Tag Archives: Solo

Peloponnesian War by GMT Games 2019

February 7, 2022 5 Minutes

Designer: Mark Herman

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

Final Score: (4.55 out 5) Great Game!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Components

Score:
Tilt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theme

Score:
Tilt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gameplay

Score:
Tilt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replayability and Longevity

Score:
Tile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Board Game Reviews

Review: Field Commander: Napoleon by DVG 2011

May 17, 2021 5 Minutes

Designer: Dan Verssen

The Field Commander series by Dan Verssen is celebrated as one of the big standouts in the world of historical solo war gaming and while admittedly this is a very niche genre of gaming, it’s small community of fans is fiercely vocal, passionate and loyal. This is a series that counts Field Commander Rommel and Field Commander Alexander as two of the most highly regarded of the series, but It is Field Commander: Napoleon that is universally hailed as the best in class by fans and by no small margin.

The latest addition to the Field Commander series is Fleet Commander Nimitz, another DVG game that brings the solo genre of gaming into World War II Pacific. I feel like I should just mail DVG my credit card to speed things along.

In these pandemic times while we are stuck in our homes waiting for the vaccine to arrive that will mark the day when we get back to our usual gaming routines, I have spent a great deal of time playing solo board games. While the list of games is long and distinguished, I felt like I was not really branching out beyond games based on World War II and I really wanted to. I decided I wanted a new game in a different era and I have to be entirely honest that I picked the Napoleonic Era almost completely at random. When you do a search for a Napoleonic Era solo game, Field Commander Napoleon is the one google screams at you to try.

With only the most cursory research, I found and bought a copy of Field Commander Napoleon on sale and that is pretty much the entire story. I knew very little about the Napoleonic Era when I bought this game and it would be my first exposure to the Field Commander series. I have to admit however I felt quite comfortable with that because Dan Verssen as a designer and DVG as a publisher has built up a lot of good will with me. After all it was DVG that made B-17 Flying Fortress Leader a permanent fixture in my hobby room, a game I have played more times then I care to admit and if the Field Commander series was even half as good as the Leader series, I had nothing to worry about.

Overview

Final Score: (4.45 out 5) Great Game!

Field Commander: Napoleon is a war game about the entirety of Napoleon’s career on the battlefield, from his early exploits in 1796 in Italy to the 1815 “War of the Seven Coalitions” which produced the infamous Battle of Waterloo.

The game is split up into two separate parts of waging Naploeon’s campaigns, the first a top level strategic game where you move armies on a more grand scale in a bid for dominance in an area control game and the second the more zoomed in level of play where you actually command your troops on individual battlefields in a tactical mini game.

Throughout the game you transition between these two separate but very related sections of play as you attempt to complete the objectives of 11 unique scenarios that are linked together into a campaign which when completed gets you a final score for self judgement and/or bragging rights.

The gameboard is compact with all the information you need about a scenario printed for you at arms length. This game makes use of every inch of space, small enough to play outside in the garden on those slow lazy summer afternoons.

I find solo games to be very hard to review because it’s difficult to know when your experience and expectations of standard multiplayer board games should be applied as a point of comparison to a solo game and when you have to judge it by the unique standards that apply to the solo genre. A solo game is a very intimate experience which lives in your head and your opponent is essentially a sort of AI built from some governing rules which often include a decision process driven by dice. This is certainly true about Field Commander Napoleon and almost entirely foreign ground in standard multiplayer board games.

This rather unusual setup, unless you are already used to playing games like this, is going to feel very much outside of your experience, which is really a round about way of saying that while this is a board game and it has many of the usual bells and whistles of a board game, the experience of playing a solo board game is wildly different from playing a game with an opponent which includes multiplayer games that you play solo.

Field Commander Napoleon is no exception in this regard, but Dan Verssen has made every effort to make this game as strategic and tactical as possible while simultaneously thematic and historically vivid which are the real selling points here. In the end, if I had to give this game a description, I would call it a strategic and tactical puzzle because in a sense, this game presents you with challenging problems to solve in its grand strategy and on its tactical mini game and those problems are solved by coming up with very unique and I would argue very clever ways of exploiting the mechanics.

I love DVG solo games and I would be hard pressed to pick my favorite but it would most likely come down to a battle between B-17 Flying Fortress Leader and Field Commander: Napoleon. In either case, both games are on my “highly Recommended” list for solo gamers.

