deep strategic core that drives paralysis analysis. I think Mark Herman is a great designer but he designs games for war gamers and it really took someone more in tune with the general board game culture to understand how to leverage this mechanic in a way that it could be absorbed by more casual gamers which make up the vast majority of people out there rolling dice. I really think its this leveraging of Mark Hermans great revolution in game design that has produced a game like Twilight Struggle, yet Ananda Gupta and Jason Mathews also really opened the door into some interesting elements of play that don’t really exist in the Herman design on which Twilight Struggle is based.
This is a mechanic you will be thinking as much about during the game as between games, as its a an endless well of potential and its why so many of Mark Hermans games are so highly regarded among war gamers, yet Twilight Struggle in my eyes simply does it better than all of its predecessors in many ways. Not necessarily because it goes deeper but rather by making the experience far more palatable, approachable and easier to absorb. Twilight Struggle is a game you can teach in 10 minutes flat with few “exception based” rules that can make so many historical war games difficult to manage at the table and while a novice opponent may struggle to beat a more experienced player speaking to its depth, it won’t be the result of not understanding how to play. This is a vast contrast to most games that use this card driven mechanic that really require considerable amount of study just to play correctly. One exception might be Washingtons War which I found had a very similar feel, yet lacked the depth of card play that Twilight Struggle has.
More than that however, Twilight Struggle creates a sort of static zone of gameplay. There aren’t infinite possibilities and combinations and though from play to play you will always be surprised by the way cards and situations combine, there is a tone to the game, a strategic playing field that a single person can absorb, understand and work within thanks to the fact that in playing the game your not constantly trying to remember the many rules and exceptions to interactions as is the case in so many of the games where this mechanic appears. Its why I say its a better version of the game as it has considerably fewer if any “gotcha” moments in the rules, yet has them in immense quantity in terms of game-play.
Don’t get me wrong I love Empire of the Rising Sun, Washington’s War and even Paths of Glory, but I never feel comfortable pulling these games out with a friend and saying “hey lets play a fun game” even though I desperately want to play those games with someone because they really are amazing. They just require a lot more explanation and understanding of rules to really play even remotely competitively and really the first few games of these great titles are going to be very much learning the rules games. Even after playing them many times, it still can feel like a bit of a grind to get through them. Twilight Struggle is the first game in this vein I have seen that I really believe anyone can learn to play in 10 minutes from opening the box and that just makes this a gem among gems.
Twilight Struggle gameplay is all about subtle plays and I have to admit the first few times I played it, even though it always drew me back, I felt helpless and limp. It was easy to learn how to play, but learning to play it well really required some study, understanding of the cards, the subtle interactions of those cards and the importance of key locations and most importantly paying attention to what has and hasn’t been played. In a sense this is a drawback of Twilight Struggle. It suffers from what I like to call “expert syndrome” where new players don’t have a prayer in hell winning against someone who has a few games under their belt, which notably is not an uncommon phenomenon among strategic war games, but at least the cause is not the lack of understanding the rules which is more typically the case with all other games I have played in this vein.
The game is full of cards like this one that if you don’t know about and understand that they are coming you can create circumstances on the board that will be easy to counter. Its expert knowledge like this you really need if you have any hope of winning a game.
When it comes to the road to experience mileage will vary, I have found some get it right away, others struggle with the subtle way the game is manipulated card play to card play. In fact I have found that non-gamer or casual gamers tend to pick it up faster then veteran gamers that enter the scene with a lot of expectation and assumption from the genre. This may explain why its so popular on boardgamegeek.
Still I found that when I teach the game I spend as much time explaining the rules as I do giving strategy tips and advice. Most players become competitive only after many plays and only IF they like the game initially which filters out a lot of people, in fact most people. If you can manage to find someone who sticks with it during this learning the strategy curve, the game not only becomes absolutely amazing, but extraordinarily diverse.
You will never play the same game twice especially since every opponent will ultimately develop their own style and approach to the game. That is assuming you can hook them which is a iffy proposition. The subject matter and the complexity of the strategy that really favors expertise can be a real turn off in the initial plays and it will take many plays for a player to really become competitive against someone who has already gone through this cycle of learning and developing their skills.
I do find some flaws with the mechanic as well. For one, its clear to me that the Soviet player has a significant advantage. This is not just a sort of personal opinion but a fact based statistical reality. No matter where you turn for these statistics, tournaments, online play in the digital version of the game or personal experience the win rate of the Soviet is ALWAYS much higher then the Americans. I think this is mainly because the turn order does not change and the Soviet Player starts with that powerful China card, but it could be a other subtle elements combined that drive the results.
This can be a deal breaker because all things being equal the Soviet player will win more often than the American player. An American victory is a far more respected and coveted thing in my eyes, but it does not change this simple flaw in the game.
At its core, Twilight Struggle is a game of chess, a battle of wits in which you analyze your opponents plays to asses what he may or may not be after and I think really experienced players will make intentionally misleading plays to try and trick their opponent into believing in certain assumptions. This of course assumes that both opponents are experts, so when novice players who don’t know the cards are involved this tends to carry considerably less weight if any, but I suppose to some extent this is always true about strategic war games.
Which brings me to my point. Twilight Struggle may indeed be a much simpler to absorb and understand game rules wise but it is no less deep and strategic then your typical high level war game which kind of creates an unusual circumstance in the hobby. Here is a game anyone can learn to play but it exists in that same plane as Empire of the Rising Sun or Paths of Glory. Removing the complexity is ingenious but it does result in this weird space were highly experienced war games playing casual gamers creates a very wide gap of gaming results.
I can say already now that I have a grip of this game that 95% of all people I play against I beat by the 3rd or 4th turn definitively in what can only be described as a crushing defeat. Its rare that I run across a player who has studied the game enough to really give me any semblance of competitive play. It did not take long for me to get here, but it did require a much bigger effort then simply a few plays. Reading and understanding the cards, the structure and format of the game where key to bringing me up to this level. This is the main distinction between war gamers and casual gamers, one studies games the other plays them, however when you make a game like Twilight Struggle that is interesting and simple enough for casual gamers, yet is very much on that higher plane of war gaming two worlds collide.
Replayability And Longevity
Score: Tilt:
Pros: The various interactions of the cards and situations on the board can make this a puzzle to solve every time you play.
Cons: Strangely enough, it takes repeated plays before you really learn how to play well and once you do, the game starts to feel a bit scripted.
Twilight Struggle has been a top ten contender on boardgamegeek for over a decade and this comes to no surprise to me, however I personally believe that it can act as an entry point to a much larger world less visited by the casual gamers out there for which I appreciate it a lot more. Twilight Struggle can act as an introduction to the concept of true war high level war gaming and I think its a great place to start if you have interested in exploring this very different type of experience in the world of table top games. Washington’s War, Paths of Glory, Empire of the Sun and We The People are just some of the amazing games that use this core mechanic and are absolute gems worth your time to expand to.
That said, I do think that Twilight Struggle can become a bit scripted after sufficient plays, in particular if you are playing the same opponent repeatedly. I find most players find some rhythm to how they approach the game and so will you, so games can start to sort of meld together into a single memory.
Still I think there is definitely enough replay-ability to warrant a purchase of this game, I think I may have been spoiled by the digital version where I have already clocked over a 100 games. That is not something you are likely to do with the table top version.
Conclusion
What can I say about this game that hasn’t already been said by countless fans, its a gem worth your money. I would only caution those with no interest in the sort of historical war game genre that while this game is certainly not a war game, it definitely has that “history genre game” feel to it and that may be the reason I love it and someone else may not. It also requires repeatedly plays before you will really understand what to do and how to win, so you will loose a lot at first and there is no shortcut to that as the subtle ways the cards interact and what they can do needs to be nearly memorized to really get to that fundamental core strategy that fans of this game love.
At its core there is an amazing mechanic here and even if abstracted outside of the theme there are some amazing puzzles to solve generated dynamically through game-play. The game is full of really tough decisions, its over flowing with amazing “holy crap” swings and there is no such thing as a game you can’t come back from. I have one games where I’m at -19 points during mid war, so there is this really amazing “there is always a way to win” feel to it.
The last time I updated my top 10 best games of all time list was way back in July 2018, since then quite a few games have graced my table and ordinarily I would want to update that list. As I reviewed the potential new additions to the list and potential replacements a clear reality set in for me. It still holds up.
First lets review the 2018 list.
10. Great Western Trail 9. New Angeles 8. Shogun (Queen Games Version) 7. Blood Rage 6. Twilight Imperium 4th edition 5. Star Wars Armada 4. War of The Ring 3. Game of Thrones: The Board Game 2. Through The Ages: A New Story of Civilization 1. Lord of the Rings: The Living Card Game
Frankly while I could certainly consider shifting the order around a bit and maybe bring some games to challenge some of the ones on this list, I just don’t see enough shifts taking place to revise the list.
Instead what I will give you today is the back 20 best games of all time, numbers 11 to 20. After all the point of any good best games list is to find something that might peek your interest and be worth getting to the table, so as long as we are writing and talking about games, promoting the hobby, what difference does it make if a game is in the top 10 or top 20.
Without further delay here are your top 11 through 20, best games of all time brought to you by Gamersdungeon.net. Enjoy the list.
20. Ikusa (Originally Shogun or Samurai Swords)
Ikusa is gorgeous on the table making this one of the best productions of the game to date.
It may surprise some that an old Milton Bradley title like Ikusa would still make the cut on a best of list, but to me of all those old classics that strived to dethrone RISK as the final word in dice chucking war games which includes prestigious titles like Axis & Allies and Fortress America, Ikusa is still one of the most balanced and straightforward war games that came out of that 80’s era of big box war games.
While I think both Axis and Allies and Fortress America are gems in their own right, they are both asymmetrical games which notably the king of dice chuckers (RISK) with which these games aimed to compete with was not. Back in those days this was the common commentary and line of thought. A game in which all players start on exactly equal footing left no discussion or argument about the balance of the game. Everyone started the same and while you could still blame luck for your loss, you could not blame an unbalanced game for it.
That however is not why I love Ikusa and will still happily play it today. This is a game that was way ahead of its time that went far beyond simply moving army men around a board and chucking dice. Its broken down into planning and execution phases, there are distinctly different units, hail mary plays and a feel of ever escalating warfare in which alliances are made and broken in the same breath.
I have a lot of fond memories from my childhood playing all of the milton bradley titles, in fact I have a lot of nostalgic memories of quite a few games from that era but Ikusa is the only one of those games I own today and there is a good reason for it. Even outside of nostalgia, this is still a solid game classic, nostalgia or not. It’s one I can easily recommend to anyone who loves men on a map war games, it certainly blows out of the water the vast majority of such games put out today.
19. 1830 Railroads & Robber Barons
This is a big, long and fairly complex game that really requires a bit of preparation and commitment from the players. Given its nature to be brutal and unforgiving, it can be difficult to get to the table even with the most experience group of gamers.
