I just had the best Labor Day weekend with my whole family hanging out, eating, drinking, swimming, and playing Churchill plus a little MechWarrior. My boys and I played a campaign game with my son Grant (Stalin), son-in-law Dan (Roosevelt) and I was Churchill. Grant and Dan were play testers and both of them are very skilled at the game, so I had to play very well or lose. In fact the last time I played two games with them at Monster Con in Arizona they each won one game, to my none, which they have not let me forget. The trash talk indicated that they were confident of a repeat performance.

Conference 1

Now when I play with the boys it always works out in the beginning that they are not going to let the old man have any leverage, so at the end of the first conference I actually won no issues. Stalin won the conference and managed to gain sufficient offensive support to advance against stiff German opposition. During play testing Grant specialized as Stalin and he invented most of the known Soviet strategies. New players and those who have not had success as Uncle Joe need to remember that the Soviets are locked in a titanic struggle on the Eastern front. They need to focus on gaining offensive support in excess of 5 to advance. It is important that they advance at least once during the first two conferences to keep pace with the Western front.

This takes winning Western Allied directed offensives and production. The issue choices based on which cards you are holding determining whether you pick two directed offensive issues or a one of each. Grant’s performance was a primer in how to dominate scoring with the Soviets. As it turned out he was just a little too good at it this time.

Once D-Day has occurred continuing this strategy should result in at least one breakthrough, there were two in this game, giving the Soviets military leverage. With all concerned focused on Europe and the US early focus on political moves there were no advances in the Pacific.

Conference 2

The second conference continued to see the US and the USSR duke it out with the Soviets winning the second conference. I focused on getting the war in motion. Winning every conference is not necessarily important in Churchill, winning the issues you need to prosecute your strategy is always important. Despite what new players think a major strategy in Churchill is winning the war. By having control over the Axis you gain control over the situation and the peace that follows. No peace, no control. Nine times out of ten I can beat any group of players who disregard the war and focus immediately on their national agendas and scoring points. This is why many games do not end in Axis surrender, because the players are still learning that by not creating the option for victory under any of the three conditions they instead are forced to win under only one. Ignore the war and you are in a knife fight in a phone booth, may the best human win in condition 3 (no Axis surrender).

One of my most interesting plays in this conference was while my Allies fought over two Pol-Mil issues I ensured that the Global issue ended up back in the center of the table. That’s correct I purposefully avoided winning the conference and capturing the Global issue. If you are asking why, the answer is when the three global issues are in the neutral position the only two spaces you can play into are Persia and the Middle East. With my two opponents fighting over two Pol-Mil issues and winning one apiece this play minimized their impact on the score. Sometimes a restrictive global issue regime is best.

As you can see in the image for the end of Conference 2, the Soviets stalled while I used the US directed offensive and my own UK production to win the Battle for the Atlantic and complete Bolero setting up an early D-Day.

Conference 3

The Soviets were moving down the dual path of winning conferences and the A-bomb issue. This is not usually how I see the Soviets go, but as I said Grant is very good with the Soviets. The net good for the Allies is Dan’s (Roosevelt’s) excellent die rolling had moved the Manhattan project to the Hanford space with the Soviet spy ring keeping pace. I continued to work my win the war strategy by getting the Second Front on the table and the execution of a successful early D-Day, General Marshall must be smiling. The US won the global issue with no Pol-Mil issue on the table and set up Self Determination and began focusing some offensive energy in the Pacific with an advance in the Central Pacific.

I am a little concerned about how the war in the Pacific is going, but with the Soviets stalled again, the race for Berlin is on!

Conference 4

The US again put the Global issue on the table, but I won it creating a Free Europe situation. I continue to ignore the Mediterranean so I can focus on the Western front, but with only one production marker the advance did not advance far. The Soviets managed to capture two directed offensive issues and used these resources to achieve a breakthrough putting them closer to Germany. The US continued with their Pacific first strategy enabling another Central Pacific advance with SW Pacific stymied in the Solomon Islands.

Conference 5

The Soviet espionage issue efforts continues to transfer A-bomb technology to the Soviets, but this early focus resulted in a very early Trinity. This is a critical piece of the Axis surrender puzzle, so I am very happy to have that off the table as I move my plan for victory forward. Dan and I kept our directed offensives out of the hands of Grant (Stalin), so his Eastern front stalled while the Western front advanced. Over in the Pacific Dan (Roosevelt) saw MacArthur (SW Pacific) finally capture the Solomon Islands. Dan is playing well, but I find that a good tactic in the Pacific is to alternate fronts by ensuring one advances each turn. Next conference advances the other front. Sometimes you will get lucky and they both advance, but it is important that at least one of them advance without a die roll if possible. By alternating you keep the ISR penalty off the table.

Dan won the Global issue this conference and we now have a Free Europe and Self Determination, so the political board is open. In the first conference I luckily received a clandestine network in Norway and there was a brief moment when their were three naval markers in the Arctic allowing me to get my Norwegian government in exile into position, which the Germans immediately shut down, protecting my position. Unbeknownst to me at the time this would be an important factor later on.