In a sense the core mechanic of the game is quite simple, but each new scenario presents you with new conditions and rules that change the dynamics of those base mechanics and so with each new scenario you sort of start over and have to rethink and reassess the whole game. What works in one scenario to “beat it”, will fail horrifically in the next.

Components

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: Feels like a Deluxe edition, great example of good use of tokens, great production value all around.

Cons: It’s pricey.

The sticker price for Field Commander Napoleon is about 100 bucks which is considerable (almost twice as much) if you compare it to the cost of the other Field Commander games like Rommel or Alexander. I got lucky and found it on sale, but it did have me wondering what it was about this particular game in the series in comparison to the others that warranted such a big bump in cost. In my review of B-17 Flying Fortress Leader, another DVG game I also bitched about the price, though I didn’t find it outrageous or anything, but I’m finding more and more that historical war games seem to carry considerably higher cost then any other genre and solo games seem for whatever reason to be the most expensive of them all.

When I cracked this box open, it became immediately apparent why this game is so expensive. The game comes with 7 full color mounted boards for the campaign portion of the scenarios which includes a separate battlefield map for fighting the zoomed in tactical battles. There are also 6 Full very thick counter sheets with beautifully illustrated tokens, various index sheets for campaign tracking and quick reference and of course a full colored rulebook.

This is a very nice production and while pricey, I think it fits the price quite respectfully, in fact it felt like what you were getting here is a deluxe version of a game that might otherwise have a cheaper alternative version.

I always appreciate mounted boards and I’m happy to pay for the privilege, DVG could have cut the games cost and sold this with paper maps and that would have been fine too. Solo games with a paper map is probobly the one time I would say I’m considerably less adamant about high quality mounted board productions. Clearly, DVG felt this game deserved the extra production value and having played quite a bit of this game at this point, I have to agree with them. As you will discover in this review, I adore this game and when a board game is this good, I want that deluxe component treatment. Clearly DVG anticipated this games success and never bothered putting out the “cheaper” version of the game selling it as the Ferrari it is.

I always say that there is a right time to use tokens and a wrong time, every game is different and it really depends on the purpose of the tokens in the game, whether having them facilitates play or hinders it. Historical War Game publishers and designers are notorious for being so adjusted to using tokens for everything they often fail to make this assessment and very often get this wrong.

In the case of Field Commander: Napoleon, the tokens actually have a mechanical purpose in the tactical battles to help represent unit formations, logic in their organization on the campaign map and are easy to distinguish at a glance without having to manipulate them which all works to facilitate gameplay. They are gorgeous of course which helps to sell the theme and general feel of the game, but pretty tokens is not a design decision, its an artistic one and this game was clearly made by a great designer that understands that functionality comes first. Dan nails it here with perfectly designed tokens that serve to make this game better as they are functional, informative and multipurpose.

When it comes to the components here I really have no complaints, its a game on the expensive side, but their is no price gouging on the cost to value so you get what you pay for and what you’re paying for is deluxe.

Theme

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: Great sense of drama, fantastic connection between mechanics and theme, looks great on the table.

Cons: This game nails it, no complaints!

When it comes to solo games, the presentation of theme is quite important and I will always tilt the review score towards it. When you play a solo game you are playing alone, you are in your head which means the game your playing needs to inspire your imagination, give you that internal dialogue and story about what the game is trying to convey thematically.

In the case of Field Commander Napoleon you are meant to actually be Napoleon, in fact, if Napoleon (represented as a token in your armies) is ever killed on the battlefield, the game is over and you lost! I love that, it personalizes the game but this is just one very simple way the theme is conveyed. The games thematic presence goes far deeper then that.

The true brevity of the theme actually pours through the gameplay and really the mechanics and theme are so linked that they are almost one and the same. This game does not rely on art, cards, flavor text or other abstract things or displays to tell Napoleon’s story and bring the theme across, it is almost all done exclusively through the decisions you make driven by the games strategic puzzles. Puzzles which in an abstract way are based on historical events, in other words, based on the same problems and decisions that Napoleon himself faced.

Now of course this is done with a light touch in abstract ways as clearly the events of Napoleon’s life on the battlefield undoubtedly came with immense historical detail, a game trying to replicate that would likely be highly complex and what Field Commander Napoleon tries to make out of that is to give you the sensation of the issues Napoleon faced in a more digestible form.

There are three layers in how the game accomplishes this.