Another blast from the past, 1830 is the grandaddy of 18XX train games and without question THE best game about economics that has ever been made. Yes it’s slow and yes, if you don’t love trains, stock markets and capitalism this game will definitely not speak to you, but for me this is one of those rare gems that does something truly unique in gaming that has never been done before and never done since. Except of course in the massive library of 18XX games that exists today that tries to recapture and honor the original. While I have played a few others in what has become a genre/series of games, 1830 is still my favorite with 1854 being a close second.
I spent god only knows how many hours playing the PC version of this game back in the mid 90’s, second only to Sid Meier’s Civilization. It’s far too difficult to explain exactly what the driving force is behind 1830, but I always like to describe it as a knife fight in a phone booth. Claustrophobic, unforgiving and mean almost to the heights of games like Diplomacy where you know it’s not a question of IF your competitors will completely screw you, but a question of WHEN.
If you want to know everything that is wrong with capitalism & greed, there is no game that will make the point better then 1830 Railroads & Robber Barons. It’s not for the feint of heart, but without question in my mind an experience no connoisseur of board games should pass on, it’s a remarkably unique experience you will not have with any other board game out there.
18. Albion: The Resistance & Coup
If I had to choose between coup and the resistance, I think I would choose coup, but mainly because I prefer a more intimate experience of a smaller group.
Albion the resistance is in my mind the result of gaming evolution, the final product of a genre that was born in classics like Werewolf. The final word in hidden identity and betrayer games, forming itself into what I believe to be the ultimate party game.
Coup on the other hand is Albions little brother, for smaller more intimate groups, but effectively has all the same benefits and logic which is why I bring these two games together into a single position on this list.
With very few components and very simple rules, both games in combination with a bit of red wine and good company, can turn a boring dinner party into a memorable evening you’ll be talking about for years.
I have pulled both of these titles out at countless parties and events and they have always been so popular that I end up giving away my copies of the games to my guests. Both games break the barrier between gamer and non-gamer and they are easy to teach and always fun to play.
Wonderful party games without limited meanness and though it may be cheating to put them both in the same spot on this list, to me, even though they are definitely distinctly different games, they accomplish the exact same thing and serve the same purpose in my collection. It’s just a question of whether I have 5 guests or more than 5 guests which defines which of these two I pull out.
17. Condottiere
There are some differences between this original version and the newly reprinted version available today, but the classic rules are optional in the new version so there is no reason to seek out this vintage version, get the new one.
Though the game was released back in 1995 and should be considered a “classic” at this point, I actually only recently discovered it as it has flown under my radar for more than a decade.
I recall the first time I played this game and came to the conclusion right then and there that this game would undoubtedly be a contender for my top 10 best game of all time list. It may be in the 17 spot right now, but frankly I adore this game and it’s making the table at home with my family with more and more frequency.
Its a simple trick taking game, but it adds an area control element to the game play as a sort of strategic scoring mechanism but more importantly it gives the tricks in the game meaning, defining for players the importance of any particular trick which really represents a battle.
It’s a fantastically tactical game and while there is certainly a component of luck in the game, in my experience the skill of a player can mitigate luck almost entirely. In fact, I would say Condottiere has far more in common with games like Texas Hold’em where, what you have in your hand is as important as your ability to read the whites of a competitors eyes. This is a game in which you gamble, you bluff, you stall and you wait for that perfect moment to make your play and hope you have read the room correctly.
Super easy to teach and learn, fantastic sequencing of events that really builds memorable stories which is truly amazing for a game that has such an incredibly simple premise. Definitely a rising star on this list, the more I play it, the more I fall in love with it.
16. Star Wars: Destiny
Star Wars Destiny had a good, albeit short run. Get what you can, once this one goes out of print its not likely to ever come back.
While the story of Fantasy Flight Games collectable card and dice game Star Wars: Destiny was without question always going to end in tragedy (and it did), while FFG failed to make the game work as a business, the designers certainly made it an awesome game to play.
Star Wars: Destiny as a game is absolutely amazing, it is my favorite dueling deck building game out there by a pretty large margin and me and my friend (singalur) have always had a great time with it. It’s unfortunate that FFG just chose a very poor business model for the game making it far too expensive and inaccessible to most people. It certainly rivals games in my collection as the most expensive game on my shelf. It was just a tragically piss poor business model that drove its failure and it came to the surprise of no one that it was cancelled, yet I can’t help but feel incredibly sad to see it go out like this. Star Wars Destiny deserved a better fate.
Still I recommend getting it (on sale preferably) if you can because I don’t think we will ever see a game quite like this again. The combination of card and dice play, the perfectly executed theme and always extremely tight games resulted in a perfect formula for a dueling game.
Easily one of the best failed games that I have ever seen, despite its cancellation I fully intend to buy up what I can for this game before it disappears into the annals of history and I recommend you do the same.
15. Empire of the Sun
This epic experience is not easy to get into, but there is a smaller version of the game called “South Pacific” which is available that covers a smaller part of the conflict and is easier to get into. If you are going to take a dive, know that this smaller version is included in the full game.
Empire of the Sun is definitely not the type of game I would expect to show up on my list and admittedly, its unlikely anything like this will ever show up again. Frankly it was a metric ton of work just to learn how to play this game properly, countless hours pouring over a thick and incredibly complex rulebook to learn how to play an insanely in depth world war II simulation game.
Yet I did it and frankly, I’m better for it and I’m glad I did. Empire of the Sun for all its complexity is an ingenious game, a true masterpiece of game design and though certainly, it speaks to a very specific audience, as a gamer I’m always trying to broaden my horizons and I believe that if you are going to be a conesiour of board games you must be ready and willing to truly explore the hobby. This was undoubtedly my greatest departure out of my comfort zone, yet it has without question been one of the most unique experiences I have had this year.
Empire of the Sun is a game about the war in the pacific that not only gives you the feel of truly commanding with incredible detail this freighting moment in history, but you get to try to re-write it, ultimately coming to the realization that how history actually transpired, did so for very good reason. It’s a wonderful experience to not only command the game, but learn and experience a piece of tragic human history with understanding and ultimately humility.
I don’t recommend you buy this game under normal circumstances. This is what I would call an exploration of passion, do it only if you have the patience and desire to explore the board gaming hobby to its deepest level because that is where this game will take you.
14. Lords of Waterdeep
The Scoundrels of Skullport is an absolute must have expansion for Lords of Waterdeep, I wouldn’t dream of playing the game without it.
One of the few games on this list I don’t actually own, though for the past 4 years running it has been a highlight of our big board gaming weekend we do every summer with my gaming group. I caution you here by saying that YOU MUST have the Scoundrels of Skullport expansion and its position on this list assumes this.
Lords of Waterdeep is really a very standard take on the worker placement genre and in fact, I think by comparison what has been done in the genre over the years since, you might even call it uninspired. It does however have two very distinct elements that elevate it for me above most games in this genre.
First, its Dungeons and Dragons in a setting that is near and dear to my heart, The Forgotten Realms. Secondly however and definitely more importantly, it’s a worker placement game with a lot of fuck you mechanics in it, which is unequivocally the main problem I have with almost all other worker placement games out there today. Aka, the lack of interaction.
Lords of Waterdeep is an actual competition unlike most worker placement games where you can attack and hinder your opponents directly, even team up with other players to do so in a confrontational way which is really the key to the whole game.
Beyond that the game has so many different ways to approach it in terms of victory conditions where replayability really is infinite. You also have the asymmetrical lords which define your play style a bit and of course the expansion with its corruption mechanic adds a gambling/push your luck element to the game which results in the game rising far beyond the experience of your typical worker placement game. I would say its my favorite worker placement game, but as you will see in the moment, there actually is one I like just a little bit better than this one.
13. Empires: Age of Discovery
The definitive deluxe version is well worth getting, it is the pride and joy of my gaming collection, I sometimes pull it off the shelf just to look at all the pretty pieces.
The king of worker placement games in my book, Empires: Age of Discovery really is a masterpiece. It scales up every element of what makes a great game design, by taking existing, tried and true mechanics (namely worker placement) and twisting them just enough to elevate them beyond the traditions to near perfection in terms of balance and clever option expanding player choices.
Empires combines area control, economics, worker placement with unique workers, resource management and more into a single unified system that runs smooth as silk and keeps every player engaged at all times. Going beyond that with the deluxe edition of the game, it brings beauty to the table with an almost astonishing visual appeal that far exceeds the overwhelming majority of board games out there.
For fans of the worker placement genre, this is the ultimate experience. This is a game that always threatens my top 10 list and for good reason, in terms of just sheer design and gameplay, this game is unmatched in the genre.
12. Star Trek Fleet Captains
The expansions add a lot to the game, but the experience is not lessened if you can’t get your hands on them. The game and two expansions are going to cost you a pretty penny, but just look at it, its sooo preeeeettty!
I always say that when it comes to a good board game, theme is absolutely critical, but when it comes to trying to replicate something as specific and beloved by its fans as Star Trek, theme is everything.
I think the best way to describe Star Trek Fleet Captains is that it’s all of Star Trek, from original series, to Voyager and everything in between in a box. It is the perfect Star Trek game and that is saying quite a bit given that there have been countless Star Trek games that came before and after Fleet Captains. It’s pinnacle of Star Trek games and to me, without a doubt, one of the best adventure games in any genre ever made.
It melds gameplay and theme with perfect harmony, capturing all of those little micro moments of Star Trek goodness you crave and only a true fan would fully appreciate. I have honestly stopped even trying other Star Trek games at this point because frankly, I just don’t believe it is possible to make a better Star Trek game and there is no point in trying to fix what ain’t broke.
If you love Star Trek, this is the only game you need on your shelf.
11. Game of Thrones: The Card Game 2nd Edition
As a living card game, the model is perfect for collectors as you only need to buy one of everything to complete your collection. Like Lord of the Rings, that is greatly appreciated by this fan!
Game of Thrones conjures up a lot of imagery as this is a setting with a vast, intricate story weaved in many different ways in the books and tv show. Yet at the heart of the story behind Game of Thrones are the politics and the unique and interesting characters that drive them.
While Game of Thrones the board game captures the sort of global conflict on a high level, to me Game of Thrones the card game is the embodiment of what Song of Ice and Fire is really about. The card game brings to life the characters and the politics in a unique game mechanic tailor made for multiplayer competitive deck building game.
Sure you can play Game of Thrones the Card game as a duel, but really this game shines in a 3 or 4 player game and I don’t really care to play it any other way. It would not make this list as a duel game.
Card games tend to capture themes in very indirect ways, typically more by the art then anything else, but Game of Thrones The Card game really nails the thematic feel of the story in its gameplay. You really come to care about the cards that represent your characters and the story the different events and actions brought to life by the cards tell.
Amazing game, always a contender for my top 10 list and definitely deserving of the number 11 spot on this list.
When it comes to the genre of historical simulation war games, I’m definitely an outsider looking in. While I have a fairly healthy respect and desire to learn about history, this genre has historically not really been my thing (pun intended). Historical simulation war games is really a world in on itself in the board game space and when it comes to this genre there are few subjects explored more exhaustively than World War II. In Mark Hermans Empire of the Sun this exploration is of the Pacific Theater, arguably one of the bloodiest but oft less known about theaters of the war.
