The content for the Thunderbolt Deluxe package has been finalized with the GMT Art Department team engaged in finishing up the counters and finalizing the maps.
A few changes have been made to the Thunderbolt scenario line-up. Added are two scenarios commencing at key points during the long war:
As a designer, I like to focus on why things happen in campaigns, operations, and battles. In old school terms, I “design for cause.” This tends to make my games more complex, but I hope players come away with a better understanding of why their game progressed the way it did beyond “he had better cards” or “the dice hate me.”
In World War II carrier battles, there were eight factors of significant importance in determining how attacks took place and their outcomes: wind, weather, range, reconnaissance, CAP (Combat Air Patrol), coordination, targeting, and training – WWRRCCTT. All are interdependent to some extent and have an impact in Imperial Eagles (at least in the Advanced Rules).
Introduction by Fred Schachter, Assistant Designer & Editor: As lamented within previous InsideGMT articles, the amount of Congress of Vienna material the Team generated for the game is too copious for inclusion within the to-be-published Playbook. Hence, that content is being provided through InsideGMT pieces.
The Congress of Vienna Playbook contains all needed direction, in a list narrative form, for setting up each of the game’s five scenarios. There are no concerns there! However, some gamers prefer a graphic approach in the form of Scenario Set Up Maps. This article provides those Set-Up Maps.
For those interested in learning the historical background regarding each map, please access the link to their associated InsideGMT “Game as History” articles. The following link provides a background, in terms of the Congress of Vienna game, for Turns 1 (March-April 1813) through 3 (June 1813): A Historical Introduction to the Congress of Vienna Period Part 2 of 4: Napoleon Resurgent (Spring 1813) | Inside GMT blog. Once you’ve accessed this article, others of the series will become available through this GMT Game Site’s table of contents.
Hopefully, this material is informative to all readers interested in this fascinating historical period, the 1813-1814 resurgence and downfall of Napoleon and his French Empire and will complement the Congress of Vienna list narrative Scenario Set Ups provided with the published game. Playbook Section cross-references are provided for each Scenario.
This is the first in a series of InsideGMT articles for the new Enemy of My Enemy expansion for the first COIN multipack, The British Way. Joe and I are extremely pleased with the positive reception of the first printing of The British Way which sold out from GMT last November. After seeing a ton of reviews, after action reports, and game award nominations for The British Way, we wanted to offer even more content for those enjoying the game or those looking forward to the reprint. The Enemy of My Enemy expansion offers three new ways of expanding the base game’s content: a new Arab Revolt (1936-1939) game using the Palestine map, a new Japanese Occupation (1942-1945) game using the Malaya map, and new rules and components for an advanced variant for each of the conflicts depicted in the base game: Palestine (1945-1947), Malaya (1948-1960), Kenya (1952-1956), and Cyprus (1955-1959). We’ll cover each of the parts of the expansion in a separate InsideGMT article. Today’s article is focused on the new Arab Revolt game.
The British Way: Arab Revolt addresses a major issue with the base game’s depiction of Palestine. In the original British Way: Palestine, which covers the 1945-1947 struggle between Jewish terrorist groups and British counterinsurgency forces, the Palestinian Arab community is not directly referenced in the game. As the introduction to the rulebook notes, the game “does not directly model the wider political struggles between the British, Jewish Agency, and Arab political groups, or the civil war that began in November 1947”. By focusing on a narrow period of time and British counterinsurgency tactics against the major armed opposition of that time, armed Jewish groups, the game could not adequately depict the Palestinian Arab community’s less confrontational stance against British rule during that period. However, that raises the question, why was the larger Arab community not more focused on resisting British rule between 1945-1947?
The answer is that members of the Palestinian Arab community launched a massive revolt against British rule between 1936-1939 that ended with equally massive British repression and major concessions, including a new limitation on Jewish immigration introduced by the 1939 White Paper. That same limitation motivated the Jewish armed groups to violently resist British rule during the 1945-1947 period. In other words, one cannot understand the Palestinian Arab community’s exhaustion in the 1940s without exploring the Arab Revolt (1936-1939), nor why Jewish groups such as Haganah cooperated with the British during that revolt but then opposed them in 1945. Therefore, rather than simply tossing in a few token events into the base game, I knew from the start I wanted to design an entire game on the preceding conflict to help provide more nuanced context to the “absence” of Palestinians from the narrowly focused 1945-1947 Palestine game.
Along with my friends, Johan and Chris, I have been playing the scenarios in The Ancient World: Rise of the Roman Republic and The Ancient World: Carthage pretty much every Wednesday night since December 2023. At first, we just wanted to take the system for a spin as Johan spoke highly of it, but it has since turned into a grand adventure.
Our first play of the 1st Punic War scenario from Carthage ended with a Carthaginian victory. We had so much fun with that play, we immediately reset and went back to it again. This time the Romans prevailed. It was also around this time that, since we had been asking so many questions of the developer, Alan Ray, we formally signed on to the playtest team.
Since that time, we’ve played every scenario in both Rise of the Roman Republic and Carthage (except the Mercenary War – that’s coming) at least once and a few of them twice. It still hasn’t gotten old. Playtesting can sometimes be work; this doesn’t feel like it.