First and foremost are the unique scenario challenges. Each scenario presents a number of unique problems assumingly based on historical realities of the times. For example the 1798 “Egyptian Adventure” scenario has you dealing with a “plague” rule which increases the cost to resupply (heal) units. “The Harsh Conditions” rule has you rolling for casualties anytime you move units as part of larger armies and the “No Cannon” rule means you have to win this entire scenario with infantry and Calvary units alone, no Cannons for you!

Naturally its hard to convey the impact of such details in a review in which your understanding of the rules is limited, but suffices to say the impact of these conditions create a very unique problem that requires a completely different approach to resolving it than you might otherwise take to complete the winning conditions of a scenario.

Each scenario takes this approach by infusing it with rules reminiscent of the special historical events of the period and through this the theme shines through. Now if you’re like me where you don’t actually know the history beyond the basics, these things might have less of an impact but their are more abstract associations you will make that really don’t require the history lesson. The Plague and Harsh Conditions rules for example are not that difficult to associate to thematically even if the real history is unknown to you, it’s Egypt (a desert), plagues are always easy to imagine taking place in the1800’s. It’s really not that much of a stretch to give your imagination some fuel to get those important thematic visuals. The designer probobly understands that while anyone who picks this game up is going to be a fan of historical war games and Napoleonic History, its unlikely we are all going to be history professors that will get every reference, so this is sufficiently gamified to allow the theme to shine regardless of how much about the history you actually know.

The second way, which again is a very mechanically driven approach the theme is conveyed is through the tactical battles. This is a kind of a mini grand strategy game and the campaign map, the movement of troops and management of resources are all part of the core game, but really the scenarios key moments are resolved on the battlefield. Hence the tactical battles are are fought whenever your units find themselves on the same spot on the campaign map as the enemy.

When this happens all of the units on the campaign map in that spot are moved to the tactical board, essentially its a bit like zooming into the campaign map to lead the troops personally on the battlefield. Just this act of zooming in on the battle immediately triggers your imagination as you see the game as this grand strategy campaign, but you don’t have to imagine the battles, you are actually going to fight them out, with actual battlefield tactics first hand.

Big meaty battles like this can have some crazy outcomes, position and formations are critical. This tactical mini game way of resolving battles is just what the doctor ordered to sell this theme.

On the tactical view of the game formations matter, position matters and the orders you give your troops matter. This is a round by round, straight up fight where you and your enemy move across the tactical map shooting cannons, forming lines, charging, flanking and all the fun stuff of war (in the game sense, obviously these battles were probobly quite horrific).

Now I will talk about the gameplay and mechanics of this part of the game in the gameplay section in more detail because they are absolutely brilliant, but if we are talking strictly theme, this way of handling combat is just dripping with it. Crazy stuff happens on this tactical battlefield. Sometimes soldiers get routed at the worst moment, sometimes they refuse to follow orders all together, they get caught out of position, or make valiant pushes that force the enemy to turn and run. Its just fantastic, the whole thing! For me, this is one of the most fun mechanics of this or any other solo game I have ever played but I don’t just love it for its mechanical genius but because of what it does for this games thematic presence. It just nails that Napoleonic Era feel with perfection.

The final peg to the Field Commander Napoloeon’s perfect handling of the theme is the time pressure aspect. Every scenario has a pretty harsh time limit in turns in which you must win the scenario (else you lose it by default). You can’t just dilly dally around and wait for that perfect circumstance to execute your master plan. Turns are extremely limited, you have to act and you have to make due with the circumstances you have at any given moment.

This creates drama, tough decisions and forces you to make a lot of high stake gambles. Put together when you successfully pull it off you can’t help but cheer at the table even though you are probobly alone and there is no one there to hear you while simultaneously when you fail, you will be pounding your table with a fist of rage. This very simple application of pressure applied to the game turns brings out tremendous energy, creates this constant tension and makes this entire game extremely hard which is exactly what you want it to be. You want to feel like Napoleon and nothing says Napoleon more then pulling a victory out of thin air when facing impossible odds by making hyper clever plays and gambling like a maniac.

The gambling however is not luck and this is where all three of the pegs of this theme kind of come together into a gorgeous thematic margarita. You know the conditions of the scenario so you are managing the campaign level game to ensure you limit the scenarios drawbacks as much as you can. You make tough, often risky decisions but because you control the tactical battle, you don’t have that “roll a die and hope for the best” battle resolution. You are the one managing your soldiers on the battlefield, giving them orders, setting their positions, making those tactical plays. So when you win a battle, it doesn’t feel like luck is driving your victory or your story, you feel in control and your success and failures are your own and because your under time pressure to get it all done before the clock runs out, the tension and drama of each round is vivid giving the whole thing this very thematic and story rich feeling.