Conference 6

After another Soviet breakthrough, which was an automatic (front strength of 20!) I was thinking that this is going to be a short game. The Western Allies have now advanced into the Rhineland, so if we cannot beat the Soviets into Germany the Western front needs to get to West Germany for some offsetting points. One benefit of the Soviet breakthrough is we are now dealing with one less German reserve. As you can see the Mediterranean front is a sideshow that has not seen much support beyond what was mandated by the conference cards.

On the political front clandestine networks are starting to indicate where each player is planning to build support. While the rapid Soviet advance removed a couple of clandestine networks, Dan and I had doubled up so we weathered the NKVD storm. Overall the political score is about even between the Western Allies with the Soviets giving away around 6 VP that will easily be made up in Germany. I would say that the game looked to be entering the end stage at this point, but then things went off the rails a bit.

Conference 7

The Soviets continued to dominate the conferences and with espionage had 32 VPs putting Grant clearly in the lead. While Stalin won the conference there was an exchange of directed offensive prisoners with no front advancing in Europe. I began focusing some energy in the Pacific by getting the USSR declares war on Japan issue to the table, but I was unable to force a Far Eastern front breakthrough just an advance into Nomonhon. If I had been successful in a breakthrough then I would have taken another piece of the Axis surrender puzzle off the table. At least the Japanese army will now begin to react to the Soviets making the US/UK passage across the Pacific a bit easier. The US with some support from the Pacific leadership issue managed a double front advance. For my part beyond what I was forced to support via the conference cards, the CBI languished in first gear, but even they managed to move forward.

Conference 8

I let it be known that the war could end during this conference, although it would take a lot to make that happen. As it turned out the US took the USSR declares war issue to win their first conference effectively lengthening the war. The US was not yet prepared to have the war end, so this was an effective tactic to set up a US win. I spent my British efforts to try and achieve a breakthrough in Europe, but the random portion of the German reserve placement had a different view. As the Western front entered Western Germany, the Soviets won the race for Berlin. This created a 15 versus 5 VP split between Stalin and the Western Allies. At this point Grant was committed to either lengthening the game to Potsdam to tighten up the score or go for a global hegemon (no Axis surrender) victory. Knowing my son there was only one way he was likely to go, world domination.

Over in the Pacific the Japanese ganged up on the SW Pacific enabling the Central Pacific front to advance (Iwo Jima) and a potential ISR issue for Dan (Roosevelt). We had now officially reached the end game with two conferences to go. As we did not score during the game two things were clear, the Soviets were in a commanding lead and I thought I had a single digit point lead over the US. My strategy for the next conference was I needed to get the Japanese to surrender. This would give the US five points, but with SW Pacific two spaces away from the Philippines I would gain 3 VP back, for a net 2 to the US and this would only increase the Soviet score further.

The game would come down to whether I could force a condition 2 victory (Axis surrender with a broken alliance) or fail to a Soviet condition 3 victory (no Axis surrender, global hegemon). As it turned out Dan had the same strategy, but he wanted the game to end on conference 10 not 9. If he was successful he would likely win the game, so it was now or never for Churchill.

Conference 9

The conference card saw the death of Roosevelt and the A-bomb issue comes onto the table, giving the Soviets one issue almost locked up at the start. With Trinity already an accomplished fact Truman is quite strong with no vulnerabilities. He clearly is a Doctor Strangelove fan. The last conference saw all four Pol-Mil issues on the table accompanied by the global issue, Pacific Leadership and of course the USSR conditional issue.

As the British I do not attempt to win every agenda segment as it reduces the UK ability to compete during a meeting segment by always being down a five card. In fact I won my three conferences when I did not win the agenda segment. My main strategy for how to use the UK imperial staff is not to always go first, but to use a weaker card to force a tie against stronger cards and then let the tiebreak go to the USSR or the US. In most cases it is more important to not let someone gain an advantage on an issue they want, so ties are great as it only adds the issue to the center of the table.

However, for this conference I took my single 5 card and won the agenda segment. I needed to have the last play and attempt to force the USSR to declare war on Japan. Grant made his move early when he used Stalin on the conditional issue in an attempt to capture it outright. Roosevelt would be happy with that outcome this conference so he stood aside and then Churchill entered the fray and blocked this move.

At this point Dan had the only leader available and chose to take the Global issue off the table. He could have just captured the conditional issue, but in his calculations the 5 VPs for the issue would give him the game, so he was ok if it ended now. With all three leaders inactive it was a staff card shoot out, but I did not have a strong staff hand and I had used my only 5 card. The critical moment came on the last play when the Soviet last card moved the conditional issue onto the Soviet track, the US used their last play to move it onto the US two space and I fortunately had a 2 card to get it back into the center of the table. As it turns out if Dan’s card had been one value stronger, I would have lost the game.

In the subsequent war phase there was a great deal of focus on political alignment as everyone had won at least one pol-mil issue. I used Pacific leadership and UK production to make the advance into Manchuria a sure thing fulfilling the Emperor surrender conditions and the end of the game.

