I guess it’s been six or seven years now since I got a call from Rick Young asking me if we’d be interested in publishing games from a proven block game designer. I was a little hesitant, as we didn’t have many block games in the line back then, although Rick and Jesse had done a great job with Europe Engulfed and Asia Engulfed, both block games that were very successful for us. But when I learned the name of the designer who was asking, my own interest skyrocketed. Although he’d never done a game for us, I certainly knew the design work of Craig Besinque. In my mind, he was the “king of block game design.” My response was of course really reserved, something along the lines of “Craig has a game for us? Heck yeah!!!” So let’s just say I was “pretty excited” to get an opportunity to work with him.

Even though Craig was “new” to GMT, a bunch of our insiders knew him and some had worked with him before, so the working relationship was pretty smooth from the beginning. And then he and Joel Toppen gave us this beautiful re-creation of the Peloponnesian War that was elegant in its simplicity, yet dripping with historical flavor, game tension, and replayability. Hellenes is a game I REALLY like, so I couldn’t wait to see what Craig wanted to do next, but then again I didn’t really care that much which topic he chose. I knew we’d get a thoughtful, insightful, and elegant game.

I was a little surprised that he chose a 3-player WWII game, as I kinda thought we had plenty of WWII games in the hobby. But then I looked closer and saw that it’s a REALLY different take on the WWII period, and in some ways you wouldn’t even call it a WWII game. But I was right about the “thoughtful, insightful, and elegant” part. Triumph and Tragedy is that, in spades.

I hope you guys share in my excitement that we have Craig Besinque designing games for GMT, and that you’ll join me in welcoming him to the blog, as this is his first design post to InsideGMT. And I hope you enjoy this inside look at Triumph and Tragedy. Here’s Craig! – Gene

——————

I find GMT’s embrace of “different” games like Leaping Lemmings, Mr. President and Thunder Alley an exciting development. While innovative new designs on more well-covered themes are also introducing creative new ideas, I for one am glad to see a broadening of game topics.

Triumph and Tragedy (TnT) was conceived as a different look at the most well-covered wargame topic of all: World War 2.  Basically, it is a block game with cards and an area map.

Well, you may ask, what the heck is so different about that? I’m glad you asked!

Historical Scope. TnT adopts the viewpoint that underlying that period of history was a fundamental 3-way struggle between Germany, the Western Allies, and the Soviet Union for ultimate long-term supremacy for their own particular political-economic system. This was to be gained by securing a superior economic sphere of influence. Rather than a “WW2 game,” TnT is a Great Power rivalry game set in the 1930’s and 40’s, with military, diplomatic, technological and industrial means brought to bear on the end objective of the strongest possible long-term economic base.

Freedom. Players are free to determine the geopolitical policies of their faction, within the basic constraints of European geography and the actions of their opponents. The plans and preferences of Hitler, Stalin and Chamberlain are irrelevant. There is no more presumption of Allied-Soviet cooperation than any other possible combination, but as was historically true, the powers always have good reason to be suspicious even of current putative “allies.”

Mystery. All block games hide unit information from opponents, but consider a block game where you build your armed forces secretly over the years, possibly surprising an opponent with a force profile he is totally unprepared for. Sound interesting? Opponents get some clues from the number and location of builds, but the details are pretty fuzzy. Cards also typically provide game uncertainties, but think about developing military technologies in secret, possibly including progress toward the atomic bomb.

Three Sides. The 3-way dynamic in a wargame context is different and interesting. In accordance with the historical record, each side would typically prefer that its 2 rivals fight each other. But in a zero-sum world, playing to win will inevitably provoke one or both rivals. Timely and creative inter-player negotiation can instantly change the entire direction of the game.  Agreements, however, are unenforceable, and “alliances” are unreliable: when an “ally” threatens victory, the status quo quickly becomes untenable.

Compression. The design strives for simplicity and speed with big-picture credibility. A game covering 10 years of economic, diplomatic, and military action in 4-5 hours must streamline play big time. Example: to make best use of block-game secrecy, 7 different types of military unit are available for building, but to streamline Production (and preserve secrecy), all 7 unit-types cost the same per step, and the same as buying a card from either the Action or Investment deck. Balancing unit capabilities to meet this ambitious goal was difficult to achieve (to say the least).

3-Input Production. In most games production is either fixed or based on a single factor like cities. In this game Production is limited to the LEAST of 3 factors: Population, Industrial Development, and (when at war) Resources. [Note: Powers at peace are assumed to have access to all necessary resources].  Like a 3-legged stool, all 3 legs must be sound: if your controlled Population is 13 but your industry level is 8, your production is only 8. If you only control 6 Resources (like Germany initially), you’d better not go to war.

Breadth of Approach. There are many, many ways to skin this particular cat. Capturing two Enemy MainCapitals or SubCapitals (e.g., Paris and London) wins an immediate Military Victory. Developing the A-bomb wins an immediate Atomic Victory. But underlying everything is economics: it determines your yearly production and if neither of the above two occurs (which is most of the time), it largely determines victory. Biggest, best-balanced sphere of influence wins.

Industrial Development can be furthered only with Investment cards (which also afford options for technological advances). Additional Population and Resources can most cheaply be obtained via diplomacy, playing Action cards to gain Influence over minor nations (though rival powers can thwart this with diplomatic card-play of their own).  When diplomacy (or patience) fails, military attacks on neutral minors can attain the same result at a cost. When a rival threatens, irritates, appears weak, or appears to be winning, a declaration of war may well be the best option. Military operations require heavy expenditure of Action cards for their command function.

As a result, there is always a production tension, if not between ‘guns and butter’, then between guns and “better.” “Better” in terms of economic growth and other investments which can pay dividends down the road (economic growth means more Production in future years, for example).

Peace. What, a peaceful wargame??? WHAAAAT??? How can that be?

Well, consider this: TnT takes place in a time and place where peace reigned but war loomed.  No one knew who would start a war, or when. In most wargames war is assumed, but here declaring war on another power or violating a neutral has a game cost. Aside from being realistic geopolitically, in game terms this preserves tension as to who will take military action, and when. No costs = why wait? In TnT, war is a decision that must be weighed on a case-by-case basis in a constantly shifting geopolitical landscape.

A peaceful player can win either technologically (the A-bomb) or economically. But the difficulty is that the broad strokes of a player’s advancement in either case are impossible to hide completely, so a peaceful player threatening victory will almost certainly be challenged militarily, especially since pursuing these alternate routes to victory come at a cost to military preparedness.

War. Okay, this part isn’t so different. In a game this big and this short, combat must be simple, quick and dramatic. The 3-season operational year and unique combat system satisfy these criteria. With hidden-value blocks, players do not know the exact nature of the armed forces their opponents have built until they are engaged. Whoo, boy! Opportunities for surprise abound if players have the nerve and foresight to build the armed forces that fit the master plan.

There is a simple initiative system that adds a lot of tension to operations by giving players some control over seasonal order of play, but not much. Often you want to go last, and sometimes you need to go first. But that doesn’t mean you will!

So there you have it: What’s So Different About Triumph and Tragedy. My co-conspirator Ron Hodwitz and I have been working on this game for over 15 years now, on and off. I hope this ‘outside the box’ look piques your interest.  Thanks for reading!

Author: Craig Besinque