Triumph and Tragedy was designed from the bottom up as a three-sided game, taking the viewpoint that the democratic/capitalist West, the fascist Axis and the communist Soviet Union were at bottom irreconcilable rivals for European (and possibly world) hegemony. A corollary is that the historical West-Soviet alliance was not inevitable, but arose from necessity (Axis aggression) rather than by preference or design. Other alignments were not unthinkable: an Axis-USSR alliance was a reality at one point and an Axis-West alliance was proposed at another.

Sample Command Cards

A military conspiracy to remove Hitler during the Czech Crisis stood down when Chamberlain caved. It is easy to imagine, for example, that a different German leadership would have followed a completely different strategic course: the General Staff had grave doubts about war with either the West or the USSR, much less both at once. Triumph and Tragedy posits a 1930’s Europe without the preconceived strategic notions of Adolf Hitler or anyone else, but with the forces of sphere-of-influence power politics very much present, as always.

The 3-sided dynamic provides much interesting game-play not possible in a 2-player game. Despite this, we realized during development that Triumph and Tragedy would be made more versatile and accessible if we could included a 2-player variant. Obviously the alliance structure would have to become rigid and the game would become more of a straight “Axis vs. Allies” wargame.

But could this even be done? Assuming the 3-way game is well balanced, then how can a 2-vs-1 version be made to also be balanced? This while keeping the same basic systems and ‘keeping it simple’? Tricky.

Our basic assumption was (duh) that the Allies had to be disadvantaged in some simple-to-execute way that reflected their different (and in the end, irreconcilable) agendas. If done right, the monkey-in-the-middle Axis then does not have the hopeless task of facing two coordinated enemies at once. Unifying the two Allies seemed like the wrong direction and was discarded fairly early. Instead, the West and USSR remain two separate “entities” played by a single player, which serendipitously aids game balance by making the Allied player’s life difficult: he’s got a lot on his mind.

Minor Problem #1: unlike in the 3-way game, the Allies have no reason to fear each other militarily. A main bone of contention between the West and Soviets is the India/Mideast/Baku complex. This area is frozen in the 2-way game by requiring both Allies to deploy fortresses there, tying up a reasonable amount of their military strength in that theater as immobile defensive forces.

Sample Section of the Triumph and Tragedy Game Map

Minor Problem #2: unlike in the 3-way game, the two Allies have no reason to thwart each other diplomatically. This is countered somewhat by at least providing that they do not cooperate in diplomacy, instead continuing to cancel each other’s diplomatic cardplay initiative. Nor can they cooperate in economics (e.g., no Lend-Lease) or direct military support (i.e., no stacking together). But that is far from enough.

Minor Problem #3: the main balancing issue is of course an Axis 2-front war. In practice, the West and USSR did not really coordinate militarily (their military communications were primarily confined to encouraging each other to press the Axis as hard as possible, as soon as possible, and regardless of losses). Neither of them entered the war to help the other. Quite the contrary, each secretly schemed pre-war to embroil the other with the Axis while themselves remaining neutral.  They went to war only when attacked, after which the classic “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle prevailed.

So how to represent this reluctant partnership when played by a single player? The main idea that finally led to a workable solution was to have one fully “Active” Ally and one limited “Passive” Ally at any given time. The system had to force the Axis to prepare for either Ally to be the dangerous one at any given time, and also hamper military coordination between the West and Soviets, particularly as regards Declaring War (must be possible but difficult for the Allies).

I was fortunate to have the help of two ace VASSAL playtesters, Pete Menconi and Jethro Hendrickx, who torture-tested many different schemes and tweaks to achieve the difficult goal of effective play balance in the “2 vs. 1” game. Here’s what came out of the wash.

Sample Investment Cards

Each game-year, the Allied player chooses who will be the “Active Ally” for that entire game year. The Active Ally is played normally except it cannot Declare War at will – it must hold an extra Command card valid for that season and expend it to do so.

The other Ally is “Passive”. Its Production allocations are largely determined. Diplomatic and technological developments must have been previously arranged (already in hand). Offensive Military actions are expensive and limited. Declaring War is possible only with extensive prior preparation. The upshot is that the attack ability of the Passive Ally is sparse and unpredictable but not impossible. Pete and Jethro did yeoman’s work in reaching a solution to our quandary that was both playable and workable.

So: we added one more gaming option to T&T by subtracting one player. Even as a 2-way straight wargame, T&T is not your grandmother’s “Strategic World War 2 Game” because diplomacy, technology and surprise force-building strategies will allow players to generate game story-lines that are highly variable.

Remember how Avalon Hill used to challenge players “Can YOU change history?” Well, when you are playing Triumph and Tragedy, you can be sure you will!

Author: Craig Besinque