It just comes together beautifully. Field Commander Napoleon is an amazing, thematically rich game and I can totally understand all of those accolades it gets from its fan base, because when it comes to the most important part of a solo game, the theme, F.C.N. sticks the landing like a Olympic champion.

Gameplay

Score:

Score:
Tilt:

Pros: Great use of scenario based rules, fantastic tactical battles that give you a sense of control and perfecting pacing.

Cons: Advanced rules for more experienced players would have been nice, AI can be quirky at times.

While the theme is absolutely vital to a solo game in my opinion, gameplay has to be a close second. Thankfully Dan V. understands this quite well and gives us a game in which I would describe the gameplay as a perfect garnish for the thematic main dish. Even if you don’t agree about my priorities here however, the gameplay isn’t going to disappoint here, it doesn’t play second fiddle to the theme, it is extremely strong on its own with mechanics so smooth you almost wish this game had a multiplayer mode.

In describing this game, its very easy to become fixated about various areas of play and while most parts of the game are very simple, one of the magic tricks that Field Commander Napoleon pulls off is knowing when more detailed mechanics pay off and when less detail helps to make the gameplay quick and snappy. As such I can’t say that any specific mechanic is some sort of revelation, but all of these different levers put together results in a game that just works.

The campaign rules for example that govern your resource management, troupe movement and resupply all work to support the games core in a simple and direct way. You always have a good understanding of the impact of your decisions on the main campaign map and their is zero confusion about how to execute the rules thanks to a crystal clear rulebook. All you are really doing on this map is making high level choices that will setup the second, more critical part of the game, the tactical battles.

The special rules of the scenarios however are what transforms this campaign mode into something much deeper and it’s within these special rules you will find yourself altering how you view this part of the game and how you use its mechanics. There is no one strategy fits all kind of thing happening here, even though without the special scenarios there would very obviously be one.

Each scenario is unique, from setup, to special rules, alternative supply methods and even different scoring methods. There are 11 scenario and each is truly unique.

How you move troops, how you choose to re-enforce your battle lines, how often you save resources as opposed to spending them all, when scouts are important and when they are not. All of these micro decisions are going to be put to the test with each scenario and you will make very different decisions based on it.

If there is anything to complain about its that perhaps the game is too simple on this high level campaign mode. After a few plays, the decisions you make are driven by a kind of experience and informed view of the game as a whole you eventually gain. I think it would have been nice if there were some “advanced” rules that more experienced players could inject into this campaign level game to increase the complexity. It takes a few plays through all the scenarios to get to this point however which is going to give you hours of exciting gameplay making the discovery so it’s a minor complaint if one at all, but I do think its a missed opportunity.

I do understand that in the modernization of game design the mantra is “simple” which translates to approachable and is seen as streamlined and preferable in the eyes of publishers, but this game targets historical war gamers who appreciate some meat on the bone and I think designers have to remember who their game is for.

The AI movements and responses are as you would expect a bit robotic at times and a bit too random at others as dice and charts control them. This can create some wacky results, but typically the AI ends up being hyper aggressive and you can rely on it to charge into your troops to diminish your efforts every round. The time pressure element of this game doesn’t give you the luxury of buying your time, so you have little choice but to be equally aggressive in your pursuits and while the results can vary from game to game in how well the AI ultimately plays, it generally produces challenging and interesting games. Certainly the one thing you can depend on is that the AI will often act in unexpected ways which I think is what you want and strangely sometimes these odd behaviors though they might not pay off on the current turn, in the next two it may turn out that these strange moves give the AI a force advantage in some key area.

The scenarios themselves are definitely not easy, in fact, their are no “introduction” scenarios that give you an easy victory so that you can get your head around the game. The AI immediately crushes you in your first game and I found it took me a solid five or six attempts to win just the first scenario. You do get better at the game rather quickly and while each scenario presents you with a unique challenges that will trip you up, the difficulty of the game kind of levels out and while it remains “difficult”, in time you will build up the skill set needed to successfully complete all 11 scenarios.