Empire of the Sun however isn’t your typical historical simulation war game even within the genre, it zooms out from the field of battle and functions on an operational level where you make large scale decisions launching vast military operations with sweeping consequences, any one of which can have tremendous impact on the war at large. Whether you are playing the aggressive Japanese trying to expand their empire, or the righteous Americans seeking an end to the conflict, Empire of the Sun takes you through the whole pacific war from 1941 to its conclusion in 1945. Covering in some form or another every aspect of the conflict.
It’s a game that is more than just a tactical game of moving military units around and it’s this particular concept that really intrigued me enough to pick it up. When even within its own genre a game is considered to be “unique”, that is something that peeks my interest.
Empire of the Sun is what is sometimes referred to as a “Chit” game, using small tokens you almost need tweezers to manipulate. Even within the genre of historical war games however, Empire of the Sun is widely considered to be a very different approach to a historical simulation war game.
Using a very clever card mechanic for which Mark Herman is notably quite famous for in war gaming circles, on a subject oft less explored, this award winning game becomes one of my first real deep dives into the genre. I chose it because Empire of the Sun is hailed my many as Mark Hermans crowning achievement in a game designers career that spans over 70+ games according to boardgamegeek. As something of a game design aficionado, I felt an almost natural draw to find out what all the fuss is about!
While Mark Hermans game design credits are epic by any standard, his signature card mechanic appears in several games besides Empire of the Sun. There is some nerd-debate as to whether the definitive masterpiece of Mark Herman is Empire of the Sun or Washington’s War.
In this review we will explore Empire of the Sun, but I think I have to offer fair warning that this will no doubt be one of the longest and most exhaustive reviews I have ever done simply because of the depth and complexity of this game. It’s impossible to do it any other way and remain fair and impartial. It’s also the only review I have done that includes a first impressions section. Finally as are all my reviews, it’s absent of a gameplay description (click on Rating System link to find out why I do this). I think it’s such a critical component to this review to understand the difference between having played the game for a week and having played it for several months.
I have also done something I think most reviews of this game don’t do, which is judge it based on modern game design standards and the standards of other game genres outside of the of historical war game simulation. Perhaps it’s unfair but as I researched the game I found that most reviewers where veterans of the genre with a certain level of expectation that I don’t share and though they were clever and well thought out reviews they did not speak to me as a new comer, not just to the game, but to the genre itself. Still this game is considered a classic by fans of the genre so I felt it important to give it a few months and many plays before I come to any conclusions, while simultaneously I felt it important to capture the first moments with the game as well.
Enjoy the review!
First Impressions
I wanted to write a first impressions article for this game because of the enormous disparity between how I felt about the game in the early days of playing it and how I feel about it today, several months and many plays later . The change in perspective is something I feel is significant enough that it really warranted explanation and I suspect that that many will run across a similar experience given this games general level of complexity. There is a wide range of cause and effect for this discrepancy between early plays and later players however that go beyond just complexity and I feel strongly that it’s important to explore and understand in the review of a game like this.
When I first started looking into Empire of the Sun I have to admit I felt excited, I was almost a fan boy before I even got the box home. The game was certainly intimidating and the word “complex” was thrown around a lot but I was intrigued with the concept and when I get on a thing, I go all the way. I have found over the years that this idea of complexity being a property that defines whether or not you should play a game is rather overused and fairly inaccurate. Besides, anytime I venture into new territory as a gamer and expand my horizons I find the experience refreshing and in a way I pride myself on the fact that I’m a versatile game able to appreciate a wide range of genres of games. I really wanted to prove that you can love Euro games, Ameritrash games, Abstract games and historical simulation war games and still be just one person.
I want to be clear on this point, It wasn’t the complexity of the game, at least not directly, that formed my poor first impression of the game. I knew it would be a complex and long game, so a fact being a fact, did nothing to sway me or affect my expectations. I went into it with my eyes and mind wide open.
There are a number of hurdles to entry that have to do with how the game is presented and I have to say, even now, though my impressions of the game have changed since those first few weeks with the game, I still find this to be true as I try to teach others. The hurdle to entry, even through knowledge and understanding doesn’t make it any easier for existing players to teach newcomers trying to grasp this games many in depth concepts. There is a steep learning curve that is demanding, which is fine but I think the issue is that it very easily could have been avoided in my opinion.
For starters the game fails to create a presentation suitable for new players. There are many rules in the game and they are sometimes complex, or at least difficult to remember as a result of the sheer number of them, but not all of them should have been necessary to know to understand and play your first few games. There are many mechanics that could simply be removed for a “basic” or “light” version of the game and I really wish this approach was included as part of Empire of The Sun tutorial process. This is definitely a game that could have benefited from a Basic and Advanced rule system break down and a more intentional approach of teaching players how to play it. Also, If there was ever a game that should have a playbook, its Empire of the Sun.
This practice of having basic and advanced versions of a game and including a playbook to help walk you through the game step by step is seen in many more complex games today, it helps new players to learn to play and experienced players to teach the game to new players. Instead I found that even with the rulebook in hand, examples of play walkthroughs in the back of the book and tutorial videos straight from the designer did little to create sufficient clarity to play the game properly the first few times (about half a dozen). You had to struggle and fight for your right to that Zen moment. In fact, some of the video tutorials and examples of the game made things even more confusing as they are clearly made for people already familiar with terminology and concepts of simulation war games which is kind of a game culture driven hurdle that adds to the confusion. Acronyms are thrown around as if the average gamer is a US marine and we all live on a military base. This is made worse by the fact that even in the tutorials most of these guys made errors as well, so you know there is a problem in learning the game when even the guys teaching it can’t get the rules straight.
In a sense what I discovered is that there was a learning curve to the learning curve. In order to play Empire of the Sun, you have to know all of the rules before you start your first turn, as well as many of the nuances of the ambiguous concept of military and what comes in the box seems to steer you clear of the approach you should actually take to learn the game, namely, by playing the South Pacific scenario (more on that in a minute).
The other issue that you run into is that there are tremendous amounts of rules exceptions scattered throughout the rulebook, the classic “this is true except in these five circumstances”. While much of this is covered in the reference cards, and is important to the design, there is so much of it it can be painful to try to remember everything. I found that some rules and terminology aren’t even defined sufficiently to understand certain concepts until you read some of the Italic designer notes from Mark Herman. Now everything you need to understand IS in the rulebook, this thing is clear as night and day once you understand the game but every printed word is important and skipping or missing even the tiniest of details can create confusion later when concepts, terms and rules are referenced. There really is little in the rulebook to indoctrinate players, its written in a kind of matter of fact way that becomes an extremely reliable source of information once everything clicks, but not before then.
Finally and this was the real killer is the opening plays of the game. When you play the 1941 scenario full campaign, and you will if you want to follow along the only examples of play in the rulebook, the Japanese player must execute two operation cards as a sort of semi-scripted start. These operations (and operation cards) are a principal start of the war and explain a core concept of the game, in essence they are the cards you play that define the way you execute your actions on the game board known simply as “Operations”. In one way this is really great, in that there is a lot of instructions and examples on how to execute these two specific operation cards in a clear and efficient manner. On the flip side these examples are a walkthroughs without any rules explanation as to why certain things work the way they do as it assumes you have read and absorbed the entire rulebook cover to cover by that point. The icing on the cake is that one of the two operation cards that you start the game with is hands down one of the most complicated in the entire game. An operation that requires you to activate 26 units at once launching the biggest and most complex offensive in the entire game with tons of decisions to make all of which will impact the real start of the game in the first turn of 1942. The walk-through example makes all of those decisions for you, holding your hand through the process but doing it on your own is daunting, even if you get some games under your belt. More importantly these examples are kind of out of context, they don’t really explain how to play, they just show you an example of the procedure.
The opening play in the first round has the Japanese player executing two Strategy Cards. While one of them is relatively straightforward, the IAI operations card is without a doubt one of the most complex actions you will take in the whole game. The fact that its the first thing you have to do makes this a very rough introduction to the game.
What is worse is that these operations function without certain key rules which gives you the impression about some of the things you can do in the game, but because this operation card ignores rules such as zones of control and reaction actions that would typically be made by the defender it does very little to actually prepare you for turn 2 when all of these rules will be in effect and you are on your own executing other operation cards without walkthrough examples. Now there is a turn 2 example section as well and it was probably the most useful teaching aid in the entire game, but it still does stuff like place X unit in Y spot, without explaining why that is a legal move and what rules are in effect when taking this action.
I think when you get right down to it, the introduction is on its best day very intimidating, one based on some of the most complex events that transpire (most complex operations) in the game. In a sense it just makes learning the game way more complicated then it should be. Given that now I do understand the rules and the game as a whole, when I teach it, it’s definitely not how I would do it, quite to the contrary, the example it walks you through is precisely how you should not go about teaching this game. A 1942 start should be a default and actually using the South Pacific scenario on the smaller map would have been an even better introduction and a place to start your induction into the game through examples, which notably should have been covered in a detailed step by step playbook.
The South Pacific Scenario first off plays on a much smaller map with fewer units, fewer card and cuts out several mechanics like China and India stuff. It’s exactly what you want, a sort of basic version of the game that does not require you to know every rule in the game. This is where the walkthroughs and the introduction to the game should be focused, it’s here you should do your induction to the game. Starting with the 1941 large campaign, or really any of the full map campaigns as a starting point is quite literally the last thing you should be doing as a newcomer, yet this is exactly where the instructional stuff pulls you.
The South Pacific scenario is a 1/4th piece of the whole map in Empire of the South that focuses on the battles near New Guinea. It cuts out several of the more complex rules, trims the amount of units and cards in use and helps to effectively simplify learning the game. It is surprising that the focus of the rule books tutorials and examples of play isn’t on this scenario.
Suffices to say my first impression of the game was that it was very unfriendly to new, inexperienced or even veteran players who might want to induct someone new into the hobby. The complexity of the game is high and this is a fact with which I have no problem, but Empire of the Suns presentation of the material really raises the bar of that complexity unnecessarily. It’s almost like a kind of hazing of new players as if to say “yeah this isn’t for you little buddy”. This is made worse by the fact that hidden in that box is actually a much easier way to do it that really should have been the focus of the games new player education.
Its clear to me how easy it would be to create an even “lighter” scenario version of the game for the purposes of learning to play. So many rules could easily be cut out to thin the required knowledge to play your first few games and you have to wonder why after almost 15 years and several editions this has not occurred to the designer and publisher to change that introduction. In particular since the 3rd edition comes with the aforementioned South Pacific scenario that is played on a smaller map with fewer rules in play, hence much of the work is already done for you.
The whole experience was a struggle and after having learned the game finally after weeks of effort, I came to the stark realization that had I ignored the examples of play and “this is how you learn” direction the rulebook was giving me and simply started with the South Pacific scenario this entire process would have taken half the time and been considerably less painful.