Final Score

Now came the fun part, adding up the score. As it turned out when all was said and done the Soviets had a commanding 28 point lead, so given Axis surrender a new global coalition formed against the Soviets. The Cold War was right on schedule with the same historical sides.

Now the question was who was the leader of that coalition. The US global issue success almost made the difference as I was shut out in this area. As it turned out my knocking a US clandestine network from Cambodia and the failure of MacArthur to return to the Philippines pushed the UK score past the US by one point. After a recount, the score stood and Churchill’s influence over an inexperienced American President sealed the deal as the seasoned English statesman set early Cold War coalition strategy against Stalin.

Some concluding strategy thoughts

I have watched the comments on this title and some have officially concluded that there is no reason to win the war and that the Soviets are impossible to play. It is hard for me to gauge these remarks in all cases, as player skill is always a variable. Grant (Stalin) won 5 conferences out of 9 with the Soviets. That may be a record, but he is an exceptionally strong player and clearly much stronger than those who make these claims.

His card play during the conferences was inspired at times and he would have won if he had been less successful in the race for Berlin and instead shared the spoils. Knowing that he was in a commanding lead with two conferences to go meant that he had to go for condition 3 (global hegemon) and not join the war in the Pacific. His best chance for accomplishing this would have been to capture the conditional issue onto his chair, which I prevented, but it was his path to victory at that point.

Based on post game discussion Dan (Roosevelt) was always driving for a condition 1 or 2 victory and if the game had gone one more conference, it would have likely worked. The US had already won 2VP for Iwo Jima and would have achieved the historical position of Okinawa and the Philippines for the win during conference 10 as there were very few UK point opportunities available. Knowing that the US could not reach the Philippines during conference 9 made it clear that this was my window for victory that would close if it went to the last conference. What I did not realize was that my battle for the USSR declaration of war would give the US another 5 VP for the global issue. Winning by one VP is as close as it gets.

What I see missing in many critical views is they are dismissing the war as the best path to victory because they have somehow decided that its not worth the effort. The issue is simple math. Condition 3 requires that you gain a VP advantage over your opponents. While there are many Political points to be had they can be had by everyone. So it is not how many political points you can gain, but how many points you can gain over your opponents. Even with just your one clandestine marker per turn you can slow down a player focused on political points, as you are placing behind them and often disrupting where they can place political markers. The other important consideration is a political strategy is neutered when there are multiple Pol-Mil issues on the table. There is a good reason why there are four Pol-Mil issues in the game. So tactically if a player puts a Pol-Mil issue on the table it is often a good idea to get a second or third into a conference to level the playing field.

When you consider what can be gained in the war, the Soviets for starters gain the equivalent of three or more conferences of political effort by winning the race for Berlin (15 VPs equals 5 political markers). The Soviets usually do not need to worry about getting any points in the Pacific, but should be happy to trigger Manchuria and let the US gain points for Japan to offset their winning the race to Berlin.

The Western Allies need to share in the German spoils, but it is more important for the UK than the US to win the race for Berlin because the US will score the majority of the Pacific VPs in most games. The Mediterranean is one source of points, but another is to see an earlier end to the war, especially if the US is on the wrong ISR foot in the Pacific.

With that as a stage setter what gets missed is if you have not created the conditions for Axis surrender then whoever is in the lead near the end of the game is likely to win with little chance to recover, just like in most multiplayer games. If however Axis surrender is viable then the player in the lead is the one potentially in trouble and then all sorts of strategic options open up for the players in second and third place. The other important consideration is a condition 3 victory is a 10 conference victory, so you have no control on when the game ends. If Axis surrender is possible the timing of when that occurs confers the initiative on the player who can benefit from an earlier end to the war.

One footnote on war tactics is it is best to focus your offensive support to create automatic front advance situations. Remember, the dice love no one, so even if you need to roll an 8 or less to advance, 20% of the time you will fail. It is better to lower your chances on another front and ensure that your main effort for that conference is successful without dice. If you are in a situation that requires multiple fronts must advance, then you have misplayed the war earlier in the game.

By fighting the war you create options that are not present when you forgo setting up Axis surrender. The key is to create the conditions for Axis surrender as it modulates how the other two players behave during the game. With Axis surrender off the table you put yourself into a head to head confrontation for the win and with the UN global issue it is very hard to alter the outcome.

Again I am not sure how much player skill slants these views, but it is demonstrably true that winning the war is the strongest strategy to win the game. I find that if I am the only player working on winning the war then I win the game the vast majority of the time. That should be all the reasons necessary for why you try and win the war, because it is a stronger strategy than not winning the war. No rules should be necessary when you follow your self-interest, assuming you know where that lies.

For me the goal is winning the game and if you ignore the war the game plays fine, but then you have removed most of your best options for winning the game, especially a come from behind victory. Those who disagree will likely continue to lose games and see fault with the victory conditions and not their current playing style. Hopefully this session report helps illuminate another path.

Most importantly it was a great time and it is never better than when I get to play with my boys.