As COIN Series Developer, I see a lot of cool prototypes. One of the hard things about my job is determining which prototypes will work well as COIN games, and which prototypes belong in a different series. There are lots of reasons that a game may not be perfect as a COIN Series game, but often it’s as simple as a game not adhering to a well-established and specific COIN conflict model. What is the COIN model, and why is it so important that a COIN game fits into the model advanced by Volko back in Andean Abyss? If COIN can portray the Gallic Revolt against Caesar or the American Revolution, why can’t it work for conventional warfare or purely political conflict? There are many great games that aren’t COIN games, and it is hard to determine how best to organize them!

To better understand the COIN series we must understand that COIN games are playable models.

What do I mean by playable model? First, what is a model anyway? In this context, a model is an attempt to create a set of abstractions that provide explanatory power about the setting. Take Andean Abyss as an example. Volko’s model of this conflict has several essential elements, which interact in complex and interesting ways:

• The conflict is multifactional and asymmetrical: each faction has its own goals it wants to advance and different (albeit related) means of advancing its agenda.
• Factions are limited in the way they can act via Resources.
• Population has an affinity for or against the Government’s war against FARC and the Cartels, modeled in Support or Opposition. This is entrenched by the presence of Terror.
• Areas on the map are under the aegis of the Government or FARC, represented by Control. FARC Zones grant autonomy to certain areas of the map.
• Lines of Control (oil pipelines) are key areas of conflict and a means for the Government to extract resources from the country.
• …and so on.

So what makes this a playable model? The nature of Andean Abyss allows for iterative inputs by players over the course of the game, whereby they are able to interact with the model and inspect the outputs and measure their success vs. each other player. In other words, the framework of the model is well suited to a competitive board game. And as we have seen, Volko’s model is quite adaptable. By adding or removing from the core model outlined above, the COIN Series has transported gamers from 1950’s Cuba to Ancient Gaul.

There are other elements of the games in the COIN Series that are not part of the model, but instead are mechanisms. These elements are not limited to modeling insurgency, and could provide interesting and fun gameplay in other contexts. For example, the COIN Sequence of Play:

The primary function of the Sequence of Play in COIN is to regulate player inputs. This function is not specific to COIN in any capacity, and the Sequence of Play is not strictly speaking part of the model; instead it is a way to constrain player agency by creating a manipulable yet unpredictable ordering of player turns. This is a mechanical function, and could have been accomplished in any number of ways without changing the model. Likewise, the ordering of Factions on the Event cards, and the dual nature of the Events on the cards, are part of a broad mechanical toolbox that has been used in COIN games, but is not exclusive to the COIN model.

This brings me back to my opening statement – I see multiple COIN game prototypes per month. After the CONSIM Game Jam in October 2020, I was presented with many such prototypes, but none of them used the core COIN model. These prototypes did tell rich stories through well thought out models, just not the COIN model. So instead, we decided to make this toolbox of COIN mechanisms available to designers and players outside of the COIN Series: the Irregular Conflicts Series was born.

So what is an Irregular Conflicts Series game?

• It presents a conflict that is in some way irregular, either due to circumstance, nature, or type of conflict. For example, the first game in the series, Vijayanagara, shows the Delhi Sultanate attempting to maintain Control across the vastness of India while simultaneously fighting Mongol raiders. The revolts, invasions, and internal conflict of the period are the focus of the game.
• ICS games are model-first and provide complex interactions. Players can expect new models that steer away from the standard COIN fare; for example Vijayanagara modifies the COIN concept of Control, and does not use Support and Opposition at all, rather it classifies regions in terms of their tributary relationship to Delhi. We expect future games in the series to continue to diverge from their COIN roots.
• The series is, itself, Irregular. We expect a wide variety of approaches and topics in the series. For example, the second game in the series… well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves!
• ICS games may use COIN Series mechanisms in new and interesting ways. Vijayanagara uses the three-player Sequence of Play from People Power, along with Event cards, to drive the sequence of play, and we are excited about the new and innovative ways designers find to use the existing COIN mechanisms.

We are excited to start this series with the excellent Vijayanagara, and look forward to bringing you more volumes in the Irregular Conflicts Series in the coming months.

---