Well that was my first impression and as you can see, it was a rough ride for me. There is however a light at the end of this tunnel and though we have started off a bit negative, as I learned more about the game, became comfortable with the rules, things began to change. That Zen moment was right around the corner for me and this review, I will focus on what happens, how your perceptions will change as the light comes on and you start really playing the game.
Components
Score: Tilt:
Pros: Beautifully illustrated and designed game board and high quality components, plenty of great player aides.
Cons: Chits are tiny without replacement parts. While the reference guides provided are great, a guide that explains what each token/unit is for and what it can do is missing and seems critical as a gameplay reference. A much needed playbook is missing.
It’s unclear really for me what the expectation for components is in a historical war game simulation like this, what the norm is exactly. My only real exposure to games from this genre is with B-17 Flying Fortress Leader and in that case I was very pleasantly surprised because I sort of expected it to disappoint me.
With Empire of the Sun, I wasn’t sure what to expect but I would quantify the components quality over all as very good by any standard.
The big map game board, the centerpiece of the game is absolutely stunning and is easily the most impressive and high quality piece of the game. Notably the mounted board only comes with the latest printing of the game, which is the one I got. Beautifully illustrated, thoughtfully laid out and structured in a way that even a novice like me could figure it out. Its one of those game boards that is wonderful at the start and becomes even better as you become familiar with the game and catch on to the many nuances of what is on it to facilitate play. More than anything though the map itself is a foundation of the theme of the game, you are meant to feel like a strategic general of a great war theater and this map really gives you that sensation. Some of the most difficult decisions will be made by reviewing this map and the pieces on it in great detail and because its so well illustrated the amount of times you end up asking “what is that mean” is rare even if your a beginner which is a great tribute to the cartographer. It also includes some of the most frequently used tables you need to play the game, well chosen additions to the map.
One complaint I do have about the map is that in the game some nations will surrender when certain hexes are claimed by the Japanese player. It would have been nice if those where highlighted in some clear fashion so you didn’t have to reference the index card to find this information. Its fairly confusing yet a critical element of victory conditions to know which hexes are part of these surrender conditions for which countries.
While the map is good sized, its actually considerably smaller than I originally imagined. Its compact enough that I would say it doesn’t take up any more space than your average game of Monopoly not that I play such bullshit!
The cards are of extremely sturdy, glossy finish quality, I’m not sure the quality could be improved to be honest. In fact, is there such a thing as too good? The cards are so stiff they are hard to shuffle. The art work is black and white on the cards reflecting the thematic way we imagine World War II and the card text is clear, easy to read, easy to understand with all the information you would need to reference very accessible. Clearly a lot of thought went into making these cards which you will be agonizing over during game-play as much of your strategy in the game is built around these cards.
The “Chit” tokens are tiny and I suppose they need to be, but they are hard to handle with my big clumsy fat fingers and because tokens are stacked up on top of each other you end up having to handle them quite a bit. I had to get a pair of tweezers, which helped, but I think this is just a normal part of these hex based war games you have to accept. The tokens themselves are of good quality and will clearly last, but that is assuming you don’t accidentally lose any. There are no extras of anything in the box and given their size, losing some seems inevitable and the way the game is designed even a single missing chit will impact your ability to play the game and potentially the balance of it. I think given the expense of the game, it would have been nice to include a couple of extra sheets of everything. Fortunately chits are relatively easy to make yourself and there are contact sheets available online to make replacements yourself so you do have that route to solve the problem if something gets lost.
The rulebook itself is what I would call overly efficient, yet difficult to absorb. Strictly speaking everything you need to play the game is there, I found no question or problem I couldn’t solve/answer without the rulebook but its 50 pages and you will rifle through that thing constantly during play, reading, re-reading and reading it again. I became so intimately familiar with that rulebook over time that I could practically write it at this point, yet I found it physically impossible to play the game without constantly referencing it and even after dozens of play throughs that has not changed.
Suffice to say however I think the rulebook is a bit short on examples. It gives you examples of the first turn and the first part of the second turn of play in great detail but very little else. There are certain aspects of the game that have unique rules, special circumstances and procedure that don’t function in a kind of natural or organic way. These things often sound more complicated than they are when structured as rules in the rulebook, compared to their actual implementation and I think that sort of confusion could be easily alleviated with more examples. In fact I would have thought given the complexity of the game, a whole book (playbook) dedicated to examples of play that cover every faucet of this game could be extremely useful and should have been included. In fact, given Mark Hermans affinity for taking up space with designer notes, I would have thought this a natural document to write.
Generally however the rulebook is extremely efficient, after a play or two you will come to appreciate the intricate style of writing that is clear once you understand all of the terminology and nuance of the game. Getting to that point takes time and you really need to have the game map in front of you when you read the rules as the rules very frequently reference hexes and locations on the map. The game also comes with a lot of useful reference guides, though there are some omissions here as well I would have liked to have seen. For example a clear guide on what each type of unit can and can’t do as there are many special circumstances and rules for individual units that can be hard to remember.
As a whole this is a high quality production, historical simulation war game or not. Considering its size and scope of the game, it is relatively compact and a modestly sized table to play on will do.
Theme
Score: (5 out of 5 Stars) Tilt:
Pros: Between the interaction of the operation cards, the gameboard and its many units, this game tells the story of the Pacific War in a way that must be experienced, it’s a masterpiece.
Cons: Before you can enjoy the story of this masterpiece, you must traverse this tough learning curve and one cannot be enjoyed unless you suffer through the other.
A game about World War II is definitely going to be very much about the theme, but even more so is that the case in a game that has such an incredible focus on historical accuracy and attempts to really tell the story of the war.
Empire of the Sun is populated with countless intricate details that will have you googling to find out what the significance of these different events were in real historical terms and it’s an amazing way to experience the game to have that reference of realism and history. When you have done this enough times you start to realize that not only is Empire of the Sun uncannily thematic, but extraordinarily historically accurate. In a sense the game is designed in such a fashion that if you put all of the strategy cards in a specific order and played the game out with fixed results of the real war, you could replicate the historically accurate results in game form. It’s quite extraordinary.
Now of course simply replicating history is not what a game like this is about, in this game you are in charge of one of the two factions of the war and will make the decisions your own and the game is really about how you change the history of the Pacific Theater, how you do it differently and the impact of those choices.
With the exception of the opening turn where the events of Pearl Harbor unfold, the rest of the game is up to you. From the initial offensive perpetrated by the Japanese in the south pacific, every tactical and strategic decision is yours to make as you re-write the history of the war. Throughout this game you are treated to microcosms of information about what really happened and how your own war differs. This nuance of the game in the context of real historical events is absolutely fantastic and will have any history buff smiling from ear to ear, while potentially turning you into a historical buff if you aren’t already.
The theme in Empire of the Sun comes through in a number of important ways, but I think the organization and structure of executing the operation cards is the greatest connection to the theme here. These cards are based on historical events that you will use to re-write history as you execute them to tell your version of the story of the many battles in the Pacific. I love how they range from small skirmishes to major operations, from well organized tactical maneuvers to wildly risky almost fantastically sounding epics, yet these things all really happened at some point. Each card feels like it represents an amount of time, both in the size and scope of the operation. There is just so much going on in these cards and they breath life into the theme of this games in ways that its difficult to describe and is simply something one must experience. In 30 years of board gaming I have never seen a single play of a card, have such a huge impact on the theme of a game.
While the map is impressive, at the heart of this game are the Strategy Cards, the countless historical moments that define the events of the game. This system is brilliant, blending theme and strategy into a single indistinguishable experience.
The map too is a core that sort of rounds out the story of this game. The placement (position) of units is such a fundamentally critical component to the strategy in which one hex can mean the difference between success and failure, but this too is very crucial to telling the games story. The map is laid out in a way where you can see the depth of the strategic possibilities wherever you look not to mention coming to an understanding of the historical significance of these places. The flow of the game is such that it’s really difficult to predict everything your opponent will do and as they execute actions you can’t help but smile about all the cool stuff they came up with. It’s an action and counter action story, where each players turn, each card that is played is as engrossing and thematically rich as the next, but both players are always involved in every card played so there isn’t this thing happening where one player acts while the other play waits. It binds the game together and results in a story, one that is unique to that game and will never be repeated, keeping both players engaged at all times.
I can’t imagine the story of the Pacific Theater being told any more masterfully then in Empire of the Sun, it does not surprise me at all that Mark Herman is hailed as a genius and Empire of the Sun as one of his definitive masterpieces. From the perspective of theme, this game is indeed a masterpiece, worth stumbling over the learning curve to get at it. This is one of those games that you will use as a reference and marker for what it means to be a thematic game.
Gameplay
Score: (4 out of 5 Stars) Tilt:
Pros: Ingenious card mechanic creates a visceral highly asymmetrical yet balanced experience that is unmatched. The gameplay is diverse and the strategic options feel endless despite the subject and premise of the game being static.
Cons: Not for the uninitiated, this is a game for veterans and it remains difficult to comprehend no matter how much you play it, always seemingly just out of reach of retention.
This is a historical strategic war game about the war in the Pacific, I can imagine it must have been quite a challenge for the designer to come up with a way to replicate this historical war in a board game and make it both fun and fair. To understand why that is you have to understand a bit about the history of the Pacific Theater, but at the most high level, the short of it was that this was never a particularly fair war and Japan losing the war was kind of an inevitable thing. This presents several fundamental challenges to the designer in making Empire of the Sun. How do you design a board game where one side is definitely going to lose and has a clear disadvantage? Especially since the part of the goal for the game is to keep it historically accurate.
Mark Herman re-defined the concept of victory in Empire of the Sun and it is here where much of the games historical premise converts into being an exciting game for both US and Japanese players. The historical reality is that Japan can’t win the war and this is not your goal. In Empire of the Sun, Japan, attempts to instead force the US into a negotiated settlement rather then an unconditional surrender that they demand. The result is a game where Japan aggressively pursues US allies and tries to deter American commitment to the war, resulting in an accurate historical portrayal for story purposes and a great set of victory conditions for the purpose of a board game. This objective turned victory condition for Japan, solves the core issue of coming up with a historical simulation of the Pacific War, while being a fair game, a fairness that becomes balance mechanically thanks to the clever cards and starting conditions of the game.
Mark very brilliantly and carefully created highly balanced asymmetrical play here, a feat that is often attempted but failed in board games. Given the complexity of the rules, depth of the mechanic and continued adherence to historical accuracy, for this game to maintain this asymmetry while being balanced is an impossibility that Mark Herman turned into a reality. It’s an extraordinary piece of game design, to be appreciated even if the game itself does not speak to you directly. The study of this games design should be part of the curriculum for anyone wishing to be a game designer, its that good.
Now good design does not necessarily translate to being a fun game, a case I could make with quite a few highly acclaimed games. The question here is, between the complexity of the rules, deeply rich historical accuracy, asymmetrical design and frankly mind boggling depth, is the game actually fun to play in practice? Is it something that one might recommend to a fellow gamer?
