In Europe, the year 1848 was defined by a series of revolutions that swept the continent from west to east, from France to the eastern borders of the Austrian Empire and Romania. Obviously, therefore, a game about this series of events must make an effort to simulate the multiple revolutions of the era as core part of the game, and in a CDG based on the system originating with Twilight Struggle this means revolutions need to arise from the players’ efforts – from gameplay – rather than just the “deus ex machina” of event cards.

Fortunately, there is an existing model to draw from. Players familiar with 1989: Dawn of Freedom (henceforth 1989) will quickly understand that Revolutions in 1848: The Springtime of Nations (henceforth 1848) are very similar to the Power Struggles in that game. In 1848, Revolutions are the most prevalent source of VPs, and most of the actions players take are aimed at setting up an advantageous position for these showdowns that take place across the nations and empires depicted in the game.

However, you may be aware that the Power Struggle system is a controversial one, with some players finding it actually hampers their enjoyment of the game.

Now, personally, we find the Power Struggle system in 1989 does what it aims to do: it adds variability in an interesting way (more interesting than a simple die roll), and bringing the different space types into play, through enabling the use of different leader cards associated with those spaces. We find it meshes both of these in a narrative mini game with evocative actions, and think it is pretty cool, in an international map game that spans several countries, that there is a phase where you zoom in to the street level to play marches, strikes, and rallies in the square to bring down the government.

That said, we do understand the other point of view, and appreciate that the Power Struggle system has some issues. First, it can break the sense of rhythm in the game, especially when players have to take time to go through a big revolution with lots of cards, when too often the early cards played don’t really matter that much. The first rounds of such a Power Struggle are usually exchanges of generic cards, and things only really become interesting towards the end, as initiative or events become more meaningful.

Tying into this, players often have little choice in how to play their Power Struggles. Of course, the mechanic does tie in to the larger game through the control of certain types of space on the board as mentioned above, but once the hands of cards are dealt there is usually one obvious strategy and not much tactical choice available. Whilst Power Struggle events in 1989 are powerful, they are not very varied, and as a rule should just be played as soon as you can. After that, it is most often a matter of trying to get down to the leaders of the opponent, and then guess which suit they lack.

When I started to adapt 1989 into 1848, I initially left the Power Struggle mechanic untouched, beyond allowing for the possibilities for on-map Armies to intervene in the conflict and of course renaming the Rally in the Square to the Barricade. However, after several games I felt the need to adapt this system to make it quicker, deeper, and more interesting.

The first, most important change is that players are now able to play several cards at a time. The way this works is that the initiative player can play a number of cards up to the round number of the Revolution, to a maximum of 3. I.e. in Round 1 you can play 1 card, Round 2 you can play 2 cards, etc. This speeds up the Revolution considerably, as you will get through your hand more quickly, but also because it increases the chances the initiative player will be successful. It also makes the decision space more interesting during Revolutions, as more actions are possible: the question is not just which card to play, but which combination.

The second important addition is that 1848 has double the number of event cards in the Revolution deck compared to 1989’s Power Struggle deck. This allows new strategic possibilities, and reinforces the sense of narrative that emerges through the Revolutions. For example, some of the new events can forbid the later play of Armies or Leader cards, and the threat of this will encourage them to be played earlier. The Passionate Speech event on the other hand allows a player to use its Leaders to help gain back Initiative, whilst the dreaded Dissension event forces players who control both Bourgeois and Worker spaces into an important choice: either to remove enough influence from one of these spaces to lose control, or discard two precious Revolution cards!

A further change resulting from these two additions is that Initiative becomes much more important in 1848 compared to 1989. For example, players may want to water down their attacks by playing an event alongside them, risking the outcome of the Revolution for example to alter the state of the board board, and thus affect scoring. Also, as the player who controls initiative in the third round will be the first to be able to try a powerful 3 card attack, must rests on who can seize the initiative. Therefore, in 1848 the early part of Revolutions are as important and tense as the rest.

Indeed, with these changes Revolutions have become a much more tense and tactical affair. We are confident players who liked 1989’s Power Struggles will enjoy these additions for the increased gameplay they bring, but we also hope that those who find that mechanic lacking will be able to enjoy 1848’s implementation. However, for those who just prefer to get it over and done with a single roll of the dice, there is an optional rule that lets you do just that!

---