In this regard while I can’t complain too much, the game does have that “I finished it” feel to it. While the game is varied and dynamic enough that you can play the full campaign a few times, I think most people will likely shelve the game after a few play throughs. It is a fun experience however that you will think back on fondly and eventually that will drive you to dust it off the shelf to have another go. I seem to cycle games like this into my gaming routinely every few months and I can see this one coming back around. This comment might belong in the replayability and longevity section, but to me this is a product of the really fun gameplay and strong mechanics of the game to such a degree that I think it must be stated here.

The big winner of this game however is the tactical battles which are really the addictive component of this game and the center that makes everything else look much better than any part individually. It reminds me a bit of an old Nintendo game called Genghis Khan in that, your efforts on the campaign map can either give you an edge in the tactical battles if you have done well or make these battles really difficult if your campaign management is lacking. Yet despite this, if you are clever about how you manage tactical battles you can flip the switch and produce victories where you should have been defeated, turning a short coming in the campaign mode into an advantage after a tactical battle. This aspect of the game gives you this amazing sense of control over your destiny and I absolutely love that about F.C.N, in the same way I loved it about that silly Genghis Khan game.

The tactical battles have you making round by round decisions like the formations of your units which can be column or line. You also give units special orders using order tokens that define things like charges, flanks and other more abstract orders that represent advanced preparations and things of that nature. Depending on formations and orders, you sometimes need to make checks to see if your units will actually follow your orders, which is a round about way of creating a sort of system of risk vs. reward in these tactical battles. Then there is the whole concept of timing, some of which you can calculate based on what you do know about the battle and other times you have to adjust things as you go or react to changing events and AI decisions. This is because the AI randomly draws from a cup of special orders and so the behavior of the AI on the battlefield is going to trip you up and have you scrambling during the execution of each round.

Rarely does a tactical battle go exactly according to plan and because tactical battles have a mechanic that randomizes the length of the battle , their can be time pressures you have to deal with here as well which really adds to the games many tough decisions you have to make and unpredictable results you have to contend with that will have you adjusting your overall strategy.

All of this results in some fantastic play elements that are both challenging, fun and thematic. All the things you need a game like this to be.

Replayability and Longevity

Score:

Score:
Tile:

Pros: 11 Scenarios with multiple ways to complete them successful will keep you busy for quite a while.

Cons: Some more meaningful goals beyond top score and some more advanced rules with high difficulty settings would have helped keep this one on the table longer.

Scenario based games have a tendency to get “played out” in the sense that once you have beaten all the scenarios a couple of times, the game sort of runs out of steam. It will definitely take some time to get their with Field Commander: Napoleon, it certainly is not an easy game, but eventually it will land on your shelf and collect some dust.

The question is whether or not you are likely to find the urge to pull it of the shelf for a second or maybe even a third round and I believe the answer is, yes… yes you will. I know I did.

I waited quite a while before writing this review just to see if after beating all 11 scenarios would be as interesting the second time around and not only was it just as much fun, but it actually reminded me of just how great this game really is as I discovered new strategies and alternative ways to beat some of the scenarios.

I of course wish their were more scenarios, advanced rules and perhaps a little bit more meaningful goals then just trying to beat your top score, but the game certainly has plenty of fun filled hours of gameplay that warrant its purchase.

Conclusion

Field Commander: Napoleon has easy to learn rules, a great sense of drama and theme, a subtle but meaningful grand strategy game layered with an absolutely fantastic tactical mini game built in. This is all wrapped up in a deluxe production and while price might be an issue, you certainly get what you pay for.

The short and sweet of it is that this game was a big hit with me, it certainly rivaled my other favorite solo game (B-17 Flying Fortress Leader), so if you like the Napoleonic Era and are stuck in your house playing games alone, Field Commander Napoleon comes highly recommended.

Board Game Reviews

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader by DVG

January 16, 2020 5 Minutes

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: (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: (3.5 out of 5 Stars)
Tilt:

Pros: 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: (5 out of 5 Stars)
Tilt:

Pros: 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.

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.

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: 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.

Gamers Dungeon

Tag Archives: Solo

Peloponnesian War by GMT Games 2019

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replayability and Longevity

Conclusion

Review: Field Commander: Napoleon by DVG 2011

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replayability and Longevity

Conclusion

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader by DVG

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replay ability And Longevity

Conclusion

Dedicated To All Things Gaming

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replayability and Longevity

Conclusion

Share this:

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replayability and Longevity

Conclusion

Share this:

Overview

Components

Theme

Gameplay

Replay ability And Longevity

Conclusion

Share this:

Dedicated To All Things Gaming