Its with this part when it comes to Empire of the Sun I struggle. As a game design aficionado, I can appreciate a game I don’t play and there can be a fair amount of reasons why I won’t play a game I think is a great design. I don’t think everyone can and I imagine most would not want to view board gaming this way. I think most people just want to sit down and play fun board games. So it is fun?
Civilization by Francis Tresham is a good example of a game I love, think its an amazing design but never play. In this case the issue is the length of the game.
The answer is, most definitely and unequivocally yes.. almost. It’s not an easy journey to unravel the foggy mystery that is Empire of the Sun, but once the rules click and you examine the gameplay from a perspective of understanding, Empire of the Sun is not only exciting but extraordinarily engrossing.
In this journey you will always stumble over the rules. You will always play this game with the rulebook in hand and if you step away from the game for a month or two you will realize that you effectively have to re-learn everything. The rules complexity is just high enough that it never really fully sticks and I have never managed to play this game through without screwing up several rules during the course of play. In fact, even the tutorials online (All of them!) make major goofs with the rules as they teach you the game. I said at the beginning that to judge a game negatively because its complex and long when that is what intends to be is poor form, so this may make me a hypocrite, but this is me saying that this game takes complexity just one step beyond the average Joe’s retention and that really gets in the way of the fun.
Rules complexity should not be a reason not to play a game, but inevitably for many it is. However often rules complexity is overstated, unfortunately in Empire of the Sun it is not. It is as complex as it appears and sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.
Still this is a game where you will contemplate your actions into extreme depths, the strategies, plans and ideas you can try in this game are endless. Here you can theorize and explore the vast possible outcomes of different actions that can re-define the war in what is an always shifting and dynamic game thanks to the card system that drives it. I can see this mechanic being applied to just about any theater of war, but it seems to work very well in the specifics of the Pacific Theater.
More than that though the game is chalk full of those “Holy Shit!” moments, which is fundamentally important to good game design merging with fun gameplay. While there are small curves on this race track as well, most of the action in the game is grandiose, game changing, in that “I can’t believe that shit just happened” space. It may seem strange looking at a board full of cardboard chits and think the game exciting, filled with adrenaline, but that is exactly what it is. I found myself at the edge of my seat at every card play, at every activation, at every shift of the many properties be they war weariness, European war track, the India or China tracks. It all boiled together into a mind blowing experience that had me nodding my head in approval and resetting the game for another play, one after the other.
If I could dislodge even my limited knowledge of this game and implant it into the brains of the gaming community at large I have absolutely no doubt, complexity or not, Empire of the Sun would be ruling at the top of the charts on boardgamegeek. It’s the game we are all meant to play, it’s without question a modern classic. Unfortunately I suspect it will always be regulated to the undiscovered gems pile and I hate to harp on it, but the high level of complexity really acts as a major barrier to entry that I don’t think most are going to be willing to cross. Those that do, are in for a treat, those that don’t are missing out.
What drives these exciting moments that has me praising Empire of the Sun like it’s the greatest invention on earth since the Philadelphia Cheesesteak?
At its core I believe it’s the marriage between card mechanics and a hex based war game. To me, the most unattractive part of most simulation war games is that there is a rulebook, a hexboard filled with chits and the endless charts of doom on the basis of which the games battles are resolved. Those things may be cerebral puzzles and interesting, but they don’t make for particularly inspiring storytelling and in a game like this, the story is the juice! To me the source of the juice is really all about the strategy cards.
The limitations on planning, the execution and the theme of these strategy cards all combine to create not only the cerebral experience that works on countless levels here, but the visceral experience that triggers your imagination. I think it’s here where the masterful design really comes together to become a fun board game.
Your planning isn’t just around what you want to do, but what you can do and your cards define that. This limitation is key to making the game feel like the real world, it’s not just manipulation of resources, units, and the map, but dealing within the confines of the these cards that represent events, people, places, battles and more.
It’s also important to note that the cards are extremely well designed from a balance perspective. They are built to create big moments and I have to say that I don’t think just any cards would have sufficed. It’s clear that these cards have been meticulously tested, adjusted and adapted to get the feel just right, to ensure their impact. Such a thoughtful mechanic demanded no less and it’s no doubt at the center of the success in Empire of the Sun as a game.
Now this of course isn’t the only part here and I could go on endlessly about how well thought out unit design is, the mindful interactions of units in combat, how clever the map layout is and how great the abstracted inclusions for things like the war in Europe or China are. In the end however its the cards that really make all of this work, they are the batteries for the whole system and quite frankly it makes this game nothing short of a work of art.
I would love to give this games game-play a perfect 5 stars and call it a day but being the objective guy I am, I would be remiss not to mention some of the warts in Empire of the Sun and warts it has, masterpiece or not.
For one, this is a game that is going to be tough to learn, something I have already repeated several times resulting in the hypocrisy of my comments in the first impressions section. To not mention it however would be criminal. This complexity however isn’t just about learning the game, but it becomes a hurdle in a more practical sense.
Your chances of finding a partner willing to jump through this brutal learning curve with you is not going to be easy. What makes it even tougher is that once you do finally learn the game, getting to a point where you can put up a decent fight against a more seasoned player is going to take several plays of the game as there is so much that goes into the strategic level here as well. Experience definitely matters. Given that a typical full campaign game of Empire of the Sun is an all day affair, the likely result is that this game will collect a lot of dust on your shelf. If your lucky, you have a friend ready to take on this challenge with you, in which case, don’t hesitate, but if you are picking this up without knowing who you will play it with, know you may end up playing with yourself (pun intended!). This just isn’t one of those “come over and I will teach you a game” kind of games. This is a serious assignment for serious gamers, I would call it a lifestyle game akin to something Advanced Squad Leader. One does not simply play Empire of the Sun.
TI4 is among my favorite dust collectors, a six player game that takes 6 to 8 hours to play is not something that gets pulled out very often. I think Empire of the Sun will sit comfortably on the shelf in waiting along with one of my favorite games of all time.
Secondly and I can’t stress this enough, this is not an entry level Historical Simulation Game. I don’t want to discourage someone based on the premise of “complexity”, but this isn’t just about the complexity of the rules, this is a game that assumes you have done this before. It’s clearly not meant for a first timer and it may very well be the reason why I struggled as much as I did at the start. Even if this review has peeked your interest, if you are uninitiated, you may want to start with something a bit more docile and work your way up to Empire of the Sun. This is a postgraduate course, not something to tackle your freshman year.
Replayability And Longevity
Score: (3 out of 5 Stars) Tilt:
Pros: Very dynamic starting conditions, several scenarios to explore. There is plenty of game here for repeated plays.
Cons: It’s a very niche 2 player game, it will likely earn dust collector status on most game shelves simply by the nature of what it is.
I’m going to make this short and sweet, no two games will ever be alike no matter how much you play this game and because the story of the game is so visceral you aren’t likely to tire of it. I would imagine most people will play this game and then seek out other card driven games of this type, for which there are several avenues. It will make you a fan of the system.
When it comes to replayability, Empire of the Sun is a prime example of what you want out of a game. It kicks of the 1941 campaign with a massive operation that has you activating 26 units and declaring any amount of battles you want. This start means the game kicks off on dynamic footing. Your card draw in the first round has no doubt a few million if not billion combinations possible and after that there is no way any two games are going to play out the same.
Still its a static subject matter, on a fixed map. This is a game about the Pacific War and that in itself is a bit of a confining space. Certain moves will become your go to moves and I do think even with all the dynamics in the game there are certain things that you must do to win. For example as the Japan player you must take the Philippines in the opening moves of the game, after all you can’t have an HQ within striking distance of mainland Japan when Americans get their re-enforcement by turn 3. After several plays, opening moves and random card draws or not, there is going to be a certain routine to things you will do in this game as just a practice of good strategy.
Scenarios can certainly shake things up, the 1943 scenario in particular creates a fairly engaging yet relatively short game, while the South Pacific scenario is an example of how you can use this system and zero in on specific places. You almost wish Empire of the Sun was a series of games using the same rules. I for one would love to see a European Theater version of this one.
This is a deep and very rich game, you will want to replay it but there are certain aspects of this one that are going to effect how often you will play it. It’s a very long, complex 2 player game about a very specific sub-subject of World War II. That is an extremely niche thing and even if you love this game, the odds of it collecting some dust on your shelf between plays is a likely reality for most of us.
Conclusion
I might not be a historical simulation war gamer, but I have learned and do play some real monsters. Twilight Imperium, Mage Knight and 1830 Railway and Robber Barons just to name a few. Complexity neither frightens me or discourages me from learning and playing these games. If a game is good, its good, complexity or not.
In the case of Empire of the Sun however the complexity is seemingly just one notch above the retention of your average human, namely me. I love the game, as I write this conclusion its setup in my hobby room ready to start yet another campaign, but to play it without making rules mistakes and oversights its just very unlikely. There are just too many rules to remember that no matter how often you play it you always seem to forget something. Its not surprising to me that even the people trying to teach it to you online are making blunders, this one just takes complexity to a whole new level.
That wart aside however, I find Empire of the Sun to be hands down the best game I have learned to play in the last decade and it really has been worth the struggle. It’s dynamic, thematic and unquestionably one of the deepest strategy games I have ever played. The combination of hex based war gaming and card driven play is a perfect marriage. Even when playing this game solo with the AI bot, I found the game to be a pure joy. Its a very cerebral experience while simultaneously an incredibly thematic one. Every action you take is agony as you struggle to make tough choices at all times and after every move the entire state of the game must be reassessed before you do anything else. Like chess, this is one of those games where you can spend hours just staring at the board trying to decide what to do.
The question is always, who is this game for and while I try not to use the word “veteran gamer” too often, I would say that this is one of those games where past experience is almost mandated. Its clear to me that everyone should be playing this game, but its equally clear that not everyone takes playing board games seriously. There is nothing casual about Empire of the Sun, its at its core a challenge just to learn to play, a sort of qualification test to see if the game is for you. If you are the type of gamer like me who perks up when someone says “deep complex strategy game”, then Empire of the Sun may in fact be for you. If that sort of thing scares you, you may want to skip this one.
I don’t know what else to say about it other than that this game is a masterpiece in its own way. Not everyone is going to find “IT” when playing this game, as it caters to a very particular type of gamer, those few of us that are true explorers seeking a kind of ultimate experience in our hobby. Empire of the Sun is a game like that and though I would never recommend this game to most gamers, if you think you are that type of gamer, this is one game you should not miss.
When it comes to the genre of historical simulation games, I’m about as wet behind the ears as you can get. I know virtually nothing about this entire world of gaming, yet I have always had a passing interest in trying one of these games out but never really had the time to do so. When I finally decided to a few weeks back I was shocked at the brevity of this genre, just the sheer volume of games made simply choosing one a major research project. Ultimately I settled on a solo game so that I could pursue what I expected to be a very complex gaming experience at my own pace. My choice was based on both recommendations by some of the community leaders promoting these games as well as my own passing interest in World War II aviation.
