In the last article, we examined Combat in the game. This time, we’ll discover why the game is titled Hammer and Sickle as we look at the economy.
By themselves, the soldiers stopped the [Great War], while the peasants took over the land and the workers the factories. Lenin had only to sanction the accomplished fact to make sure of the sympathies of the soldiers, the peasants, and the workers. – Pavel Milyukov
Introduction by Congress of Vienna Assistant Designer & Editor, Fred Schachter: Part 1 of this article focused on the Diplomatic aspects of French Congress of Vienna strategy. This, of necessity, required some reference to the game’s military considerations.
But with this article’s Part 2 of 2, CoV Designer Frank Esparrago takes a deeper dive into how a French player could succeed with emphasis on what the game offers France militarily… and it is substantial!
Introduction by Congress of Vienna Assistant Designer & Editor, Fred Schachter: As previously mentioned and lamented in other InsideGMT articles, space prohibited including in the published game several “goodies” Frank and the Congress of Vienna (CoV) Team wrought to enhance players’ appreciation of this fun and exciting game inspired by Mark Herman’s renown Churchill. Many of these pieces may now be found in GMT’s CoV site: GMT Games – Congress of Vienna. These articles, particularly the Quick Start Rules, should provide readers with background concerning the game as well as a foundation for understanding what is presented herein.
This article, the first of a 4 Part Series (one for each of CoV’s Major Powers: Russia, Britain, Austria, and France). It is intended to convey the team’s experiences in successfully meeting the challenges in playing Napoleonic France, which is seeking during the game’s 1813-1814 period to recover from the disastrous and calamitous 1812 invasion of Russia.
These recommendations/observations for the game’s prospective players in the role of the French emperor Napoleon are for Congress of Vienna’s Full Campaign Game, without Optional Historical Rules (OHRs), or use of the game’s Solitaire Rules and/or Bots. Contending with one or more of those have unique considerations all their own. For readers curious to learn of these options, kindly reference the above link to GMT’s CoV Site.
To additionally set the stage, here is an image of the Congress of Vienna Production Gameboard:
With that and this link to the game’s Quick Start Rules Summary Booklet InsideGMT article: Congress of Vienna Quick Start Rules (Bi-Lingual: English & Spanish Versions!) | Inside GMT blog, Frank, CoV’s Designer, will hopefully entertain you with this “How to Play” piece for Congress of Vienna’s Imperial France, through which he shares some “tricks of the trade” in surmounting the challenges faced by France, who is not without resources of its own, as it’s pitted against powerful enemies coming at it from every point of the compass. So here is Part 1 of 2 of this “French Strategies” article, enjoy!
In the final article in this series on the Enemy of My Enemy expansion, I’ll focus on the expansion content that extends or changes the original games featured in The British Way. Each of the original conflicts (Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, and Cyprus) in the base game gets new components and rules that add additional strategic trade offs enhancing the gameplay and historical fidelity. The new components include additional cards for each game and new types of Cell pieces in the Palestine and Cyprus games. Furthermore, the expansion adds new ways of playing campaign scenarios. New rules allow players to link the prequel expansion conflicts (Arab Revolt and Japanese Occupation) to their respective conflicts included in the base game (Palestine and Malaya). By linking the conflicts, players can now experience two “short” campaign scenarios that can be played on their own or added to the broader End of Empire campaign. Speaking of the End of Empire campaign, new “Insurgent Policy” cards give the insurgent player greater agency in the scenario. Together the new content for The British Way offers players even more reasons to come back and further explore the nuances of British counterinsurgency.
In the last article, we explored the Event and Action cards. This time, we’ll dive straight into Combat.
The revolution must either prevail or perish, Russia would either survive or cease to be. Each side, in effect, imagined itself leading a crusade against the apocalypse. We are pure, our cause is just. Our enemy is evil incarnate. To defeat him is not enough. He must be destroyed as well. – Willard Sunderland
This article follows up Part 1 of 2, A Tale of Two Sexenniums: Hannibal’s Revenge After Action Reports – Part 1 of 2 | Inside GMT blog, with my erstwhile gaming buddies, Perry and George, continuing their foray into the fun and exciting arena of the Hannibal’s Revenge game by switching sides!
Last game’s end of the Sexennium saw Rome (George) in the Hand Size Lead with 9 versus Carthage (Perry)’s 6. Rome only grows stronger over the passage of time, getting more resources and better available leadership from the Senate, so that game did not bode well for Carthage’s chances for ultimate victory. Now, in Game #2, it would be George’s Carthaginians versus Perry’s Rome. Will Carthage fare better this time around?
Before reading this AAR, for additional Hannibal’s Revenge background, please reference this InsideGMT article for a general overview of the game, albeit with utilizing an early playtest version of the gameboard lacking Mark Mahaffey’s transformative graphic talents: Meet the Leaders & Gameboard of Hannibal’s Revenge | Inside GMT blog.
Furthermore, for historical background regarding this epic conflict, perhaps this under thirteen minute video will be of interest: The Second Punic War – History of the Roman Empire – Part 4 (youtube.com). The paths of the Carthaginian and Roman armies’ marching across this video’s maps are nicely relatable to the Hannibal’s Revenge gameboard.
Now to Game #2’s After-Action Report.
In the last article, we explored the Victory track and how factions score VP. This time, we’ll cover the cards players use to achieve their goals through concrete actions.
You can’t make soup out of promises. – Francis Spufford
During a game of Napoleon in Egypt, the French Player has the opportunity, through scientific research, to build a “military hospital”. This precious asset will greatly increase the durability of the French troops. In this article, we’ll look at the historical aspect of this element, before considering the game mechanics around it in a follow-up article.
Desgenettes and Larrey were two French military physicians who followed Bonaparte from the Italian campaign (1796) to Waterloo (1815). The medical breakthroughs of the Egyptian expedition are largely thanks to these two dominating figures. René-Nicolas Dufriche Desgenettes was chief physician, and Dominique-Jean Larrey was chief surgeon. Both displayed remarkable skills in organizing the Medical Corps in Egypt. In a difficult geographical, climatic and epidemiological context, they were crucial in the emergence of modern military medicine and played a full part in the expedition’s scientific achievements.
In the first article on the Enemy of My Enemy expansion, I covered the new Arab Revolt game that uses the Palestine map. In this article, I’ll pivot to the other new game included in the expansion, The British Way: Japanese Occupation. In a first for The British Way, the British faction, Force 136, acts as the insurgent player and their Japanese opponents the counterinsurgent. After the fall of Malaya and Singapore in early 1942, the entire Malayan peninsula was under Japanese occupation with only a fledgling resistance led by stay-behind British officers, such as Spencer Chapman of the famous book The Jungle is Neutral, and members of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). The British officers and MCP worked together to organize armed resistance against Japan. As the name of the expansion itself already suggests, the two opposing factions from The British Way: Malaya are now roughly on the same side in the prequel game. However, as I’ll expand upon below, to capture the uneasy alliance between the British and MCP and the lack of complete British control over the MCP’s units, the MCP operates in the game as a simplified non-player actor who may even win the game!
Leaders came and went with fair frequency in the Civil war, removed from command by relief from above or sometimes an enemy bullet. How does the game handle that?
Some leaders start the game in play, and a few of them appear on schedule during the first year of the war. After that, they are replaced with other leaders based on Event Card draws.