What is it that’s so engaging about this system that we keep returning to it?
If you’re a Triumph & Tragedy (T&T) fan, you’ve probably heard that Conquest and Consequence (CnC) is more complicated than T&T, and not as “clean”. Well, that’s a high bar, and IMO here’s why:
• It’s a sequel. Sequels usually require extra rules to take a system that was custom-designed for one situation and adapt it to a new situation.
• To maintain T&T‘s 3-sided dynamic, the “Soviet” Faction (Siberian Russia plus the Chinese communists) is added to the basic US-Japan confrontation. The Soviets are a latent military power that must play a patient “long game” combining solid defense with the nurturing of civilian political organization (“Partisans”) that in time will assume sufficient military power to win more than its share of games. Some do not enjoy this role, some do; it’s a personality thing.
• New elements including Partisans, the Chinese Civil War, and Island warfare do add additional complexity to the system.
• Diplomacy is a popular aspect of the system, but because war historically broke out earlier in China than it did in Europe, less Diplomacy typically occurs.
• Play Balance had to be reset. Although the original version actually boosted Japan’s historical capabilities for game purposes, many gamers were unhappy with Japan’s prospects. A modified v1.1 was released, incorporating balance tweaks to give Japan a better chance. New players must realize that Time is not Japan’s friend, and play accordingly: the clock is running.
Banish the Snakes is now available for pre-order! You can find more info or pre-order on the P500 page here.
A good historic simulation game will always tell a story; for Banish the Snakes, that is mostly accomplished through interaction with the Saints that appear in the game. St. Patrick is the best known of these Saints. Players direct the actions taken by these historic people – both men and women – and their successes and failures drive the game’s narrative.
The historic sources available for this time period is sparce. We have some good information about the dozen historic Saints in the game, and some others who did not make the “cut” to be included. And we have good information about the general social structure in Ireland during this time period. But we have only spotty information on individual political leaders from this era. Neil of the Nine Hostages is the most notable – and has the best sobriquet! And there is Benignus of Armagh, whose chieftain father features in a story about Patrick. They both have their own cards in the game. But for the most part, the chiefs, kings, and even high kings of the era remain anonymous.
by Pascal Toupy and Marco Poutré
In the previous article of this series, we began exploring the auxiliary units the French raised during their campaign in Egypt and Syria. We’ll finish that review with the Régiment de dromadaires (Dromedary Regiment) and then look at how the French player can best use Auxiliary Units in their quest for victory in our game Napoleon in Egypt.
Introduction by Congress of Vienna (CoV)’s Assistant Designer & Editor, Fred Schachter – To familiarize the InsideGMT audience of what designer Frank Esparrago created with his fun and exciting Congress of Vienna game, now a GMT P-500 offering which has “made the cut”; InsideGMT presented articles of “Designer’s Notes” and a “Game as History” series entitled “An Historical Introduction to the Congress of Vienna Period (CoV)”. Use this link to access copies of these articles: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-850-congress-of-vienna.aspx .
Since this is the fifth of GMT’s “Great Statesmen” game series, it seems appropriate to focus on those very Statesmen who make this Napoleonic Wars historical period so fascinating to our hobby from perspective of the game Frank designed.
Consequently, following Part Three’s “Russian Contingent” piece, here’s the final part of this four-part series: “Meet the Statesmen of Congress of Vienna – The French Contingent”. Please note InsideGMT published the original of this article during early 2020. This is the 2024 edition… which is an update including Terry Leeds’ gorgeous graphics of Congress of Vienna’s cards.
Alas, as previously explained, this four part “Meet the Statesmen of Congress of Vienna, which is essentially a compendium of its cards, could not be accommodated within CoV’s Playbook due to space limitations.
I enjoyed learning more of the historical figures behind the game’s cards and hope you do as well. Also, the CoV Team appreciates folks’ feedback, whether within this forum or elsewhere to this InsideGMT series. Now to conclude matters with its final Pt. 4 of 4 installment by meeting the Great French Statesmen, War Leaders, and other “neutral” personages of Congress of Vienna.
In italics we include a description of each card’s CoV game attributes in terms of its game-related background, along with for players, its game play opportunities and weaknesses.
Note: If you would like to view any of the below images in a larger size, you can click on the image, and it will point you to an expanded image file.
Additional note: We are releasing this article about Congress of Vienna’s French Contingent on July 14, Bastille Day, for a little thematic flavor. We hope you enjoy it!
The second edition of Illusions of Glory: The Great War on the Eastern Front (“IoG”) is currently on the P-500 list.
Links to prototype unit counters, player aid cards, mapboard, rules, and playbook can be found on the IoG webpage.
Playtesters have remarked about the difficulty of fighting Large Unit Counters (“LCUs”) representing regular or elite German infantry corps. Each of them has a Loss Factor (LF) of “3”. Under the Combat Results Table, those units end up absorbing hits without taking step reductions.
A unit’s step reduction is caused by applying the unit’s Loss Factor (LF) to the Loss Number (LN) generated by the Combat Results Table for damage inflicted by the enemy (Rule 12.6.2). If the LN is equal to or greater than a unit’s LF, the unit loses a step; if the LN is less than the unit’s LF, then the unit absorbs the LN without taking damage (Rule 12.6.3).