Overview
Final Score:Â Â (4 out of 5 Stars)
B-17 Flying Fortress Leader by DVG games is a game that is part of a series of “Leader” gamers. It’s not exactly a system, but a kind of core concept. The basic principle behind these solo games is that you are a commander, in the case of B-17 Flying Fortress Leader in charge of a division of Bombers flying missions over Germany between 1942-1944. Other leader games have similar concepts in other historical periods and in some cases not even in aviation, for example there is one about modern tanks and another featuring submarines. Some of these games have tactical components, others like B-17 focus more on the strategic and planning part of the story.
There is a lot going on in this game, but even as an amature I can say that it’s a lot less complicated than it looks and I have played lots of mainstream board games that have a much higher learning curve.
As the commander of this division of bombers you are tasked with successfully running the air war over Germany. You manage resources, purchasing planes, outfitting them, hiring on special pilots, planning, running intelligence operations and executing bombing missions. There are many other auxiliary things to deal with as part of the war at large as well which can affect your efforts, like other war fronts, various historical events, even the weather itself can impact your efforts.
One interesting aspect of the game is that it’s effectively a game of preparation and planning. Once you give a mission a go, the mission executes based on your plans but you have very minimal tactical control over your bomber squadrons, they have their assigned tasks and go off to execute your plans. Their success or failure is dependent on two things, primarily on your planning which mitigates but does not eliminate the other part, lady luck.
These campaigns are part of a larger campaign where you manage these resources both in the short term for individual missions, but also in the long run over the course of the war.
This only leaves us with the question, is the game itself any good? Lets find out.
Components
Score:Â (3.5 out of 5 Stars) Tilt:
Pros: Â Good Quality Components, sturdy, made to last and beautifully illustrated adding to the theme of the game.
Cons: Despite the good quality the cost of the game is so extreme that it’s hard to justify it for what you get in the box.
I was not really sure what to expect when it came to component quality for a game like this, in fact I wasn’t even sure if it was appropriate for me to judge it based on today’s modern standards. These historical simulation games seem to me at least to focus a great deal more on gameplay and visceral simulation experiences rather than visual candy, but I was actually pleasantly surprised regardless.
The gameboard is very spacious, beautifully illustrated and very thematic giving you the feel of a commander sitting in a command tent planning out missions. It’s sturdy and made to last with a nice gloss finish.
The chit components where also considerably better quality then I had imagined they would be, also gloss finished, clearly labeled, easy to handle and just the right size. Somehow I expected them to be cheap cardboard cutouts, but they were effectively the same quality of tokens you would get with any other modern quality game.
These are thick, clear and gloss finished components, they are made to last.
The cards I felt were a bit flimsy, it’s clear that their dark colors will eventually cause edge ware that would come out white, but they are stiff, glossy and very nicely illustrated supporting the theme very well.
The rulebook itself got quite a few complaints in other reviews and I was apprehensive about it in particularly as I was anticipating a highly complex simulation game which would very clearly require very good instruction, but apparently I got the second edition of the game where those problems, including all the misprinted cards are already corrected. Quite contrary to what I read online about the rulebook I felt it was incredibly well done and usable at the table in a step by step fashion allowing me to learn the game as I went along. In fact I would say it is one of the nicest, well constructed and clear rulebooks I have read in quite some time, I found little to complain about it and looking at some of the components I can only imagine there is a big difference between the first and second printing. I suppose an index would be nice, but because of how it was laid out, things were very easy to find anyway. I love the fact that they didn’t try to make the rulebook part of the theme of the game, it’s printed on white glossy paper with large easy to read fonts and lots of pictures to use as reference. Please for the love of god developers take note, you don’t need to make the rulebook part of the game design, make it easy to read and use like this instead!
All and all I felt the components where excellent but still I have to complain to some degree here. This game cost over 900 Swedish crowns which is roughly 100 American bucks, I have paid for Miniature Game Starter kids for less than that with some of the best and most high quality components in the history of gaming. I was half expecting this game to have a solid gold d10 given its cost. I understand that small companies who sell fewer games have to charge more for their design efforts, its in part why I didn’t mind shelling out the money but damn, for what you pay, this game should have 30 highly detailed miniatures in it. I would not normally reduce a component score on price, but this was such an extreme in my opinion that I had to shave some points off it. I definitely think cost will be a major point of contention when considering a purchase of this game and the developer might have shot himself in the foot as its likely he would sell more copies if the game was cheaper.
Theme
Score:Â (5 out of 5 Stars) Tilt:
Pros: Â Captures the theme of being a World War II strategic commander with perfection, outstanding atmosphere and mechanically connected theme.
Cons: There are some, but not worth mentioning.Â
I think when it comes to a solo game about a historical period like World War II and a subject like flying bombing missions over Germany, ensuring that this theme comes across through the mechanics and art is absolutely vital. In fact, I felt strongly that this was going to be one of the most important elements of this review.
Thankfully B-17 Flying Fortress Leader does not disappoint, It’s a game about you being a strategic commander of World War II squadrons and it delivers on that promise.
There are a lot of contributors to creating this visceral experience and while certainly the layout and art of the gameboard, cards and various components certainly delivers on the look of this theme, where this theme really bursts out is in the details of the mechanics and decisions linked to the subject matter.
I was really worried as I opened the box that I would be overwhelmed by an endless stream of strategic choices that would make a lot of assumptions about the type of gamer I was. I know this was a kind of “fear” I had that may not have been entirely rational but I was so happy to see that not only where the choices easy to understand, you could right away get a sense of what impact they would have on the game and how that tied into the theme of being a strategic commander.
You chose your bomber groups, picked special pilots to fly your missions, outfitted their loadouts, picked their targets, chose their flight path and sent them on their way. These choices are important and have great impact on how the mission will play out, but they weren’t overwhelmed by a lot of complicated, task oriented activities. They were just great, simple to understand options which you had to consider for the mission and larger strategic plans.
Front and center is the map of Europe where the various targets and enemy squadrons call home. This is your field of battle, where you do a lot of your mission planning and a big part of what makes this game feel very authentic.
What you discover after running a couple of weeks worth of missions is the impact of those earlier choices on the campaign at large and this is really where the theme comes through because while you are thinking about the current missions, you really have to think about the campaign as well. Your choices have benefits but they can also have consequences and I found it especially interesting how their was this feeling of a high power, those ranked above you, that could bring those consequences. For example if your campaign was going really well but the war on other fronts goes poorly, you could suddenly discover that some of your squadrons get reassigned to other fronts where they are more needed.
The reverse could also happen, which meant that while you had your job to do, your commanders had there’s. It was amazing to see how the game responded to my success and failures over the course of my campaign.
Some of the auxiliary stuff, though I call it that, actually plays important roles in the game is also chalked full of flavor. For example if a German commander appears that brings U-Boats with him, you will have a whole different series of problems to contend with then a German Commander that brings special technologies with them. Event cards can turn what appears to be a easy routine mission into a disaster. The feeling of rolling for the German response is also this great unknown, it’s sort of like your planning your mission but you don’t fully know exactly what the Germans will do.
I realize a lot of this stuff is decided with dice, which one might say means the game is random and to a degree its true, but thematically these events and reactions the game comes up with, though driven by the cast of a die create a believable setting, a sense of time and place.
The way you feel sitting in front of that strategic map is uncanny and though you can’t control many of the events, you kind of have to plan for the unexpected and this is really part of how the game plays out and I imagine probably how it felt to the actual strategic commanders in World War II.
Does it all make simulation sense? No. Yes there are definitely a few places where clearly a mechanic is just a mechanic for the sake of balance and playability. These abstractions however don’t really detract from the experience, in fact they are such minor things I hardly see any point in naming them or docking the theme score for them, though I might consider it when discussing mechanics. I hadn’t even noticed them until I read a few other reviews that pointed them out and kind of went.. aha.. yea I suppose it’s true but who cares!
From the stand point of theme, this game just nails it, though I would definitely recommend using some of the optional rules like weather, recon missions and veteran bandits because it adds even more atmosphere to an already atmosphere rich game without really doing much to make it more complex. Recon missions I in particular I felt really fit the game and seemed like it should just be a standard part of the game. I was actually surprised that this was left as an optional rule as it adds so much to the theme.
Absolutely fabulously executed theme’s, captures the intended experience with perfection in my humble, albeit inexperienced opinion.
Gameplay
Score: Tilt:
Pros: Well orchestrated mechanics with high level of connection to the theme and lots of player choices that both work into the short and long term strategies make this game a blast to play.
Cons: Some missed opportunities, a bit lackluster event cards and a relatively docile enemy can be a bit of a let down.Â
When evaluating a historic simulation game, I have to admit that I’m a bit out of my element and so I really just decided to evaluate the game on the same basic premise and methodology that I do any other game. This may or may not be fair to the publisher, but to me, a game is a game, so I suppose I don’t really see why one would get a different treatment over the other, historic simulation or not.
It’s really because the theme is so strong in B-17 Flying Fortress Leader, that the mechanics become a bit of a chore to evaluate, in part because mechanically there is a lot of high level of abstractions that are driven by a single cast of a die, yet can potentially have great impact on the game.
For example the combat mechanic of rolling a d10 for each bomb you drop with some minor modifications is a very simplistic mechanic. There really is not much more to it than luck, you either roll well and do well or you don’t. On the surface I would not consider this a particularly inventive or immersive mechanic, but in the scope of the theme and everything that came before, that is exactly what the mechanic should be. The important events are all those things that lead up to that final moment when you drop the bombs. If you have planned well the odds are in your favor, but the idea here is that its war, you have sent your boys on the mission and there is no guarantees and this mechanic really brings this uncertainty to a conclusion quickly so you can get back to the fun stuff of planning your campaign. It breaks up the anticipation of the result so it feels great, but it’s not a focus of the game, hence handled quickly and efficiently.
Airfields are one of many targets you will go after. There is a wide range of game effects every target in play has, destroying airfields for example can reduce the amount of enemy squadrons on the map which can make running future missions less risky.
Which is exactly how most of the mechanics in the game feel. There are numerous examples of moments being resolved in a simple way and efficient way of a single die cast, because what your really doing, where the bulk of the fun and strategy of the game is working on the plan around the results from these mitigatable but often random outcomes.
In general the activities of building your plan and strategy take shape in a wide range of ways. Chief among them is the managing of your precious SO (Special Operation) points. These are used to get new bomber or escort groups, hiring on special pilots, outfitting your loadouts for the missions, purchasing recon assets, sometimes upgrading or replacing bomber groups and more. There are a number of ways these SO points can be affected both positively and negatively via different events in your campaign, so you will often make strategic strikes against targets that might impact your SO point production or pursue missions that earn you extra points. Suffice to say being low on SO points can limit your options and having a lot can allow you to create havoc for the Germans.
Other important decision are driven by the strategic situation on the map. There are sorties and mission sites all over the place and you will be planning your targets and routes on that map. Some weeks you might choose to strike deep into enemy territory so that you get an opportunity to take out bandits and that hidden airfield, other times you might go for doing lots of damage to several targets at once to try and soften up the enemy for more decisive strikes later in the month. Time pressure can be a big factor, so there is considerable precision required to your choices of targets and how you approach them. If using the weather and Intel options which I highly recommend you do, those can allow you to create advantages or cause problems in what feels like a very authentic way.
Often your decisions can be forced, perhaps you took a bad beating this month and in the last week of the month your bomber squadrons are in bad shape, so you hold back a bit, while other times still you have to take big risks to take out targets that can cause devastating problems in the next month if you don’t. You also always have the pressure of trying to complete your mission and win the campaign, getting those victory points and completing your victory objectives should of course always be first and foremost on your mind, but this requires long term planning to manage successfully.
There are also external factors that impact decisions. There are other war fronts that can affect your resources in your air war with Germany. Event cards in particular can really impact a specific mission, while the other war fronts can create sudden shifts in strategies for the Germans that can surprise you.
In the course of play there are a lot of moving, dynamic parts that will cause you to make constant adjustments to your strategy and of course its always about doing the most damage against your targets while taking the fewest casualties possible.
Gameplay in B-17 Flying Fortress Leader is a constantly shifting and adapting thing. I find that early in a campaign you tend to think in terms of “what are my best odds”, but as the campaign gets going there is far more that drives your decisions and your options, forcing you to take greater and greater risks. The crux of the game is really many mini decisions that are lead you to the success or failure of the campaign and because the game is thematic, the experience is that much more engrossing. You can really lose yourself in this game as your imagination runs wild.
It’s a game that feels great and I will often say that a game mechanic doesn’t have to be good, it just needs to feel right and I think that is what B-17 really does here. I’m no game designer and my minimal experience with these historical simulation games leaves me with little to compare it to, but if through gameplay and theme there goal was to make me feel like a World War II strategic commander in charge of a fleet of B-17 bombers, they have wildly exceeded my expectations. I really was expecting this game to leave such an excellent impression on me.
Enemy commanders add unique properties to campaign and will definitely change the battlefield and outcomes of your missions. Adding photos of historical figures is a nice thematic touch.
There are a few chinks in the armor of course and I would be remiss not to mention them, but I think I would qualify these as minor quirks, rather than real mechanical problems.
One thing is that it feels like when planes got destroyed that there should be more drawbacks and consequences for the particular bomber group. There is the whole Shaken mechanic, where if a group takes enough damage they become less effective, but as you lose planes there is no impact on the quality of the unit long term. It feels to me like Bomber groups should level up and level down, so that there is a thematic sense of veteran pilots getting killed and new rookie pilots joining the team. It’s kind of a missed opportunity to add yet another layer of theme to the games gameplay and it’s one of the first house rules I added to the game.
What I did here is simply make it that anytime you lose 16 planes in a single group over any amount of time (16 is the starting strength of a unit) your bomber group is reduced one level down in experience. The effect is that over time, your bomber groups that do well rise in experience but eventually they will take a hit down as pilots are killed in action. It feels right and thematic but the impact on difficulty is minimal, it’s just one of things that just feels right.
I also felt there should have been more event cards. Really, its a minor thing but on a typical 3-4 week month where you run typically 2 missions per week (at least you try) you are effectively drawing 4 event cards per week. That means in a 4 week month you could draw 16 cards, that’s actually almost all of them as the deck is quite thin. I also felt that too often the event cards, in particular on return trip had a no effect, effect. Meaning nothing would happen as a result of drawing the card. I think more thought should have been put into ensuring that drawing event cards was always a stressful and eventful thing but rarely is the impact of these cards really significant. This is a bummer because when it is significant, when the impact of the card is really felt, the game really shines. These event cards really help to tell a story of the game, but they come out feeling a bit weak.
Event cards are drawn on the way to the mission and on the way back. These can create a lot of excitement at the table, but just as often as they are exciting they can be really boring with no impact at all.
Now this last part I’m not really a hundred percent sure about, but so far I have not found the game to be particularly difficult, at least not to the point where I think I will “lose” the war. I might not get as many victory points as I want or fail to meet the objective of the campaign, but I definitely feel like at least to this point, I’m totally dominating the Germans. The occasional disastrous mission aside, I’m usually coming out ahead. Now the caveat is that I have only done a couple of campaigns, the early years one so I don’t really know at this point if the games difficulty ramps up, I’m definitely far from done playing this one, but I’m hopeful that the Germans are going to put up more of a fight as I work my way through the campaigns.
Replay ability And Longevity
Score: Tilt:
Pros:Â Very dynamic campaign setup, lots of campaigns to run and even a couple of mini games all contribute to this games longevity.
Cons: There is a definitive routine to the playing this game, a process that may become monotonous after a while.
B-17 Flying Fortress Leader is one of those games that you set up on a table and play over several sessions. Some of these campaigns are really long, there are several campaigns included and because the setup is dynamic as well as there being many dynamically changing circumstances, each time you play any of these campaigns, they will be very different.
The end result is a game with a considerable amount of Longevity, I’ve been at it now for several weeks and I have barely scratched the surface, yet I’m still drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
There is kind of a routine to the game however and I think eventually even with all of the dynamics this game will peter out at some point, get shelved for a while and after collecting some dust you might get the itch to bring it back. In fact I fully expect that to happen because even though the game is very dynamic and certainly has lots of replayability, its fairly robust and lengthy game.
There are also several other mini games included in this package, none of which I have had a chance to try yet so I can’t speak to their quality, but I definitely see some potential in there. One scenario for example has you flying missions with a single plan in a more tactically detailed way. This is really an entirely separate game included in this one which definitely adds to its longevity assuming.
B-17 Flying Fortress Leader certainly earns its stripes in this department, maybe even standing out a bit, I would call it a pass+.
Conclusion
B-17 Flying Fortress Leader has definitely exceeded my expectations and has made for a great first foray into the world of historical simulation games for an amature like me. It’s greatest strength is the execution of the theme which comes through wonderfully giving you the experience of being a World War II strategic commander of the British Royal Air Force. It has also peeked my interest in other “Leader” series game which is I would imagine exactly what the designer and publisher would want.
There are several “Leader” series game that cover a wide range of subjects, if you like B-17 and want to explore other themes, there are quite a few to choose from.
It’s a very expensive game and I think of all the detractors here that is going to be the biggest hurdle for a potential commander. Coming in at around 100 dollars US, this game competes for your money with some of the best and most expensive games on the market, ones notably with extremely high production values and as a board gaming fan I can only say that in that field, B-17 Flying Fortress Leader is a tough call.
Still I think for board gamers looking for a great solo experience, B-17 really is a fantastic choice. It has it in all the places it really counts and aside from the high cost of entry, it definitely gets a recommendation from Gamersdungeon for anyone looking to break into the Historic Simulations genre of games. For me personally this has been one of the best games I have played this year, grant it, its early 2020, but hey, for the moment its true.
I’ve spoken on a number of occasions about old school vs. new school D&D, the old school movement, the designs and theories behind classic and AD&D, but today I’m going to try to illustrate not so much why those movements exist, but what those movements complain about when it comes to modern versions of D&D. What their main beefs are with modern systems and why they continue to use the old systems despite considerable advancement in modern design of mechanics.
I think the conversation is appropriate because only a month ago we got yet another variation on modern version of D&D in Pathfinder 2.0. As I write this I’m only 1 day away from playing in my first session and I’m very excited to try out the new system. Unfortunately I also know what I’m walking into. Like most old school D&D players, while I can certainly enjoy modern versions of D&D (and I do very much so), I know that the experience will be lacking in certain areas and all of my complaints that I have about modern D&D will still be present in some capacity in this latest version of the game even from a courtesy reading.
What are the complaints of this old school gamer when it comes to modern versions of D&D? That’s what today’s article is all about.
Combat is dreadfully slow
Dungeons and Dragons has always been a game of heroic combat to a great degree. We make great fighters, powerful magic-users, stealthy back stabbing thieves and divine clerics and much more and all of these adventuring characters are built from the ground up to kick-ass and take monster names. D&D as a premise is about heroically taking our characters into danger, fighting monsters, finding treasure, exploring unique locations and living in the theatre of the mind through the eyes of our characters.
At its core it is a staple of D&D to fight, but it is not the point of the game as a whole. This rather odd discrepancy between “what the game is about” and “what you do often in the game” is a delicate formula that Dungeons and Dragons got right way back in AD&D and has been struggling with in every edition of the game ever since.
The simple fact is that a D&D combat should take about 10-20 minutes tops, maybe 30-45 if you are doing a big climatic boss battle. It should be fast, furious, dangerous, violent and over quickly. A 5 hour session of D&D could (not necessarily should) have 4-5 combats and the session should still be mostly role-playing. In other words, you do a lot of fighting and still the game is not focused on fighting.
This is a fundamental and important element of a game that is about exploration and that comes with 300+ page book of monsters.
My biggest complaint about modern D&D is that combat has been getting slower and more dissociated from the narrative (more on dissociation later) with each new edition up until about 5th edition (so between 2nd-4th edition including Pathfinder 1.0 it grew more and more sluggish).
4th edition Dungeons and Dragons was certainly the worst of the modern D&D games when it came to combat speed, an average fight being 2-4 hours, but Pathfinder, 5th edition D&D and certainly the new Pathfinder 2.0 are still fairly slow by comparison to classic versions of D&D like AD&D.
In our session 0 Pathfinder 2.0 game our GM ran a simulation combat. 5 players versus 6 goblins. It took the better part of of an hour and change, the average wait time for me between actions was 5-10 minutes. It suffices to say that comparatively this was certainly a huge improvement over say 3rd or 4th edition, or even Pathfinder 1.0, but still considerably slower then AD&D which would have wrapped up the entire fight in 10-15 minutes.
Now I will say this upfront. All of the modern D&D editions including 4th edition have very interesting, involved and well thought out mechanics. These aren’t bad games, or bad mechanics they are just slow and this lack of expediency is just one peg in the leg that holds the chair (game session) together.
It’s also important to note that as an old school gamer and I feel quite comfortable speaking on behalf of the OS movement that there is no opposition to making combat tactically interesting. In fact, most AD&D and Basic D&D players use either house rules or published material to enhance, improve and expand on the simplicity of the tactical elements of the core rules for their game. The balance between speed and interesting combat is a fragile one and will differ from group to group and DM to DM, but among old school gamers both simplicity and speed are typically more important to creating a deeper, more complex tactical game. Its a preference and a peg to the leg, but its certainly not the deal breaker.
The real issue most old school gamers have is that most of the rules weight added to make the tactical combat more interesting in modern games, comes in the form of dissociated mechanics and it’s here where modern and old school gamers really differ in what they want to see in the way of enhance tactical combat mechanics.
Dissociated Mechanics
To understand what Dissociated Mechanics are and really the RPG design theory behind it, you really have to do some research. This is a long, involved and complex subject which I won’t cover here beyond the sort of paraphrased version.
The short version is that in modern D&D (and many modern RPG’s), many mechanics (in some cases most mechanics) are there not as part of a role-playing mechanism, but as a game mechanic. In other words, the mechanic is not associated with the abstracted reality, from the perspective of the character. These mechanics are not associated with the decisions the character makes. They are dissociated, meaning, disconnected from the characters reality, in the hands of the player making decisions in a tactical mini game added for the purpose of creating tactical and character building options.
Disassociation of mechanics in RPG’s began about the same time PC versions of RPG’s and in particular MMORPG’s were born. The concept of balance, the concept of character progression and builds all triggered the shift in pencil and paper RPG’s. In a sense, modern RPG’s were designed for modern gamers which came to the table with PC and video game experiences. Their expectations were to have the same levers available in their pencil and paper RPG’s as they had in their PC and Video game equivalents. It may seem odd, since PC and Video game RPG’s were born from Pencil and Paper versions, but the digital versions of RPG’s evolved differently and then began to influence their ancestry, pushing their pencil and paper equivalents to adapt to them.
An example of a Dissociated Mechanic is the Combat Maneuvers mechanic for a 5th edition fighter. With this mechanic, the fighter gets “combat maneuver points” that can be spent on special combat actions. These points represent an abstraction of fatigue, concentration, knowledge and Will I suppose. You can do things like trip your enemy (causing them to go prone), rally an ally (giving them extra HP), or command another player (giving them an extra attack).
This mechanic is really not associated with the characters reality, aka, a dissociated mechanic. When the character rallies another character and gives them extra HP, it’s really such a heavy abstraction in on its own as it is, but on top of that, he can only do it 3 times before taking rest, or he can rally someone twice, but then only trip an enemy one time So to the character because he rallied someone, he can’t trip someone later.
If you start to see the picture here, you should realize that the combat maneuver points, the way they are applied, the abstracted mechanics they trigger are all disassociated from reality. It makes it more disassociated and really paints the picture when you start asking questions.
Why can’t a thief learn a combat maneuver? Is tripping someone that complicated? Is it not possible for a Paladin to rally his troops, or command fellow character to get an extra attack? Why does me rallying my team and commanding them, exhaust me and prevent me from tripping someone or getting a bonus attack. How are these things related to each other.
Now there is a term for this called suspension of disbelief that is often applied, I would argue incorrectly. Suspension of disbelief is to accept something as fact that is clearly invented fantasy. For example characters in a fantasy world know that orcs and dragons exist, that magic is real and gods actually come down from the heavens and influence mortal beings. These are facts for the fantasy world and require the players to have a suspension of disbelief to accept. It is not suspension of disbelief when we ask a player to accept that he is fatigued from commanding people, so he can’t make a riposte or a trip attack as a result. We are not asking their character to believe in magic or dragons, we are asking them to accept a mechanical construct applied to a game for the purposes of balance as real.
Modern D&D is full of dissociated mechanics and this is so because these mechanics were not created to represent character choices and decisions within the realm of a abstracted fantasy reality, they were added for classes to have interesting activatable abilities, for the purposes of balance and entertainment as part of a miniatures combat game. They are not only dissociated from the make believe reality of a fantasy world, but from the very premise of a role-playing game (aka, taking on a role of a character).
These disassociated mechanics are very disruptive to role-playing though modern players are not entirely aware of it because again, they are so accustomed to these mechanics existing in other games (namely PC and Video games) that it feels natural and normal to have them. Modern pencil and paper RPG players are more likely to discuss class builds, class balance and “what options are good picks or not”. To the modern gamer, this is part of the role-playing experience and though these mechanics are disassociated, modern gamers are not bothered by the disruption, though disrupt them it does.
To a modern player, choosing your race and class, your feats and skills and your spells are mechanical choices they expect to make. They expect progression, they expect balance, they expect lots and lots of options. In fact, the size of core rulebooks have grown substantially for many of these games. Pathfinder 2.0 for example weighs in at over 600+ pages, easily the largest RPG rulebook that has ever existed. This book is overflowing with character building options. One must ask the question why? Why do we need this many options for a game that is about playing a role in a game of collaborative storytelling?
Dissociated mechanics are partially the cause, or at least they compounded the issues that lead to increased length of combat. As more and more of a session is taken up by making tactical choices, with a plethora of activatable abilities, the slower the game is in combat and the more often the players are pulled out of their role in the role-playing game and pushed towards player centric top down decisions about which abilities to use, which resources to spend, what tactical choices they should make. None of which has anything to do with role-playing their character, thinking through their character or seeing the world through their character. These are, for all intents and purposes, mechanics designed for a game.
4th edition D&D for example was often accused in reviews of being too much like a board game or an MMORPG. This assessment while facetious, is not really that far from the truth as in many ways, because the game is built on so many dissociated mechanics (just like board games and PC games are), that its perfectly reasonable to get that sense from the game. In 4th edition D&D you spent most of your session using mechanics that would have no in game, in character logic to them.
Is it all bad?
The answer is no. While certainly things have changed a great deal since the AD&D days when associated mechanics were king, the RPG revolution has begun to revert from its PC game evolved roots back to the golden age thinking. This is happening very subtly, but slowly with each new iteration of D&D. We have seen the PC and Video game world have less and less influence and the old school world of RPG’s have more and more. Modern players have begun to evolve the pencil and paper RPG’s away from the digital rpg’s. and into their own thing. Now its not exactly an old school movement, but many ideas from old school games have found their way back into modern designs.
A good example in Pathfinder 2.0 is the skill system. Any AD&D player should find this system very familiar, it is almost an exact replica of Non-Weapon proficiencies.
Why has Pathfinder 2.0 brought back Non-Weapon Proficiencies? The answer is quite simple. The purpose of a skill system is to describe what your character can do, not necessary to define how the rules work. Its sort of like saying, here is a gauge, rather then, here is an applicable rule. Its to ensure that while a player runs his character, he understands what his abilities are from the perspective of his character.
For example if you are trained at swimming, you know you can swim. That is an in character understanding (an associated mechanic). Certainly there can be rules for swimming (Difficulties set for different conditions for example) but the important thing for the player and his character is to understand, hey I know how to do that and here is how good at it I am. Trained, expert etc..
The movement to more associated mechanics however isn’t just about reverting to old school mechanics, there are very modern versions of associated mechanics we have never seen in old school games, but still fit neatly into the ideology. This supports the idea that associated mechanics aren’t just an old school thing, modern gamers and designers are becoming very aware of it as well even if they don’t fully verbalize it.
For example the 2D20 Momentum and Threat mechanic is a great example. Here we have a very associated mechanic that is inspired by concepts of inspiration and stress, a gauge of a very relatable concept we have in our real lives. When a person is inspired, he becomes motivated and is more likely to succeed and ever exceed in tasks he is performing. Who hasn’t had that day at work when everything is falling into place, motivating you to push it further, that moment when we are on a roll.
Vice versus with threat, its a little like stress. We can feel our stress levels and they impact us negatively. The more stressed we are the less productive we are, the more mistakes we make, we lose sleep, we are less attentive when we drive. There is all sorts of impact on our lives from stress (aka threat).
This sort of mechanic is brilliant in representing something very relatable, yet it is very modern, an invention of an associated mechanic for the new age of role-playing games.
The move away from dissociated mechanics might not ever reach the same levels as AD&D which on a design level had a real aversion to it going so far as suggesting that even the use of dissociated house rules in your game is heresy. Still modern gamers are becoming more evolved role-players. More and more, players are becoming concerned with their stories, with their backgrounds, with the invention of character and the designers of these systems are responding by giving them the mechanical structure on which to base those inventions, which come in the form of associated mechanics.
In Pathfinder 2.0, I found it refreshing and far more natural to build a character, a really great sign that the system is moving in the right direction. The dissociations of choosing hyper abstract mechanical options have been minimized, replaced with mechanics designed to help match functionality to written backgrounds and give players narrative fuel. We already saw this greatly improved in 5th edition D&D and Pathfinder 2.0 has taken yet another step in that right direction. An almost full 180 from systems like 4th edition D&D which lived in the world of dissociated mechanics almost exclusively.
Conclusion
The conclusion is that while we still call the old school movement and game systems like AD&D old school, modern games are becoming more and more familiar to us old gonards. The distinction between new school and old school is becoming blurred, there are more and more commonalities between the two concepts and rules. I find some of us Gonards have a hard time making peace with that, as old school has other more mythical connotations, but I consider this sort of thing very judgy for the sake of being judgy. It’s just some hipster shit, that out of date “it was better in the olden days” mantra. The reality is that the bridge is being built and the question is if old school players can get their head out of their asses long enough to make the crossing. I have my doubts about that.
Role-playing has changed a great deal in the last 30 years, but in a way, its less a progression forward and more an evolution and refinement on the original material. Sure, there was a brief moment in time (about 10 years worth) when the influence of digital games on the pencil and paper games was disturbing, I will be the first to admit that I thought it was shit in, shit out at the time, but even from those periods of design some good came out of it. Perhaps it was a lesson on what not to do, but I like to think of it more along the lines of designers coming to grips about what was great about role-playing games at the table and how it differs from the digital experiences. It was an affirmation that us old Gonards were right all along, we fucking told you, you wouldn’t listen and so you spent 10 years getting your asses kicked. While I feel high and mighty, I welcome you back.
Mind you I love MMORPG’s and CRPG’s, Baldur’s Gate was one of my favorite games of all time and it was a very close approximation of the rules of AD&D. It just doesn’t work to run pencil and paper RPG’s in this manner and we shouldn’t try to make mechanics that allow you to so, its pointless and It just doesn’t work well.
Pencil and Paper RPG’s are also more than just one thing and the old school gonards like me have to really come to grips with that as well. There are a wider range of perfectly acceptable ways to play D&D and those players aren’t doing it wrong, they are doing it their way and doing it your own way IS always the right way. Designers are going to continue as they always have to cater to all walks of RPG life, which will include these ever widening styles of play.
I do however agree with the old school movement that D&D is its own thing, it is not to be fucked with. If you want to make a Forbidden Lands that has some unique spin on the RPG genre, go for it, but if you are going to put the D&D label on something, you will follow the rules, or we will make someone who does the king of RPG’s (like Paizo). There are sacred cows like associated mechanics that simply cannot be trifled with, else you will end up with commercial failures like 4th edition D&D. Note I said commercial failure, not design failure. 4e had its merits, it just wasn’t D&D because it failed to heed important lessons about what D&D should be, which includes a game about fast combat, associated mechanics and countless key tropes that are ingrained into the fan bases psyche If you want to include D&D players from all generations of the game, there are simply some design constructs that must be followed. Call them sacred cows if you will, but those are the terms, abide by them or suffer the consequences.
In my opinion the future looks bright for the old school movement and the modern gamers as well. Systems like Pathfinder 2.0 are clearly designed for a more seasoned group of players, but there is no mistaking its intention to include old school veteran’s of D&D and the old school movement within its walls. I look forward to this next edition of the game.
(3.5 out of 5 Stars)
You must be logged in to post a comment.